Chick-fil-A "non-story" exposes the Hypocritical agenda of LGBT Community.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by murphy22

Then, where and in what way do they get unequal rights? I really do not understand, in what way are they not equal?

In America. When LGBTQ have Full Legal Federal Marriage - - - and are included on the Federal Protection list of minorities.

Then they are Equal. Not until.

Why do they have to be put on a list of "protected minorities"??? how does that make them equal? Equal to what? Other minorities?

Because they are a minority.

Protection from majority that doesn't think everyone should have the same Equal Rights.

Does inclusion on this list grant you more votes at an election or something?

ETA: Personally I couldn't care less about Chick-fil-a or their CEOs opinions. But what I find interesting is that people are fighting tooth and nail to have the government license their relationships.

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Six6Six

I am totally against the LGBT organised terrorist cult they have become.

OMG

Minority Bullies.

What is this world coming to?

Right, because if you're a minority, you have the right to be violent, overbearing, close minded, judgmental, and/or a general jackass....

Please tell me you aren't saying that that's how the LGBTQ group acts. I understand the point you bring up but...

reply to post by Praetorius


You're all wrong! USA is now a fascist dictatorship - or haven't you been paying attention the last few years?

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by StalkerSolent

Speaking of which, it seems the stuff you are concerned with has mostly to do with money, and less with what I consider inalienable rights.

It doesn't matter.

Fact is hetero's have this privilege which is denied a minority group.

Equality for all first - - - then change away.

There is no room in this society for one group to say "Neener Neener - - I have real marriage and you don't"

FYI, marriage is defined in the BIBLE. Long BEFORE any modern legal system. Before the Magna Carta. Before the US Constitution. You want "equality"? Look at the Biblical definition and tell me what it says.

In the bible Marriage is defined as a man and his wife and his wife and his wife and his wife.
In the bible Marriage is defined as a man and his dead brother's wife.
In the bible Marriage is defined as a man and his rape victim.

You really want to go there?

Originally posted by TXRabbit
Interesting that you mention hypocrisy....

Your statement is untrue. Look at what Glenn Beck has been doing with food drives. Some of the largest in history ane it cannot be disputed.

Originally posted by TXRabbit
Interesting that you mention hypocrisy....

Actually, you do see them there, and running food banks from churches, etc. Taking aid directly to other countries, even. I have personally known pastors that participated in getting things to people in Mexico (mountain villages), and Africa. One church I attended spent long weeks collecting toys, clothing, and other items for a giveaway to those in need. Entire classrooms were filled with donations, mostly from members, and we spent time advertising to the surrounding community. People could come get clothing, sorted by size, gender, etc, kids got wrapped gifts (for as many family members as they asked for them for, too), and so forth. You don't see long lines because this sort of thing is a regular activity. I even knew one VERY disabled older fellow that spent all his spare time with an organization to aid the homeless and needy. He could not even walk unassisted, but he helped. Nope, not seeing any hypocrisy.

Originally posted by gncnew
*snip*

Officially designated by whom? Hell, I can call anyone a "hate group"... "officially designated" would I hope that they're having problems with the DOJ or something?

No? If the HuffPost or whatever called them hate groups, that's not exactly official.

Well, these days, anyone not supporting the administration is, according to official DHS documents, a "potential terrorist", so it is possible that Christian organizations could be flagged as "hate groups" by the same people. Doesn't mean they are actually such; just a label by people trying to make right into wrong, and vice versa.

reply to post by StalkerSolent

Good luck. You are going to need it.

I proposed something very similar a few years back: striking the word "marriage" from all legal wordings and making everyone under the law a "civil union" (or whatever you want to call it). Anyone could then be married based solely on whether their religion said they were married, but marriage would carry no other benefits. All secular benefits would be for civil unions.

I was handed my hindquarters on a platter in that thread.

Ergo, I realized that the complaint of the loudest and most adamant has nothing to do with equality, but has to do with a word. So I started thinking what the societal results of redefining that word would be if carried to certain points, and I realized what the true agenda is: revenge. The sad part is that I believe a great many do want equality, but they are drowned out by those who hate, yet hide behind their constant accusations of others.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by murphy22

Then, where and in what way do they get unequal rights? I really do not understand, in what way are they not equal?

In America. When LGBTQ have Full Legal Federal Marriage - - - and are included on the Federal Protection list of minorities.

Then they are Equal. Not until.

So when do Christian whites get added to that list? Do you truly not see the hypocrisy in your statement? Certain groups get protection, while others are told to sit down, shut up, and preferably crawl off and die someplace? EQUAL means NO LISTS. If you have a list for some, there is, and can never be, equality.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Catholic charities just purchased more property for additional homeless shelters, this summer.

