It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Skylar]

"It" can't be. The Supreme Legislature has voted and the 5 members of that illicit legislature overturned the Duly, Democratically Debated, Voted and Passed the bills voted on by the vast majority of the elected legislators, who were elected by the vast majority of the people, and which were signed into Law by the Chief Executives of the VAST MAJORITY of the States... and that vote decided that there is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to be MARRIED, by ANYTHING that consents to be married.

The States don't have the authority to 'vote away' rights. With State marriage laws subject to constitutional guarantees. Take a look at the 14th amendment. Specifically the due process clause and the equal protection clause.

Now they claimed that the 14th Amendment demands such... and it demands such despite the substantial public interests in maintaining the natural standard, wherein Nature provides two distinct, but complementing genders; each respectively and specifically designed to JOIN WITH the other... the designed consequence of which being conception, which requires the nurturing of the female and the training by the male.

"Nature" doesn't define marriage. We do. Outside human societies, there is no marriage. It exists no where save where we invent and define it. And it is what we say it is.

You keep insisting that your relativistic cultural preferences are objective reality. And I'm sorry my little relativist....but that's not how it works. Subjective is not objective. And your opinions

SO ... it is irrational beyond all other consideration for the sexual deviants that crave sexual gratification through interaction with those of their own gender, to deal out the sexual deviants that crave sexual gratification from those of their own family, or those who crave gratification from sexual interaction with other species, or corpses, etc, etc; which is to say to deny these freaks, their government provided, phony baloney, plastic banana 'right to marry'.

Save that homosexuality isn't incest. Or pedophilia. Or bestiality. Its merely unproductive, reproductively.

As is...masturbation. Head. Or old people fucking. Making gays no more or less 'deviant' than Nana and Pop-Pop knocking boots. Or you rubbing one out to the newest issue of Guns and Ammo.

 

[Skylar]

The actual Obergefell decision? Or the imaginary bullshit you've made up and *call* the Obergefell decision.

OH! So there's nothing then, that precludes law that forbids behavior that runs counter to the interests of the culture at large?

Who says that gay marriage runs counter to the interest of culture at large?

Let me guess.....you do. Citing yourself?

 

[TemplarKormac]

So you deny that Christians are trying to get CAIR's tax exempt status revoked....because of something they said? Because I can show you it happening.

Yes I am, because the law demands it, not us Christians. See the failure of your logic here? We Christians didn't make that specific law. You can't do something that indicates political biases as a 501 (c)(3) tax exempt organization.

The government has already made clear the consequences.

How about Christians working to prevent Muslims from building mosques?

If you're referring to the Ground Zero mosque I agree. That would be a ginormous insult to all those who died on 9/11. Is it a demand for something more than equality? No, its a demand for reverence.

Islam has the onus of being a religion on whose name terrorists have committed acts of barbarity and murder. Until Islam dispels that and actively condemns those acts of terrorism, it will draw that kind of hostility. Ironically, we're discussing this subject on the very day that sailors lost their lives on the USS Cole, all due to radical Islamic terrorism 15 years ago.

The error you and Syrius are making here is that some Christians speak for all Christians. I for one am for religious freedom, not only for my faith, but for all others. I don't condone that behavior. But there it is.

Christians' trying to get Muslims deported from the US? 'Christians' calling for all copies of the Koran to be burned.

Like I said, a small minority. Do you see me, an ardent Christian, calling for the sacred texts of other religions to be burned, or an entire religion to be deported from America?

That directly defies the foundations on which America was created.

 

[Montrovant]

I have answered that at least 4 times now. Not that it is up to any of us, but I've given my opinion on what the courts might cite as a compelling state interest, others have done the same.

But all you managed to come up with are the same kind of moral reasons that were just rejected in Ogeberfell. The court literally ruled that "concerns" about what it "might lead to" are irrelevant in light of civil rights of the individual. They do not constitute a compelling enough state interest.

