Christian Conservative Hate Group causes cancellation of Tea Party Rally

[Madeline]

More people would be able to marry. Not fewer. I'm not seeing the alleged harm to any heterosexual marriage.

My neighbors (hypothetical, sorta) are a gay couple who would like to marry. They are wonderful gardeners, quiet, pay their taxes, and have never disturbed anyone. Some of my other neighbors are married couples of many years.

How is allowing an expansion of the law to include my gay neighbors harmful to the ones I have who are married now? Is someone gonna suddenly stop planting petunias?

 

[Avatar4321]

If they were stalking, they'd be prosecuted for it.

You call anyone that isn't on board with your pro homo agenda a fringe, hate group. Well include me, because I'm not on board with your pro homo agenda either.

I support marriage equality, yes.

If you want to hate me for it, so be it.

I support Civil Unions, and I don't hate you for anything.

But don't you know, the only reason anyone can oppose their point of view is hate. There is no otherwise valid reason to do so. Because they are superior to us in all ways. We just have to accept that. Anyone who doesn't is simply a hater.

 

[bodecea]

I have a question for you.

What is wrong with fighting back against an agenda, designed to destroy the Christian idea of marriage?

Hate my foot. That's self defense.

Gays attacked first!

We didn't say, "hey let's change the idea of homsexuality."

They came in and said, "let's change the idea of marriage, remove that plank of morality, and then we will further degrade morals in this country so we have make more recruits!"

And we should do nothing???????????????

I don't think so.

Destroy it, by wanting to take part in it. Yeah, that makes a boatload of sense. Your entire argument here is silly, what you're implying here is that it's okay to be anti-gay, but not anti-Christian. You can hate some groups, but not others. The all mysterious and encompassing 'they' attacked 'first.' Attacked how? By wanting to be legally married to someone of the same-sex and receive all the benefits that normally apply? Attacked what? Marriage, or your Christian idea of marriage? Marriage isn't a Christian invention, while it is a tradition, so who is a Christian Church to say what the idea of marriage is actually about?

Really, with a name that includes the phrase 'tea party,' I hope you don't wonder why it often comes with allegations of being a hate group.

You know the defintion of a liberal losing an argument. One that has to call you a racist or a "hate" group.

When you start that you are telling me you are losing the argument.

As for benefits.

OH YOU HAVE TO NOT BE MARRIED? Benefits? What, that you can get family insurance?

You don't need to be married to get that? As for the so called "tax" benefit.

Trust me, a single person can live far cheaper. Hell, I've known people who divorce, but are still living together as married, simply because it's too expensive to stay married!

So, those arguments are still just BS arguments.

Anyone really married, KNOWS THAT.

So, again, that's why those arguments haven't worked. It's just an attempt to hide behind an agenda.

And the agenda is pretty obvious, when after thousands of years, you just HAVE to have marriage.

It doesn't wash.

What would you call a group that's whole purpose was to keep you and those like you from being allowed to marry legally? What would you call a group that followed you around with cameras to film you going into bathrooms? What would you call a group that wanted to make sure you didn't have equal rights by bringing up "the children" all the time and wanted to keep you from having or adopting children?

What would you call such a group?

 

[Avatar4321]

The name Pale Rider brings forth an image of a white supremacist on a motorcycle. I wonder if that was intentional?

The deflection above attempts to change the subject while personally attacking the person who has stated objections to your point of view in an effort to marginalize them without actually discussiong any of their point or defending your position. I wonder if that was intentional.

 

[teapartysamurai]

What's anti-gay about not wanting sexuality promoted to children?

I get so tired of being labeled as a hater for not approving of open promotion of homosexuality.

I don't think sex should be taught to children period, beyond the basic stuff.

I think the parents should be in charge of that, but hey, that's a radical idea these days isn't it?

It is a lie and an evil one that any GLBT adult seeks to "recruit" children. Homosexuality is no more about sex with kids than heterosexuality is. Pedophilia is a twisted sister all its own.

Then explain NAMBLA, why when Britian lowered the age of consent, it was gays who celebrated, and why gays in this country are alwaying trying to break into GROUPS THAT DEAL WITH CHILDREN.

All you have to say is the CATHOLIC CHURCH SCANDAL.

That happened because the Catholic Church allowed GAY PRIESTS. And those gay priests didn't attack adult men. No, they attacked CHILDREN!!!! BOYS to be specific.

Why was it so damn important they get into the Boys Scouts?

You know liberals can spew their rhetoric all they want, but they can't hide THE OBVIOUS!

It's RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR EYES!

