Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
In your opinion equal rights is the same thing as tolerance?
I don't care if you tolerate me or not. I do care if I am not treated as an equal by the government.
There is a huge difference.
Demanding that someone accept you as you are is a demand for tolerance.
You are in fact demanding that others tolerate you. That is exactly what the women's movement was about. It is exactly what the gay rights movement is about.
Forced tolerance. That is the name of the game, my friend.
Immie
You don't get it. Marriage equality is not an issue of tolerance. It's an issue of civil rights.
We want equal treatment under the law, which includes the right to marry in city hall or the local courthouse, and the right to serve openly in the military, as heterosexuals do.
Tolerance would be about marrying in churches or not. Tolerance would be about straight and gay soldiers getting along with each other or not.
The women's movement was about reproductive rights and equal pay for equal work, the right to vote, etc. That has nothing to do with tolerance.
No one will force you to approve of gay marriage, or make it so your church must marry gay couples, Immie. It's about allowing gay couples who are family to each other to have the same federal and state rights that you and your wife enjoy.
The right wing spins that you will lose something as a Christian if gays are allowed to civilly marry and serve openly in the military. You don't lose anything.
Demanding that someone accept you as you are is a demand for tolerance.
You are in fact demanding that others tolerate you. That is exactly what the women's movement was about. It is exactly what the gay rights movement is about.
Forced tolerance. That is the name of the game, my friend.
Immie
You don't get it. Marriage equality is not an issue of tolerance. It's an issue of civil rights.
We want equal treatment under the law, which includes the right to marry in city hall or the local courthouse, and the right to serve openly in the military, as heterosexuals do.
Tolerance would be about marrying in churches or not. Tolerance would be about straight and gay soldiers getting along with each other or not.
The women's movement was about reproductive rights and equal pay for equal work, the right to vote, etc. That has nothing to do with tolerance.
No one will force you to approve of gay marriage, or make it so your church must marry gay couples, Immie. It's about allowing gay couples who are family to each other to have the same federal and state rights that you and your wife enjoy.
The right wing spins that you will lose something as a Christian if gays are allowed to civilly marry and serve openly in the military. You don't lose anything.
Did I limit my statement to Marriage Equality?
No, I said "the gay rights movement". The hot topic in the gay rights movement may be "marriage equality" at this point in time, but that has not been the only focus of the gay rights movement. For the most part, it has been the demand for acceptance which can be simplified to one word... tolerance.
The woman's movement has always been about the demand for acceptance which can be simplified to one word... tolerance.
Liberals are well known for playing the victim card. That is your favorite card. When they play that card they are saying, "whoa is me, everyone is picking on me. No one loves me for who I am." Yet, what is the first thing out of their mouth when the discussion turns to conservatives? "I hate those damned intolerant bastards!" You demand that everyone accept your homosexuality, but, I can't even begin to count how many times I have read one of your posts that talks about your hatred and discrimination against people of the Christian faith.
I get it alright. It is called a double standard.
As for gay "marriage", you can't even begin to count how many times I have said that I believe that the state should get out of the marriage business altogether and provide civil union contracts to all couple, gay and straight and allow ANY couple, gay or straight, to be married in the church of their choice.
I would be opposed to the state forcing all churches to marry homosexuals, but not because I oppose the church offering marriage to homosexuals. I would oppose that because I don't think that is the place of the state.
Immie
You don't get it. Marriage equality is not an issue of tolerance. It's an issue of civil rights.
We want equal treatment under the law, which includes the right to marry in city hall or the local courthouse, and the right to serve openly in the military, as heterosexuals do.
Tolerance would be about marrying in churches or not. Tolerance would be about straight and gay soldiers getting along with each other or not.
The women's movement was about reproductive rights and equal pay for equal work, the right to vote, etc. That has nothing to do with tolerance.
No one will force you to approve of gay marriage, or make it so your church must marry gay couples, Immie. It's about allowing gay couples who are family to each other to have the same federal and state rights that you and your wife enjoy.
