Should Churches Be Forced to Accomodate for Homosexual Adoptions?

[Syriusly]

I wonder what percentage a minority has to become before it isn't okay to deny them the same rights as their fellow citizens? 7%? 10%?

LGBTs aren't minorities. They are people engaged in some [but not the whole gamut] of deviant sex lifestyles. It's a crucial distinction that will come more to the fore as legal arguments progress.

You cannot arbitrarily grant some behaviors repugnant to/subject to local regulations special federal protection while shutting the door on others. Who decides which minority voice is "more better" than others? Surely not the majority anymore, right?

Goodbye democracy. And this is the damage being done to society right now by "gay marriage"...and the attrition happening to democratic rule by SCOTUS refusing to honor its words in Windsor and grant stays to protect "states' choice" in the interim while this question of "just some behaviors getting special protection" appeals its way to a final hearing.

To equate sexual behavior with minority races is a monumental insult to minorities. It cheapens their very existence.

I am sure that minorities appreciate you taking offense for them.

 

[Syriusly]

It is obvious the gay lifestyle will never be normal. That is why the church is their target to demonize the opposition.

Yep. And that's why if they gain special federal protection for their cult, they will be suing the pants off of anyone, including churches, pastors, and people of all walks of faith to incorporate their thoroughly repugnant lifestyle into the fabric of that church...or they will petition the fed to strangulate that church financially..

That is the fiction the homophobes keep saying- anything to promote discrimination against homsoexuals.

 

[Inevitable]

Government shouldn't be telling religion anything. ...Well, building codes are ok. Probably some other things.

How do you feel about the Texas authorities attempting to call in preacher's sermons to redact them for favoritism towards the LGBT CULTure?

Like laughing, first it isn't Texas authorities, it isn't some unseen magical cult, it's a nutcase mayor. And she was forced to withdraw her subpoenas. Obviously, the religion is protected by the first amendment.

 

[Inevitable]

I wonder what percentage a minority has to become before it isn't okay to deny them the same rights as their fellow citizens? 7%? 10%?

LGBTs aren't minorities. They are people engaged in some [but not the whole gamut] of deviant sex lifestyles. It's a crucial distinction that will come more to the fore as legal arguments progress.

You cannot arbitrarily grant some behaviors repugnant to/subject to local regulations special federal protection while shutting the door on others. Who decides which minority voice is "more better" than others? Surely not the majority anymore, right?

Goodbye democracy. And this is the damage being done to society right now by "gay marriage"...and the attrition happening to democratic rule by SCOTUS refusing to honor its words in Windsor and grant stays to protect "states' choice" in the interim while this question of "just some behaviors getting special protection" appeals its way to a final hearing.

To equate sexual behavior with minority races is a monumental insult to minorities. It cheapens their very existence.

No one is equating sexual behavior with minority races. For instance- if you have an affair with your neighbors wife, that is not the same as gays being fired from the State Department for being attracted to men, or being arrested in a bar because the bar is known for serving homosexuals.

When I discuss minorities, I speak of minorities that have faced historic discrimination and/or persecution- Jews faced discrimination- legal and otherwise, as did Catholics. Chinese were denied citizenship and the right to own property. African Americans were systemically discriminated against by Jim Crow laws and a host of similar laws. American Indians weren't even considered fully American citizens until the 1920's or 1930's, and had their children removed from them and taken to Indian schools where they were forbidden to speak their native language.

And homosexuals were discriminated against in a variety of ways- NY City and others systematically targeted homosexuals for arrest and shaming. Gays would be arrested, and rather than prosecuting, their pictures were put in the newspapers and employers called in order to get them fired. The State department fired anyone suspected of being gay. And of course being known as gay would mean discharge from the armed forces.

All examples of discrimination by the majority against a 'despised' minority. Was the treatment as 'bad' for each minority? Hardly.

But in all cases the treatment was discrimination based upon the majority believing that the minority was 'less than' the majority- and not deserving of the same rights as the majority.

