Same bullshit, different decade: What members of the gay rights movement could learn from history

[bodecea]

If them damnable negroes had any integrity, the would have worked through the political system to get their rights!

Same bullshit, different decade.

Idiot. They did work through the system. Voting Rights Act. Civil Rights Act of 1964. Remember those?
You are a dolt and a half.

Wow....you are totally blind to what had to be done in order to get to those points, aren't you?

 

[The Rabbi]

What constitutional protections do they not have?

14th amendment

not one of you has yet posted the language from the 14th where the words "gay marriage" appear.

we'll be waiting-----------------------------------------

The part that says...."all people"

All people means marriage? You must speak a different dialect of English than the rest ofus, Nutwhacker.

I believe the law says "all persons"

Now, if they were willing to say "all persons except for homosexuals" you might have a point

It doesnt. Homosexuals have exactly the same rights as anyone else. Presently two heterosexual men cannot marry either.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wrong.
Gay marriage was a loser in actual referenda held. If gays had any integrity they would work through the political system to get gay marriage enacted instead of running to gay activist judges to do their dirty work for them.

Tough shit! Gays have every right to seek redress in the courts for laws they feel violate in their rights. Get over it or don't. It really doesn't matter b/c all of your foot stomping won't change the fact that gays are getting in 37 states and likely all 50 by the end of the month.

Likely the Supreme Court will go with the Constitution and their own finding in Windsor that states have the power under the Constitution to set criteria.
Deal with it.

The Windsor opinion affirms that states have the power to set marriage laws but those laws are still subject to certain constitutional guarantees. Cry all you wish but gays are still getting married and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

OK, fine, next siblings will be getting married, parents will marry children, cousins will marry, multiple persons will marry.

the precedent will be set. marriage will be whatever the people involved want it to be.

society is going down the tubes and you fools are celebrating. Nero fiddling while rome burns-------------------------------------------------history repeats itself.

Marriage Is Between Two Consenting Adult Humans

We are, aren't we? Aren't we human?

As such, are we not from time to time possessed of that peculiar reaction known as love?

As such, are we not free to profess our love for whomever we choose?

As such, would not that freedom of profession be considered one of our most cherished freedoms? Insofar as what's inside is concerned, it can never really be taken away.

But it can sure as hell be stomped on, can't it, if and when it is unveiled. There are a multitude of people in our "free" country, some relatively powerless and some exceedingly, disturbingly powerful, who will stomp on that love with steely-eyed gestapo pleasure, if it happens to exist between two consenting adult humans who happen to share the same genitalia.

If these stormtroopers are themselves questioned, of course, they immediately climb up on their Cross. They act incredulous, even hurt, that one would even question such wanton love-squashing. It's the word of God, they say, Leviticus and all that.

If one doubles the pressure, calling out the Leviticus references as contrary to the spirit of the word of Christ from the Gospels, of course that leads to a font of rage.

Commence that smoke-from-the-ears trick.

Watch the stormclouds gather...
gathering...
gathering...
face growing darker...
and darker...
mumbling...
grumbling ....
trailing off.....
and the storm BREAKS

What's next, men marrying boys?

What's next, cousins marrying cousins?

What's next, men marrying goats?

In the words of the short-fused Gandalf the Grey, good gracious heavens


Don't be a fool, or a bigot, if you can help it.

We call this marriage; a union of love between two consenting adult humans.

The word does not now and will never apply to a relationship between an adult human and a child.

It does not now and will never apply to a relationship between humans who are cousins, or siblings.

It does not now and will never apply to a relationship between a human and an animal.

It does not now and will never apply only to pairs of consenting adult humans with differing genitalia.
Two. Consenting. Adult. Humans.
And Love.


Nothing more, nothing less.

MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS
MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN CONSENTING PERSONS
MARRIAGE IS A PRIVATE MATTER OF CONSCIENCE

All of those are equally valid statements and supportable just as your statement is. There is no argument in the world that can both support gay marriage and oppose polygamous marriage, incestuous marriage, or underage marriage.