Now, you are answering with what the law has said and what I agree the law should say. But that argument has been fundamentally changed by the Ogeberfell ruling now. The law can be challenged and it certainly will be. Those seeking to change the law will certainly cite Ogeberfell.

Opposition to Obergefell had nothing to do with consent that I have read. Can you show anywhere it was argued that homosexuals cannot consent?
Opposition to Obergefell had nothing to do with the dangers of abuse of a familial relationship that I have read. Can you show where it was argued that in homosexual couples one party often has too much power and influence over another?
Opposition to Obergefell had nothing to do with the inability to create a new family unit that I have read. Can you show where it was argued that homosexuals are already part of a family unit and therefore would not create a new one if married?
Opposition to Obergefell had nothing to do with the inability of one or more parties to enter into a contract. Can you show where it was argued that homosexuals cannot enter into a contractual relationship?

You say the court 'literally' ruled that "concerns" about what it "might lead to" are irrelevant in light of civil rights of the individual. I think you may be misusing the word literally here, or is there a part of the ruling in which that is stated?

Obergefell may be used as a precedent in future marriage cases. So might Loving, so might various other court decisions. However, in every possible marriage relationship you have brought up, there are issues and concerns which are different from same sex marriage. I don't know why you simply dismiss them, except that they don't conform to your narrative.

 

[Montrovant]

So you deny that Christians are trying to get CAIR's tax exempt status revoked....because of something they said? Because I can show you it happening.

Yes I am, because the law demands it, not us Christians. See the failure of your logic here? We Christians didn't make that specific law. You can't do something that indicates political biases as a 501 (c)(3) tax exempt organization.

The government has already made clear the consequences.

How about Christians working to prevent Muslims from building mosques?

If you're referring to the Ground Zero mosque I agree. That would be a ginormous insult to all those who died on 9/11. Is it a demand for something more than equality? No, its a demand for reverence.

Islam has onus of being a religion on who's name terrorists have committed acts of barbarity and murder. Until Islam dispels that and actively condemns those acts of terrorism, it will draw that kind of hostility. Ironically, we're discussing this subject on the very day that sailors lost their lives on the USS Cole, all due to radical islamic terrorism 15 years ago.

The error you and Syrius are making here is that some Christians speak for all Christians. I for one am for religious freedom, not only for my faith, but for all others. I don't condone that behavior. But there it is.

Christians' trying to get Muslims deported from the US? 'Christians' calling for all copies of the Koran to be burned.

Like I said, a small minority. Do you see me, an ardent Christian, calling for the sacred texts of other religions to be burned, or an entire religion to be deported from America?

That directly defies the foundations on which America was founded.

I don't want to speak for Skylar or Syriusly, but I think that they are bringing these things up because of the perception that you were speaking about all homosexuals based on the actions of a few. That's the impression I've gotten from these posts, anyway.

 

[Boss]

One group can be discriminated against given a compelling state interest. Obergefell doesn't change that. Nor does it remove the compelling state interest from other groupings which might want to gain access to marriage laws. The closest to that would be in the inability for same sex relations to have children, but even there, infertile immediate family members have been prevented from marrying, so it seems there is more to that than just procreation.

Ogeberfell changes everything, that's why it is called a "landmark" case. You and your pro-gay-marriage entourage seem to think this case exists in some kind of special judicial bubble and can't apply to any other future court case or ruling... it's really bizarre. We are asking you how you'll prevent these other special interests from "gaining their rights to marriage" the same way, and you are throwing us the very same reasons and arguments the SCOTUS (AND YOU) just buried.

When that is pointed out, you say... Well it's not the law anywhere yet... but that's not a refutation of the argument. The ink isn't even dry on Ogeberfell yet... give it time... this will happen, guaranteed. Polygamists are on deck. Next in the batting order will be siblings. After that, it will be zoophiles and everything else. You can't stop this now because you don't like the ride... it's the bad thing about getting your ass caught on a slippery slope.

