The Rise of Intolerant Liberals

[Bob Blaylock]

Dodge!

No, not a Dodge. I only drive a Ford, made by the only remaining great American automobile manufacturer.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Actually, gays only make up about 3% of the population. No one has to kill them. They are doing a very good job of accomplishing that themselves:

Family Research Institute » Blog Archive » Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do

The Family Research Institute is one of the most virulent anti-gay organizations in America.

Maybe they understand that homosexuality is aberrant behavior and call it what it is?

Aberrant behavior like getting married, working, raising children.

When was the last time a homosexual was able to give birth without the opposite sex being involved?

Duh, it takes a sperm and an egg, not necessarily sex between a man and woman.

There is a reason the human species has two opposite sexes. One man to produce the sperm, one woman to produce the egg. Even through in-vitro, that requires contributions from both sexes.

The human species is designed for male and female to mate and reproduce, even in this highly technological age. Biologically, persons of the same sex cannot mate and reproduce. That is the truth of the matter.

 

[Dhara]

The Family Research Institute is one of the most virulent anti-gay organizations in America.

Maybe they understand that homosexuality is aberrant behavior and call it what it is?

Aberrant behavior like getting married, working, raising children.

When was the last time a homosexual was able to give birth without the opposite sex being involved?

Duh, it takes a sperm and an egg, not necessarily sex between a man and woman.

There is a reason the human species has two opposite sexes. One man to produce the sperm, one woman to produce the egg. Even through in-vitro, that requires contributions from both sexes.

The human species is designed for male and female to mate and reproduce, even in this highly technological age. Biologically, persons of the same sex cannot mate and reproduce. That is the truth of the matter.

Like it or not, same sex couples have children. Some using sperm donors. Some with surrogates. Some adopt, some have children from previous relationships.

 

[Dhara]

When was the last time a homosexual was able to give birth without the opposite sex being involved?

Duh, it takes a sperm and an egg, not necessarily sex between a man and woman.

From where does the sperm come?

From where does the egg come.

New human beings do not come into existence without the contribution of both a man and a woman—a father and a mother.

Not necessarily het couples

 

[TemplarKormac]

Like it or not, same sex couples have children. Some using sperm donors. Some with surrogates. Some adopt, some have children from previous relationships.

I could care less how they have the children. Or if they have children.

But the human species, by design, is for male and female to contribute the genetic material (sperm/eggs) for the purpose of procreation. Even through in vitro or other asexual means, it requires male and female genetic material. It is a matter of biology.

People seem to forget that the species has a heterosexual means of procreation. That's it.

 

[Dhara]

Like it or not, same sex couples have children. Some using sperm donors. Some with surrogates. Some adopt, some have children from previous relationships.

I could care less how they have the children. Or if they have children.

But the human species, by design, is for male and female to contribute the genetic material (sperm/eggs) for the purpose of procreation. Even through in vitro or other asexual means, it requires male and female genetic material. It is a matter of biology.

People seem to forget that the species has a heterosexual means of procreation. That's it.

I doubt anyone forgets het means of procreation.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Laugh at them, it's funny watching them ball their little hands up, stomp their feet and call you a bigoted, racist homophobic right winger

check this libtard out

--LOL

 

[Dhara]

It's a kid. You've got to makefun of a kid?

 

[jon_berzerk]

glad she heard for hours and hours from trump supporters

--LOL

looking good for trump in Nevada

--LOL

 

[Seawytch]

It means you need members of both sexes to contribute.

You keep saying that like it means something. What point are you trying to make. Yes, it takes a sperm and an egg to procreate...it does not take them to parent.

 

[Seawytch]

I don't doubt it. Those were different times and different people. People who did twist the word of God to justify racism. However, the biggest difference of all is this:

While the Bible never condemns a person for the color of their skin, it clearly condemns them if they are practicing homosexuality.

