Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They are. If a gay person wants Christians to accept his lifestyle, he must strive to accept theirs. Otherwise, there will always be hatred between the two.
First, a gay person calls a Christian a bigot and a homophobe for being against their way of life. Then, they try to use the Bible to justify it. Next, they then ridicule the Christian for his beliefs and his way of life. So, how is that not contradictory?
You don't seem to understand the dynamics in play here. You're trying to warp the conversation into making gay people into "bigots" against Christianity, and that position isn't supported by reality.
When was the last time a gay person tried to make it illegal for Christians to get married?
The tu quoque argument will not work, Doc.
It's contradictory in the sense that a gay person accuses a Christian of trying to legislate morality, while all the same trying to legislate his way of life on others as well.
Once again, you state this from your perspective only, Doc. So when you state "this position isn't supported by reality" I am gathering it is the version of reality you espouse to. You have yours, I have mine.
No, you don't get to have your own reality.
I'm not aware of any suggested laws that would force anyone to get gay married.
Did I ever suggest there were laws forcing people to be gay? For Pete's sake Doc, I've been posting here close to 2 years now, do you seriously believe I would say something so stupid?
Well, you did:
...while all the same trying to legislate his way of life on others as well.
What do Gays do with all those batteries?
I dunno, you tell me.
Looks like you have only argumentum ad hominem as a position, TK.
(Don't you see how silly it is?)
He asked a sarcastic question, I gave him a sarcastic answer. Geez, take a joke man.
Or on 'homosexuals' buying 'too many' batteries.The crux of the pastors argument is that he considers homosexuality to be "yucky"
We don't legislate on yucky
And we shouldn't legislate on marriage either. Find another definition and fuck your brains out.The crux of the pastors argument is that he considers homosexuality to be "yucky"
We don't legislate on yucky
You don't seem to understand the dynamics in play here. You're trying to warp the conversation into making gay people into "bigots" against Christianity, and that position isn't supported by reality.
When was the last time a gay person tried to make it illegal for Christians to get married?
The tu quoque argument will not work, Doc.
It's contradictory in the sense that a gay person accuses a Christian of trying to legislate morality, while all the same trying to legislate his way of life on others as well.
Once again, you state this from your perspective only, Doc. So when you state "this position isn't supported by reality" I am gathering it is the version of reality you espouse to. You have yours, I have mine.
No, you don't get to have your own reality.
I'm not aware of any suggested laws that would force anyone to get gay married.
Did I ever suggest there were laws forcing people to be gay? For Pete's sake Doc, I've been posting here close to 2 years now, do you seriously believe I would say something so stupid?
Well, you did:
...while all the same trying to legislate his way of life on others as well.
While all the same trying to cherrypick my statements. There are gay rights lobbyists right now in Washington trying to influence policy, hence, trying to use legislation to force tolerance of their ways on the population. Sorry, it holds true.
It made the homos mad...
Looks like the guy in the OP is the "mad" one.
I'm referring to you and the posse of perverted clowns you carnival with
Why would my "side" be mad? We're winning this fight.
Gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states within the next 6 months. Your "side" is losing ground by the minute.
And this is exactly why there will always be hatred. Bragging about it will only being about more animosity. Good for them though, equality is equality. Though, I get lectured about hatred, but then there are people who (intentionally or not) make statements which stir the pot.
While gay marriage will be legal, the process is shaking out where those who have religious and moral objections as businessmen and women can refuse to serve homosexuals, via the Hobby Lobby decision. I see this as a stalemate.
I think you'll find that your interpretation of the Hobby Lobby decision isn't going to hold the water that you think it will.
Not to mention, refusing to read my posts in context and instead just trying to find a "gotcha" just makes you look childish.
Looks like the guy in the OP is the "mad" one.
I'm referring to you and the posse of perverted clowns you carnival with
Why would my "side" be mad? We're winning this fight.
Gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states within the next 6 months. Your "side" is losing ground by the minute.
And this is exactly why there will always be hatred. Bragging about it will only being about more animosity. Good for them though, equality is equality. Though, I get lectured about hatred, but then there are people who (intentionally or not) make statements which stir the pot.
While gay marriage will be legal, the process is shaking out where those who have religious and moral objections as businessmen and women can refuse to serve homosexuals, via the Hobby Lobby decision. I see this as a stalemate.