I mean... really, to me... it's just mildly entertaining to watch you people run around all stiff-assed talking about why we can't allow other people to love the ones they're with... because we all know that it poses a danger and risk and we have fears over what it might cause and what it may lead to... cue the choir singers... hallelujah ...hallelujah... now open you self-righteous mouth real wide and get ready for perverts to cram their immorality down your throat against your will. SCOTUS has ruled their civil rights trump your moral opinions. Congratulations!

 

[TemplarKormac]

So you deny that Christians are trying to get CAIR's tax exempt status revoked....because of something they said? Because I can show you it happening.

Yes I am, because the law demands it, not us Christians. See the failure of your logic here? We Christians didn't make that specific law. You can't do something that indicates political biases as a 501 (c)(3) tax exempt organization.

The government has already made clear the consequences.

How about Christians working to prevent Muslims from building mosques?

If you're referring to the Ground Zero mosque I agree. That would be a ginormous insult to all those who died on 9/11. Is it a demand for something more than equality? No, its a demand for reverence.

Islam has onus of being a religion on who's name terrorists have committed acts of barbarity and murder. Until Islam dispels that and actively condemns those acts of terrorism, it will draw that kind of hostility. Ironically, we're discussing this subject on the very day that sailors lost their lives on the USS Cole, all due to radical islamic terrorism 15 years ago.

The error you and Syrius are making here is that some Christians speak for all Christians. I for one am for religious freedom, not only for my faith, but for all others. I don't condone that behavior. But there it is.

Christians' trying to get Muslims deported from the US? 'Christians' calling for all copies of the Koran to be burned.

Like I said, a small minority. Do you see me, an ardent Christian, calling for the sacred texts of other religions to be burned, or an entire religion to be deported from America?

That directly defies the foundations on which America was founded.

I don't want to speak for Skylar or Syriusly, but I think that they are bringing these things up because of the perception that you were speaking about all homosexuals based on the actions of a few. That's the impression I've gotten from these posts, anyway.

Well, then let me kindly show you where I dispelled that notion:

It's not just so much them, but how they've influenced the behavior of other people, regardless of their sexual affiliation (and for the record, not all of gays engage in this behavior, but they don't necessarily condemn it either)

 

[Montrovant]

So you deny that Christians are trying to get CAIR's tax exempt status revoked....because of something they said? Because I can show you it happening.

Yes I am, because the law demands it, not us Christians. See the failure of your logic here? We Christians didn't make that specific law. You can't do something that indicates political biases as a 501 (c)(3) tax exempt organization.

The government has already made clear the consequences.

How about Christians working to prevent Muslims from building mosques?

If you're referring to the Ground Zero mosque I agree. That would be a ginormous insult to all those who died on 9/11. Is it a demand for something more than equality? No, its a demand for reverence.

Islam has onus of being a religion on who's name terrorists have committed acts of barbarity and murder. Until Islam dispels that and actively condemns those acts of terrorism, it will draw that kind of hostility. Ironically, we're discussing this subject on the very day that sailors lost their lives on the USS Cole, all due to radical islamic terrorism 15 years ago.

The error you and Syrius are making here is that some Christians speak for all Christians. I for one am for religious freedom, not only for my faith, but for all others. I don't condone that behavior. But there it is.

Christians' trying to get Muslims deported from the US? 'Christians' calling for all copies of the Koran to be burned.

Like I said, a small minority. Do you see me, an ardent Christian, calling for the sacred texts of other religions to be burned, or an entire religion to be deported from America?

That directly defies the foundations on which America was founded.

I don't want to speak for Skylar or Syriusly, but I think that they are bringing these things up because of the perception that you were speaking about all homosexuals based on the actions of a few. That's the impression I've gotten from these posts, anyway.

