The TRUE evil of the Gay Agenda

I think the distinction and conjecture comes from mentally compared to physically mature. Just my two cents.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


okay.

Gotcha

Ok well now I am pretty much done with my example of 14 year old girls marrying 50 yr old men and their sexuality, because I am starting to make myself want to vomit.

Originally posted by Mr Sunchine
reply to post by Golden Boy

 

Well so now we are going to start testing male and female hormone levels in order to determine whether or not someone is capable of consenting to marriage? If that is the case, no healthy male under the age of 40 should be allowed to marry.

Meh. The line has to be drawn somewhere. It's generally drawn at eighteen years old for the simple fact that, by that age, the worst of the horomones have worn off and the brain is done with most of its development.

Beyond that you could easily make a case that a modern 14yr old girl is far more mature than an 18yr old girl from the early 1900's.

Only if you could present evidence for it.

The truth is that in much of human history a girl was able to marry once she had her first period and thus became of child bearing age. This is still acceptable in some arab cultures.

smylee offered a very nice answer to this, so I'll refer you to her for an answer on that.

The reason you have a problem with it is because YOU think it is wrong

Yeah. That's why anyone has a problem with anything.

and you are probably right. See this just proves that you have limits on what kind of marriage is acceptable, just like those who oppose gay marriage.

The difference being, however, that my reason for objection is based on the fact that there is actually scientific evidence that girls in their early teens are not mentally stable enough to be able to choose a lifelong partner with good judgment. There is no evidence for this or anything like it with gay marriage.

So basically you get frustrated at people just because their limit does not agree with your limit, when in reality you are basically the same as them in believing that society has a right to limit who can marry who.

You woudn't get upset if there was a vote that failed that was going to allow the age of marriage consent to drop to say 10, because you find that to be wrong. However, you would hate all the people who vote against gay marriage. Seems kind of hypocritical to me.

See above. There is an objective medical reason for not allowing girls in their teens to marry. There is no such reason offered for gays.

Originally posted by concernedcitizan
reply to post by Golden Boy

 

I'm a cultural conservative, but I'm not against gay marriage or women climbing to high career positions in society. I believe in diversity, but I also believe each group has the right to defend its own values. I want my future children growing up in a traditional culture, heterosexually-oriented environment, without having to worry about cosmopolitan homosexuals making out on your doorstep, or drug lords supplying teens with pot. Cosmopolitans and drug users have a place in society, too, but not in my community.

Then move to a country where freedom of expression is not guaranteed.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

"Suppose there was an intelligence, vast and unknowable. Suppose it lit the big bang, suppose it wrote the laws of physics, and has been subtly moulding the universe for 14 billion years. Now keep a straight face and tell me that it cares where you stick your dick."

-Dr. Michio Kaku

And that's all I got to say about that.

If that wasn't so long, it would be my new signature line... Kinda hard to deny that simple logic... But then again, religion has absolutely nothing to do with logic, now does it...

reply to post by Golden Boy

The difference being, however, that my reason for objection is based on the fact that there is actually scientific evidence that girls in their early teens are not mentally stable enough to be able to choose a lifelong partner with good judgment. There is no evidence for this or anything like it with gay marriage.

Can you provide evidence to support your claim? I have yet to see any woman at any age under 50 who is capable of making a decision that is not based strictly on emotion driven by hormones.

According to your reasoning then we should make it illegal for any woman to make any decision while she is under the dire effects of PMS.

Also, when did mental stability become a prerequisite for permission to marry. If that is the case then even if gay marriage is allowed then we shouldn't allow the few super flaming, overly emotional, hystrionic gays to ever marry. For example, the "leave Brittany alone" guy.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by Mr Sunchine]

Originally posted by Mr Sunchine
reply to post by Golden Boy

 

The difference being, however, that my reason for objection is based on the fact that there is actually scientific evidence that girls in their early teens are not mentally stable enough to be able to choose a lifelong partner with good judgment. There is no evidence for this or anything like it with gay marriage.

Can you provide evidence to support your claim?

Have you ever been through puberty? Did you not experience mood swings and general insanity?

I have yet to see any woman at any age under 50 who is capable of making a decision that is not based strictly on emotion driven by hormones.

While I'm sure that this is a joke, most women pass the crest of their hormone surge by age eighteen.

According to your reasoning then we should make it illegal for any woman to make any decision while she is under the dire effects of PMS.

Maybe we should.