And that's why gay marriage keeps failing at the ballot box.

 

[Oscar Wao]

What? The US constitution has gay marriage in it? Show me where?

Not even close.

Nice try!

Try the 14th Amendment, First Amendment's freedom of association, Article IV's privileges and immunities, just to start.

But they' are actually wrong...the Constitution doesn't "give" rights...it just protects the government from infringing on you.

the Constitution doesn't "give" rights...it just protects the citizens from the government infringing on your rights.

Is that more what you were trying to say?

I never thought of the Constitution protecting the government from the citizens.

Immie

Yes, Imm. But it also protects the government from "stepping" (infringing)on your person, property, etc. (4th Amendment).

 

[bodecea]

I don't think sex should be taught to children period, beyond the basic stuff.

I think the parents should be in charge of that, but hey, that's a radical idea these days isn't it?

It is a lie and an evil one that any GLBT adult seeks to "recruit" children. Homosexuality is no more about sex with kids than heterosexuality is. Pedophilia is a twisted sister all its own.

Then explain NAMBLA, why when Britian lowered the age of consent, it was gays who celebrated, and why gays in this country are alwaying trying to break into GROUPS THAT DEAL WITH CHILDREN.

All you have to say is the CATHOLIC CHURCH SCANDAL.

That happened because the Catholic Church allowed GAY PRIESTS. And those gay priests didn't attack adult men. No, they attacked CHILDREN!!!! BOYS to be specific.

Why was it so damn important they get into the Boys Scouts?

You know liberals can spew their rhetoric all they want, but they can't hide THE OBVIOUS!

It's RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR EYES!

And that's why gay marriage keeps failing at the ballot box.

Here it comes....NAMBLA.

How come MOST sexual assaults in this world are committed by HETEROSEXUAL MALES and you don't give a rat's ass about that. You don't care that 1 in 4 girls are sexually abused before they hit 18....no, you don't.

 

[Oscar Wao]

The problem with the Catholic Church's pedophilia problem is the celibacy requirement. If they drop that, since it is Scripturally wrong to forbid marriage, you'd see fewer sex abuse cases.

 

[Madeline]

There wouldn't be a gay rights movement if gays hadn't been harassed. Check out why Stonewall happened.

Course not. Cause there is no way anyone could peaceably live together without forcing others to recognize their relationship as acceptable before the eyes of the law.

I know you said this a bit flippantly, Avatar, but it is closer to the truth than you know. Most all of my GLBT friends are only out to trusted friends and families for fear of losing their jobs. Most of the men have been severely beaten at least once, and none has ever had any justice. No matter how talented the lawyers are, none of my friends in committed relationships has the same rights or securities regarding their partner as a married person has. A few are very loving towards children, but never had any, fostered any or tried to adopt any because of the expected backlash. All of them have had a lifetime of hearing stupid, ignorant, hateful things said about them to them, and not felt free to speak up. One was the victim of an attempted blackmailer in an especially vicious scheme.

As it happens, all the people I love who are GLBT are christians. And (although I hope it goes without saying) these are fine people, law abiding contributors with a great deal to offer.

I am just not able to understand why any straight person's sense of security or self-respect is reliant on their continued unjust suffering.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Destroy it, by wanting to take part in it. Yeah, that makes a boatload of sense. Your entire argument here is silly, what you're implying here is that it's okay to be anti-gay, but not anti-Christian. You can hate some groups, but not others. The all mysterious and encompassing 'they' attacked 'first.' Attacked how? By wanting to be legally married to someone of the same-sex and receive all the benefits that normally apply? Attacked what? Marriage, or your Christian idea of marriage? Marriage isn't a Christian invention, while it is a tradition, so who is a Christian Church to say what the idea of marriage is actually about?

Really, with a name that includes the phrase 'tea party,' I hope you don't wonder why it often comes with allegations of being a hate group.

You know the defintion of a liberal losing an argument. One that has to call you a racist or a "hate" group.

When you start that you are telling me you are losing the argument.

As for benefits.

OH YOU HAVE TO NOT BE MARRIED? Benefits? What, that you can get family insurance?

You don't need to be married to get that? As for the so called "tax" benefit.

Trust me, a single person can live far cheaper. Hell, I've known people who divorce, but are still living together as married, simply because it's too expensive to stay married!

So, those arguments are still just BS arguments.

Anyone really married, KNOWS THAT.

So, again, that's why those arguments haven't worked. It's just an attempt to hide behind an agenda.

And the agenda is pretty obvious, when after thousands of years, you just HAVE to have marriage.

