An Alabama Pastor's Epic Speech against Gay Marriage (Please finish drinking your beverage first)

[Syriusly]

Well since that has nothing to do with the post I was responding to- no it isn't ironic.

Actually, I was responding to the post you made in response. Don't move the goalposts.

And your response had nothing to do with the post I was responding to. Don't move any goalposts yourself.

 

[emilynghiem]

Christians need to get a grip. Fagots are here to stay, get used to it.

Christians are here to stay, too. Gay people must get used to that fact as well.

To be fair I don't hear fags bitching about christians or their lifestyles. Can't say the same thing from the opposite perspective

Grampa Murked U

WHAT?

* You didn't see Delta4Embassy posting post after post BLAMING Christianity for teaching abuse by the tradition of "wives submitting to their husbands" while this SAME poster argues that pornography doesn't cause harm.

* You didn't see people jumping ALL OVER the notion that Christian spiritual healing provides effective counseling and recovery for those seeking to change their homosexual attractions and lifestyles?

I get jumped on whenever I try to bring up spiritual healing and proof that people HAVE changed naturally.
And I support equal rights for gay and transgender, because I understand not all of them can change and to some it is natural. But when I try to bring up how some people changed who weren't naturally that way, I get ALL KINDS of harassment and accusations attacking this and that because of people against Christians.

Where have you been?
Are we on the same planet???

 

[Preacher]

Christians need to get a grip. Fagots are here to stay, get used to it.

Christians are here to stay, too. Gay people must get used to that fact as well.

To be fair I don't hear fags bitching about christians or their lifestyles. Can't say the same thing from the opposite perspective

No they just enjoy threatening them and their businesses for refusing service on constitutional grounds.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well since that has nothing to do with the post I was responding to- no it isn't ironic.

Actually, I was responding to the post you made in response. Don't move the goalposts.

And your response had nothing to do with the post I was responding to. Don't move any goalposts yourself.

You are intentionally deflecting. You mentioned ISIS, therefore I responded in kind.

 

[Syriusly]

State laws have nothing to do with religious beliefs.

And just where do you get that notion?

State marriage laws should apply equally to same gender couples and my wife and I.

States should have rights, none of which should cater to your sensitivities.

Simple as that.

Far from it.

Perhaps I should clarify- state laws that are based upon religious beliefs are essentially unconstitutional- which is why if laws against gay marriage were passed because the lawmakers expressely thought that was against Christian or Muslim religious beliefs, the law would easily be ovterturned.

States do have rights. And so do all of us- and we all have a right to marriage. And I think that marriage law should apply equally to my wife and I, and same gender couples. In 37 of 50 states now, it does.

And the law doesn't care about your sensitivities regarding marriage.

 

[emilynghiem]

Just ******* get over gay marriage already. It is going to be the law of the land soon and it isn't going to go away.

AceRothstein
gay marriage is already protected under freedom of religion and equal protection of the laws.
the issue is whether the BELIEF in "right to marriage" and BELIEF in same sex marriage
can be imposed by state law over equal BELIEFS in traditional marriage only..

State laws have nothing to do with religious beliefs.

State marriage laws should apply equally to same gender couples and my wife and I.

Simple as that.

Hi Syriusly As long as State laws are written neutrally I agree.
So change any language that invokes religious issues, and keep it secular.

Atheists INSIST on removing words such as GOD that are against their beliefs.
So why not remove words like MARRIAGE that are religiously weighted with meanings,
and just have civil unions civil contracts or some other term that doesn't offend the religious beliefs of others. Maybe adding a hyphen "civil-marriage", anything that people of a state AGREE IS ENOUGH to clarify it is not a religious endorsement.

If Atheists can sue to remove references to God, so can Christians sue to remove references to Marriage
that should be PRIVATE and not imposed by public laws UNLESS THERE IS AGREEMENT.

Nobody is stopping you from trying to make that happen. Good luck. In the mean time, gays will keep getting married.

I'm not against gays getting married, I support this 100%.
I believe there would be NO opposition if gays didn't create it by pushing too far to make political statements.
Vegans make the same mistakes, when they push so far as to create a backlash against themselves.
Christians are famous for pushing into the public arena, so the same standards should be enforced for all such agenda.