Well, then let me kindly show you where I dispelled that notion:

It's not just so much them, but how they've influenced the behavior of other people, regardless of their sexual affiliation (and for the record, not all of gays engage in this behavior, but they don't necessarily condemn it either)

I don't think it's me who needs that quote.

 

[Skylar]

So you deny that Christians are trying to get CAIR's tax exempt status revoked....because of something they said? Because I can show you it happening.

Yes I am, because the law demands it, not us Christians. See the failure of your logic here? We Christians didn't make that specific law. You can't do something that indicates political biases as a 501 (c)(3) tax exempt organization.

Actually its Christians demanding that the law requires it. So yes, Christians are calling for the revocation CAIR's non-profit status.

By your own standards.

How about Christians working to prevent Muslims from building mosques?

If you're referring to the Ground Zero mosque I agree. That would be a ginormous insult to all those who died on 9/11. Is it a demand for something more than equality? No, its a demand for reverence.
[/quote]

Ground Zero and all the other Mosque protests around the country. That's pretty tyrannical. How did you put it?

"The modus operandi becomes suppression, submission and capitulation instead of "equality" it becomes a form of tyranny."

Trying to prevent people who believe differently than you from being able to build places of worship in a location they have every right to meets your every description.

And these were undoubtedly 'Christians'. So by your logic, Christians were trying to prevent people who believed differently than they did from building places of worship.

Islam has the onus of being a religion on who's name terrorists have committed acts of barbarity and murder. Until Islam dispels that and actively condemns those acts of terrorism, it will draw that kind of hostility.

Ah, so you're trying to justify the tyranny, the the suppression, the submission and capitulation instead of equality......by blaming the VICTIMS of the tyranny, suppression, submission and capitulation.

As to the best of my knowledge, none of the folks who were trying to build that mosque (or others like it elsewhere that Christians protested) committed any terrorist act. But you're still blaming the victims?

Huh.

The error you and Syrius are making here is that some Christians speak for all Christians.

I'm applying the same 'they' that you did. Remember when you said 'They've gone beyond wanting equality, they want to be a protected class now, i.e treated differently from everyone else."

That's the 'they' that I'm referring to. But with Christians instead of gays.

How am I inaccurate? As i remember, you didn't make any distinction between 'some gays' and 'all gays'. Instead, you just said 'gays'. As in:

"Gays have accused Christians for doing this, now I see them trying to do the same thing, now that they have their so-called equality."

Sound familiar. It should. Its your words.

So I'm using your lingual patterns, applying them in the exact same way you are. But oddly, you reject my comments as 'being in error'. Perhaps. But then we're both in error. As my usage is yours.

Also, wouldn't your own reasoning fail in terms of justification for discrimination against Muslims....as 'some' Muslims aren't 'all Muslims'? But oddly, you didn't use your own standards when trying to justify your blaming of the victim.

I note some......inconsistency......in your argument.

 

[Faun]

I have repeatedly asked as others, what is now the "compelling interest" to deny same-sibling marriage?

The same compelling interests which were used to deny a gay man from marrying his lesbian sister prior to Obergefell.

Except that those reasons have now been found unconstitutional by the Obergefell ruling.

No, they haven't. You repeating that doesn't make it so. All Obergefell did was rule against bans against those for whom no reason other than their gender, was used to deny them their right to marry.

No such ruling exists. That you assign that drivel to Obergefell, does make it so.

I know you're crazy, so who knows what you think Obergefell ruled on?

 

[Skylar]

One group can be discriminated against given a compelling state interest. Obergefell doesn't change that. Nor does it remove the compelling state interest from other groupings which might want to gain access to marriage laws. The closest to that would be in the inability for same sex relations to have children, but even there, infertile immediate family members have been prevented from marrying, so it seems there is more to that than just procreation.

Ogeberfell changes everything, that's why it is called a "landmark" case. You and your pro-gay-marriage entourage seem to think this case exists in some kind of special judicial bubble and can't apply to any other future court case or ruling... it's really bizarre. We are asking you how you'll prevent these other special interests from "gaining their rights to marriage" the same way, and you are throwing us the very same reasons and arguments the SCOTUS (AND YOU) just buried.

