The Liberal Illusion of Equality and Tolerance: Homosexual Edition

[TemplarKormac]

I've seen liberals and homosexuals left right and sideways push for equal rights and tolerance of homosexuals and the homosexual lifestyle, but yet all I see are walking contradictions of these beliefs of equality and tolerance. I tell you what liberals and homosexuals... I challenge you to refute this set of statements and answer a few questions for me:

1) If you truly believed in equality, you would believe in a balance of freedom. There is a two way street to equality. You have every right to your lifestyle, but you cannot force others to endorse it.

2) Lets put it another way: You cannot physically marry poles to poles, and holes to holes (HT to Alfonzo Rachel). I'll stand up for your God given rights, but I won't stand for you legislating your desires into laws for us to follow over God's (That means passing same sex marriage laws), whilst accusing us of trying to establish a theocracy. Or forcing people to serve you against their religiously held beliefs.

3) Moreover, you liberals in particular express support for homosexuals, but your select use of homoerotic profanity suggests you have a similar disdain for homosexuality to that of Republicans. If Democrats like you thought homosexuality was so awesome, they nor you would see "teabagging" as a demeaning reference to insult somebody with. If you don't know what teabagging is, you need to look it up in the urban dictionary.

4) You homosexuals demand the right to be treated equally... at the forced expense of someone else. That's not what the Constitution says. You can't have your rights while infringing on someone else's rights. By no means are we Right Wing Christians depriving you of your right to life.

5) The Christian does not deprive you of liberty either. "Well, what about the gay's liberty to be married?" you ask. Nice try, but, you cannot have your liberty at the expense of the Church's or a Christian's liberty.

6) Are conservatives so evil for advocating traditional marriage and a Church's right to free exercise? Is that why you call us "far right wing extremists" or like pejorative terms?

7) Why do you both (liberals and homosexuals) praise someone who is tolerant of homosexuality, but admonish those who don't support it? Didn't you guys get through saying you were all for tolerance and equal acceptance of personally held beliefs? Sounds pretty unequal to tell the truth.

8) Jesus himself spoke against homosexuality, (Corinthians 6:9) specifically saying that they would not inherit the Kingdom of God for partaking in such an act. Yet you stand there and tell me that he is this all accepting hippie type. Should he have been such, there would have been no reason for him to come down to Earth to die for the salvation of mankind. He wouldn't have performed his miracles, or healed the sick or afflicted.

9) Why during the debacle with Chic-fil-A in 2012 did you feel the need to stage kiss ins in front of people eating their lunch, during a lunch rush? To me, this is you imposing your lifestyle on unsuspecting strangers at a restaurant.

10) Do you really care about the homosexual cause, liberals? Or are you more concerned with using them at your convenience so as to be seen as more down to Earth or accepting?

11) Why do you homosexuals insist on your love life being none of other peoples business? Or the Government's? When you fight to legalize gay marriage, you are by default making it other people's business, and thus the Governments. When you get your marriage license, who issues it to you? The government.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Some of the Same points could be raised about blacks, etc.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Some of the Same points could be raised about blacks, etc.

Humor me.

 

[L.K.Eder]

jesus is not paul, teabagging requires only one pair of balls, and you should have spent that time writing your resume instead of offering another incredibly lame screed.

 

[Edgetho]

These groups don't want equal treatment, they want special treatment.

Every time. Every.Single.Time.

Read this.

Read it...

LGBT Activist Declares: ?We Need to Start Making Their Lives a Living Hell? : The Other McCain

 

[TemplarKormac]

So far, one person has failed to address my set of points. Is there a liberal out there who can debate me seriously without bringing my job situation into it? I mean, I should construe your silence or hostility as an admission that these points are by default true, and that you have nothing to argue them with.

 

[racewright]

Look its not about rights when they force there desires and beliefs on the rest of society weather its Gay, Black, Women or what ever else Libs can come up with. It is about what they always blame people with a more conservative view for having.
Its all about what they can get or in other words Money. That's right the good old Dollar.