There are GAYS who agree that gay marriage should NOT be pushed in this way because it creates
unnecessary opposition, and greater threats against gay rights.

 

[Syriusly]

Well since that has nothing to do with the post I was responding to- no it isn't ironic.

Actually, I was responding to the post you made in response. Don't move the goalposts.

And your response had nothing to do with the post I was responding to. Don't move any goalposts yourself.

You are intentionally deflecting. You mentioned ISIS, therefore I responded in kind.

Yes- I did mention ISIS- because an idiot claimed that insane Muslims had control of Iraq.

And?

 

[Syriusly]

Just ******* get over gay marriage already. It is going to be the law of the land soon and it isn't going to go away.

AceRothstein
gay marriage is already protected under freedom of religion and equal protection of the laws.
the issue is whether the BELIEF in "right to marriage" and BELIEF in same sex marriage
can be imposed by state law over equal BELIEFS in traditional marriage only..

State laws have nothing to do with religious beliefs.

State marriage laws should apply equally to same gender couples and my wife and I.

Simple as that.

Hi Syriusly As long as State laws are written neutrally I agree.
So change any language that invokes religious issues, and keep it secular.

Atheists INSIST on removing words such as GOD that are against their beliefs.
So why not remove words like MARRIAGE that are religiously weighted with meanings,
and just have civil unions civil contracts or some other term that doesn't offend the religious beliefs of others. Maybe adding a hyphen "civil-marriage", anything that people of a state AGREE IS ENOUGH to clarify it is not a religious endorsement.

If Atheists can sue to remove references to God, so can Christians sue to remove references to Marriage
that should be PRIVATE and not imposed by public laws UNLESS THERE IS AGREEMENT.

Nobody is stopping you from trying to make that happen. Good luck. In the mean time, gays will keep getting married.

I'm not against gays getting married, I support this 100%.
I believe there would be NO opposition if gays didn't create it by pushing too far to make political statements..

Seriously- no.

There has been tremendous opposition to gay marriage- the law suits are in response to dozens of states passing specific laws to ensure that gays could not be married in their state- or that a marriage performed elsewhere would not be recognized.

If homosexuals had not fought for the right to marry each other, it would still be illegal in most of the United States. No one was handing this to them.

 

[emilynghiem]

State laws have nothing to do with religious beliefs.

And just where do you get that notion?

State marriage laws should apply equally to same gender couples and my wife and I.

States should have rights, none of which should cater to your sensitivities.

Simple as that.

Far from it.

Perhaps I should clarify- state laws that are based upon religious beliefs are essentially unconstitutional- which is why if laws against gay marriage were passed because the lawmakers expressely thought that was against Christian or Muslim religious beliefs, the law would easily be ovterturned.

States do have rights. And so do all of us- and we all have a right to marriage. And I think that marriage law should apply equally to my wife and I, and same gender couples. In 37 of 50 states now, it does.

And the law doesn't care about your sensitivities regarding marriage.

Syriusly "right to marriage" is a political belief. There are clearly different denominations.
If you treat the govt as your church, you have to remember that other denominations are under your same church.
All must be equally included by the Constitution.

Most people I know, including gays, have agreed that civil unions and clearly SECULAR arrangements belong
under the govt. And all this talk of marriage which gets PERSONAL belongs in private.

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim "separation of church and state"
and then go around using govt as your substitute church. If you are going to separate out
Christian beliefs about marriage, it is only fair to separate our YOUR beliefs about marriage.

Either all eggs in the same basket, or remove all the eggs and keep them in private.
It is DISCRIMINATORY only to count YOUR beliefs about rights to marriage as law and
leave out other people's beliefs about marriage.

You are not completely neutral, so that is not fair under Constitutional standards.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well since that has nothing to do with the post I was responding to- no it isn't ironic.

Actually, I was responding to the post you made in response. Don't move the goalposts.

And your response had nothing to do with the post I was responding to. Don't move any goalposts yourself.

You are intentionally deflecting. You mentioned ISIS, therefore I responded in kind.

Yes- I did mention ISIS- because an idiot claimed that insane Muslims had control of Iraq.

And?

Hence the irony. You speak of ISIS so casually in a thread pertaining to homosexuality. Yet you remained ignorant or chose not to mention the fact they do more than prevent gay marriage, they kill them.

