Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Look that that post.....talk about a scatter shot of something....anything because his death for being gay is so embarrassing for the anti-gay crowd.No. He suffered because he was a drug dealer and the deal went sour. And he was gay. And he was dying of AIDS.So equal rights should only be granted to a group of American citizens after they've suffered a certain level of violations? Is that what you are asserting?Blacks were subjected to some pretty sick civil rights violations and gays keep trying to equate their cause with blacks. Okay can anyone list the top 5 civil rights violation gays endure? How do they compare to what blacks endured?
Exactly
You claiming the gay community has suffered the same hardships as the blacks fighting for civil rights?
Matthew Shepard was tied to a wooden fence, tortured, and left to die. Do you think he suffered for the mere fact that he was gay?
That's when she puts 75% of this board on Ignore...she can't handle the truth.Are you embarrassed to be put in your place?
Yeah...I've noticed that pattern with her. Petty bullshit insults, she's just fine with...but if you counter her with facts she can't refute? Here comes the "ignore".
Lie-la doesn't post "facts".
Nope she wants to huff and puff. A waste of time
You're the one giving third-degree burns with your hot air.
That's when she puts 75% of this board on Ignore...she can't handle the truth.Stay on point or shut up. Your timid little verbal attacks are just blather, fool
Are you embarrassed to be put in your place?
Yeah...I've noticed that pattern with her. Petty bullshit insults, she's just fine with...but if you counter her with facts she can't refute? Here comes the "ignore".
Lie-la doesn't post "facts".
Nope she wants to huff and puff. A waste of time
That's when she puts 75% of this board on Ignore...she can't handle the truth.
Yeah...I've noticed that pattern with her. Petty bullshit insults, she's just fine with...but if you counter her with facts she can't refute? Here comes the "ignore".
Lie-la doesn't post "facts".
Nope she wants to huff and puff. A waste of time
You're the one giving third-degree burns with your hot air.
Stay on point. How difficult is it to do that for you? Shepard was killed by a bisexual, he was HIV positive and drugs were involved. Refute it or take your BS and blabber to someone who gives a fuck
Yeah...I've noticed that pattern with her. Petty bullshit insults, she's just fine with...but if you counter her with facts she can't refute? Here comes the "ignore".
Lie-la doesn't post "facts".
Nope she wants to huff and puff. A waste of time
You're the one giving third-degree burns with your hot air.
Stay on point. How difficult is it to do that for you? Shepard was killed by a bisexual, he was HIV positive and drugs were involved. Refute it or take your BS and blabber to someone who gives a fuck
If you're too embarrassed and stuck in a rut, unable to be conversant, stop reading my posts. The power to decide for yourself in your hands. Are you too dumb to realize the problem lies with you?
Lie-la doesn't post "facts".
Nope she wants to huff and puff. A waste of time
You're the one giving third-degree burns with your hot air.
Stay on point. How difficult is it to do that for you? Shepard was killed by a bisexual, he was HIV positive and drugs were involved. Refute it or take your BS and blabber to someone who gives a fuck
If you're too embarrassed and stuck in a rut, unable to be conversant, stop reading my posts. The power to decide for yourself in your hands. Are you too dumb to realize the problem lies with you?
Ignored. you are just trolling and incapable of any semblance of debate
There you have it....the whole "it was drugs" narrative is because the anti-gay crowd can't stand to have Shepard perceived as a martyr, a victim of anti-gay murder.So equal rights should only be granted to a group of American citizens after they've suffered a certain level of violations? Is that what you are asserting?
You claiming the gay community has suffered the same hardships as the blacks fighting for civil rights?
Matthew Shepard was tied to a wooden fence, tortured, and left to die. Do you think he suffered for the mere fact that he was gay?
Shepard was involved in drugs...and died for it
You were there, too?
Homos pick lousy martyrs. When the facts come out it all goes south
Shepard was HIV positive...he did not have AIDS....poor Sassy is too stupid to know the difference.Well, I didn't know you were there.
