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.
actually you are wrong...shame is a great tool when used in the defense of liberty.TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:
“And how are we stopping them from getting married?”
By enacting un-Constitutional measures designed to deny gay Americans access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in – Utah's Amendment 3 being one of many examples.
TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:
“I fail to see the parallels here. Also, shaming people with religious objections to homosexuality into silence is the highest form of intolerance anyone can bestow. You are guilty as charged.”
Actually you're a liar.
No one is seeking to 'shame' people with religious objections to homosexuality into silence, the notion is ridiculous, unfounded nonsense – you and others on the right hostile to gay Americans remain at complete liberty to express your objections to homosexuality with impunity.
gay activists have publicly called for shaming bigots and why not?
Marriage is supposed to be a fundamental right. Nowhere does that right imply it is only applicable to opposite sex couples -- unless one uses a religious bigotry test
I don't think your 'shame' plan is going to work, because in order for a person to feel shame, they have to believe they have done something wrong.
Since we know we are right, and SSM is wrong, it isn't even possible for us to feel shame for something we know isn't wrong to oppose.
If anyone could even attempt to feel shame, it would be supporters of SSM, that have thousands of years of human history standing against them.
And bigotry itself, is only bad, when you are wrong. You are bigot for what you believe too. The difference is, we are bigots for what is right. You are bigot for what is wrong.
So, good luck with your plan, but I can promise you've already lost that specific battle.
That was the argument for slavery. It also had thousands of years of history to back it up.
In fact, most bigotry throughout history was embraced by people who were certain they were right.
I don't care.
"yeah but but racism and some other stuff blaw blaw blaw...."
Still don't care
"But bigots throughout history blaw blaw blaw..."
Still don't care dude. Sucks to be you huh?
I think most of us get it. You're unashamedly stupid.
When a bigot calls me stupid, that's a compliment.
actually you are wrong...shame is a great tool when used in the defense of liberty.TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:
“And how are we stopping them from getting married?”
By enacting un-Constitutional measures designed to deny gay Americans access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in – Utah's Amendment 3 being one of many examples.
TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:
“I fail to see the parallels here. Also, shaming people with religious objections to homosexuality into silence is the highest form of intolerance anyone can bestow. You are guilty as charged.”
Actually you're a liar.
No one is seeking to 'shame' people with religious objections to homosexuality into silence, the notion is ridiculous, unfounded nonsense – you and others on the right hostile to gay Americans remain at complete liberty to express your objections to homosexuality with impunity.
gay activists have publicly called for shaming bigots and why not?
Marriage is supposed to be a fundamental right. Nowhere does that right imply it is only applicable to opposite sex couples -- unless one uses a religious bigotry test
I don't think your 'shame' plan is going to work, because in order for a person to feel shame, they have to believe they have done something wrong.
Since we know we are right, and SSM is wrong, it isn't even possible for us to feel shame for something we know isn't wrong to oppose.
If anyone could even attempt to feel shame, it would be supporters of SSM, that have thousands of years of human history standing against them.
And bigotry itself, is only bad, when you are wrong. You are bigot for what you believe too. The difference is, we are bigots for what is right. You are bigot for what is wrong.
So, good luck with your plan, but I can promise you've already lost that specific battle.
That was the argument for slavery. It also had thousands of years of history to back it up.
In fact, most bigotry throughout history was embraced by people who were certain they were right.
I don't care.
"yeah but but racism and some other stuff blaw blaw blaw...."
Still don't care
"But bigots throughout history blaw blaw blaw..."
Still don't care dude. Sucks to be you huh?
Ever hear of the Hobby Lobby case?You can have the No ******* Club, but not the No ******* Bakery. That is where tolerance ends.
Tolerance stopping at intolerance cuts both ways....Now you knowTolerance stops at intolerance. Now you know.I'm a huge fan of George Takei, and I follow him on Facebook, Takei makes no bones about the fact that he's flaming gay and has a husband/partner named Brad. Hikaru Sulu was and is still one of my favorite characters in the original Star Trek (aside from Spock, Kirk and Chekov). But sometimes he can be quite provocative and downright hostile to people who express dissenting views of homosexuality (namely Memories Pizza), and as a result, I must sometimes roll my eyes and scroll past some of his inflammatory discussion topics (most of the time he is absolutely brilliant with puns and therefore a constant source of hilarity), but one of his topics tonight in particular compelled me to write this thread, of which can be seen here.