Gays want to be married so they can put themselves into a better Financial relationship, well I say you picked this life style so go with it, Both work that's good enough.
Blacks seem to think programs like affirmative action will better there financial condition, Bill Cosby did not need these programs, Oprah,Jesse Jackson,Reggie Jackson,Famos Amos,And plenty of others did not need these types of programs.
Women oh I guess Hillary and Meg Ryan,and Ugly Nancy needed extra help from government programs right??
It is all bullshit and not about right or wrong but only about what you all blame business of doing Making a Buck you know MONEY.

 

[JoeB131]

I've seen liberals and homosexuals left right and sideways push for equal rights and tolerance of homosexuals and the homosexual lifestyle, but yet all I see are walking contradictions of these beliefs of equality and tolerance. I tell you what liberals and homosexuals... I challenge you to refute this set of statements and answer a few questions for me:

1) If you truly believed in equality, you would believe in a balance of freedom. There is a two way street to equality. You have every right to your lifestyle, but you cannot force others to endorse it.

No one is asking haters to "endorse" it, just respect it's reality. Frankly, there are a lot of straight people who I think never should have gotten married, but I still have to respect that the law says they can and that legally they are. And unfortunately, they often end up producing kids, unlike the gays.

2) Lets put it another way: You cannot physically marry poles to poles, and holes to holes. (HT to Alfonzo Rachel). I'll stand up for your God given rights, but I won't stand for you legislating your desires into laws for us to follow over God's. That means passing same sex marriage laws. Or forcing people to serve you against their religiously held beliefs.

Guy, you Christians have been murdering each other over what your Imaginary Sky Man wants. Frankly, the scariest four words in the English Language is "God Told Me To". God told Andrea Yates to drown her five kids.

Now, to the point, the "I think it's Icky" argument, fact is, 99% of straights practice fellatio or cunnilingus, and 38% of straight couples have at least tried anal sex. And no one denies them marriage licenses or refuses to serve them or even question what they do in their bedrooms.

3) Moreover, you liberals in particular express support for homosexuals, but your select use of homoerotic profanity suggests you have a similar disdain for homosexuality to that of Republicans. If Democrats like you thought homosexuality was so awesome, they nor you would see "teabagging" as a demeaning reference to insult somebody with. If you don't know what teabagging is, you need to look it up in the urban dictionary.

Actually, the first time I heard the term "Teabagging", it was applied to a girl being asked if her boyfriend did that to her. The second time I heard it, was members of the Tea Party calling themselves "Teabaggers" not knowing what it meant.

4) You homosexuals demand the right to be treated equally... at the forced expense of someone else. That's not what the Constitution says. You can't have your rights while infringing on someone else's rights. By no means are we Right Wing Christians depriving you of your right to life.

Well, not currently. Most of human history, Christians had no problem depriving gays of their lives. For most of the last century, you all forced gays to conform to your model, and a lot of gays (like my late aunt) had to enter sham marriages to satisfy society. So now that you guys are losing the last argument on marriage, you are trying to play the "religious freedom" card? Really? Really?

5) The Christian does not deprive you of liberty either. "Well, what about the gay's liberty to be married?" you ask. Nice try, but, you cannot have your liberty at the expense of the Church's or a Christian's liberty.

Frankly, guy, if you don't like gay marriage, don't have one. (I'm sure there are a beavy of ladies ready to line up to marry a guy with no job.) No one is going to make a Church marry gays if their religion doesn't allow that.

6) Are conservatives so evil for advocating traditional marriage and a Church's right to free exercise? Is that why you call us "far right wing extremists" or like pejorative terms?

That's an easy one. Because most of you are stupid. The ONLY reason George W. Stupid got elected in 2004 after stealing the election in 2000 was that he got a bunch of "right wing extremists" upset about gay marriage because one state legalized it. (The one governed by Mitt Romney, as it turned out.) So they got re-elected on the promise to put "traditional marriage" in the constitution.