Neither were you
Did I comment on the details? My question was did he suffer merely because he was gay?
You are the one who provided a detailed reply.
Prove BlueGin wrong.....Have a lovely day LOL
The burden of proof is not on my shoulders. The case has been resolved, and people like you, lackeys, need to learn how to read and absorb the truth.
Sorry, troll but he was a drug addict, infected with AIDS and died at the hands of another gay. An inconvenient truth you can't deal with
Is that 75% or 76% of the board you have on Ignore now? I guess, it helps you with your reading difficulties to skip thru 75% of the posts with all the "hard' words in them.Lie-la doesn't post "facts".
Nope she wants to huff and puff. A waste of time
You're the one giving third-degree burns with your hot air.
Stay on point. How difficult is it to do that for you? Shepard was killed by a bisexual, he was HIV positive and drugs were involved. Refute it or take your BS and blabber to someone who gives a fuck
If you're too embarrassed and stuck in a rut, unable to be conversant, stop reading my posts. The power to decide for yourself in your hands. Are you too dumb to realize the problem lies with you?
Ignored. you are just trolling and incapable of any semblance of debate
Reason 2: Homosexual and Liberal gay rights activists want to force you to be understanding and tolerant of their cause for equality, without ever being understanding or tolerant themselves. Amounting to nothing more than a vengeful, subversive doctrine of unyielding, unwavering tolerance at whatever cost; to be especially employed towards Christian private business owners. This allows for further division between them and those the LGBT rights movement is trying to reach.
Nonsense.You claiming that the level of hardships is what "earns" civil rights for a group of citizens? That if one has not "suffered as much" as blacks did during their civil rights struggle, it doesn't count?So equal rights should only be granted to a group of American citizens after they've suffered a certain level of violations? Is that what you are asserting?Blacks were subjected to some pretty sick civil rights violations and gays keep trying to equate their cause with blacks. Okay can anyone list the top 5 civil rights violation gays endure? How do they compare to what blacks endured?
Exactly
You claiming the gay community has suffered the same hardships as the blacks fighting for civil rights?
Obviously the gays are ...since they latched on to the black civil rights movement to make it seem like their plight is worse than it is.
That basically says it all........
Sad that you have such a poor understanding of historyI often see them comparing the gay struggle for equality to that of the African American struggle for racial equality, "same bullshit, different decade" they contend. Well, true, but not in the way they think. The comparison is flawed, for two reasons.
Yeah, I know what's coming too, the standard volley of how "gays should be allowed to marry" or "why do you hate gays?" or the run of the mill cherrypicked Bible verse or two. I've seen it all pretty much. The whole playbook. So for those of you intent on repeating that tired rhetoric, can it.
The short version:
Reason 1: Martin Luther King sought understanding through tolerance and understanding during the Civil Rights movement. In fact, he didn't speak in terms of tolerance, but of love, a Christian based love. He employed a doctrine passivity, not subversion. Even in the face of having the lives his and his fellow African Americans torn apart by racist sentiments and policies, they chose not to do the same to their oppressors. This attitude allowed for no further division of an already helplessly, racially divided America.
Reason 2: Homosexual and Liberal gay rights activists want to force you to be understanding and tolerant of their cause for equality, without ever being understanding or tolerant themselves. Amounting to nothing more than a vengeful, subversive doctrine of unyielding, unwavering tolerance at whatever cost; to be especially employed towards Christian private business owners. This allows for further division between them and those the LGBT rights movement is trying to reach.
The rest of it:
For King, nothing would ever advance the cause of equality by repaying intolerance with intolerance, hatred with hatred, or violence with violence. "Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that," he said. That however is in stark contrast to how the gay rights movement has decided to react to the assumed hatred and bigotry on the behalf of religious private business owners.
The Kingsian philosophy of tolerance, passivity and nonviolence consisted of six main principles:
1) First he said, one can resist evil without resorting to violence.
2) Second, nonviolence seeks to win the ‘‘friendship and understanding’’ of the opponent, not to humiliate him (King, Stride, p.84).
