Court says 'gay' rights trump Christian rights

reply to post by Perplexed

You've got the be kidding me right? You seriously believe that gay people are out to destroy families??? Dude, deny ignorance, site motto correct? Maybe, JUST maybe, these people just love members of the same sex, and want to be able to marry them and carry on with there lives...

Call me crazy here, but im willing to be thats the situation...Just MHO

reply to post by Perplexed


It would be nice if you didn't call me queer for believing we are all equal in this world. I'm sorry, I do not believe the right wing rhetoric of this so called "culture war". According to my knowledge, only FOXNews seems to know about this war and WorldNutDaily.

And I have never heard about someone being jailed for saying "homosexuality is wrong", maybe in your paranoid world, but not mine. I have not been arrested for being a heterosexual and my family hasn't been executed by "The Gays" either

If you want to roll back time, fine, do it but don't drag the rest of the world into your backward thinking view of society. Enjoy your social apartheid.

*clicks ignore*

Originally posted by ThePiemaker. If you aren't gay and don't like gays, don't go to outfest. and if you aren't "christian" and don't believe in their god, then don't go to church. There's no point in doing otherwise other than to cause trouble.

One man's "causing trouble" is another man's "noble cause". If a government decides to publicly promote something, and that something is morally or ethically wrong to you, does it make sense to protest it? Yes. What the Philly 11 (Christian) group did was protest what they believed was a promotion of bad morals. Therefore they were 100% justified in protesting at the event.

Yes or No: Should the freedom of speech involve the freedom to interrupt other speech that you believe is harmful to others, when in a publicly owned place?

Your phrase "don't like gays" shows that you are missing the whole idea of the 'trouble makers'. The common Christian viewpoint that is common is that everyone has faults "We are all sinners." But, love everyone anyway, including sinners. Homosexual sex is just another sin in a long dirty laundry list to most Christians. Its a common topic in Christian churches that you should love someone regardless of their faults. So "don't like gay sex" is what you actually should mean, rather than "don't like gays". Big difference!

I'd assume many "christians" would react similarly if a bunch of atheists decided to crash an event held for christians and start insulting them for their personal belief's.

Probably true, and the freedom of speech should allow those atheists to offer criticism to the Christians.


[edit on 20-7-2008 by truthquest]

reply to post by TheRedneck


Its a cultural war that rages and the gays are winning. One undeniable truth is they are militant in opposing anyone that disagrees with them. The other undeniable truth is that those that oppose them are jailed more often than not around the world and this is the first step here.

Canada, England, Sweden and now America. For just speaking their mind they are jailed. It is a fact that people are jailed for opposing gays and what they stand for but gays can vilify those same people and be protected under the law. Seems unjust if you ask me...

I don't think you can call it slinging accusations of hate and perversion when this is clearly a 1st amendment right issue that always gets spun into those that oppose decisions like this "are homophobic" and just because we are homophobic that is somehow devolved from the enlightened? If they are enlightened I would rather stay in the dark.

Be gay all you want. Just don't strap dog collars on children and show them gays masturbating in public or otherwise and call in progressive. That is destroying the very foundation of the family in this country and the gays are doing just that.

They may say its an isolated incident but you don't see an outpouring of disgust and denunciation from the gays when stuff like this happens do you? On the other hand the heterosexual community vilifies and locks up the perverts, pedophiles and child rapists when exposed. Is it not perverted to expose small children to public masturbation and if so is it not a violation of the law? It is immoral at the very least and that is an understatement.

And if pointing out those strapping dog collars on children is slinging accusations of prevision I am happy to do it. If pointing out that a g-string and a tutu on a grown man in public is perverted I am happy to sling... Someone has to or we are doomed.

Edit to add: Here is a picture of the two twins (pets) at the fair... Very nice...
xpress.sfsu.edu...


[edit on 01/01/2008 by Perplexed]

Edit: To add some tact.

[edit on 20-7-2008 by intrepid]

Regarding Faith and Homosexuality - I have only one thing to say.

Faith is a Belief - People Choose their Belief.

Homosexuality is a Birth Right - given by the Creator.