 

[bodecea]

14th amendment

not one of you has yet posted the language from the 14th where the words "gay marriage" appear.

we'll be waiting-----------------------------------------

The part that says...."all people"

All people means marriage? You must speak a different dialect of English than the rest ofus, Nutwhacker.

I believe the law says "all persons"

Now, if they were willing to say "all persons except for homosexuals" you might have a point

It doesnt. Homosexuals have exactly the same rights as anyone else. Presently two heterosexual men cannot marry either.

If they want to, they'll be able to come the end of this month.

 

[Bfgrn]

Tough shit! Gays have every right to seek redress in the courts for laws they feel violate in their rights. Get over it or don't. It really doesn't matter b/c all of your foot stomping won't change the fact that gays are getting in 37 states and likely all 50 by the end of the month.

Likely the Supreme Court will go with the Constitution and their own finding in Windsor that states have the power under the Constitution to set criteria.
Deal with it.

The Windsor opinion affirms that states have the power to set marriage laws but those laws are still subject to certain constitutional guarantees. Cry all you wish but gays are still getting married and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

OK, fine, next siblings will be getting married, parents will marry children, cousins will marry, multiple persons will marry.

the precedent will be set. marriage will be whatever the people involved want it to be.

society is going down the tubes and you fools are celebrating. Nero fiddling while rome burns-------------------------------------------------history repeats itself.

Marriage Is Between Two Consenting Adult Humans

We are, aren't we? Aren't we human?

As such, are we not from time to time possessed of that peculiar reaction known as love?

As such, are we not free to profess our love for whomever we choose?

As such, would not that freedom of profession be considered one of our most cherished freedoms? Insofar as what's inside is concerned, it can never really be taken away.

But it can sure as hell be stomped on, can't it, if and when it is unveiled. There are a multitude of people in our "free" country, some relatively powerless and some exceedingly, disturbingly powerful, who will stomp on that love with steely-eyed gestapo pleasure, if it happens to exist between two consenting adult humans who happen to share the same genitalia.

If these stormtroopers are themselves questioned, of course, they immediately climb up on their Cross. They act incredulous, even hurt, that one would even question such wanton love-squashing. It's the word of God, they say, Leviticus and all that.

If one doubles the pressure, calling out the Leviticus references as contrary to the spirit of the word of Christ from the Gospels, of course that leads to a font of rage.

Commence that smoke-from-the-ears trick.

Watch the stormclouds gather...
gathering...
gathering...
face growing darker...
and darker...
mumbling...
grumbling ....
trailing off.....
and the storm BREAKS

What's next, men marrying boys?

What's next, cousins marrying cousins?

What's next, men marrying goats?

In the words of the short-fused Gandalf the Grey, good gracious heavens


Don't be a fool, or a bigot, if you can help it.

We call this marriage; a union of love between two consenting adult humans.

The word does not now and will never apply to a relationship between an adult human and a child.

It does not now and will never apply to a relationship between humans who are cousins, or siblings.

It does not now and will never apply to a relationship between a human and an animal.

It does not now and will never apply only to pairs of consenting adult humans with differing genitalia.
Two. Consenting. Adult. Humans.
And Love.


Nothing more, nothing less.

MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS
MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN CONSENTING PERSONS
MARRIAGE IS A PRIVATE MATTER OF CONSCIENCE

All of those are equally valid statements and supportable just as your statement is. There is no argument in the world that can both support gay marriage and oppose polygamous marriage, incestuous marriage, or underage marriage.

ADULT:
a person who has attained the age of maturity as specified by law.

 

[The Rabbi]

Likely the Supreme Court will go with the Constitution and their own finding in Windsor that states have the power under the Constitution to set criteria.
Deal with it.