 

[emilynghiem]

AceRothstein
gay marriage is already protected under freedom of religion and equal protection of the laws.
the issue is whether the BELIEF in "right to marriage" and BELIEF in same sex marriage
can be imposed by state law over equal BELIEFS in traditional marriage only..

State laws have nothing to do with religious beliefs.

State marriage laws should apply equally to same gender couples and my wife and I.

Simple as that.

Hi Syriusly As long as State laws are written neutrally I agree.
So change any language that invokes religious issues, and keep it secular.

Atheists INSIST on removing words such as GOD that are against their beliefs.
So why not remove words like MARRIAGE that are religiously weighted with meanings,
and just have civil unions civil contracts or some other term that doesn't offend the religious beliefs of others. Maybe adding a hyphen "civil-marriage", anything that people of a state AGREE IS ENOUGH to clarify it is not a religious endorsement.

If Atheists can sue to remove references to God, so can Christians sue to remove references to Marriage
that should be PRIVATE and not imposed by public laws UNLESS THERE IS AGREEMENT.

Nobody is stopping you from trying to make that happen. Good luck. In the mean time, gays will keep getting married.

I'm not against gays getting married, I support this 100%.
I believe there would be NO opposition if gays didn't create it by pushing too far to make political statements..

Seriously- no.

There has been tremendous opposition to gay marriage- the law suits are in response to dozens of states passing specific laws to ensure that gays could not be married in their state- or that a marriage performed elsewhere would not be recognized.

If homosexuals had not fought for the right to marry each other, it would still be illegal in most of the United States. No one was handing this to them.

Syriusly even Clinton acknowledged it was wrong to push DOMA and other such laws that BAN marriages
because of course that should be allowed under churches or in private as religious freedom and personal choice.

The greatest fear people had was that it would be endorsed through the state laws and govt.
So if the agreement was to keep it private in churches, that would be consistent.

You'd be amazed how enforcing laws CONSISTENTLY gets respect from people.
You should try it.

 

[Syriusly]

State laws have nothing to do with religious beliefs.

And just where do you get that notion?

State marriage laws should apply equally to same gender couples and my wife and I.

States should have rights, none of which should cater to your sensitivities.

Simple as that.

Far from it.

Perhaps I should clarify- state laws that are based upon religious beliefs are essentially unconstitutional- which is why if laws against gay marriage were passed because the lawmakers expressely thought that was against Christian or Muslim religious beliefs, the law would easily be ovterturned.

States do have rights. And so do all of us- and we all have a right to marriage. And I think that marriage law should apply equally to my wife and I, and same gender couples. In 37 of 50 states now, it does.

And the law doesn't care about your sensitivities regarding marriage.

Syriusly "right to marriage" is a political belief. There are clearly different denominations.
If you treat the govt as your church, you have to remember that other denominations are under your same church.
All must be equally included by the Constitution.

Most people I know, including gays, have agreed that civil unions and clearly SECULAR arrangements belong
under the govt. And all this talk of marriage which gets PERSONAL belongs in private.

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim "separation of church and state"
and then go around using govt as your substitute church. If you are going to separate out
Christian beliefs about marriage, it is only fair to separate our YOUR beliefs about marriage.

Either all eggs in the same basket, or remove all the eggs and keep them in private.
It is DISCRIMINATORY only to count YOUR beliefs about rights to marriage as law and
leave out other people's beliefs about marriage.

You are not completely neutral, so that is not fair under Constitutional standards.

Americans have a right to marriage- a right the State cannot easily take away.

The government is not the church- and the church is not the government.

When my wife and I got our wedding license it was not issued by a church- it was issued by the State. That and the signature of our officiant made it legal marriage.

We were married by a minister- which made it also a religious marriage.

But if there had been no minister there, we would have been legally married- and that is exactly what same gender couples want- and what they are getting.

 

[Syriusly]

State laws have nothing to do with religious beliefs.

State marriage laws should apply equally to same gender couples and my wife and I.

Simple as that.

Hi Syriusly As long as State laws are written neutrally I agree.
So change any language that invokes religious issues, and keep it secular.