It's great we're moving into the 21st century. Thank GOD.


Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 20-7-2008 by elevatedone]

reply to post by mystiq

Finally, I can agree with a court decision, which is getting harder to do lately. Gay and Women's rights should equally be addressed legally as well. Religions should be forced to upgrade to the highest degree of human rights, and I wish it would happen the world over. They are ancienct and barbaric and the human race needs to evolve (nwo aside for a moment).

Keen observations Mr Mystiq. And one people of good will around the globe will eventually adopt.

On Christianity. I offer TWO men who were most instrumental in founding the institution that we loosely call Christianity today. Without BOTH men and their very different contributions, it is entirely unlikely Christianity would have ever been more than a disenchanted minority of Judaism probably forgotten in the pages of history after 66-73 AD. Flavius Josephus to the contrary notwithstanding.

So you ask, just who are those two significant men? Well, I can tell you for sure it was not Moses or King Solomon. But it was, IMO, Saul of Tarsus, later known as Paul, and then Saint Paul who was the first. Numero Uno. And yes, the second man was none other than Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus better known as Emperor Constantine I. Numero Duo. When Constantine converted to Christianity, he did not make it the exclusive religion of the Empire. That came rather later as the Greco-Roman norm of tolerance gradually disappeared.

However, Constantine had big plans. He wanted UNIFORMITY above all else out of his state religions of which he had several. He called the Second Church Council to meet at Nicaea in 325 and it decided what a Christian was and what Christians should believe. Note this Council was NOT called by the Bishop of Rome NOR was it held in Rome. Rome was a backwater town beginning its fall from the heady days when Rome ruled the known world. That long run in history culminated in 476 AD when the last emperor fled the city. And then came the Catholic Church. Or what is called the Roman Catholic Church today. I don't know when it got its current name but I can tell you one thing for sure, it was not on the Day of Pentecost.

Aside: The First Church Council was held in Jerusalem. Around 35-40 AD. It was called by James the brother of Jesus and Peter to rein in Paul. Despite what we would today (incorrectly) regard as the superior authority of those two close associates of Jesus, Paul the interloper - late to The Way - and indeed, the imposter - he claimed a special grant of power directly from Jesus - was not reined in. The Council finally agreed to disagree. By the bye if James and Peter had succeeded, we would not have modern Christianity as we know it.

Recall that Paul was shrewd enough to bring a considerable sum of money with him to help support the impoverished Jerusalem church which had turned to communism for its very survival. That would have been the next to last step before giving it all up.

Then for you Bibliophiles, Constantine again stepped into the breech. Dismayed over the numerous variations, interpretations and points of view held by so many people calling themselves Christians, Constantine ORDERED several better known bishops from around the Mediterranean basin to convene and produce for him a CANON. A well accepted compilation. It was the numbers of followers and not the veracity of position that determined who was called. (I don't think the Bishop of Rome was invited, or if even if there was one then. In any case, he was a minor player. The episcopacy of Rome did not gain its ascendant position until 1873 at the first Vatican Council).

And alas, they produced from among 100s of letters, manuscripts, fragments and stories what is known today as the Holy Bible. We are even certain what was in the First Bible. Constantine ordered his scribes to make 50 exact copies. It was his plan to install one in each of the 50 churches he was building or remodeling in his new capital city, renamed from Byzantium to Constantinople. In each new church a bible was chained to the lectern. Because the books were valuable and not to prevent people from reading the book. Almost no one could read anyway. Oh, the books were written in Greek, the lingua franca of the era. Latin did not come on until the 5th-6th century. And so there you have how our Holy Bible came to be in one bound volume. None have survived.

Aside: We don’t now who or when the books of the Hebrew Bible - our OT - were first named. But if the First Book of Moses had been named Book of Origins of the Hebrew People instead of Genesis - the beginning- think how much easier our lives would be! No Scopes trial. No young earth advocates. No anti-Darwin fakers. No faith based anti-intellectualism.