Today, you have 16 states with gay marriage... which is hardly a consolation considering most of you ended up with busted 401K's, underwater mortgages and millions of jobs gone to China.

7) Why do you both (liberals and homosexuals) praise someone who is tolerant of homosexuality, but admonish those who don't support it? Didn't you guys get through saying you were all for tolerance and equal acceptance of personally held beliefs? Sounds pretty unequal to tell the truth.

Sweet Evil Jesus on a Pogo Stick, if you spent as much time looking for a job you do in coming up with these convoluted arguments, you might even be employed.

You are perfectly free to believe what you want, but you have to respect everyone else's rights. If you don't think a gay marriage is valid, that's fine. But legally, it is. And if you put out a shingle and offer a service or goods, you have to offer them to everyone.

8) Jesus himself spoke against homosexuality, (Corinthians 6:9) specifically saying that they would not inherit the Kingdom of God for partaking in such an act. Yet you stand there and tell me that he is this all accepting hippie type. Should he have been such, there would have been no reason for him to come down to Earth to die for the salvation of mankind. He wouldn't have performed his miracles, or healed the sick or afflicted.

Jesus didn't write "Corinthians". St. Paul (AKA Saul of Tarses) did.

Incidently, I don't think Jesus ever existed. Or at best, Saul and others just assigned a bunch of mystical bullshit on top of a real person or an amalgamation of real people.

The point is, Jesus didn't say one word about homosexuality in the Gospels. But he was VERY explicit in condemning the accumulation of wealth. Somehow, I don't see you doing a thread on Jesus's views on wealth.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Watching the passionate discussions about homosexuality, Dem vs Republican, Liberal vs Conservative, and Us vs Them, I can't help but be reminded of an old Twilight Zone episode,
The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lights begin flashing on and off in houses throughout the neighborhood; lawn mowers and cars start up and go off for no apparent reason. The mob becomes hysterical, with terrified residents smashing windows, and taking up weapons, as the situation devolves into an all-out riot. Some of the residents take up fire-arms and shoot anyone they can.

The scene cuts to a nearby hilltop, where it is revealed the mysterious meteor that had flown overhead is indeed an alien spaceship. Its inhabitants, two alien observers, are watching the riot on Maple Street while using a device to manipulate the neighborhood's power. They comment on how easy it was to create paranoia and panic, and conclude that the easiest way to conquer Earth is to let the people of Earth destroy themselves as their own worst enemy.

Closing narration

“ The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices - to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill...and suspicion can destroy...and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own - for the children...and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is...that these things cannot be confined...to the Twilight Zone.

 

[JoeB131]

He added three more.

9) Why during the debacle with Chic-fil-A in 2012 did you feel the need to stage kiss ins in front of people eating their lunch, during a lunch rush? To me, this is you imposing your lifestyle on unsuspecting strangers at a restaurant.

I don't know, guy, why did black folks do sit-ins at the lunch counters of businesses in the Jim Crow South. Why did Rosa Park insist on sitting at the front of the bus? How dare she impose herself on unsuspecting strangers!

10) Do you really care about the homosexual cause, liberals? Or are you more concerned with using them at your convenience so as to be seen as more down to Earth or accepting?

I think this is where you are confused. The Plutocrats use your sexual fear to get you to vote against your own economic interests, which is why you don't have a job but you do have your hate.

I've had a friend who was fired because she was gay, and frankly, was so upset about this I quit. (And this was when I was still Republican). So I put my money where my mouth is.

11) Why do you homosexuals insist on your love life being none of other peoples business? Or the Government's? When you fight to legalize gay marriage, you are by default making it other people's business, and thus the Governments. When you get your marriage license, who issues it to you? The government.]

Again with the convoluted arguments. If you create a public institution, which confers benefits, then it should be equally available to everyone.