It's funny though, there is this far reaching cry in America for religious tolerance of homosexuality, or otherwise face inevitable demise for their intransigence. I hear how the religious (mainly the Christian religion) should have to change their values and precepts in order to be more inclusive to homosexuals, yet what I see in today's far left social liberal are words of hate and bigotry towards Christians and people of faith. In other words, the same hatred, intolerance, and bigotry that those same people claim come from those of faith.
One wonders, how does it feel for them to become the very thing they're fighting against? Doesn't tolerance work both ways? It stands to reason that if you want tolerance, you must give it in same while taking care not to be what you condemn; as Friedrich Nietzsche put it, "fight not with monsters, lest you become a monster, for if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
If you fight so much and so hard, and with too much zealousness against a perceived evil (in this case, intolerance and bigotry), you risk becoming the same evil you were fighting against in the first place (intolerant and bigoted). This is what the LGBT activists and hordes of pro gay rights liberals have done and are doing. Preaching against intolerance and bigotry whilst being intolerant and bigoted.
Am I saying there aren't bigots? Not at all, there are. There are bigots all over the place! Am I saying that all gay people are this way? Heck no. In fact, I've seen a few examples of gay people standing up for people of faith. Am I am saying that all pro gay rights liberals are this way? Well, I'd be lying if I said no.
But this is ludicrous. The only target of this outrage in America thus far is Christianity. Not one Muslim has been sued or called out by the LGBT community for discriminating or contending that homosexuality is a sin against Allah. Nope. Just Christianity. As far as I can tell, and from what I've read, Muslims treat homosexuals a hundred times, no, a million times more harshly than any Christian today would. Christians think homosexuality is a sin that can be forgiven by God. Muslims think homosexuality is unforgivable, and is a sin punishable by death. But why just Christianity?
I also note the lack of concern some self proclaimed gay rights activists hold for homosexual people in the Middle East. When other gay people around the world are subject to the same, if not worse treatment that they condemn Christians for committing against gays in America, the silence is quite damning. To fight for gay rights in my mind, is to fight for the rights of gay individuals everywhere on Earth, not just here in America. Those who do only focus on gays here in America should realize their advocacy rings hollow. The focus is myopic.
Christianity is often condemned for its behavior during The Crusades, for forcing the conversion of unwitting Muslims and rightly so, though we have grown out of exercising such forms of barbarity; but now, I see a crusade of a different sort. And it's being waged by the extreme fringe of the LGBT crowd this time around. "Make your religion accept us, or be damned!" Their vanguard, consisting of the far left and left wage the war of identity against the opposition, hurling words like "intolerant" and "bigoted" like fire and pitch across the sociopolitical battlefield, landing squarely where it doesn't belong.
And the Christians didn't just force Jews, Muslims, and others to convert, they expelled them or killed them if they didn't.
actually you are wrong...shame is a great tool when used in the defense of liberty.TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:
“And how are we stopping them from getting married?”
By enacting un-Constitutional measures designed to deny gay Americans access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in – Utah's Amendment 3 being one of many examples.
TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:
“I fail to see the parallels here. Also, shaming people with religious objections to homosexuality into silence is the highest form of intolerance anyone can bestow. You are guilty as charged.”
Actually you're a liar.
No one is seeking to 'shame' people with religious objections to homosexuality into silence, the notion is ridiculous, unfounded nonsense – you and others on the right hostile to gay Americans remain at complete liberty to express your objections to homosexuality with impunity.
gay activists have publicly called for shaming bigots and why not?
Marriage is supposed to be a fundamental right. Nowhere does that right imply it is only applicable to opposite sex couples -- unless one uses a religious bigotry test
I don't think your 'shame' plan is going to work, because in order for a person to feel shame, they have to believe they have done something wrong.
Since we know we are right, and SSM is wrong, it isn't even possible for us to feel shame for something we know isn't wrong to oppose.
If anyone could even attempt to feel shame, it would be supporters of SSM, that have thousands of years of human history standing against them.
And bigotry itself, is only bad, when you are wrong. You are bigot for what you believe too. The difference is, we are bigots for what is right. You are bigot for what is wrong.
So, good luck with your plan, but I can promise you've already lost that specific battle.
That was the argument for slavery. It also had thousands of years of history to back it up.