No, that's the difference YOU see. The racists were (are) just as sure of their bible verses that you are of yours. To them, the bible just as clearly supports their racism as you believe it supports your homophobia. We didn't let the racists have their religious exemptions, why should homophobes get theirs?

 

[Seawytch]

Like it or not, same sex couples have children. Some using sperm donors. Some with surrogates. Some adopt, some have children from previous relationships.

I could care less how they have the children. Or if they have children.

But the human species, by design, is for male and female to contribute the genetic material (sperm/eggs) for the purpose of procreation. Even through in vitro or other asexual means, it requires male and female genetic material. It is a matter of biology.

People seem to forget that the species has a heterosexual means of procreation. That's it.

Gays exist by design too. If you believe that we were "intelligently designed" then you have to believe that your god created gays to have their place. Maybe it's to parent the children hets throw away...

 

[jillian]

Invetro fertilization. .
Thanks for playing#

You just proved my point. Good you finally saw the light and agreed.

so if I had in vitro, I somehow shouldn't be married?

you want to try that again?

Still need a member of the opposite sex. Point still valid.

if you say so.

i understand you'll look for any excuse to justify your bigotry.

Scientific fact is a pretty good answer to most questions that involve the illogical. So I stick with it.

it is also irrelevant to what people are born, has zero to do with marriage (as 80 year olds who can't have kids can get married) and don't justify bigotry.

or do you get up every day having to choose between forcing yourself to be attracted to woman or men?

 

[jillian]

They both rely on dogma to foist their views in spite of what Scripture actually says. The "Christians" doing that also cherry pick the Biblical laws they want enforced.

Big difference. We don't enforce our interpretation of the scriptures by threatening to kill you. As far as cherrypicking is concerned, pro gay rights liberals, and certain gay people, often use the Bible to bash Christians over the head in order to justify why it allows for homosexuality.

Like I pointed out earlier in this thread. Liberals and homosexuals are intolerant of Christianity to a point. But when they find a Bible verse that they perceive to support their views/lifestyles, they become rabid Bible thumpers. It's ironic you would accuse us of trying to impose our faith on people when gays/liberals try to impose their version of Christianity on us.

I call that a double standard.

When the "Christians use their interpretation of Scripture to unnecessarily humans late homosexuals, when they seek to hide behind their narrow interpretations in order to discriminate against homosexuals, they are leaning on the implied consent of all other American Christians for implicit approval. What they utterly fail to understand is American Christianity is neither monolithic nor as repressed and repressive as they. Christians, by in large, hold forgiveness closest to their hearts. The alleged Christians would use their narrow view of Scripture as a black jack seeking to bludgeon rather than embrace, to condemn rather than forgive, to foster hate rather than true Christian love

Of course only YOUR interpretation of the Bible is correct. More of that tolerance I see.

jesus never said word one about gays.

he did say a lot about taking care of the poor.

He sure did. That's why conservatives are more charitable than liberals. Fact.

it's because "conservatives" are required to give to their churches.

it's also irrelevant to any discussion on the role of government since the radical right is also the first to say let children starve.

 

[the_human_being]

Actually, since gays constitute such a minute segment of the population, I simply place them in the broader classification of "freaks of society".

So Jews are "freaks of society"?

What does Jew have to do with anything? Jews only represent those Israelites whose forefathers were Judah and Benjamin.

Jews represent a minute segment of our population. It was your logic that labeled "minute minorities" as "freaks of society".

I really don't know myself. You tell me how many people in the world are descended from Judah and Benjamin. Jews are people just like Blacks are people and Koreans are people. Gays are comprised of a few freaks scattered among all people. But by all means, you tell us how many people are descended from Judah and Benjamin. Give us the figure.

 

[Mertex]

Actually this guy is lying through his teeth. It was a Republican Congress that overwhelmingly voted to pass the Civil Rights Act.

False the republican congress then would be considered by the new reich as Communists
Nothing they did can be claimed by today's republicans.