You can rationalize it all day long, but minorities, when it comes to Equal Rights, have always been held to be one race or another. That age-old sentiment will not disappear no matter how much it is redefined to cater to a group. We have not even solved race issues satisfactorily, and now badly confusing the issue with sexual behavior can only weaken and trivialize it. Gays have created their own world of isolation, and the only way they can gain enough acceptance to begin to feel comfortable in society is to tear down age-old beliefs like what Equal Rights and minorities are and have always been. Giving gays the same legal status as a minority race blurs all those lines. We have made tremendous progress in race and should not confuse the issue, and race is too important to lump it together with a social agenda.

Gays are afforded the same protections as everyone else under the Constitution and do not need to be elevated to a class of race.

Well, you're a dipshit. Minority means the people who aren't the majority. Has nothing really to do with race.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

I wonder what percentage a minority has to become before it isn't okay to deny them the same rights as their fellow citizens? 7%? 10%?

LGBTs aren't minorities. They are people engaged in some [but not the whole gamut] of deviant sex lifestyles. It's a crucial distinction that will come more to the fore as legal arguments progress.

You cannot arbitrarily grant some behaviors repugnant to/subject to local regulations special federal protection while shutting the door on others. Who decides which minority voice is "more better" than others? Surely not the majority anymore, right?

Goodbye democracy. And this is the damage being done to society right now by "gay marriage"...and the attrition happening to democratic rule by SCOTUS refusing to honor its words in Windsor and grant stays to protect "states' choice" in the interim while this question of "just some behaviors getting special protection" appeals its way to a final hearing.

To equate sexual behavior with minority races is a monumental insult to minorities. It cheapens their very existence.

No one is equating sexual behavior with minority races. For instance- if you have an affair with your neighbors wife, that is not the same as gays being fired from the State Department for being attracted to men, or being arrested in a bar because the bar is known for serving homosexuals.

When I discuss minorities, I speak of minorities that have faced historic discrimination and/or persecution- Jews faced discrimination- legal and otherwise, as did Catholics. Chinese were denied citizenship and the right to own property. African Americans were systemically discriminated against by Jim Crow laws and a host of similar laws. American Indians weren't even considered fully American citizens until the 1920's or 1930's, and had their children removed from them and taken to Indian schools where they were forbidden to speak their native language.

And homosexuals were discriminated against in a variety of ways- NY City and others systematically targeted homosexuals for arrest and shaming. Gays would be arrested, and rather than prosecuting, their pictures were put in the newspapers and employers called in order to get them fired. The State department fired anyone suspected of being gay. And of course being known as gay would mean discharge from the armed forces.

All examples of discrimination by the majority against a 'despised' minority. Was the treatment as 'bad' for each minority? Hardly.

But in all cases the treatment was discrimination based upon the majority believing that the minority was 'less than' the majority- and not deserving of the same rights as the majority.

You can rationalize it all day long, but minorities, when it comes to Equal Rights, have always been held to be one race or another. That age-old sentiment will not disappear no matter how much it is redefined to cater to a group. We have not even solved race issues satisfactorily, and now badly confusing the issue with sexual behavior can only weaken and trivialize it. Gays have created their own world of isolation, and the only way they can gain enough acceptance to begin to feel comfortable in society is to tear down age-old beliefs like what Equal Rights and minorities are and have always been. Giving gays the same legal status as a minority race blurs all those lines. We have made tremendous progress in race and should not confuse the issue, and race is too important to lump it together with a social agenda.

Gays are afforded the same protections as everyone else under the Constitution and do not need to be elevated to a class of race.

Well, you're a dipshit. Minority means the people who aren't the majority. Has nothing really to do with race.

Nothing at all.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Primarily, minorities are thought of as this race or that race. It's only how people think.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Government shouldn't be telling religion anything. ...Well, building codes are ok. Probably some other things.

How do you feel about the Texas authorities attempting to call in preacher's sermons to redact them for favoritism towards the LGBT CULTure?