I think you'll find that your interpretation of the Hobby Lobby decision isn't going to hold the water that you think it will.
Not to mention, refusing to read my posts in context and instead just trying to find a "gotcha" just makes you look childish.
Like I said in our previous discussion, I have read the decision more times than I care to. That decision has wide ranging implications on Federal law regarding discrimination and religious conviction. People can now freely exempt themselves from laws they deem violate their religious convictions. Solid case.
However, isn't it ironic that when I'm seriously trying to address your posts, you accuse me of not reading your posts "in context"? So do you want me to read them in your context? That's not how it works, sir.
The tu quoque argument will not work, Doc.
It's contradictory in the sense that a gay person accuses a Christian of trying to legislate morality, while all the same trying to legislate his way of life on others as well.
Once again, you state this from your perspective only, Doc. So when you state "this position isn't supported by reality" I am gathering it is the version of reality you espouse to. You have yours, I have mine.
No, you don't get to have your own reality.
I'm not aware of any suggested laws that would force anyone to get gay married.
Did I ever suggest there were laws forcing people to be gay? For Pete's sake Doc, I've been posting here close to 2 years now, do you seriously believe I would say something so stupid?
Well, you did:
...while all the same trying to legislate his way of life on others as well.
While all the same trying to cherrypick my statements. There are gay rights lobbyists right now in Washington trying to influence policy, hence, trying to use legislation to force tolerance of their ways on the population. Sorry, it holds true.
No, it doesn't.
Making discrimination illegal is not "legislating a gay way of life on others". It's just not.
No, you don't get to have your own reality.
I'm not aware of any suggested laws that would force anyone to get gay married.
Did I ever suggest there were laws forcing people to be gay? For Pete's sake Doc, I've been posting here close to 2 years now, do you seriously believe I would say something so stupid?
Well, you did:
...while all the same trying to legislate his way of life on others as well.
While all the same trying to cherrypick my statements. There are gay rights lobbyists right now in Washington trying to influence policy, hence, trying to use legislation to force tolerance of their ways on the population. Sorry, it holds true.
No, it doesn't.
Making discrimination illegal is not "legislating a gay way of life on others". It's just not.
What are you talking about? I'm referring to those who want to go beyond that, by wanting stop any speech against homosexuality, forcing tolerance on people whether they want to or not. Discrimination is wrong don't misunderstand me, but so is subversion. People can use the law to influence opinion, or even downright suppress it.
Now I will start off by saying that his views don't necessarily reflect mine, so save the "you're a bigot" or "you're a homophobe", "or where in the Bible does it say this, that or the other thing" posts. But you must admire the gall and the guts of a Birmingham Pastor named Cedric Hatcher for absolutely taking a taking a Town Hall meeting by storm, throwing political correctness to the wind to voice his mind on the topic of homosexuality.
I tell you what, hoss, Duracell didn't have no batteries on the shelf that morning.
"I know Alabama pay [sic] a lotta money yesterday. I know somebody else who paid a lotta money too: Duracell ain't got no batteries on the shelf this morning. All 'them batteries gone. I tried to find a battery for my radio this morning, couldn't find there [sic] nowhere. I said, "what happened?" They said, "Rev, them done bought all the batteries last night, they celebrated some kind of way, just bought all the batteries." I don't know what they do to batteries, but I mo preach.. I ain't going there. I don't know what they did with all them batteries."
-2:19 through 2:45
Let me be the first to thank you...that was a muthafuggan hoot!
It made the homos mad...
Looks like the guy in the OP is the "mad" one.
I'm referring to you and the posse of perverted clowns you carnival with
I'm referring to you and the posse of perverted clowns you carnival with
Why would my "side" be mad? We're winning this fight.
Gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states within the next 6 months. Your "side" is losing ground by the minute.
And this is exactly why there will always be hatred. Bragging about it will only being about more animosity. Good for them though, equality is equality. Though, I get lectured about hatred, but then there are people who (intentionally or not) make statements which stir the pot.
While gay marriage will be legal, the process is shaking out where those who have religious and moral objections as businessmen and women can refuse to serve homosexuals, via the Hobby Lobby decision. I see this as a stalemate.