Or if the Divine Endowment in 2 Tim. 3:16, had been translated to read: All INSPIRED scripture is of GOD rather than the current ALL scripture is INSPIRED of GOD, then we would not be faced with the literalists who dominate today’s public conversation. Talking louder, not smarter. I’m assured by people who know better than I that either translation is equally valid. King James just gave us the BAD one.

[edit on 7/20/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by donwhite


Ok, so lets say there is a group of people are not religious in any way but find stuff like this offensive. You are saying we should be forced to evolve into a people that accept this kind of behavior? Again, the new religion of "Forced Evolvement" We are to accept your religion over all others?

We should not be allowed to speak out, to protest agianst stuff like this?
xpress.sfsu.edu...
or this
www.slrobertson.com...
or this
www.slrobertson.com...
or this
www.slrobertson.com...

And if we do we should be locked up? Seems pretty unjust to me. You have your right to masturbate in public but I don't have a right to say that is wrong? It is a crazy world we live in.




[edit on 01/01/2008 by Perplexed]

Originally posted by re22666

Originally posted by spitefulgod
reply to post by pavil

 

pavil video posted on page 3 is the funniest video of the day, I suggest you all watch it.


On topic... you need a good female and male role model in parenting, so as long as one of the guys is more effeminate then I guess it's Ok.

i am interested in where you have the data backing this up. since tons of research shows that there are more broken homes with straight famlies than gay by exponential calculations, how can you even pretend to say this is true? based on what? all the single mothers that raise their kids with no deadbeat dad in sight?
what you say sounds right, seems good, just plain ol makes sense. unless you are not a closed minded bigot and take a look at some sociology books, national statitistics, or anything really. it feel good to just say stuff and think it is true doesnt it. too bad i keep saying millions of dollars show up at my door every day but that isnt panning out just yet. guess i dont have your "i said it so its true" magic.

Oh touchy, but you're right, it doesn't really matter who you're parents are, just that they are good parents, I think that's the gist? You can have a female and a male and if they just sit in front of the TV and ignore the child are they going to be better than a gay couple who take and active interest in the childs life... I assume.. again, to be honest I really don't care too much about the subject I just thought that the video was funny and required some un-thought out, on topic statement to stop my ATS score taking yet another tumble.

donwhite

Wow! There is intelligent life out there.

I think people forget that religion is man made politics. That man uses a god and "tools" religion for his purpose.

Originally posted by Annee
donwhite

Wow! There is intelligent life out there.

I think people forget that religion is man made politics. That man uses a god and "tools" religion for his purpose.

And as we have seen here the government along with the gays at this event used the religion of "Forced Evolvement" to dictate what acceptable behavior on a public street is. To dictate what people can think or say in the public square.

Here is the mantra... Its ok to masturbate in public but hold a sign in protest and you are sent off to jail. It used to be the other way around...

So let’s see... I am a heterosexual male. I want to parade down Main Street having sex with any woman of my choosing. Does anyone in their right mind think I and the woman would not be arrested?

You can't wear baggy pants in a lot of cities today but a g-string on a man in public is ok and we can't openly protest that? What is going on in the world today? If the argument for jailing these people wasn't so absurd it would be laughable.

Edit: Ditto.

[edit on 20-7-2008 by intrepid]

reply to post by Perplexed

Ok, so lets say there is a group of people are not religious in any way but find stuff like this offensive. You are saying we should be forced to evolve into a people that accept this kind of behavior? Again, the new religion of "Forced Evolvement" We are to accept your religion over all others? We should not be allowed to speak out, to protest agianst stuff like this?

No. I'm not saying we should not be allowed to speak out. But any organized and civil society must have rules. No one has a RIGHT to go into the halls of Congress and harangue the House or Senate at the top of his or her voice for as long as and at anytime he or she feels an irresistible call by the First Amendment.

When I attend (rarely) a City Council meeting, anyone wanting to address the Council MUST sign a log. Each speaker is alloted 3 minutes. At the end of his or her time, a light flashes and the microphone is turned off after 10 more seconds. Then it's the next person's opportunity to speak. Watch the House of Representatives on CSpan sometime to see this system at work.

When I say "religion" I'm thinking of this: A religion is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law.