The Windsor opinion affirms that states have the power to set marriage laws but those laws are still subject to certain constitutional guarantees. Cry all you wish but gays are still getting married and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

OK, fine, next siblings will be getting married, parents will marry children, cousins will marry, multiple persons will marry.

the precedent will be set. marriage will be whatever the people involved want it to be.

society is going down the tubes and you fools are celebrating. Nero fiddling while rome burns-------------------------------------------------history repeats itself.

Marriage Is Between Two Consenting Adult Humans

We are, aren't we? Aren't we human?

As such, are we not from time to time possessed of that peculiar reaction known as love?

As such, are we not free to profess our love for whomever we choose?

As such, would not that freedom of profession be considered one of our most cherished freedoms? Insofar as what's inside is concerned, it can never really be taken away.

But it can sure as hell be stomped on, can't it, if and when it is unveiled. There are a multitude of people in our "free" country, some relatively powerless and some exceedingly, disturbingly powerful, who will stomp on that love with steely-eyed gestapo pleasure, if it happens to exist between two consenting adult humans who happen to share the same genitalia.

If these stormtroopers are themselves questioned, of course, they immediately climb up on their Cross. They act incredulous, even hurt, that one would even question such wanton love-squashing. It's the word of God, they say, Leviticus and all that.

If one doubles the pressure, calling out the Leviticus references as contrary to the spirit of the word of Christ from the Gospels, of course that leads to a font of rage.

Commence that smoke-from-the-ears trick.

Watch the stormclouds gather...
gathering...
gathering...
face growing darker...
and darker...
mumbling...
grumbling ....
trailing off.....
and the storm BREAKS

What's next, men marrying boys?

What's next, cousins marrying cousins?

What's next, men marrying goats?

In the words of the short-fused Gandalf the Grey, good gracious heavens


Don't be a fool, or a bigot, if you can help it.

We call this marriage; a union of love between two consenting adult humans.

The word does not now and will never apply to a relationship between an adult human and a child.

It does not now and will never apply to a relationship between humans who are cousins, or siblings.

It does not now and will never apply to a relationship between a human and an animal.

It does not now and will never apply only to pairs of consenting adult humans with differing genitalia.
Two. Consenting. Adult. Humans.
And Love.


Nothing more, nothing less.

MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS
MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN CONSENTING PERSONS
MARRIAGE IS A PRIVATE MATTER OF CONSCIENCE

All of those are equally valid statements and supportable just as your statement is. There is no argument in the world that can both support gay marriage and oppose polygamous marriage, incestuous marriage, or underage marriage.

ADULT:
a person who has attained the age of maturity as specified by law.

James Madison seriously courted a 15yr old girl when he was in his early 30s. Had she and her parents agreed they would have married.
Tell me again about 2 consenting adults.

 

[rightwinger]

14th amendment

not one of you has yet posted the language from the 14th where the words "gay marriage" appear.

we'll be waiting-----------------------------------------

The part that says...."all people"

All people means marriage? You must speak a different dialect of English than the rest ofus, Nutwhacker.

I believe the law says "all persons"

Now, if they were willing to say "all persons except for homosexuals" you might have a point

It doesnt. Homosexuals have exactly the same rights as anyone else. Presently two heterosexual men cannot marry either.

Too funny how you keep trying to sell that lame argument

Don't you know the courts laughed at it 50 years ago?

 

[rightwinger]

The Windsor opinion affirms that states have the power to set marriage laws but those laws are still subject to certain constitutional guarantees. Cry all you wish but gays are still getting married and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

OK, fine, next siblings will be getting married, parents will marry children, cousins will marry, multiple persons will marry.

the precedent will be set. marriage will be whatever the people involved want it to be.

society is going down the tubes and you fools are celebrating. Nero fiddling while rome burns-------------------------------------------------history repeats itself.

Marriage Is Between Two Consenting Adult Humans

We are, aren't we? Aren't we human?

As such, are we not from time to time possessed of that peculiar reaction known as love?

As such, are we not free to profess our love for whomever we choose?