I think you'll find that your interpretation of the Hobby Lobby decision isn't going to hold the water that you think it will.
Not to mention, refusing to read my posts in context and instead just trying to find a "gotcha" just makes you look childish.
Like I said in our previous discussion, I have read the decision more times than I care to. That decision has wide ranging implications on Federal law regarding discrimination and religious conviction. People can now freely exempt themselves from laws they deem violate their religious convictions. Solid case.
However, isn't it ironic that when I'm seriously trying to address your posts, you accuse me of not reading your posts "in context"? So do you want me to read them in your context? That's not how it works, sir.
Accusing me of nonsensical logical fallacies, cutting my posts up looking for a "gotcha", etc are not "seriously trying to address my posts".
And as I've said in other threads, the Hobby Lobby is nowhere near as broad a decision as you seem to think. It wouldn't make murder legal if someone claimed it was part of their religion, for example.
Did I ever suggest there were laws forcing people to be gay? For Pete's sake Doc, I've been posting here close to 2 years now, do you seriously believe I would say something so stupid?
Well, you did:
...while all the same trying to legislate his way of life on others as well.
While all the same trying to cherrypick my statements. There are gay rights lobbyists right now in Washington trying to influence policy, hence, trying to use legislation to force tolerance of their ways on the population. Sorry, it holds true.
No, it doesn't.
Making discrimination illegal is not "legislating a gay way of life on others". It's just not.
What are you talking about? I'm referring to those who want to go beyond that, by wanting stop any speech against homosexuality, forcing tolerance on people whether they want to or not. Discrimination is wrong don't misunderstand me, but so is subversion. People can use the law to influence opinion, or even downright suppress it.
What laws have been suggested making speech against homosexuals illegal?
What does "forcing tolerance" even mean?
Criticizing you for speaking against homosexuality IS NOT THE SAME as stopping you from doing so. Free speech doesn't protect one from the criticisms of such free speech. I wish those like you would grow up enough to recognize that.No, you don't get to have your own reality.
I'm not aware of any suggested laws that would force anyone to get gay married.
Did I ever suggest there were laws forcing people to be gay? For Pete's sake Doc, I've been posting here close to 2 years now, do you seriously believe I would say something so stupid?
Well, you did:
...while all the same trying to legislate his way of life on others as well.
While all the same trying to cherrypick my statements. There are gay rights lobbyists right now in Washington trying to influence policy, hence, trying to use legislation to force tolerance of their ways on the population. Sorry, it holds true.
No, it doesn't.
Making discrimination illegal is not "legislating a gay way of life on others". It's just not.
What are you talking about? I'm referring to those who want to go beyond that, by wanting stop any speech against homosexuality, forcing tolerance on people whether they want to or not. Discrimination is wrong don't misunderstand me, but so is subversion. People can use the law to influence opinion, or even downright suppress it.
Why would my "side" be mad? We're winning this fight.
Gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states within the next 6 months. Your "side" is losing ground by the minute.
And this is exactly why there will always be hatred. Bragging about it will only being about more animosity. Good for them though, equality is equality. Though, I get lectured about hatred, but then there are people who (intentionally or not) make statements which stir the pot.
While gay marriage will be legal, the process is shaking out where those who have religious and moral objections as businessmen and women can refuse to serve homosexuals, via the Hobby Lobby decision. I see this as a stalemate.
I think you'll find that your interpretation of the Hobby Lobby decision isn't going to hold the water that you think it will.
Not to mention, refusing to read my posts in context and instead just trying to find a "gotcha" just makes you look childish.
Like I said in our previous discussion, I have read the decision more times than I care to. That decision has wide ranging implications on Federal law regarding discrimination and religious conviction. People can now freely exempt themselves from laws they deem violate their religious convictions. Solid case.
However, isn't it ironic that when I'm seriously trying to address your posts, you accuse me of not reading your posts "in context"? So do you want me to read them in your context? That's not how it works, sir.
Accusing me of nonsensical logical fallacies, cutting my posts up looking for a "gotcha", etc are not "seriously trying to address my posts".
And as I've said in other threads, the Hobby Lobby is nowhere near as broad a decision as you seem to think. It wouldn't make murder legal if someone claimed it was part of their religion, for example.