The right wing spins that you will lose something as a Christian if gays are allowed to civilly marry and serve openly in the military. You don't lose anything.
Did I limit my statement to Marriage Equality?
No, I said "the gay rights movement". The hot topic in the gay rights movement may be "marriage equality" at this point in time, but that has not been the only focus of the gay rights movement. For the most part, it has been the demand for acceptance which can be simplified to one word... tolerance.
The woman's movement has always been about the demand for acceptance which can be simplified to one word... tolerance.
Liberals are well known for playing the victim card. That is your favorite card. When they play that card they are saying, "whoa is me, everyone is picking on me. No one loves me for who I am." Yet, what is the first thing out of their mouth when the discussion turns to conservatives? "I hate those damned intolerant bastards!" You demand that everyone accept your homosexuality, but, I can't even begin to count how many times I have read one of your posts that talks about your hatred and discrimination against people of the Christian faith.
I get it alright. It is called a double standard.
As for gay "marriage", you can't even begin to count how many times I have said that I believe that the state should get out of the marriage business altogether and provide civil union contracts to all couple, gay and straight and allow ANY couple, gay or straight, to be married in the church of their choice.
I would be opposed to the state forcing all churches to marry homosexuals, but not because I oppose the church offering marriage to homosexuals. I would oppose that because I don't think that is the place of the state.
Immie
You don't get it at all. The state is not going to get out of the marriage business. Tax law is written including marriage and family. Gays and lesbians want the same rights and priveleges hetero married people, like you, enjoy. We could care less if you "tolerate" us or not. We want the laws, in marriage and serving our country to be equal.
There is no legislation anywhere that forces churches to marry gays and lesbians. That is a faux issue drummed up by the right wing.
No one is playing the "victim card". I've got the metaphorical baseball bat to prove it. I'm fighting for my civil rights.
Did I limit my statement to Marriage Equality?
No, I said "the gay rights movement". The hot topic in the gay rights movement may be "marriage equality" at this point in time, but that has not been the only focus of the gay rights movement. For the most part, it has been the demand for acceptance which can be simplified to one word... tolerance.
The woman's movement has always been about the demand for acceptance which can be simplified to one word... tolerance.
Liberals are well known for playing the victim card. That is your favorite card. When they play that card they are saying, "whoa is me, everyone is picking on me. No one loves me for who I am." Yet, what is the first thing out of their mouth when the discussion turns to conservatives? "I hate those damned intolerant bastards!" You demand that everyone accept your homosexuality, but, I can't even begin to count how many times I have read one of your posts that talks about your hatred and discrimination against people of the Christian faith.
I get it alright. It is called a double standard.
As for gay "marriage", you can't even begin to count how many times I have said that I believe that the state should get out of the marriage business altogether and provide civil union contracts to all couple, gay and straight and allow ANY couple, gay or straight, to be married in the church of their choice.
I would be opposed to the state forcing all churches to marry homosexuals, but not because I oppose the church offering marriage to homosexuals. I would oppose that because I don't think that is the place of the state.
Immie
You don't get it at all. The state is not going to get out of the marriage business. Tax law is written including marriage and family. Gays and lesbians want the same rights and priveleges hetero married people, like you, enjoy. We could care less if you "tolerate" us or not. We want the laws, in marriage and serving our country to be equal.
There is no legislation anywhere that forces churches to marry gays and lesbians. That is a faux issue drummed up by the right wing.
No one is playing the "victim card". I've got the metaphorical baseball bat to prove it. I'm fighting for my civil rights.
You personally play the victim card all the time.
I have no problem with the idea of Gay Marriage. I do, however, believe the government should get out of the marriage business. I don't see it happening, but that is what I believe should happen.
What I do believe is that it is wrong for the government to show favoritism to heterosexuals over homosexuals. I don't believe the government should be involved in judging people who have not committed any crimes.
Where did I say there was such legislation? I didn't now go get someone else to whine to. I'm not going to have you start changing my words again as you have started doing here.