My best advice is "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

[edit on 7/20/2008 by donwhite]

For a group that claims persecution at every whim . They seems to do much more than any other group on the planet .

I think its time for a "gays against religion" group. Maybe even get them some of those directed energy weapons to use on them .

Set up million dollar sound systems right across from all the churches and play "YMCA" and other "homosexually" related songs all day and night .

They can go protest the funerals of priests, Children of religious people and weddings.
Imagine trying to have your wedding and 4000 people dressed in bright colors show up with megaphones telling them there gonna go to hell for there "sins"

Man i could go on all day with stuff that they could do that by the arguments in this thread would be perfectly fine . Seeing as it is there right to protest and free speech . Besides there just trying to warn them that they will most likely be divorced and or beaten by there spouse within the first year ,

I think we need to start warning the women that they will most likely be raising that kid by themselves . Heck we(read "they"
) could probably even protest births on the grounds that the kids will most likely grow up to be bigoted hate mongers.

I'm not gay . But have always felt that everyone deserves to be loved . And that's what this boils down to for me .
No one will ever tell me who to love . Who to care about . Who to have sex with . And i would never do the same to someone else . Given that there both consenting adults of course.

[edit on 20-7-2008 by d11_m_na_c05]

Originally posted by Perplexed
We should not be allowed to speak out, to protest agianst stuff like this?
xpress.sfsu.edu...
or this
www.slrobertson.com...
or this
www.slrobertson.com...
or this
www.slrobertson.com...

For someone who seems clearly 'homophobic" and anti "queer" you sure seem to know your way around thier community what with all these link to pictures you keep posting

you sure seem 'In the know"

Im just saying..............

[edit on 20/7/08 by Operation AJAX]

reply to post by Annee

Wow! There is intelligent life out there. I think people forget that religion is man made politics. That man uses a god and "tools" religion for his purpose.

Absolutely correct. It is a truism that "God did not create man, Man created God." Some of our oldest artifacts - recall that fat mama who it is suggested was a fertility goddess - seem to be religion related. And for sure many of the greatest monuments ever created, the Great Pyramid, were done for religious reasons. Certainly since Martin Luther - 1517 - and my own personal hero, Henry VIII - 1538 - and his greatest daughter ever the Virgin Queen, the First Elizabeth - and down through the Age of the Enlightenment we - mankind - have struggled to overthrow the shackles of organized religion. We're making progress but it is oh so slow. Surely by the end of this century, religion will be outlawed and accessible only in carefully distributed history books?

As Red Skelton used to say, "God Bless." Whatever that meant.

[edit on 7/20/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by Operation AJAX


You know i was thinking the same thing . I bet he has laminated copies all over his house. He's probably like 90% of the other homophobes that are really gay but have been conditioned to be self loathers .

I mean really . Look at how many anti-gay people have been caught in gay relationships and or with prostitutes ect.

Marriage is a sham . Unless there is a fat tax break behind it . I will never make my o'l lady sign her life over to me . I feel were way to equal for that crap .
I think there afraid of losing there (modern day) slave rights.

Heck divorce actual does damage to a woman's credit. I still wonder how that works.

[edit on 20-7-2008 by d11_m_na_c05]

OK guys, let's discuss the topic, not each other.

Originally posted by Operation AJAX

Originally posted by Perplexed
We should not be allowed to speak out, to protest agianst stuff like this?
xpress.sfsu.edu...
or this
www.slrobertson.com...
or this
www.slrobertson.com...
or this
www.slrobertson.com...

For someone who seems clearly 'homophobic" and anti "queer" as you sure seem to know your way around thier community what with all these link to pictures you keep linking

Im just saying..............

And here it is... I was waiting for someone to pounce with the fall back argument the queers use to slam those that protest their "pride parades." "You know a lot so you must be queer."

Using your argument every queer on this board that uses an external reference to Christians protesting the queers is a closet Christian... Participate in the debate or move on troll...

Im just saying.............. @@:

Stop with the "slang" words please.

Thank You.

reply to post by Perplexed


Perplexed, you have a u2u.