Atheists INSIST on removing words such as GOD that are against their beliefs.
So why not remove words like MARRIAGE that are religiously weighted with meanings,
and just have civil unions civil contracts or some other term that doesn't offend the religious beliefs of others. Maybe adding a hyphen "civil-marriage", anything that people of a state AGREE IS ENOUGH to clarify it is not a religious endorsement.

If Atheists can sue to remove references to God, so can Christians sue to remove references to Marriage
that should be PRIVATE and not imposed by public laws UNLESS THERE IS AGREEMENT.

Nobody is stopping you from trying to make that happen. Good luck. In the mean time, gays will keep getting married.

I'm not against gays getting married, I support this 100%.
I believe there would be NO opposition if gays didn't create it by pushing too far to make political statements..

Seriously- no.

There has been tremendous opposition to gay marriage- the law suits are in response to dozens of states passing specific laws to ensure that gays could not be married in their state- or that a marriage performed elsewhere would not be recognized.

If homosexuals had not fought for the right to marry each other, it would still be illegal in most of the United States. No one was handing this to them.

Syriusly even Clinton acknowledged it was wrong to push DOMA and other such laws that BAN marriages
because of course that should be allowed under churches or in private as religious freedom and personal choice.

The greatest fear people had was that it would be endorsed through the state laws and govt.
So if the agreement was to keep it private in churches, that would be consistent.

You'd be amazed how enforcing laws CONSISTENTLY gets respect from people.
You should try it.

It was wrong to push for DOMA because the Federal government should not be in the business of telling States that they cannot recognize gay marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

Well since that has nothing to do with the post I was responding to- no it isn't ironic.

Actually, I was responding to the post you made in response. Don't move the goalposts.

And your response had nothing to do with the post I was responding to. Don't move any goalposts yourself.

You are intentionally deflecting. You mentioned ISIS, therefore I responded in kind.

Yes- I did mention ISIS- because an idiot claimed that insane Muslims had control of Iraq.

And?

Hence the irony. You speak of ISIS so casually in a thread pertaining to homosexuality. Yet you remained ignorant or chose not to mention the fact they do more than prevent gay marriage, they kill them.

Again so what? Gays aren't supposed to fight for equal rights here because extremist Muslims want to kill us somewhere else? Extremists in most fundamental monotheistic religions want to kill somebody.

How anti-gay Christians evangelize hate abroad - LA Times

 

[Syriusly]

Well since that has nothing to do with the post I was responding to- no it isn't ironic.

Actually, I was responding to the post you made in response. Don't move the goalposts.

And your response had nothing to do with the post I was responding to. Don't move any goalposts yourself.

You are intentionally deflecting. You mentioned ISIS, therefore I responded in kind.

Yes- I did mention ISIS- because an idiot claimed that insane Muslims had control of Iraq.

And?

Hence the irony. You speak of ISIS so casually in a thread pertaining to homosexuality. Yet you remained ignorant or chose not to mention the fact they do more than prevent gay marriage, they kill them.

I am glad to repost the part of the thread in all of its glory- my words in Green- yours in Red


Keyes: Remember back in 2008 how people laughed at Beck when he said: "Before this man is out of office, you will look around and not recognize your country. Men will be marrying men, Iran will have nuclear weapons and Iraq will again be controlled by Islamic lunatics, as a direct result of the perverse reasoning that the Democrats have now set into the office of the President of the United States... "

Me:
Iran now has nuclear weapons?

Obama has nothing to do with the wonderful expansion of marriage equality.

Iraq? If we had not driven Hussein out of office, there would be no ISIS- but ISIS does not control Iraq.

You:
It's ironic too, that you don't mention how ISIS, as well as most of Islam, actively seek out and persecute homosexuals. But hey, it's just the Christians right? At least we don't throw them off the top of buildings.

Me:
Well since that has nothing to do with the post I was responding to- no it isn't ironic.

ISIS, like presumably all radical Islam, absolutely persecutes Homosexuals- homosexuals in Iraq are in far more danger now than before we drove Sadam Hussein from office and opened the door for the religious factionalism in Iraq.

Yes- that persecution is wrong- and yes- much of the worst persecution of homosexuals in the world is in Islamic countries.

Are we all in agreement that that is wrong? Or do you agree with the Muslims when it comes to homosexuals?