 

[NYcarbineer]

To the author of this thread, or anyone for that matter:

Was Reynolds v. United States wrongly decided? To refresh your memory or educate you, Reynolds was the 1878 Supreme Court case that upheld laws against bigamy,

against the Mormon defendant's argument that polygamy was a 'religious duty' of his faith.

A key point made by the court:

." The court considered that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

Do you agree or disagree with the above?

Reynolds v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Edgetho]

He added three more.

9) Why during the debacle with Chic-fil-A in 2012 did you feel the need to stage kiss ins in front of people eating their lunch, during a lunch rush? To me, this is you imposing your lifestyle on unsuspecting strangers at a restaurant.

I don't know, guy, why did black folks do sit-ins at the lunch counters of businesses in the Jim Crow South. Why did Rosa Park insist on sitting at the front of the bus? How dare she impose herself on unsuspecting strangers!

10) Do you really care about the homosexual cause, liberals? Or are you more concerned with using them at your convenience so as to be seen as more down to Earth or accepting?

I think this is where you are confused. The Plutocrats use your sexual fear to get you to vote against your own economic interests, which is why you don't have a job but you do have your hate.

I've had a friend who was fired because she was gay, and frankly, was so upset about this I quit. (And this was when I was still Republican). So I put my money where my mouth is.

11) Why do you homosexuals insist on your love life being none of other peoples business? Or the Government's? When you fight to legalize gay marriage, you are by default making it other people's business, and thus the Governments. When you get your marriage license, who issues it to you? The government.]

Again with the convoluted arguments. If you create a public institution, which confers benefits, then it should be equally available to everyone.

What a lying bitch you are.

You need to seek professional help, dewd.

I am seriously not kidding

 

[NYcarbineer]

So far, one person has failed to address my set of points. Is there a liberal out there who can debate me seriously without bringing my job situation into it? I mean, I should construe your silence or hostility as an admission that these points are by default true, and that you have nothing to argue them with.

The error of one of points was cited. The reference to Corinthians as the words of Jesus was wrong. That was the apostle Paul.

And Paul or Jesus, probably irrelevant.

 

[JoeB131]

I think this is where you are confused. The Plutocrats use your sexual fear to get you to vote against your own economic interests, which is why you don't have a job but you do have your hate.

I've had a friend who was fired because she was gay, and frankly, was so upset about this I quit. (And this was when I was still Republican). So I put my money where my mouth is.

.

What a lying bitch you are.

You need to seek professional help, dewd.

I am seriously not kidding

Dewd, you are the one who goes around talking about how you want to hurt people you disagree with.

I used to be a Republican, until they became about appealling to the worst impulses of people like you.

In 2000, I had a co-worker who showed up at the company holiday party with her partner, and her partner wore a man's suit just so nobody missed the point. (They were having relationship issues at the time. She was kind of a lipstick lesbian who had a lot of straight friends, while her girlfriend was a little more "militant".)

Well, a couple weeks later, they let her go, despite the fact she worked their for 14 years. I got a new job and quit and told them exactly why.

Sadly, the GOP has decided to pander to bigotry because they no longer have an argument to make on the economic or military fronts. Bush fucked those up pretty badly.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No one is asking haters to "endorse" it, just respect it's reality. Frankly, there are a lot of straight people who I think never should have gotten married, but I still have to respect that the law says they can and that legally they are. And unfortunately, they often end up producing kids, unlike the gays.

Do you have something against kids, Joe? Wait, nevermind.

Guy, you Christians have been murdering each other over what your Imaginary Sky Man wants. Frankly, the scariest four words in the English Language is "God Told Me To". God told Andrea Yates to drown her five kids.

Now, to the point, the "I think it's Icky" argument, fact is, 99% of straights practice fellatio or cunnilingus, and 38% of straight couples have at least tried anal sex. And no one denies them marriage licenses or refuses to serve them or even question what they do in their bedrooms.