3) Furthermore, third, evil itself, not the people committing evil acts, should be opposed.
4) Fourth, he continued, is that those committed to nonviolence must be willing to suffer without retaliation as suffering itself can be redemptive.
5) Fifthly, nonviolent resistance avoids ‘‘external physical violence’’ and ‘‘internal violence of spirit’’ as well: ‘‘The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent but he also refuses to hate him" (King, Stride, p.85). The resister should be motivated by love in the sense of the Greek word agape, which means ‘‘understanding,’’ or ‘‘redeeming good will for all men’’ (King, Stride, p.86).
6) Lastly, he states the sixth principle, which was that the nonviolent resister should have a ‘‘deep faith in the future,’’ stemming from the conviction that ‘‘the universe is on the side of justice’’ (King, Stride, p.88).
King held the philosophy akin to the old folk hymn, "keep your eyes on the prize." To be frank, that prize wasn't putting some unwitting business owner out on the street for being racist or intolerant. Yeah, business owners were racist and intolerant back then, but not even they (the blacks, and most of them I'd think) thought it was okay to ruin someone, besides, what were they going to do? Sue every Tom, Dick, and Harry who discriminated against them? Not really. Such a movement spurred Congress to end the discussion on racial inequality once and for all, you know the rest.
If only gay rights activists and liberal pro gay rights activists took the approach specifically covered in the third, fourth and fifth principle, I would guarantee that there would be a more broad understanding and sympathy towards gay rights and equality, moreso than exists at this point in time.
We heard the same arguments fifty years ago as we hear today......States rights, you are forcing me to accept people against my will, I have a right to serve who I please, the bible supports me
Gays have been discriminated against for centuries, they have been cast to the shadows and given second class status
It is a civil rights issue
tolerance and acceptance of gays as equal citizens is a civil rights issue. Calling a gay union a marriage is a cultural or societal issue, it has nothing to do with rights or equality.
Society as a whole should decide what words are used to describe a legal gay union, not the minority gay community.
We have representative government in this country.
Yes, we do, so lets let our "representatives" vote. Lets process a constitutional amendment making gay marriage legal in all states, then see if you can get 38 states to ratify it.
A matter like this should not be decided by 9 unelected old farts in black robes.
Sad that you have such a poor understanding of historyI often see them comparing the gay struggle for equality to that of the African American struggle for racial equality, "same bullshit, different decade" they contend. Well, true, but not in the way they think. The comparison is flawed, for two reasons.
Yeah, I know what's coming too, the standard volley of how "gays should be allowed to marry" or "why do you hate gays?" or the run of the mill cherrypicked Bible verse or two. I've seen it all pretty much. The whole playbook. So for those of you intent on repeating that tired rhetoric, can it.
The short version:
Reason 1: Martin Luther King sought understanding through tolerance and understanding during the Civil Rights movement. In fact, he didn't speak in terms of tolerance, but of love, a Christian based love. He employed a doctrine passivity, not subversion. Even in the face of having the lives his and his fellow African Americans torn apart by racist sentiments and policies, they chose not to do the same to their oppressors. This attitude allowed for no further division of an already helplessly, racially divided America.
Reason 2: Homosexual and Liberal gay rights activists want to force you to be understanding and tolerant of their cause for equality, without ever being understanding or tolerant themselves. Amounting to nothing more than a vengeful, subversive doctrine of unyielding, unwavering tolerance at whatever cost; to be especially employed towards Christian private business owners. This allows for further division between them and those the LGBT rights movement is trying to reach.
The rest of it:
For King, nothing would ever advance the cause of equality by repaying intolerance with intolerance, hatred with hatred, or violence with violence. "Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that," he said. That however is in stark contrast to how the gay rights movement has decided to react to the assumed hatred and bigotry on the behalf of religious private business owners.
The Kingsian philosophy of tolerance, passivity and nonviolence consisted of six main principles:
1) First he said, one can resist evil without resorting to violence.
2) Second, nonviolence seeks to win the ‘‘friendship and understanding’’ of the opponent, not to humiliate him (King, Stride, p.84).