So are we? Or do you?

Or do you just want to keep blaming me for not saying Muslims treat homosexuals badly in the correct order for you

 

[emilynghiem]

It only reveals your ignorance

Actually, no. It reveals your lack of critical thinking skills.

A black man kissing a black man is the same as a black man kissing a white woman?
Homosexuality and interracial issues are the same?

I am old enough to remember when the sight of a black man kissing a white woman was considered to be shocking- as shocking as when I used to be shocked by the sight of a man kissing a man.

What was shocking then is not shocking anymore- and why should it be? Why should I be shocked at the sight of a black woman kissing a white man- or a woman kissing a woman? The shock was because both sights were the opposite of what I was raised to expect- and now I am more mature- and not shocked.

The degree to which you are personally shocked at the site of either does not address the difference between the two. I am not shocked by PDA between same sex partners or by interracial couples. I do not condemn or look with disdain on same sex unions.

HOWEVER, to say they are the same as interracial couples requires the redefining of "marriage", something that should not be required in order to grant same sex unions ALL OF THE BENEFITS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO MARRIED COUPLES...which is what they claim they want.

I am not saying that they are the same- I am saying that rational for either being against the law is the same.

In the states that outlawed mixed race marraiges, the definition of marriage excluded opposite race couples- that changed.

What I have seen homosexual couples claim that they want is to be treated legally the same way my wife and I are treated.

And I think they should be. Just like I think a mixed race couple should be treated just thee same as my wife and I are legally treated.

Syriusly major issue: race and orientation are not on the same levels
race is physical and determined at birth and cannot be changed

orientation is spiritually determined and can change

There are three different views on this
A. people who believe it is natural and not a choice that can be changed
B. people who believe it is unnatural and a choice that should be changed
C. people like me who have seen both going on, and find it cannot be proven which people are which, unless and
until they have gone through healing and come to terms with their identity, with no issues attached either way
(I tend to believe the people who are fully healed, and tend to hold off judgment on people who deny any such healing exists.)

Since there are at least two different cases, and NEITHER is proven,
then it is a FAITH BASED to impose one view or the other onto people of different views.

It would have to be PROVEN first in order NOT to be faith based.

So my proposal is that
* if people want to push it as MANDATORY to assume that ALL cases are naturally and cannot be changed,
then allow the people who disagree to make it equally MANDATORY for all such people to go through spiritual healing to PROVE they are natural and cannot be changed
* if people want to retain the FREE CHOICE whether to seek spiritual healing or not,
then allow people the FREE CHOICE whether to accept and treat such people equally or not

If one side is going to make MANDATES on the other,
why not allow the other side to issue conditions or mandates.

If the sides can't agree on a mutual policy, then keep it private.

If you are going to push it in public, then it's only fair to let the other side push in public.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Just ******* get over gay marriage already. It is going to be the law of the land soon and it isn't going to go away.

AceRothstein
gay marriage is already protected under freedom of religion and equal protection of the laws.
the issue is whether the BELIEF in "right to marriage" and BELIEF in same sex marriage
can be imposed by state law over equal BELIEFS in traditional marriage only..

State laws have nothing to do with religious beliefs.

State marriage laws should apply equally to same gender couples and my wife and I.

Simple as that.

Hi Syriusly As long as State laws are written neutrally I agree.
So change any language that invokes religious issues, and keep it secular.

Atheists INSIST on removing words such as GOD that are against their beliefs.
So why not remove words like MARRIAGE that are religiously weighted with meanings,
and just have civil unions civil contracts or some other term that doesn't offend the religious beliefs of others. Maybe adding a hyphen "civil-marriage", anything that people of a state AGREE IS ENOUGH to clarify it is not a religious endorsement.

If Atheists can sue to remove references to God, so can Christians sue to remove references to Marriage
that should be PRIVATE and not imposed by public laws UNLESS THERE IS AGREEMENT.

Nobody is stopping you from trying to make that happen. Good luck. In the mean time, gays will keep getting married.

I'm not against gays getting married, I support this 100%.
I believe there would be NO opposition if gays didn't create it by pushing too far to make political statements.
Vegans make the same mistakes, when they push so far as to create a backlash against themselves.
Christians are famous for pushing into the public arena, so the same standards should be enforced for all such agenda.