Then show us the sections of Obegefell that authorize incest marriage and polygamy. Or even mentions either.

Remember, we're talking about the ACTUAL ruling. Not the bullshit you've made up and merely call the Obergefell ruling. I'll even help you. Here's the actual ruling:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Show us. Don't tell us.

 

[Montrovant]

One group can be discriminated against given a compelling state interest. Obergefell doesn't change that. Nor does it remove the compelling state interest from other groupings which might want to gain access to marriage laws. The closest to that would be in the inability for same sex relations to have children, but even there, infertile immediate family members have been prevented from marrying, so it seems there is more to that than just procreation.

Ogeberfell changes everything, that's why it is called a "landmark" case. You and your pro-gay-marriage entourage seem to think this case exists in some kind of special judicial bubble and can't apply to any other future court case or ruling... it's really bizarre. We are asking you how you'll prevent these other special interests from "gaining their rights to marriage" the same way, and you are throwing us the very same reasons and arguments the SCOTUS (AND YOU) just buried.

When that is pointed out, you say... Well it's not the law anywhere yet... but that's not a refutation of the argument. The ink isn't even dry on Ogeberfell yet... give it time... this will happen, guaranteed. Polygamists are on deck. Next in the batting order will be siblings. After that, it will be zoophiles and everything else. You can't stop this now because you don't like the ride... it's the bad thing about getting your ass caught on a slippery slope.

I mean... really, to me... it's just mildly entertaining to watch you people run around all stiff-assed talking about why we can't allow other people to love the ones they're with... because we all know that it poses a danger and risk and we have fears over what it might cause and what it may lead to... cue the choir singers... hallelujah ...hallelujah... now open you self-righteous mouth real wide and get ready for perverts to cram their immorality down your throat against your will. SCOTUS has ruled their civil rights trump your moral opinions. Congratulations!

First of all, you quoted only one part of a post in which I said that Obergefell may be used as precedent in a future ruling. That makes your claim of me thinking the ruling exists in some sort of judicial bubble and can't apply to future cases pretty foolish.

How will I prevent other groups from getting rights to marriage the same way? Obviously I won't have anything to do with it. As you've been told, over and over, there are differences in each case and it is a question of if the courts feel there is a compelling interest in preventing equal access to the law, or as with polygamy, marriage law does not cover such a relationship and so equal access does not apply. The fact that the courts decided that one group of people should not be prevented access to marriage law does not mean the same is true of any group. You still seem to think that there are no differences between the various relationships you've brought forth as examples of marriages which must be allowed based on Obergefell.

Polygamy may end up being allowed, but those relationships do not fit into current marriage law. Same sex marriage can use all the same laws, it is only a change in the gender of the couple. Having more partners necessarily changes the way various aspects of marriage work. Again, different argument than with Obergefell and requires more than simply saying, "Well, same sex couples can marry, so can 3 or more participant relationships!".

Infertile siblings could not marry prior to Obergefell. Other than procreation not being an issue with same sex siblings, what aspect of Obergefell would have an impact on any sibling marriage ruling? Again, the reasons for preventing immediate family members from marrying are different from the reasons for preventing same sex couples from marrying.

Zoophiles....you love to bring that up and ignore the fact that an animal cannot enter into a contract. You have to change consent and contract law before the courts would have any reason to hear a case about a person marrying an animal. Obergefell has no impact on consent laws nor who can legally become part of a contract.

Slippery slope....like the one that was feared from the Loving decision? I guess we would have been better off without that ruling, huh?

Your last paragraph is just whining. "Same sex marriage is immoral, so every possible marriage that is immoral must be allowed!" You seem to have a lot of issues with fear of things being crammed down your throat.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Actually its Christians demanding that the law requires it.