As such, would not that freedom of profession be considered one of our most cherished freedoms? Insofar as what's inside is concerned, it can never really be taken away.

But it can sure as hell be stomped on, can't it, if and when it is unveiled. There are a multitude of people in our "free" country, some relatively powerless and some exceedingly, disturbingly powerful, who will stomp on that love with steely-eyed gestapo pleasure, if it happens to exist between two consenting adult humans who happen to share the same genitalia.

If these stormtroopers are themselves questioned, of course, they immediately climb up on their Cross. They act incredulous, even hurt, that one would even question such wanton love-squashing. It's the word of God, they say, Leviticus and all that.

If one doubles the pressure, calling out the Leviticus references as contrary to the spirit of the word of Christ from the Gospels, of course that leads to a font of rage.

Commence that smoke-from-the-ears trick.

Watch the stormclouds gather...
gathering...
gathering...
face growing darker...
and darker...
mumbling...
grumbling ....
trailing off.....
and the storm BREAKS

What's next, men marrying boys?

What's next, cousins marrying cousins?

What's next, men marrying goats?

In the words of the short-fused Gandalf the Grey, good gracious heavens


Don't be a fool, or a bigot, if you can help it.

We call this marriage; a union of love between two consenting adult humans.

The word does not now and will never apply to a relationship between an adult human and a child.

It does not now and will never apply to a relationship between humans who are cousins, or siblings.

It does not now and will never apply to a relationship between a human and an animal.

It does not now and will never apply only to pairs of consenting adult humans with differing genitalia.
Two. Consenting. Adult. Humans.
And Love.


Nothing more, nothing less.

MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS
MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN CONSENTING PERSONS
MARRIAGE IS A PRIVATE MATTER OF CONSCIENCE

All of those are equally valid statements and supportable just as your statement is. There is no argument in the world that can both support gay marriage and oppose polygamous marriage, incestuous marriage, or underage marriage.

ADULT:
a person who has attained the age of maturity as specified by law.

James Madison seriously courted a 15yr old girl when he was in his early 30s. Had she and her parents agreed they would have married.
Tell me again about 2 consenting adults.

ADULT:
a person who has attained the age of maturity as specified by law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tough shit! Gays have every right to seek redress in the courts for laws they feel violate in their rights. Get over it or don't. It really doesn't matter b/c all of your foot stomping won't change the fact that gays are getting in 37 states and likely all 50 by the end of the month.

Likely the Supreme Court will go with the Constitution and their own finding in Windsor that states have the power under the Constitution to set criteria.
Deal with it.

The Windsor opinion affirms that states have the power to set marriage laws but those laws are still subject to certain constitutional guarantees. Cry all you wish but gays are still getting married and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

OK, fine, next siblings will be getting married, parents will marry children, cousins will marry, multiple persons will marry.

the precedent will be set. marriage will be whatever the people involved want it to be.

society is going down the tubes and you fools are celebrating. Nero fiddling while rome burns-------------------------------------------------history repeats itself.

Marriage Is Between Two Consenting Adult Humans

We are, aren't we? Aren't we human?

As such, are we not from time to time possessed of that peculiar reaction known as love?

As such, are we not free to profess our love for whomever we choose?

As such, would not that freedom of profession be considered one of our most cherished freedoms? Insofar as what's inside is concerned, it can never really be taken away.

But it can sure as hell be stomped on, can't it, if and when it is unveiled. There are a multitude of people in our "free" country, some relatively powerless and some exceedingly, disturbingly powerful, who will stomp on that love with steely-eyed gestapo pleasure, if it happens to exist between two consenting adult humans who happen to share the same genitalia.

If these stormtroopers are themselves questioned, of course, they immediately climb up on their Cross. They act incredulous, even hurt, that one would even question such wanton love-squashing. It's the word of God, they say, Leviticus and all that.

If one doubles the pressure, calling out the Leviticus references as contrary to the spirit of the word of Christ from the Gospels, of course that leads to a font of rage.