Like laughing, first it isn't Texas authorities, it isn't some unseen magical cult, it's a nutcase mayor. And she was forced to withdraw her subpoenas. Obviously, the religion is protected by the first amendment.

Just the fact that she caused so much alarm in the religious community there, with her subpoenas, for quite awhile, shows she is not only crazy, but that she has tremendous ideological backing. She could not have done such a thing by herself. It is the same backing that has allowed the discrimination against Catholic Charities in adoption to occur. Without that narrow but powerful influence, such an unreasonable requirement would never have been considered to be placed upon a church in either case.

 

[Silhouette]

... it isn't Texas authorities, it isn't some unseen magical cult, it's a nutcase mayor. And she was forced to withdraw her subpoenas. Obviously, the religion is protected by the first amendment .

One nutcase mayor and how many nutcase federal appeals court judges giving the cult all they want, including the right to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters across the US? You think they'll stop eh? Just check themselves short when the only get "so far" legally?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Government shouldn't be telling religion anything. ...Well, building codes are ok. Probably some other things.

How do you feel about the Texas authorities attempting to call in preacher's sermons to redact them for favoritism towards the LGBT CULTure?

Well, since that never actually happened, I don't know what you expect anyone to "feel" about it.

The attempt did happen, and it did damage. She could have gotten away with it, if she did not get called big time on it with the feds or without adequate public pressure.

 

[Silhouette]

The attempt did happen, and it did damage. She could have gotten away with it, if she did not get called big time on it with the feds or without adequate public pressure.

For now. It was rolled back for now. But if the cult of LGBT gets special federal protection [while other fetishes repugnant to the majority remain unprotected?], they will be all over suing everyone if they so much as peep an opinion that doesn't promote lewd sex acts in front of kids in pride parades or the veneration of sexual icon/LGBT messiah Harvey Milk. This cult even has a messiah, a martyr. Even though his having sex with minors [one of which he called himself "father" to] and very young teens had nothing to do with the fellow democrat who shot him and the mayor of SF over an unrelated political scuffle.

When the US Supreme Court decriminalized sodomy in Texas, there were cries even then that this would lead to gay marriage via the precedent set of essentially legitimizing gay sex in the public arena. Great guffaws of laughter and ridicule were heaped upon anyone suggesting such an "absurdity" in public opinion, the media etc. That clamped down the conversation while the legal erosion continued in its absence.

Now look where we are. If you think this tactic that worked so well then [shut down the conversation while the machinery churns away], will be discarded in the future, guess again. They aren't even shy about foreshadowing what that will hold. That's what this Texas move was about. They're softening the public for what will actually happen. But you have to nudge the ice to break slowly. So you attack/retreat, attack/retreat...each time gaining a few more inches of ground as you advance with time.

I know one of the strategists behind the earliest phases of this well-planned usurping of social values. You wouldn't believe me if I told you how cunning, flexible, ruthless and relentless leadership of this cult is..and has been for many decades...

 

[Syriusly]

... it isn't Texas authorities, it isn't some unseen magical cult, it's a nutcase mayor. And she was forced to withdraw her subpoenas. Obviously, the religion is protected by the first amendment .

One nutcase mayor and how many nutcase federal appeals court judges giving the cult all they want, including the right to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters across the US? You think they'll stop eh? Just check themselves short when the only get "so far" legally?

more bat guano crazy.

 

[Syriusly]

Government shouldn't be telling religion anything. ...Well, building codes are ok. Probably some other things.

How do you feel about the Texas authorities attempting to call in preacher's sermons to redact them for favoritism towards the LGBT CULTure?

Well, since that never actually happened, I don't know what you expect anyone to "feel" about it.

The attempt did happen, and it did damage. She could have gotten away with it, if she did not get called big time on it with the feds or without adequate public pressure.

And she should have been called on it. And she was.

 

[Syriusly]

The attempt did happen, and it did damage. She could have gotten away with it, if she did not get called big time on it with the feds or without adequate public pressure.