Immie
This reflects the state of religious freedom in that country ten years after the United States first invaded it and overthrew its Islamist Taliban regime. In the intervening decade, U.S. taxpayers have spent $440 billion to support Afghanistan's new government and more than 1,700 U.S. military personnel have died serving in that country. The last public Christian church in Afghanistan was razed in March 2010, according to the Statet Department's latest International Religious Freedom Report. The report, which was released last month and covers the period of July 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010, also states that there were no Christian schools in the country.
There is no longer a public Christian church; the courts have not upheld the church's claim to its 99-year lease, and the landowner destroyed the building in March [2010], reads the State Department report on religious freedom. [Private] chapels and churches for the international community of various faiths are located on several military bases, PRTs [Provincial Reconstruction Teams], and at the Italian embassy. Some citizens who converted to Christianity as refugees have returned. In recent times, freedom of religion has declined in Afghanistan, according to the State Department. The governments level of respect for religious freedom in law and in practice declined during the reporting period, particularly for Christian groups and individuals, reads the State Department report.
Negative societal opinions and suspicion of Christian activities led to targeting of Christian groups and individuals, including Muslim converts to Christianity," said the report. "The lack of government responsiveness and protection for these groups and individuals contributed to the deterioration of religious freedom. Most Christians in the country refuse to state their beliefs or gather openly to worship, said the State Department.
More than 1,700 U.S. military personnel have died serving in the decade-old Afghanistan war, according to CNSNews.coms database of all U.S. casualties in Afghanistan. A September audit released jointly by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction and the State Departments Office of Inspector General, found that the U.S. government will spend at least $1.7 billion to support the civilian effort from 2009-2011.
MORE
That is despite the fact that Jews have lived in Afghanistan for nearly three millenia, and had a local population that was 40,000 strong as of the mid-1800s, according to the Jewish Virtual Library, a division of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise. By 1996, when the Islamist Taliban regime came to power, there were only 10 Jews still living in Afghanistan. By 2005, four years after the U.S. invaded the country and overthrew the Taliban, there were only two Jews still living in Afghanistan, according to the Jewish Virtual Library. Now, the latest State Department Report on International Religious Freedom says: There is one known Jewish Afghan left in the country, only one known Jewish resident.
Afghanistan is 402,356 square miles in size and estmates of its population range from 24 to 33 million. Reliable data on religious demography is not available because an official nationwide census has not been conducted in decades, says the State Department report. Observers estimated that 80 percent of the population is Sunni Muslim, 19 percent Shi'a Muslim, and other religious groups comprise less than 1 percent of the population. According to self-estimates by these communities, there are approximately 3,000 Sikhs, more than 400 Baha'is, and 100 Hindu believers, reads the report. There is a small Christian community; estimates on its size range from 500 to 8,000. In addition, there are small numbers of adherents of other religious groups.
As CNSNews.com reported earlier today, there are no public Christian churches left in Afghanistan, according to the State Department. The last Christian church was razed in 2010. The last Jew in Afghanistan is known by name. Also, there is only one synagogue left in that country. But the State Department report says that synagogue is no longer in use for a lack of Jewish community. According to media reports, by the end of 2004 there were only two known Afghan Jews left in Afghanistan. But one died in 2005, leaving just one survivor. According to the State Department, in the 20th century, small communities of Bahais, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, and Sikhs lived in the country, although most members of these communities emigrated during the years of civil war and Taliban rule.
By the end of Taliban rule, non-Muslim populations had been virtually eliminated except for a small population of native Hindus and Sikhs, reads the report. Since the fall of the Taliban, some members of religious minorities have returned, many settling in Kabul. Israel and the United States were the primary destinations for Jews emigrating from Afghanistan. "More than 10,000 Jews of Afghan descent now live in Israel," says the Jewish Virtual Library. "The second largest population of Afghan Jews is New York, with 200 families. The 2001 State Department report on International Religious Freedom, which covered the period of July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001, indicated that most of the Jews and Christians still living in Afghanistan during that reporting period were foreigners.
MORE