No, in all seriousness, the effects of PMS, while noticeable throughout life, are at their worst during the teen years - the body hasn't yet become used to the hormonal floodgates opening.

Also, when did mental stability become a prerequisite for permission to marry.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't consent required for marriage, and isn't mental stability required for legal consent?

If that is the case then even if gay marriage is allowed then we shouldn't allow the few super flaming, overly emotional, hystrionic gays to ever marry.

There's a difference between being strange and being mentally unstable. I, for example, am extremely weird in real life - I tend to make complete non sequiturs based on whatever is running through my head and laugh at anything anyone says ever, as well as occasionally singing for no reason. But I am entirely mentally stable.

[edit on 2/25/2010 by Golden Boy]

reply to post by Golden Boy

Have you ever been through puberty? Did you not experience mood swings and general insanity?

I did go through puberty, but I don't recall becoming insane and irrational and unable to make decisions during that part of my life, though I might have been either a little extra cranky or a little extra horny at any given time during puberty. Though I must say at no point did I become so horny I had a desire to run out and get married to quell the urge.

reply to post by Golden Boy


Plato saw that when a society became divided into private and public culture, it was a dead man walking. People were going to start conspiring against it internally for their own needs, and would pull it apart. This is why a single national culture is needed per nation, and each locality needs its own culture, too. Bring people together and reinforce those values daily. It's like how on battleships they are constantly doing safety training and fire drills. Keep everyone focused on the goal and the methods used to reach it. There are only two ways to rule: cooperation or control. Cooperation requires we each give up something to work with others; control means a central force must decide what's right and apply it to us.

There is no such thing as the gay agenda other than that gays and lesbians want to have the same rights as straight people do. Nothing more, nothing less. They just want to be treated equally. It's the right wing morons who keep screaming about the gay agenda - oooggggaaaa boooogaaa. Ohhhh scarey gay people, run and hide. I've got a number of gay and lesbian friends and they have the same problems, hopes, desires, wants, needs and dreams as I do - freedom.

This is really interesting, but unfortunately I have other stuff I have to do. I'll be back later. No one panic if I don't reply.

reply to post by Golden Boy


Well go take care of business. It has been fun debating with you.

Can you provide evidence to support your claim? I have yet to see any woman at any age under 50 who is capable of making a decision that is not based strictly on emotion driven by hormones.

reply to post by Mr Sunchine


I'm a woman.

I can make decisions not based on emotions.

Evidence provided.

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
reply to post by Golden Boy

 

The King James Bible, not "version", but BIBLE, is all the proof I, and millions of others, need to "prove" that God deems homosexuality as a sin - just as He deems straight sex outside of marriage as a sin.

And, no, I'm not trying to speak for God - God speaks for Himself through Jesus Christ. He also, via His Scriptures, instructs us to spread His gospel to all people/creatures - and that is what I try to do.

And yes, mankind has even attempted to twist the story of Sodom and Gomorrah into not being about sexual (same sex and otherwise) immorality. That is also one of satan's lies - that apparently millions are accepting. Again, the source of that rewritten "version" comes straight from modern day mankind - in yet another attempt to eliminate any guilt or accountability.

You don't have to listen, or even believe - God gives you, me, all of us, that choice. But with our choices, like most anything else, there are consequences that have to be paid for our wrong choices aka sins.

But for homosexuals to start parading through the streets, and halls of congress, demanding that society accept their choice(s) - that still isn't going to change reality. It never has, and never will.

It's sad to see so many ATS'ers that have bought into satan's evil salespitch(es).

Interesting, how the argument tends to go back to religion. All arguments against homosexuality tends to go back to what is written in some holy text that many believe, and then used to justify the reason for hate against that which does not fit into their definition of right or moral. I find it funny how many religious people will pick and choose the laws in the bible, or holy text, to follow or use to justify their hatred. (Pork hotdog, or shirmp cocktale anyone?) I always was under the belief that if you are a Christian, then the laws of the old Testament, all of them, were no longer valid, and that the best course of action was to show compassion to one another, no matter who they are. It is really sad, when reason, compassion and understanding of the other is something of the past. And in the United States of America, based off of all of the laws that are written, to include the first Declaration: All men are created equal. That means that the rights of a hetrosexual man is equal to that of a gay man. When you deny those very rights to a group of people, no matter how you view them, then you are discriminating against that group. In Constitutional Law, the grant by statute of particular privileges to a class arbitrarily designated from a sizable number of persons, where no reasonable distinction exists between the favored and disfavored classes.

reply to post by smyleegrl


LOL, thanks for trying. Sorry if my joke was offensive. What I was really asking him was evidence to support his claim that 14 year old girls are not mentally stable enough to decide who they want to marry just because of the hormones of puberty. Do you have evidence to support his claim?