AT no point since then has the GOP platform been anti-civil rights.

The conversation has constantly been HOW MUCH to discriminate in favor of blacks and browns, not whether or not to actually do it.

Until very recently as anger over anti-white discrimination has grown.


Which is not the same as being against equality.

Bullshit!

So, point out where the GOP platform or policies were designed to roll back the CIvil Rights Act of 1964.

Only in the minds of intolerant liberals does it exist.

In the minds of Republicans in Congress....but y'all will find a way to twist it around and blame Obama for Paul's position.......


Paul had just become the subject of a media firestorm after giving an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal. In it, he expressed opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, explaining that no federal civil-rights law should bar businesses from racial discrimination.
Viral rewind: Rand Paul said he opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — and Rachel Maddow eviscerated him

 

[Mertex]

Actually, since gays constitute such a minute segment of the population, I simply place them in the broader classification of "freaks of society".

So Jews are "freaks of society"?

What does Jew have to do with anything? Jews only represent those Israelites whose forefathers were Judah and Benjamin.

Jews represent a minute segment of our population. It was your logic that labeled "minute minorities" as "freaks of society".

I really don't know myself. You tell me how many people in the world are descended from Judah and Benjamin. Jews are people just like Blacks are people and Koreans are people. Gays are comprised of a few freaks scattered among all people. But by all means, you tell us how many people are descended from Judah and Benjamin. Give us the figure.

Where did you get such an erroneous idea that all Jews are descendants of Judah and Benjamin? You must be getting your Christian information from Trump..... Ruth, the grandmother of David and a direct ancestors to Jesus and was a Moabite....and she became a Jew.

That's what happens when people remotely acquainted with the Bible try to make Christian pronouncements and end up with egg on their face.

"Don't urge me to leave you or to turn back from you," Ruth tells Naomi. "Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God." (Ruth 1:16).

Ruth's statement not only proclaims her loyalty to Naomi but her desire to join Naomi's people - the Jewish people.

He marries Ruth and she soon gives birth to a son named Obed, who becomes the grandfather of King David. Because the Messiah is prophesied to come from the House of David, both the greatest king in Israel's history and the future Messiah will both be descendants of Ruth - a Moabite woman who converted to Judaism
Meet Ruth: Judaism Convert and King David's Great-Grandmother

 

[the_human_being]

Actually, since gays constitute such a minute segment of the population, I simply place them in the broader classification of "freaks of society".

So Jews are "freaks of society"?

What does Jew have to do with anything? Jews only represent those Israelites whose forefathers were Judah and Benjamin.

Jews represent a minute segment of our population. It was your logic that labeled "minute minorities" as "freaks of society".

I really don't know myself. You tell me how many people in the world are descended from Judah and Benjamin. Jews are people just like Blacks are people and Koreans are people. Gays are comprised of a few freaks scattered among all people. But by all means, you tell us how many people are descended from Judah and Benjamin. Give us the figure.

Where did you get such an erroneous idea that all Jews are descendants of Judah and Benjamin? You must be getting your Christian information from Trump..... Ruth, the grandmother of David and a direct ancestors to Jesus and was a Moabite....and she became a Jew.

That's what happens when people remotely acquainted with the Bible try to make Christian pronouncements and end up with egg on their face.

"Don't urge me to leave you or to turn back from you," Ruth tells Naomi. "Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God." (Ruth 1:16).

Ruth's statement not only proclaims her loyalty to Naomi but her desire to join Naomi's people - the Jewish people.