Say what? So you label us over what a lunatic mother did to kill her children? Such disingenuity! So, what if Obama or the liberal establishment told you to kill me? Would you?

I don't care what gays do in the privacy of their own homes, but to stage public displays of their sexuality for all to see? Do you see straight holding parades flaunting theirs? You want government to stay out of the sex life of a homosexual, but demand that government legalize gay marriage. Once again, just who do you think is it that issues marriage licenses in the first place, genius?

Actually, the first time I heard the term "Teabagging", it was applied to a girl being asked if her boyfriend did that to her. The second time I heard it, was members of the Tea Party calling themselves "Teabaggers" not knowing what it meant.

Uh we knew exactly what it meant. We also knew how to turn such an insult into a brand. Tea bagging can also mean dipping a teabag into a cup of water, you know to let the water absorb the flavor? Hey there are so many ways we could have gone with that. By the way, I'm not interested in unsubstantiated stories of "If I heard it thus it must be true."

Well, not currently. Most of human history, Christians had no problem depriving gays of their lives. For most of the last century, you all forced gays to conform to your model, and a lot of gays (like my late aunt) had to enter sham marriages to satisfy society. So now that you guys are losing the last argument on marriage, you are trying to play the "religious freedom" card? Really? Really?

So, you want revenge? Is that it? Hurt us for somehow hurting you? Should you take the time to examine Islam, you would see for yourself that they are a thousand times more hostile to homosexuals than we Christians are. Oh yeah, in Islam, they don't mind beheading someone for being a homosexual. Talk about "depriving gays of their life." You want society to acknowledge you, but you don't care if you take the rights and liberties of others hostage in the process? And we should we acknowledge you as equals, why exactly?

Frankly, guy, if you don't like gay marriage, don't have one. (I'm sure there are a beavy of ladies ready to line up to marry a guy with no job.) No one is going to make a Church marry gays if their religion doesn't allow that.

I don't plan to. But hey, you don't mind telling us Christians how we are so oppressive and hateful of homosexuals, though, which is strange actually, since marriage normally involves religious elements of some sort.

That's an easy one. Because most of you are stupid. The ONLY reason George W. Stupid got elected in 2004 after stealing the election in 2000 was that he got a bunch of "right wing extremists" upset about gay marriage because one state legalized it. (The one governed by Mitt Romney, as it turned out.) So they got re-elected on the promise to put "traditional marriage" in the constitution.

Today, you have 16 states with gay marriage... which is hardly a consolation considering most of you ended up with busted 401K's, underwater mortgages and millions of jobs gone to China.

We're stupid? Is that it? George W. Stupid? Are we in the Fourth grade now?

That little rant had nothing to do with the question. You drew false correlations and made absurd delineations. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Moving on.

Sweet Evil Jesus on a Pogo Stick, if you spent as much time looking for a job you do in coming up with these convoluted arguments, you might even be employed.

You are perfectly free to believe what you want, but you have to respect everyone else's rights. If you don't think a gay marriage is valid, that's fine. But legally, it is. And if you put out a shingle and offer a service or goods, you have to offer them to everyone.

Yeah, and that's number two liberal taking shots at me about my job. Funny how you use that as a crutch for not answering my argument.

If I were perfectly free to believe what I want, why do we have people like you trying to promote the homosexual lifestyle onto others? Why is it you would call some of us hateful and bigoted if we didn't support it?

Jesus didn't write "Corinthians". St. Paul (AKA Saul of Tarses) did.

Incidently, I don't think Jesus ever existed. Or at best, Saul and others just assigned a bunch of mystical bullshit on top of a real person or an amalgamation of real people.

The point is, Jesus didn't say one word about homosexuality in the Gospels. But he was VERY explicit in condemning the accumulation of wealth. Somehow, I don't see you doing a thread on Jesus's views on wealth.

The Bible is the divinely inspired word of God, this, Jesus spoke each and every word of it. Nextly, you say you don't care about what I believe, but stand there and try to convince me that Jesus didn't exist? History begs to differ Joe, and that is your Waterloo. Your faux pas.