Commence that smoke-from-the-ears trick.

Watch the stormclouds gather...
gathering...
gathering...
face growing darker...
and darker...
mumbling...
grumbling ....
trailing off.....
and the storm BREAKS

What's next, men marrying boys?

What's next, cousins marrying cousins?

What's next, men marrying goats?

In the words of the short-fused Gandalf the Grey, good gracious heavens


Don't be a fool, or a bigot, if you can help it.

We call this marriage; a union of love between two consenting adult humans.

The word does not now and will never apply to a relationship between an adult human and a child.

It does not now and will never apply to a relationship between humans who are cousins, or siblings.

It does not now and will never apply to a relationship between a human and an animal.

It does not now and will never apply only to pairs of consenting adult humans with differing genitalia.
Two. Consenting. Adult. Humans.
And Love.


Nothing more, nothing less.

MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS
MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN CONSENTING PERSONS
MARRIAGE IS A PRIVATE MATTER OF CONSCIENCE

All of those are equally valid statements and supportable just as your statement is. There is no argument in the world that can both support gay marriage and oppose polygamous marriage, incestuous marriage, or underage marriage.

We have gun rights in this country without having to allow minors to buy guns.

 

[Derideo_Te]

whites, southerners, conservative men and women, conservative blacks (men and women), Christians and Jews attests otherwise

You grasp of diversity leaves a lot to be desired.

What about those in the north, east and west of the nation? What about Hispanics, Asians and Native Americans? What about the poor? What about Independents? What about Hindu's, Muslims, Mormons, Agnostics, Atheists, Shintoists, Buddists, etc, etc?

Obviously you don't understand the concept of diversity.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Jesus didn't write the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights. We, the People are NOT a theocracy.

You are saying that Christians should put The Constitution above Jesus?? Which is the higher priority for Christians?

Let's see..

I vote for the one that is not a myth

Which one is the myth? Teachings of Jesus or We The People's Government?

Let's go with you and your belief for a second. Where did Jesus say not to bake cakes for gay people?

When Conservative Christians question how much money is being asked of them to the State, liberals remind them the need to be more giving as Jesus said. Jesus did say we need to give to the Church and to the poor. So, it is the liberals that insert the State, not Jesus. So why are you bringing up baking cakes for gay people?

What difference does it make as long as the poor are taken care of?

Which Poor are you talking about; the State's poor that get cell phones and big screen TVs after the bloated bureaucracy and union cronies have been paid out or the poor you meet directly in the street or read about around the world that are truly starving. Who should get that money first, according to Jesus?

Has no one informed the extreme right that they don't make small screen TV's anymore and that no one uses landlines either?

 

[WorldWatcher]

James Madison seriously courted a 15yr old girl when he was in his early 30s. Had she and her parents agreed they would have married.
Tell me again about 2 consenting adults.

Madison + Girl + Mother + Father <> 2



>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

Where does it not "reflect the will of the rest"? A majority support marriage equality for gays. A majority supports employment protections for gays. A majority supports Public Accommodation protections for gays.

Wrong.
Gay marriage was a loser in actual referenda held. If gays had any integrity they would work through the political system to get gay marriage enacted instead of running to gay activist judges to do their dirty work for them.

Tough shit! Gays have every right to seek redress in the courts for laws they feel violate in their rights. Get over it or don't. It really doesn't matter b/c all of your foot stomping won't change the fact that gays are getting in 37 states and likely all 50 by the end of the month.

Likely the Supreme Court will go with the Constitution and their own finding in Windsor that states have the power under the Constitution to set criteria.
Deal with it.

The Windsor opinion affirms that states have the power to set marriage laws but those laws are still subject to certain constitutional guarantees. Cry all you wish but gays are still getting married and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

OK, fine, next siblings will be getting married, parents will marry children, cousins will marry, multiple persons will marry.

the precedent will be set. marriage will be whatever the people involved want it to be.

society is going down the tubes and you fools are celebrating. Nero fiddling while rome burns-------------------------------------------------history repeats itself.