3) Furthermore, third, evil itself, not the people committing evil acts, should be opposed.
4) Fourth, he continued, is that those committed to nonviolence must be willing to suffer without retaliation as suffering itself can be redemptive.
5) Fifthly, nonviolent resistance avoids ‘‘external physical violence’’ and ‘‘internal violence of spirit’’ as well: ‘‘The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent but he also refuses to hate him" (King, Stride, p.85). The resister should be motivated by love in the sense of the Greek word agape, which means ‘‘understanding,’’ or ‘‘redeeming good will for all men’’ (King, Stride, p.86).
6) Lastly, he states the sixth principle, which was that the nonviolent resister should have a ‘‘deep faith in the future,’’ stemming from the conviction that ‘‘the universe is on the side of justice’’ (King, Stride, p.88).
King held the philosophy akin to the old folk hymn, "keep your eyes on the prize." To be frank, that prize wasn't putting some unwitting business owner out on the street for being racist or intolerant. Yeah, business owners were racist and intolerant back then, but not even they (the blacks, and most of them I'd think) thought it was okay to ruin someone, besides, what were they going to do? Sue every Tom, Dick, and Harry who discriminated against them? Not really. Such a movement spurred Congress to end the discussion on racial inequality once and for all, you know the rest.
If only gay rights activists and liberal pro gay rights activists took the approach specifically covered in the third, fourth and fifth principle, I would guarantee that there would be a more broad understanding and sympathy towards gay rights and equality, moreso than exists at this point in time.
We heard the same arguments fifty years ago as we hear today......States rights, you are forcing me to accept people against my will, I have a right to serve who I please, the bible supports me
Gays have been discriminated against for centuries, they have been cast to the shadows and given second class status
It is a civil rights issue
tolerance and acceptance of gays as equal citizens is a civil rights issue. Calling a gay union a marriage is a cultural or societal issue, it has nothing to do with rights or equality.
Society as a whole should decide what words are used to describe a legal gay union, not the minority gay community.
We have representative government in this country.
Yes, we do, so lets let our "representatives" vote. Lets process a constitutional amendment making gay marriage legal in all states, then see if you can get 38 states to ratify it.
A matter like this should not be decided by 9 unelected old farts in black robes.
A majority of the states already ratified the 14th Amendment so there is no need for another amendment.
Sad that you have such a poor understanding of history
We heard the same arguments fifty years ago as we hear today......States rights, you are forcing me to accept people against my will, I have a right to serve who I please, the bible supports me
Gays have been discriminated against for centuries, they have been cast to the shadows and given second class status
It is a civil rights issue
tolerance and acceptance of gays as equal citizens is a civil rights issue. Calling a gay union a marriage is a cultural or societal issue, it has nothing to do with rights or equality.
Society as a whole should decide what words are used to describe a legal gay union, not the minority gay community.
We have representative government in this country.
Yes, we do, so lets let our "representatives" vote. Lets process a constitutional amendment making gay marriage legal in all states, then see if you can get 38 states to ratify it.
A matter like this should not be decided by 9 unelected old farts in black robes.
A majority of the states already ratified the 14th Amendment so there is no need for another amendment.
please quote the parts of the 14th where the words "gay marriage" are used.
More gay threads to oppress the gop with.
Great
tolerance and acceptance of gays as equal citizens is a civil rights issue. Calling a gay union a marriage is a cultural or societal issue, it has nothing to do with rights or equality.
Society as a whole should decide what words are used to describe a legal gay union, not the minority gay community.
We have representative government in this country.
Yes, we do, so lets let our "representatives" vote. Lets process a constitutional amendment making gay marriage legal in all states, then see if you can get 38 states to ratify it.
A matter like this should not be decided by 9 unelected old farts in black robes.
A majority of the states already ratified the 14th Amendment so there is no need for another amendment.
please quote the parts of the 14th where the words "gay marriage" are used.
Ignorance can be cured through education but stupidity is a life sentence.