Bart Ehrman, a secular agnostic scholar of antiquity, is quoted in 2011 as saying, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees." So no, Jesus definitely existed, and was no fabrication at all.

Micheal Grant, a classicist, and another scholar is also quoted as saying in his book Jesus in 2004, "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." But hey, don't let the proven existence of Jesus stop you from deifying Obama, Joe.

Jesus' views on wealth are irrelevant to this subject, and are thus a non sequitur.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Can the law require a Christian to do business with a Muslim? Can the Christian businessman refuse to serve Muslims, claiming religious rights?

Or can the Muslim claim the right not to be discriminated against because of his religion?

 

[nitroz]

I guess OP never heard about the first amendment.

It goes both ways.




What makes right wingers think that they can make laws based on their religious beliefs and dictate others through them?

 

[zeke]

Hey hey, I know of a prominent Republican that likes gays. Hell you might even say he loves gays.

He didn't always feel that way cause his political party would be mad at him. And there were some things he didn't know about gays.

His name is Rob Portman and he is Senator for the Great State of Ohio.

When he found out one of his son's is gay, he came out and supported him and says he still loves him.

Isn't that amazing? Portman for President. He showed he has SOME common sense about gays.

But the teabaggers don't like him anymore.

 

[TemplarKormac]

He added three more.

9) Why during the debacle with Chic-fil-A in 2012 did you feel the need to stage kiss ins in front of people eating their lunch, during a lunch rush? To me, this is you imposing your lifestyle on unsuspecting strangers at a restaurant.

I don't know, guy, why did black folks do sit-ins at the lunch counters of businesses in the Jim Crow South. Why did Rosa Park insist on sitting at the front of the bus? How dare she impose herself on unsuspecting strangers!

10) Do you really care about the homosexual cause, liberals? Or are you more concerned with using them at your convenience so as to be seen as more down to Earth or accepting?

I think this is where you are confused. The Plutocrats use your sexual fear to get you to vote against your own economic interests, which is why you don't have a job but you do have your hate.

I've had a friend who was fired because she was gay, and frankly, was so upset about this I quit. (And this was when I was still Republican). So I put my money where my mouth is.

11) Why do you homosexuals insist on your love life being none of other peoples business? Or the Government's? When you fight to legalize gay marriage, you are by default making it other people's business, and thus the Governments. When you get your marriage license, who issues it to you? The government.]

Again with the convoluted arguments. If you create a public institution, which confers benefits, then it should be equally available to everyone.

I don't know, guy, why did black folks do sit-ins at the lunch counters of businesses in the Jim Crow South? Why did Rosa Park insist on sitting at the front of the bus? How dare she impose herself on unsuspecting strangers!

For other reasons than to flaunt who they are. They actually wanted equality. You want acknowledgement. You're like little kids begging for attention. Geez. How dare you pass yourselves off as tolerant?

I think this is where you are confused. The Plutocrats use your sexual fear to get you to vote against your own economic interests, which is why you don't have a job but you do have your hate.

I've had a friend who was fired because she was gay, and frankly, was so upset about this I quit. (And this was when I was still Republican). So I put my money where my mouth is.

Wow. Talk about convoluted arguments. How does my sexual fear (or lack thereof in this case) have anything to do with me not having a job? Hmm?

Again with the convoluted arguments. If you create a public institution, which confers benefits, then it should be equally available to everyone.

If you express a desire for that public institution to disabuse itself from your private life, but turn around and ask it to condone what you do in your private life, that makes you a hypocrite.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I guess OP never heard about the first amendment.

It goes both ways.




What makes right wingers think that they can make laws based on their religious beliefs and dictate others through them?

Did you not read the first statement? Or were you picking it over?

1) If you truly believed in equality, you would believe in a balance of freedom. There is a two way street to equality. You have every right to your lifestyle, but you cannot force others to endorse it.