Why Senator Graham, I didn't know you were on USMB. Welcome!

 

[rightwinger]

You are saying that Christians should put The Constitution above Jesus?? Which is the higher priority for Christians?
Which one is the myth? Teachings of Jesus or We The People's Government?

Let's go with you and your belief for a second. Where did Jesus say not to bake cakes for gay people?

When Conservative Christians question how much money is being asked of them to the State, liberals remind them the need to be more giving as Jesus said. Jesus did say we need to give to the Church and to the poor. So, it is the liberals that insert the State, not Jesus. So why are you bringing up baking cakes for gay people?

What difference does it make as long as the poor are taken care of?

Which Poor are you talking about; the State's poor that get cell phones and big screen TVs after the bloated bureaucracy and union cronies have been paid out or the poor you meet directly in the street or read about around the world that are truly starving. Who should get that money first, according to Jesus?

Has no one informed the extreme right that they don't make small screen TV's anymore and that no one uses landlines either?

The poor got them newfangled microwave ovens and VCRs too

What else could they want from life?

 

[Seawytch]

14th amendment

not one of you has yet posted the language from the 14th where the words "gay marriage" appear.

we'll be waiting-----------------------------------------

The part that says...."all people"

All people means marriage? You must speak a different dialect of English than the rest ofus, Nutwhacker.

I believe the law says "all persons"

Now, if they were willing to say "all persons except for homosexuals" you might have a point

It doesnt. Homosexuals have exactly the same rights as anyone else. Presently two heterosexual men cannot marry either.

They can in a MAJORITY of states...37 out of 50, actually.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Tough shit! Gays have every right to seek redress in the courts for laws they feel violate in their rights. Get over it or don't. It really doesn't matter b/c all of your foot stomping won't change the fact that gays are getting in 37 states and likely all 50 by the end of the month.

Likely the Supreme Court will go with the Constitution and their own finding in Windsor that states have the power under the Constitution to set criteria.
Deal with it.

The Windsor opinion affirms that states have the power to set marriage laws but those laws are still subject to certain constitutional guarantees. Cry all you wish but gays are still getting married and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

OK, fine, next siblings will be getting married, parents will marry children, cousins will marry, multiple persons will marry.

the precedent will be set. marriage will be whatever the people involved want it to be.

society is going down the tubes and you fools are celebrating. Nero fiddling while rome burns-------------------------------------------------history repeats itself.

The only thing repeating itself around here is you, drama queen. People are no longer buying the fear you peddle. If the courts rule against you in a couple weeks I suspect your hysteria will become even more dramatic.

We were assured that gay marriage would not force religious institutions to violate their conscience. Now the Solicitor General admitted in open court that isnt the case.
Gay marriage will utterly ruin society.

Gay marriage has been legal in Massachussetts since 2003 and society is still doing just fine.

 

[hortysir]

I believe that being gay is a sin and that gay people are both a cause and a symptom of the downfall of our nation. They are not normal and are an abomination. You telling me that this belief is not valid is just horrible! You are not tolerant of my beliefs. But...I don't hate gay people at all. I just hate their sin. I love gay people. I have gay friends. They know that I feel this way about them. They are tolerant of my beliefs and would never ask me to sacrifice my principles. That is true tolerance!

Replace the word 'gay' or 'homosexual' with 'thief', 'drunkard', 'idol worshiper' or 'adulterer' and the remarks carry the same weight.
Sin is sin is sin is sin....
I don't want a third to continue stealing or a drunkard to keep on drinking, etc....

But we've continually allowed these sins to seep into our day to day lives.
We just rebrand them to make them more palatable.
Drunkards are now alcoholics and, as such, have an illness.
Thieves get the psychobabble title of Cleptomaniacs.
Adultery is filed under sexual addiction.