There are GAYS who agree that gay marriage should NOT be pushed in this way because it creates
unnecessary opposition, and greater threats against gay rights.

The Sexually Abnormal have the same rights as everyone else. And all of the caterwauling that they are being deprived of rights is merely noise... .

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a political organ, designed for one purpose and one purpose only and THAT is the Political Wedge.

NO ONE gives a tinker's dam' if two individuals of the same gender room together... and no one is peeking in their windows to catch them sodomizing one another. So all of the hysteria of 'rights' being usurped is NONSENSE.

What they crave is Legitimacy.

And they can't have it because the lifestyle they have chosen is ILLEGITIMATE... it flies in the face of NATURE ITSELF.

They're no more legitimate than a cult which DEMANDS THE RIGHT TO FLY! But instead of building aircraft... which comport the human condition within the laws of nature, in such a way to accommodate the age old problem of LIFT... "The GAY MOVEMENT DEMANDS THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD! They DEMAND EQUAL RIGHTS WITH BIRDS!"

"WHY SHOULD BIRDS BE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN FLAP THEIR ARMS AND FLY?"

At which point, someone takes the time to point out the specific physiology of birds and how that differs from humanity... but to no avail... the Homosexuals DEMAND THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD!

So, the Supreme Court gets sufficiently diluted with idiots, to be sufficiently deluded to 'rule' that indeed the lowly homosexual HAS A RIGHT TO FLY like a bird and that nature has in fact screwed 'em... and therein they are 'granted by the high court: THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD.

So, the next day... they're all out there in the various open fields, flapping their arms like crazy... LEGALLY .. FINALLY... at LEGITIMATE equity with the birds. Yet still flightless... and still naturally, illegitimate; still the butt of the joke, still just a common sexual deviant flapping their arms in impotent protest of nature which obtusely refuses to listen to their pointless plea... for something nature has already given them... which THEY COULD BECOME, the INSTANT THEY DECIDE TO BECOME IT, by simply comporting themselves within the laws that nature set forth to govern human behavior.

 

[emilynghiem]

Actually, I was responding to the post you made in response. Don't move the goalposts.

And your response had nothing to do with the post I was responding to. Don't move any goalposts yourself.

You are intentionally deflecting. You mentioned ISIS, therefore I responded in kind.

Yes- I did mention ISIS- because an idiot claimed that insane Muslims had control of Iraq.

And?

Hence the irony. You speak of ISIS so casually in a thread pertaining to homosexuality. Yet you remained ignorant or chose not to mention the fact they do more than prevent gay marriage, they kill them.

Again so what? Gays aren't supposed to fight for equal rights here because extremist Muslims want to kill us somewhere else? Extremists in most fundamental monotheistic religions want to kill somebody.

How anti-gay Christians evangelize hate abroad - LA Times

Seawytch if Gays were really for equal rights, where is the support for the people who change their lifestyles
and come out heterosexual? Where is the "equal support" for spiritual healing for all people to come out as they are?

Where is the equal right to believe in traditional marriage without being harassed and demonized as "homophobic"?

 

[emilynghiem]

AceRothstein
gay marriage is already protected under freedom of religion and equal protection of the laws.
the issue is whether the BELIEF in "right to marriage" and BELIEF in same sex marriage
can be imposed by state law over equal BELIEFS in traditional marriage only..

State laws have nothing to do with religious beliefs.

State marriage laws should apply equally to same gender couples and my wife and I.

Simple as that.

Hi Syriusly As long as State laws are written neutrally I agree.
So change any language that invokes religious issues, and keep it secular.

Atheists INSIST on removing words such as GOD that are against their beliefs.
So why not remove words like MARRIAGE that are religiously weighted with meanings,
and just have civil unions civil contracts or some other term that doesn't offend the religious beliefs of others. Maybe adding a hyphen "civil-marriage", anything that people of a state AGREE IS ENOUGH to clarify it is not a religious endorsement.

If Atheists can sue to remove references to God, so can Christians sue to remove references to Marriage
that should be PRIVATE and not imposed by public laws UNLESS THERE IS AGREEMENT.