No it isn't. The law demands it. I won't repeat myself.

I'm applying the same 'they' that you did. Remember when you said 'They've gone beyond wanting equality, they want to be a protected class now, i.e treated differently from everyone else."

Ahh, so a tu quoque argument. Right.

How am I inaccurate? As i remember, you didn't make any distinction between 'some gays' and 'all gays'. Instead, you just said 'gays'.

Actually, in your haste you ignored the quote where I said "not all gays engage in this behavior."

It's easier to condemn homosexuality | Page 159 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Ah, so you're trying to justify the tyranny, the the suppression, the submission and capitulation instead of equality......by blaming the VICTIMS of the tyranny, suppression, submission and capitulation.

No. You are employing a type of circular logic.

So I'm using your lingual patterns, applying them in the exact same way you are. But oddly, you reject my comments as 'being in error'. Perhaps. But then we're both in error. As my usage is yours.

That's no way to engage in a debate. Make your own arguments, not fashion yours based off of mine. You are a very impressive debater, Skylar, show it. The higher road is there, take it.

As to the best of my knowledge, none of the folks who were trying to build that mosque (or others like it elsewhere that Christians protested) committed any terrorist act. But you're still blaming the victims?

No, they didn't. But just why would you build a mosque so close to Ground Zero? Was the purpose harmless? Perhaps.

Or was it to say "hey, look what we did, over there!"?

Also, wouldn't your own reasoning fail in terms of justification for discrimination against Muslims....as 'some' Muslims aren't 'all Muslims'? But oddly, you didn't use your own standards when trying to justify your blaming of the victim.

This qualifies as you twisting my statements. Radical Islamic Terrorists seek to distinguish themselves from moderate Islam, yes they are still a part of Islam. That is a demand that one uses discriminatory judgement "we are not them."

And where did I say anything about discriminating against Muslims?

This is actually a case of the prey hunting the hunter.

 

[Faun]

Ogeberfell changes everything

 

[Skylar]

Actually its Christians demanding that the law requires it.

No it isn't. The law demands it. I won't repeat myself.

Its Christians demanding that the law demands it. And insisting that CAIR's non-profit status be revoked....because of something they said:

Carson Wants IRS To Revoke Tax Exempt Status For Muslim Advocacy Group

Carson Wants IRS To Revoke Tax Exempt Status For Muslim Advocacy Group

I'm pretty sure that article says 'Carson wants IRS to revoke Tax Exempt status'. You can try to remove the role of Christians from this. But reality doesn't magically expunge them because you 'said' otherwise.

CAIR said this:

"We ask Mr. Ben Carson to withdraw from the presidential race because he is unfit to lead, because his views are in contradiction with the United States Constitution."

Carson demanding that their non-profit status be revoked because of what they said.....is pretty tyrannical.

I'm applying the same 'they' that you did. Remember when you said 'They've gone beyond wanting equality, they want to be a protected class now, i.e treated differently from everyone else."

Ahh, so a tu quoque argument. Right.

You mean applying your standards.....to you?

I'm under the impression that's called 'consistency'. And if you aren't applying your standard to yourself, we have a word for that too.. hypocrisy. As its clearly not the standards you believe in.

I'm using the exact same 'they' that you did. Its not my fault your 'they' was 'in error'.

How am I inaccurate? As i remember, you didn't make any distinction between 'some gays' and 'all gays'. Instead, you just said 'gays'.

Actually, in your haste you ignored the quote where I said "not all gays engage in this behavior."

And when have I said its all Christians. I've merely said 'Christians' have done x, y or z.

Exactly as you did regarding gays. But its an 'error' when I do it. But not when you do it? I don't think you're gonna make much headway with that kind of blatant inconsistency.

Ah, so you're trying to justify the tyranny, the the suppression, the submission and capitulation instead of equality......by blaming the VICTIMS of the tyranny, suppression, submission and capitulation.

No. You are employing a type of circular logic.