But, for whatever reason, homosexuality gets a pass in the illness category. We just have to accept it.
Any objectional remarks are immediately reversed on to the person stating them as hateful and bigoted.

And people wonder why some of us think that they are seeking special protection

 

[Seawytch]

Likely the Supreme Court will go with the Constitution and their own finding in Windsor that states have the power under the Constitution to set criteria.
Deal with it.

The Windsor opinion affirms that states have the power to set marriage laws but those laws are still subject to certain constitutional guarantees. Cry all you wish but gays are still getting married and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

OK, fine, next siblings will be getting married, parents will marry children, cousins will marry, multiple persons will marry.

the precedent will be set. marriage will be whatever the people involved want it to be.

society is going down the tubes and you fools are celebrating. Nero fiddling while rome burns-------------------------------------------------history repeats itself.

The only thing repeating itself around here is you, drama queen. People are no longer buying the fear you peddle. If the courts rule against you in a couple weeks I suspect your hysteria will become even more dramatic.

We were assured that gay marriage would not force religious institutions to violate their conscience. Now the Solicitor General admitted in open court that isnt the case.
Gay marriage will utterly ruin society.

Gay marriage has been legal in Massachussetts since 2003 and society is still doing just fine.

Gays have been civilly marrying in other counties longer than that and in churches for even longer.

The sky is not falling.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I believe that being gay is a sin and that gay people are both a cause and a symptom of the downfall of our nation. They are not normal and are an abomination. You telling me that this belief is not valid is just horrible! You are not tolerant of my beliefs. But...I don't hate gay people at all. I just hate their sin. I love gay people. I have gay friends. They know that I feel this way about them. They are tolerant of my beliefs and would never ask me to sacrifice my principles. That is true tolerance!

Replace the word 'gay' or 'homosexual' with 'thief', 'drunkard', 'idol worshiper' or 'adulterer' and the remarks carry the same weight.
Sin is sin is sin is sin....
I don't want a third to continue stealing or a drunkard to keep on drinking, etc....

But we've continually allowed these sins to seep into our day to day lives.
We just rebrand them to make them more palatable.
Drunkards are now alcoholics and, as such, have an illness.
Thieves get the psychobabble title of Cleptomaniacs.
Adultery is filed under sexual addiction.

But, for whatever reason, homosexuality gets a pass in the illness category. We just have to accept it.
Any objectional remarks are immediately reversed on to the person stating them as hateful and bigoted.

And people wonder why some of us think that they are seeking special protection

Nicely worded bullshit, my friend! Well done!

 

[Seawytch]

I believe that being gay is a sin and that gay people are both a cause and a symptom of the downfall of our nation. They are not normal and are an abomination. You telling me that this belief is not valid is just horrible! You are not tolerant of my beliefs. But...I don't hate gay people at all. I just hate their sin. I love gay people. I have gay friends. They know that I feel this way about them. They are tolerant of my beliefs and would never ask me to sacrifice my principles. That is true tolerance!

Replace the word 'gay' or 'homosexual' with 'thief', 'drunkard', 'idol worshiper' or 'adulterer' and the remarks carry the same weight.
Sin is sin is sin is sin....
I don't want a third to continue stealing or a drunkard to keep on drinking, etc....

But we've continually allowed these sins to seep into our day to day lives.
We just rebrand them to make them more palatable.
Drunkards are now alcoholics and, as such, have an illness.
Thieves get the psychobabble title of Cleptomaniacs.
Adultery is filed under sexual addiction.

But, for whatever reason, homosexuality gets a pass in the illness category. We just have to accept it.
Any objectional remarks are immediately reversed on to the person stating them as hateful and bigoted.

And people wonder why some of us think that they are seeking special protection

Because there's nothing wrong with being gay. It's not the same as being a drunkard or an adulterer.

Oh, poor dear...can't say mean things about gays or blacks or Jews anymore. Muslims...you can still be bigots to Muslims with relative immunity.