Of course they refuse any Federal Funding - - - because then they'd have to feed Gays.

Apparently its OK if Gays starve.

Now you are treading a thin line. Do you honestly think that ANY church feeding those in need demands to know their sexual preferences before offering food? Really? Churches don't want federal funding, because they don't want the government controlling them. They don't GET funding because the government is not allowed to interfere in religion.

I wonder if you realize that you are proving the OP's point.

Originally posted by jimmyx
maybe bible-thumpin', scripture-quotin',confedrate flag-wavin' christians would understand, if their own kids were killed, maimed, brutalized, bullied, shunned, made fun of, just for being christian...
maybe being an elite, just means you have critical-thinking skills combined with a degree of tolerance.

Look up a group called Voice of the Martyrs. Christians are attacked and killed, around the world, on a regular basis, because they are Christian. It happens in the US, too, just not (so far) to as deadly a degree. Workplace sanctions, school children penalized, lawsuits - that's all condoned by anti-freedom, Christian-hating people.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by gncnew

If your position is equal rights, then you can't support the "boycott" of Chick-fil-A if you didn't support the boycott of Oreo... right?

That's just it. You're not for Equal Rights, you're for "My Agenda or Bust!".

Free speech - boycotting - - - is a Constitutional Right.

So is creating Awareness of anti-gay hate groups and those who donate millions to support them.

It isn't hate to disagree with someone. Claiming otherwise is using a tactic to try and sway people to your side, by making the other side look bad. Those in the right have no need of such tactics.

By the standards you are using, I could call any "gay pride" group, that speaks out against Christians, a "hate group". Funny how that works, isn't it?

I find it interesting that you have no issues with the gay activists making lists, and supporting what they believe, but you attack and demonize Christians for doing the same thing. What was that you were saying about equal rights again?

According to the 14th Amendment, everyone has equal protection under the law.
Thus the concept of civil rights.

Every single man, woman, and man/woman in the LGBT movement already has equal "rights".

The question with regards to marriage then becomes- is the rite of marriate a civil right?

I think that it would do all these folks in the LGBT movement some good to school themselves on the difference between a 14th Amendment citizen and State Citizen.
One with INalienable rights and the other with UNalienable rights.

It won't happen, and the reason why it won't happen is because like every other minority (meaning a group found in a minority percentage of the population), the LGBT movement wants special rights, not equal rights.

They want to be coddled, because apparently, they feel entitled to a shoulder to cry on when they get their feelings hurt.
They want to be able to exercise their freedom of speech, but the only freedom of speech they want for others is the freedom to accept their lifestyle.
MAN UP...
or...
WOMAN UP...
or whatever it is that you people do.
The LGBT community are pawns in a huge game, and they neither see nor care to see exactly how they are being used and to what ends.

They are no different than a christian who condemns the lottery, unless of course said christian was to win the lottery, then it must be God's will to get and spend recklessly all that money.

The brainwashed christians deserve the brainwashed gays.

They make good bedfellows.

Originally posted by Annee
And here is more on NOM.

NOM Reminds Us That Both Genders Are Represented in Polygamist Marriages

BY Lucas Grindley - August 06 2012

Marriage equality supporters had been passing around a graphical reminder that the "biblical definition" of marriage includes concubines, polygamists, and slavery. But the National Organization for Marriage has a different take on its meaning.

"Look carefully at the image and you will see that in ALL of the examples, both genders are represented," wrote NOM's Ruth Institute blogger Jennifer Thieme today. "This image reinforces the conservative position about needing a gender requirement, it does not undermine our position."

The graphic was being shared on Facebook to point out that the likes of NOM and Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy are misrepresenting the "biblical definition" of marriage. Marriage equality opponents say the Bible defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman while ignoring the other definitions it includes. Deuteronomy required any virgin who is raped to marry her rapist, for example. And men routinely had multiple wives (or concubines on the side).

www.advocate.com...

That article is HIGHLY inaccurate. One, the Bible does NOT promote polygamy, simply because there were polygamists in it. Two, no, there was NEVER a requirement for a woman to marry her rapist, Sorry, but that claim is total BS. There are penalties for rape, and later, statements made about a woman that willingly sleeps with a man marrying him, but anti-Christian liars make that same false claim all the time. The people attacking the Bible and Christians should do some actual reading.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

That article is HIGHLY inaccurate. One, the Bible does NOT promote polygamy, simply because there were polygamists in it.

The only thing highly inaccurate is the bible.

One's perception of the legitimacy of polygamy in the bible depends on how words are interpreted.