I'm not looking for anything except a good debate. As far as Hobby Lobby goes, I'm not talking out of my backside here. The scope is very wide:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/u...have-reach-far-beyond-womens-rights.html?_r=0
Religion run amok Hobby Lobby apos s case comes to the Supreme Court - LA Times
And that last sentence is reductio ad absurdum. You resort to extremes to pose an argument. Also, notice how I quoted your post in it's entirety. I multiquote for a reason, because trying to address an essay is a bit hard to do. They have multiple points I want to address, so I quote them point by point. I have no intention of blowing anything out of context.
Well, you did:
...while all the same trying to legislate his way of life on others as well.
While all the same trying to cherrypick my statements. There are gay rights lobbyists right now in Washington trying to influence policy, hence, trying to use legislation to force tolerance of their ways on the population. Sorry, it holds true.
No, it doesn't.
Making discrimination illegal is not "legislating a gay way of life on others". It's just not.
What are you talking about? I'm referring to those who want to go beyond that, by wanting stop any speech against homosexuality, forcing tolerance on people whether they want to or not. Discrimination is wrong don't misunderstand me, but so is subversion. People can use the law to influence opinion, or even downright suppress it.
What laws have been suggested making speech against homosexuals illegal?
What does "forcing tolerance" even mean?
Ever hear of militant activism?
"Accept us or be destroyed."
You want the truth? I think bigots (homophobes, racists, misogynists, anti-semites, etc) against those different than themselves have a mental disease and instead of coddling them they need therapy. With that said I don't care what they do just leave me alone and stay far far away from our children and our secular laws.So you saying the civil rights and the protection of civil rights to be applied and defended ONLY based on race. TheDoctor is right, you have no critical thinking skills.Are civil rights ONLY to be based on race? How about answering the question.[/QUOHomos are not a race, stop the comparisonsAre civil rights ONLY to be based on race?
I'm not answering any question that in any way shape or form tries to compare homosexuals and the black race. There is zero connection
You're using a clown as an avatar and you expect me to take you serious? You want the truth? I think homos have a mental disease and instead of coddling them they need therapy. With that said I don't care what they do just leave me alone and stay far far away from our children.
Gladly.They are leaving you alone, without a doubt.So you saying the civil rights and the protection of civil rights to be applied and defended ONLY based on race. TheDoctor is right, you have no critical thinking skills.Are civil rights ONLY to be based on race? How about answering the question.[/QUOHomos are not a race, stop the comparisons
I'm not answering any question that in any way shape or form tries to compare homosexuals and the black race. There is zero connection
You're using a clown as an avatar and you expect me to take you serious? You want the truth? I think homos have a mental disease and instead of coddling them they need therapy. With that said I don't care what they do just leave me alone and stay far far away from our children.
No, it is not true – it's delusional idiocy, the consequence of your ignorance and unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans.You don't seem to understand the dynamics in play here. You're trying to warp the conversation into making gay people into "bigots" against Christianity, and that position isn't supported by reality.
When was the last time a gay person tried to make it illegal for Christians to get married?
The tu quoque argument will not work, Doc.
It's contradictory in the sense that a gay person accuses a Christian of trying to legislate morality, while all the same trying to legislate his way of life on others as well.
Once again, you state this from your perspective only, Doc. So when you state "this position isn't supported by reality" I am gathering it is the version of reality you espouse to. You have yours, I have mine.
No, you don't get to have your own reality.
I'm not aware of any suggested laws that would force anyone to get gay married.
Did I ever suggest there were laws forcing people to be gay? For Pete's sake Doc, I've been posting here close to 2 years now, do you seriously believe I would say something so stupid?
Well, you did:
...while all the same trying to legislate his way of life on others as well.
While all the same trying to cherrypick my statements. There are gay rights lobbyists right now in Washington trying to influence policy, hence, trying to use legislation to force tolerance of their ways on the population. Sorry, it holds true.
And when did you suddenly have this ephiphany about marriage shouldn't be legislated?And we shouldn't legislate on marriage either. Find another definition and fuck your brains out.The crux of the pastors argument is that he considers homosexuality to be "yucky"
We don't legislate on yucky
What did he say that was racist? He is sick of the gay agenda, I dont blame him one bit. For your information I am not a Christian.Anyone disagreeing with this man is a bigoted racist.