Nobody is stopping you from trying to make that happen. Good luck. In the mean time, gays will keep getting married.

I'm not against gays getting married, I support this 100%.
I believe there would be NO opposition if gays didn't create it by pushing too far to make political statements.
Vegans make the same mistakes, when they push so far as to create a backlash against themselves.
Christians are famous for pushing into the public arena, so the same standards should be enforced for all such agenda.

There are GAYS who agree that gay marriage should NOT be pushed in this way because it creates
unnecessary opposition, and greater threats against gay rights.

The Sexually Abnormal have the same rights as everyone else. And all of the caterwauling that they are being deprived of rights is merely noise... .

The Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is a political organ, designed for one purpose and one purpose only and THAT is the Political Wedge.

NO ONE gives a tinker's dam' if two individuals of the same gender room together... and no one is peeking in their windows to catch them sodomizing one another. So all of the hysteria of 'rights' being usurped is NONSENSE.

What they crave is what they can never have: Legitimacy. And they can't have it because the lifestyle they've chosen is ILLEGITIMATE... it flies in the face of NATURE ITSELF.

They're no more legitimate than a cult which DEMANDS THE RIGHT TO FLY! But instead of building aircraft... which comport the human condition within the laws of nature, in such a way to accommodate the age old problem of LIFT... "The GAY MOVEMENT DEMANDS THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD! They DEMAND EQUAL RIGHTS WITH BIRDS!"

"WHY SHOULD BIRDS BE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN FLAP THEIR ARMS AND FLY?"

At which point, someone takes the time to point out the specific physiology of birds and how that differs from humanity... but to no avail... the Homosexuals DEMAND THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD!

So, the Supreme Court gets sufficiently diluted with idiots, to be sufficiently deluded to 'rule' that indeed the lowly homosexual HAS A RIGHT TO FLY like a bird and that nature has in fact screwed 'em... and therein they are 'granted by the high court: THE RIGHT TO FLY LIKE A BIRD.

So, the next day... they're all out there in the various open fields, flapping their arms like crazy... LEGALLY .. FINALLY... at LEGITIMATE equity with the birds. Yet still flightless... and still naturally, illegitimate; still the butt of the joke, still just a common sexual deviant flapping their arms in impotent protest of nature which obtusely refuses to listen to their pointless plea... for something nature has already given them... which THEY COULD BECOME, the INSTANT THEY DECIDE TO BECOME IT, by simply comporting themselves within the laws that nature set forth to govern human behavior.

Where_r_my_Keys it's more than just legitimacy
the liberals that use the govt for their church require this in order to have the free exercise of their political beliefs.
Same with "right to health care"
They do have equal right to pursue their political beliefs, but just not at the expense of others.
My suggestion is to use the Party structure to form statewide and national networks to exercise their beliefs.

Instead of trying to take away their beliefs from them, set up a way they can have this but to themselves.

See Romans 2:14 where the gentiles "become a law unto themselves." Form their own political religion
and do all the things under their laws, and this doesn't have to impose on anyone else with different beliefs.

 

[Seawytch]

And your response had nothing to do with the post I was responding to. Don't move any goalposts yourself.

You are intentionally deflecting. You mentioned ISIS, therefore I responded in kind.

Yes- I did mention ISIS- because an idiot claimed that insane Muslims had control of Iraq.

And?

Hence the irony. You speak of ISIS so casually in a thread pertaining to homosexuality. Yet you remained ignorant or chose not to mention the fact they do more than prevent gay marriage, they kill them.

Again so what? Gays aren't supposed to fight for equal rights here because extremist Muslims want to kill us somewhere else? Extremists in most fundamental monotheistic religions want to kill somebody.

How anti-gay Christians evangelize hate abroad - LA Times

Seawytch if Gays were really for equal rights, where is the support for the people who change their lifestyles
and come out heterosexual? Where is the "equal support" for spiritual healing for all people to come out as they are?

Where is the equal right to believe in traditional marriage without being harassed and demonized as "homophobic"?

What the **** are you rambling about? I don't give two shits if you like, support, tolerate, accept or despise me. ..just treat my marriage equally under the law. Nobody is trying to treat the people you just listed unequally.

Don't do homophobic and bigoted things and you won't be called homophobic or bigoted.