For now. It was rolled back for now. But if the cult of LGBT gets special federal protection [while other fetishes repugnant to the majority remain unprotected?], they will be all over suing everyone if they so much as peep an opinion that doesn't promote lewd sex acts in front of kids in pride parades or the veneration of sexual icon/LGBT messiah Harvey Milk. This cult even has a messiah, a martyr. Even though his having sex with minors [one of which he called himself "father" to] and very young teens had nothing to do with the fellow democrat who shot him and the mayor of SF over an unrelated political scuffle.

When the US Supreme Court decriminalized sodomy in Texas, there were cries even then that this would lead to gay marriage via the precedent set of essentially legitimizing gay sex in the public arena. Great guffaws of laughter and ridicule were heaped upon anyone suggesting such an "absurdity" in public opinion, the media etc. That clamped down the conversation while the legal erosion continued in its absence.

Now look where we are. If you think this tactic that worked so well then [shut down the conversation while the machinery churns away], will be discarded in the future, guess again. They aren't even shy about foreshadowing what that will hold. That's what this Texas move was about. They're softening the public for what will actually happen. But you have to nudge the ice to break slowly. So you attack/retreat, attack/retreat...each time gaining a few more inches of ground as you advance with time.

I know one of the strategists behind the earliest phases of this well-planned usurping of social values. You wouldn't believe me if I told you how cunning, flexible, ruthless and relentless leadership of this cult is..and has been for many decades...

More bat guano crazy homophobic rants.

You wouldn't believe me if I told you how cunning, flexible, ruthless and relentless leadership of this cult is..and has been for many decades...

Oh I am confident that no one would believe you.......

 

[Silhouette]

More bat guano crazy homophobic rants.

You wouldn't believe me if I told you how cunning, flexible, ruthless and relentless leadership of this cult is..and has been for many decades...

Oh I am confident that no one would believe you.......

Research GLAADs founding team and get back to me.

 

[Syriusly]

More bat guano crazy homophobic rants.

You wouldn't believe me if I told you how cunning, flexible, ruthless and relentless leadership of this cult is..and has been for many decades...

Oh I am confident that no one would believe you.......

Research GLAADs founding team and get back to me.

Like I said- I am confident that no one would believe you.

 

[Silhouette]

Research GLAADs founding team and get back to me.

Like I said- I am confident that no one would believe you.

Depends on who is doing that research. All it may need is for just them to find out what I'm saying is true.

 

[Syriusly]

Research GLAADs founding team and get back to me.

Like I said- I am confident that no one would believe you.

Depends on who is doing that research. All it may need is for just them to find out what I'm saying is true.

No amount of research can find that what does not exist.

 

[Silhouette]

No amount of research can find that what does not exist.

Maybe Kevin Jennings could help find out? When he isn't busy teaching "fisting" to public school students..

 

[Syriusly]

No amount of research can find that what does not exist.

Maybe Kevin Jennings could help find out? When he isn't busy teaching "fisting" to public school students..

Sorry, I don't know your close and personal friend "Kevin Jennings" but perhaps when you two aren't busy you can provide a relevant response?

 

[Silhouette]

Maybe Kevin Jennings could help find out? When he isn't busy teaching "fisting" to public school students..

Sorry, I don't know your close and personal friend "Kevin Jennings" but perhaps when you two aren't busy you can provide a relevant response?

You don't know how to use google to discover that Kevin Jennings is Obama's gay education czar? He was made famous in recent years by introducing a curriculum into sex education in schools to teach kids gay anal sex and fisting are "normal sexual behaviors". I'm not sure that if in the same unit, the kids are taught that HIV is spread most commonly via anal sex and that anal sex predisposes practitioners to a whole host of virus to blood contact and higher rate of STDs than vaginal sex. My guess is they left that out of the conversation and only focused on the "joys of anal and fisting"...

...you know...teaching kids it's OK to get sick or die using aberrant forms of sex.