Titus 1:6 and 1_Timothy 3:2,12 --- "One wife" --- mia is the Greek word from which the word, one, was translated in those passages. Yet, it can also be translated as first, just as it is, for example, so translated in the phrases, "first day of the week" in Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1-2, and Acts 20:7.

Furthermore, in 1_Timothy 5:9, a widow's "one man" is not mia but the Greek word "heis", meaning the numeral-one, and not meaning the adjective of "first".

link to source

Considering that divorce was a super sin and people lost favor with God for it, I would then HAVE to believe that a first wife would legitmate a second, concurrent, wife.

From the same source... the bible.

"If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish." Exodus 21:10.

Exodus 21:10 protects the first (and previous) wife(s). Note that this verse comes only 22 verses AFTER the 7th Commandment ("Thou shalt not commit adultery") in Exodus 20:14.

Just because I think that the gays are nucking futs doesn't mean that I don't think the same about you christians.

Maybe it is you who should be doing a bit of reading rather than sanctimoniously calling out others.

They want to be able to exercise their freedom of speech, but the only freedom of speech they want for others is the freedom to accept their lifestyle.

This is the issue EXACTLY!! nothing to do with equal rights - but the expectation that everyone should agree with their choice. Absolutely ludacris.

reply to post by gncnew


is it just me?

on both sides, its a case of the pot calling the kettle black...classic

I'll say this right now, I just became a fan of Oreos, reading this thread.

Blessings on the gay community. First it was the blacks, then it was the hippies, now it's the gays. Eventually, we'll learn that discrimination is never good, no matter what.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

That article is HIGHLY inaccurate. One, the Bible does NOT promote polygamy, simply because there were polygamists in it.

The only thing highly inaccurate is the bible.

In your opinion. However, claiming it isn't accurate, while also claiming it promotes this or that, is a bit less than honest, isn't it? Either you accept it, or you don't. The issue of polygamy in the Bible is ONLY in the OT, and only in reference to what was standard practice of the times, same as slavery was. At no point does the Bible ever say these things are right; it simply gives some standards of behavior for what was the cultural norm of the day. The NT makes it clear that polygamy isn't as God intended. For that matter, so does Genesis. God, after all, made the first marriage between Adam and Eve.

Originally posted by kyviecaldgesOne's perception of the legitimacy of polygamy in the bible depends on how words are interpreted.

Titus 1:6 and 1_Timothy 3:2,12 --- "One wife" --- mia is the Greek word from which the word, one, was translated in those passages. Yet, it can also be translated as first, just as it is, for example, so translated in the phrases, "first day of the week" in Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1-2, and Acts 20:7.

Furthermore, in 1_Timothy 5:9, a widow's "one man" is not mia but the Greek word "heis", meaning the numeral-one, and not meaning the adjective of "first".

link to source

Considering that divorce was a super sin and people lost favor with God for it, I would then HAVE to believe that a first wife would legitmate a second, concurrent, wife.

From the same source... the bible.

"If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish." Exodus 21:10.

Exodus 21:10 protects the first (and previous) wife(s). Note that this verse comes only 22 verses AFTER the 7th Commandment ("Thou shalt not commit adultery") in Exodus 20:14.

Just because I think that the gays are nucking futs doesn't mean that I don't think the same about you christians.

Maybe it is you who should be doing a bit of reading rather than sanctimoniously calling out others.

edit on 8/8/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/8/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)

I have done quite a lot of reading on these topics, including some of the mistranslated and misrepresented material. That some want to play word games and try to undermine Christian moral standards doesn't mean they are correct. Those making the claims like you have here are not Christian, and don't believe in the Bible, and they frequently fail to do enough research to determine the actual meaning of any word in question. There are plenty of references to show what actual meaning was given to any particular word in the Bible. A good concordance (Strong's) would be a place to start. Yes, many words can have multiple meanings, but a look at the original texts shows which one was intended.

Originally posted by Annee

It doesn't matter.

Fact is hetero's have this privilege which is denied a minority group.

Equality for all first - - - then change away.

There is no room in this society for one group to say "Neener Neener - - I have real marriage and you don't"

Annee, there will always be room in this society for people to say that. Shoot, today there is still people who think blacks are inferior! (And quite frankly, I think the long-term battle for "homosexual rights" or whatever you want to call them, is probably doomed, simply because fundamentalists tend to have more children.) But either way, no federal proclamation or law can change people's opinions. It can make them really mad, however.

Let's think long-term here. Supposing you do ram through an "equal marriage law" or something similar. Twenty years down the road, the fundamentalists gain control of both houses and the presidency. Immediately, they kick the law out and instead institute one that only heterosexual couples may marry--this one overriding the states that might wish to permit it! Essentially, you are back where you started. Better, by far, to take government's grubby hands off of the whole issue.