How so? If you're going to claim a logical fallacy.....you're gonna need more than just to make the accusation.

Explain how that's 'circular reasoning'. Remembering of course that any standard that you apply to me also applies to you.

So I'm using your lingual patterns, applying them in the exact same way you are. But oddly, you reject my comments as 'being in error'. Perhaps. But then we're both in error. As my usage is yours.

That's no way to engage in a debate. Make your own arguments, not fashion yours based off of mine. You are a very impressive debater, Skylar, show it. The higher road is there, take it.

Hypocrisy isn't a way to debate. And by failing to apply the standards you apply to me to yourself....

.....you demonstrate that you don't actually believe in the standards you're applying.

And that doesn't work for me.

As to the best of my knowledge, none of the folks who were trying to build that mosque (or others like it elsewhere that Christians protested) committed any terrorist act. But you're still blaming the victims?

No, they didn't. But just why would you build a mosque so close to Ground Zero? Was the purpose harmless? Or was it to say "hey, look what we did, over there!"?

So again, blaming the victims. Or at the very least, insinuating that the victims are to blame because of something that you know you can't factually support. But you'll allude to anyway.

That's no way to debate, Templar. Argument by insinuation is the lowest form of debate. As it doesn't involve actual evidence. You're better than that. Either back up your claims with evidence and make your argument.....or cut the conspiracy addled leading question nonsense.

That's better suited to truthers and flat earthers. Not a conversation among the informed.

Oh, and Ground Zero isn't the only instance I'm referring to. There are many other protests against mosques by Christians.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You know what? I'm not playing this "but I'm doing what you did!" game. Make your own point.

 

[Skylar]

You know what? I'm not playing this "but I'm doing what you did!" game. Make your own point.

So your standards only apply to me. But not yourself.

Nope. They apply to both of us. You'll just need to get used to that idea. Its the bare minimum of any rational debate.

As for my 'own point', I've made several.

First, you're blaming the victims...if they're Muslim. You've accused me of a 'circular argument'. I've demanded you back that up with a rational argument. The accusation alone isn't going to cut it. Make your case.

Second, you're arguing by insinuation.

No, they didn't. But just why would you build a mosque so close to Ground Zero? Was the purpose harmless? Or was it to say "hey, look what we did, over there!"?

You don't actually present an argument or take a position. You merely insinuate an argument you know you can't factually support. That's beneath you. And a waste of my time.

Make your argument with evidence....or leave the truther leading question nonsense to the truthers.

Third, more than just the Ground Zero mosque was subject to Christian protests. You'll need to address that.

Fourth, Carson is calling for CAIR to be removed from non-profit status. Says who? Says Carson:

IRS: Take Away Muslim Group’s Tax-Exempt Status

You can try to remove Christians from the equation, but reality doesn't change to match. You'll need to address that.

Please proceed.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So your standards only apply to me. But not yourself.

Actually, the same standards you're applying to me, you're violating yourself. First, you accused me of pinning all gays to the behavior of some, yet in your language, you consistently use the word "Christians" in its plural.

Second, you accuse me of engaging in arguments of insinuation, when here you are doing the same thing regarding Christians.

You don't make a point by making the same mistakes you accuse your opponent of making... to make your point.

Circular logic.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Note: Carson, not Christianity, called for the revocation of CAIR's tax exempt status, yet another argument by insinuation.

 

[Skylar]

And as aside, I consider the whole Mozilla fiasco to be thuggish. I think its contrary to the interests of gays as it makes them look like sour winners. Prominent gays themselves have argued as much. However, most of the folks calling for Eich to resign...weren't gay.

They were straight.

My point in bringing up the issue regarding Christians is to point out that the behavior you're condeming as 'tyranny' is as normal as breathing. Christians do it. Blacks do it. Whites do it. Women, straights, jews, Hindus, Native Americans....you name it.

Making your singling out of gays in particular.......too narrow.