It doesn't wash.

What would you call a group that's whole purpose was to keep you and those like you from being allowed to marry legally? What would you call a group that followed you around with cameras to film you going into bathrooms? What would you call a group that wanted to make sure you didn't have equal rights by bringing up "the children" all the time and wanted to keep you from having or adopting children?

What would you call such a group?

Just because you don't agree with them, doesn't mean hate.

And I can't get married.

I already am. I decide I want to marry someone else I can't.

And I probably couldn't adopt children, if I wanted to, because I'm already to financial capacity with the kids I have, and because of my age.

Those aren't rights.

You talk to my sister in law and the hoops she had to go through to adopt a baby.

It isn't a right.

MARRIAGE ISN'T A RIGHT!!!!!! HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

At no time in the Constitution does it give you a right to marry.

Anything you have to get a LICENSE to do, isn't a right!!!! Helloooooooooo!

 

[bodecea]

The problem with the Catholic Church's pedophilia problem is the celibacy requirement. If they drop that, since it is Scripturally wrong, you'd see fewer sex abuse cases.

A further sad thing is that many of the priests are abusing girls too...but all we hear about is the boys....as if MALE sexual abuse of girls is just part of life, oh well.

 

[Oscar Wao]

And that's the problem...you have to have a license to marry.

 

[Immanuel]

Try the 14th Amendment, First Amendment's freedom of association, Article IV's privileges and immunities, just to start.

But they' are actually wrong...the Constitution doesn't "give" rights...it just protects the government from infringing on you.

the Constitution doesn't "give" rights...it just protects the citizens from the government infringing on your rights.

Is that more what you were trying to say?

I never thought of the Constitution protecting the government from the citizens.

Immie

Yes, Imm. But it also protects the government from "stepping" (infringing)on your person, property, etc. (4th Amendment).

I see that as protection of me, not the government. I'm sure the government would love to have the right to infringe on our rights anytime it so desired.

Immie

 

[Avatar4321]

You don't have to agree with it. Just suck it up and accept that it exists. You can speak out against it all you want, you're free to speak, but it exists...so you have to accept it at least a little bit.

It is accepted alittle bit. It's tolerated. They aren't excuted. They aren't imprisoned. In fact, most people don't care what they do.

The problem is when they start trying to force society to change our laws for their gratification against the will of the people. When you try to redefine words for your own personal gratification and pride.

That's the problem.

 

[Oscar Wao]

The will of the people shouldn't decide all things.

Should possessing a gun be decided by the will of the people?

 

[Avatar4321]

The will of the people shouldn't decide all things.

Should possessing a gun be decided by the will of the people?

Are you suggesting that the will of the people should have absolutely no say in the laws that govern their society nor what behavior they decide is acceptable or unacceptable?

 

[Wicked Jester]

The problem with the Catholic Church's pedophilia problem is the celibacy requirement. If they drop that, since it is Scripturally wrong, you'd see fewer sex abuse cases.

A further sad thing is that many of the priests are abusing girls too...but all we hear about is the boys....as if MALE sexual abuse of girls is just part of life, oh well.

"but all we hear about is the boys"

Uh, yeah right!

That's why a priest was sentenced here in so-cal yesterday for abusing GIRLS.

Do you ever deal in facts, or just wing it all the time?

LMAO!

 

[Oscar Wao]

Behavior that is "acceptable or unacceptable" should not be decided by the will of the people, unless it infringes in the life, liberty, property, or person of another. "Acceptable" can be relative at times. Who says what is "acceptable"?

For example, I'm glad that marijuana could be potentially legalized in California, but I think it should be decided via legislative matters, not on the ballot box.

 

[Avatar4321]

After 19 pages of discussion, can we safely conclude that this group is not a Christian group? The OP made the claim but no one has backed up, even the OP.

Because with that established, I don't care much about the thread anymore.

 

[Oscar Wao]

The problem with the Catholic Church's pedophilia problem is the celibacy requirement. If they drop that, since it is Scripturally wrong, you'd see fewer sex abuse cases.

A further sad thing is that many of the priests are abusing girls too...but all we hear about is the boys....as if MALE sexual abuse of girls is just part of life, oh well.

"but all we hear about is the boys"

Uh, yeah right!

That's why a priest was sentenced here in so-cal yesterday for abusing GIRLS.

Do you ever deal in facts, or just wing it all the time?

LMAO!

I think she means in corporate news.

You may hear about it on your local station or in your newspaper, but you wouldn't see CNN, MSNBC, FOX, Headline, or the like, report on priest/girl pedos very much.