LOL, thanks for trying. Sorry if my joke was offensive. What I was really asking him was evidence to support his claim that 14 year old girls are not mentally stable enough to decide who they want to marry just because of the hormones of puberty. Do you have evidence to support his claim?

reply to post by Mr Sunchine



I wasn't offended at all. I figured it was a joke.

I don't have statistics about the mental stability of 14 year old girls, I've never researched it. However, I am a teacher and I see the CRAZY stuff they do every day.

I think, honestly, it probably comes down to an individual basis. Some 14 year old girls are mature and quite capable of making that decision. By contrast, some 35 year olds aren't mature enough to .....well, do just about anything you can think of.

(note: everything i say here applies to lesbians as well.)

This is the way i have always seen it. I grew up 20 minutes outside of NYC and Greenwich Village was my favorite place to go shopping. If you know anything about NYC then you know that area is NOTORIOUS for its homosexual population. New jersey in general has a fairly large gay population as well and growing up i spent my time around members of the gay community. Here is what i have learned.

There IS a gay agenda. But it's not necessarily a bad thing. It's like any other Agenda.For instance was the Agenda of civil rights activists really that bad of a thing? No, at least i don't think it was. Maybe there were some bad people within the movement, and there are certainly going to be extremists within any group and possibly smaller groups that are an actual embodiment of their oppositions fear. But this isn't reason enough to discount the group as a whole or to dismiss their agenda as something bad.

From my experience Most gay guys are not pedophiles who are looking to destroy wholesome christian values. They just want to be able to see their husbands or wives in the hospital when they are sick or dying. They want to be able to get tax breaks when their partner adopts a kid so they can provide a better life for said child. They want to be miserable just like the rest of the married population. Altogether this is not really a bad agenda. It's just a basic desire that any human would have. Theologically speaking there is no real reason to oppose this. I mean you can cite like what? Six verses from 66 books in the bible that condemn homosexuality? Last time i checked there were over 250 verses that condemned heterosexuals. Who pisses off god more? Plus if god really hated gays that much then why is NYC, San Diego, San Francisco and the state of Massachusetts even still here? Clearly god doesn't care what gay people do.

But lets get back to that agenda thing we are talking about. From my observances the "gay agenda" seems to come from small groups in the gay rights movement. Small but VERY vocal groups who claim to be acting on behalf of the whole. Think of it in the same terms as Muslim extremists. Most Muslims don't want to behead Jews and destroy western civilization. How do I know these groups exist? Well my wife's best friend is openly gay, and expresses disdain for these people because they are flat out hurting their cause. To top it off they like to shout out slogans such as "10% is not enough recruit recruit recruit" And what does this do? It creates a facade that there is an agenda to turn everyone gay, when in reality most gay people could care less about the number of gay or straight people in the world.

So maybe you want to know where i am going with this.

Ultimately there is a gay agenda, but as I said before it is not a bad thing. It is not concerned with interfering with peoples private lives, despite what some groups on both sides may say. The agenda is that they want the same rights that straight people have in regards to marriage and civil unions. Is this so bad of a thing to admit to? Is this something that is really worth condemning? No.

There is no logical reason, scientifically or theologically to oppose gay rights or the "gay agenda" in regards to it.

reply to post by Showbiz


lol no, a cat did not get my tongue.

I left my pc on and ran up to town to get, ironically enough, cat litter - two 2 liters of Coke, and picked up a pair of bright red bedroom slippers - all at the dollar store. Set me back only 13 dollars and some change.

I'm usually never at a loss for words, showbiz - trust me.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


On the contrary, things always, appropriately, go back to God - not "religion".

Religion has nothing to do with God - what part of that is confusing to you?

MAN created "religion" - along with all the lit'l sects of "religious" etiquette to boot.

Man, man, MAN created "religion" - of which has nothing to do with God.

And yes, it always goes back to God - as it should.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

And that's all I got to say about that.

Watcher I think that says quite enough God this thread is very entertaining. I havn't missed a post.
I've been lmao .

nomo

lol no, a cat did not get my tongue.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by randyvs]