He marries Ruth and she soon gives birth to a son named Obed, who becomes the grandfather of King David. Because the Messiah is prophesied to come from the House of David, both the greatest king in Israel's history and the future Messiah will both be descendants of Ruth - a Moabite woman who converted to Judaism
Meet Ruth: Judaism Convert and King David's Great-Grandmother

The word "Jew" (in Hebrew, "Yehudi") is derived from the name Judah, which was the name of one of Jacob's twelve sons. Judah was the ancestor of one of the tribes of Israel, which was named after him. Likewise, the word Judaism literally means "Judah-ism," that is, the religion of the Yehudim. Other sources, however, say that the word "Yehudim" means "People of G-d," because the first three letters of "Yehudah" are the same as the first three letters of G-d's four-letter name.

Originally, the term Yehudi referred specifically to members of the tribe of Judah, as distinguished from the other tribes of Israel. However, after the death of King Solomon, the nation of Israel was split into two kingdoms: the kingdom of Judah and the kingdom of Israel (I Kings 12; II Chronicles 10). After that time, the word Yehudi could properly be used to describe anyone from the kingdom of Judah, which included the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, as well as scattered settlements from other tribes. The most obvious biblical example of this usage is in Esther 2:5, where Mordecai is referred to as both a Yehudi and a member of the tribe of Benjamin.

I readily admit though that the term is now almost a meaningless term.

 

[Papageorgio]

Big difference. We don't enforce our interpretation of the scriptures by threatening to kill you. As far as cherrypicking is concerned, pro gay rights liberals, and certain gay people, often use the Bible to bash Christians over the head in order to justify why it allows for homosexuality.

Like I pointed out earlier in this thread. Liberals and homosexuals are intolerant of Christianity to a point. But when they find a Bible verse that they perceive to support their views/lifestyles, they become rabid Bible thumpers. It's ironic you would accuse us of trying to impose our faith on people when gays/liberals try to impose their version of Christianity on us.

I call that a double standard.

When the "Christians use their interpretation of Scripture to unnecessarily humans late homosexuals, when they seek to hide behind their narrow interpretations in order to discriminate against homosexuals, they are leaning on the implied consent of all other American Christians for implicit approval. What they utterly fail to understand is American Christianity is neither monolithic nor as repressed and repressive as they. Christians, by in large, hold forgiveness closest to their hearts. The alleged Christians would use their narrow view of Scripture as a black jack seeking to bludgeon rather than embrace, to condemn rather than forgive, to foster hate rather than true Christian love

Of course only YOUR interpretation of the Bible is correct. More of that tolerance I see.

jesus never said word one about gays.

he did say a lot about taking care of the poor.

He sure did. That's why conservatives are more charitable than liberals. Fact.

it's because "conservatives" are required to give to their churches.

it's also irrelevant to any discussion on the role of government since the radical right is also the first to say let children starve.

I'm not required to give to anyone, I give because I want the time.

Your second statement is more drama BS. Me re of they twisted intolerance of the liberals.

 

[jillian]

When the "Christians use their interpretation of Scripture to unnecessarily humans late homosexuals, when they seek to hide behind their narrow interpretations in order to discriminate against homosexuals, they are leaning on the implied consent of all other American Christians for implicit approval. What they utterly fail to understand is American Christianity is neither monolithic nor as repressed and repressive as they. Christians, by in large, hold forgiveness closest to their hearts. The alleged Christians would use their narrow view of Scripture as a black jack seeking to bludgeon rather than embrace, to condemn rather than forgive, to foster hate rather than true Christian love

Of course only YOUR interpretation of the Bible is correct. More of that tolerance I see.

jesus never said word one about gays.

he did say a lot about taking care of the poor.

He sure did. That's why conservatives are more charitable than liberals. Fact.

it's because "conservatives" are required to give to their churches.

it's also irrelevant to any discussion on the role of government since the radical right is also the first to say let children starve.

I'm not required to give to anyone, I give because I want the time.

Your second statement is more drama BS. Me re of they twisted intolerance of the liberals.

ok... so when wingers vote to take money away from programs that feed children and give it away in tax cuts to the top 1%, you aren't ignoring starving children.

ok... we can play that. but you should probably learn basic rules about cause and effect.