In fact, most bigotry throughout history was embraced by people who were certain they were right.
I don't care.
"yeah but but racism and some other stuff blaw blaw blaw...."
Still don't care
"But bigots throughout history blaw blaw blaw..."
Still don't care dude. Sucks to be you huh?
Actually, history shows it usually sucks for the bigots.
In the past Christians have been just as cruel and strict in dealing with sin as Muslims are today.
In the past. There you go with "in the past." Why do you insist on judging people on their past? We Christians have learned from our past and have done much to rectify our mistakes, yet you still condemn us for our past. We do still own our past, but we have long since set it aside.
You can't see the change, you are too busy looking backwards to notice. The worst Christians do today is oh, saying they oppose gay marriage. The worst Muslims do is execute gays, deny them their rights, imprison them, or treat them like animals. Yet still here you are bashing Christians.
The intolerance you speak of is not coming from gays but the 55% of the American public who approve of gay marriage.
You want to run that by me again? Its gays, and their supporters all over the world.
They've beaten street preachers:
Lesbian Mob Beats Street Preacher at Seattle Gay Pride The Black Sphere TheBlackSphere.net
Attacked old women carrying the cross:
Embedded media from this media site is no longer available
Vandalized churches:
North Carolina Churches Trashed Spray-Painted with Pro-Homosexual Vandalism Christian News Network
And harassed bishops whilst in the midst of prayer (this is my personal favorite, because it is one of the most vile and intolerant things I've seen homosexuals do. Anywhere. It still makes my skin crawl.):
Yet contrary to what you think Christians are as it pertains to homosexuality, this Bishop turned the other cheek. He tolerated them. So that already debunks your Christian intolerance meme. He knows what he believes, he knew what they believed. But not once did he attempt to force his faith on them.
Oh, more gays attacking street preachers:
Are you seeing a pattern yet? There is more than enough evidence here to suggest that a good deal of homosexuals/activists have little to no tolerance for the beliefs of Christians and will do anything to have them extricated from society.
Ahh, and to cement my point, this was a comment made by Jeran Artery of Wyoming Equality, a gay activist group in...Wyoming:
And if you have anything resembling a short term memory:
Millions of marchers march in over 20 gay pride parades around the country each year and there are very few attacks on Christian hecklers considering the number of people at these events.
There is no comparison between incidents such as a street preacher being beaten up at at gay rights parade or graffiti painted on a church compared 1402 hate crimes against LGBT people which includes murder, gang rape, and mutilations. Now that's real intolerance. And that's not ancient history. That's 2013 FBI data.
Eh... perhaps the OP is too long? Or am I simply being the fat jobless twinkie eating man that I am by even bringing it up?
There is no comparison between incidents such as a street preacher being beaten up at at gay rights parade or graffiti painted on a church compared 1402 hate crimes against LGBT people which includes murder, gang rape, and mutilations. Now that's real intolerance. And that's not ancient history. That's 2013 FBI data.
Ahh, but the other part of that data says that roughly equal amounts of hate crimes take place against those of faith, or roughly 1,030 of 5,922 hate crimes were of a religious nature (17.4%).
Don't lecture me on intolerance.
Got point, however 85% of the religious hate crimes were not directed at Christians.There is no comparison between incidents such as a street preacher being beaten up at at gay rights parade or graffiti painted on a church compared 1402 hate crimes against LGBT people which includes murder, gang rape, and mutilations. Now that's real intolerance. And that's not ancient history. That's 2013 FBI data.
Ahh, but the other part of that data says that roughly equal amounts of hate crimes take place against those of faith, or roughly 1,030 of 5,922 hate crimes were of a religious nature (17.4%).
Don't lecture me on intolerance.
The point is that opposition to same-sex couples accessing marriage law is unwarranted and devoid of merit, and that the vast majority of gay Americans have no interest in political activism, where those who do are not representative of all gay Americans.The vast majority of gays do not march in parades, carry signs condemning anybody. Most people that are gay have lived much of their life in the closet, hiding their homosexuality. Even after they come out, most are reluctant to reveal themselves to all but family and close friends. As far as gay marriage is concerned, less than .1% of gays are married. Even it every gay and lesbian in the country married, 99% of all marriages would be between heterosexuals. The reality is that gay marriage effects a very small percent of the population. It's important to gays because it's a right they believe they should have, even though most will not every use that right.When you've been damned to hell for a couple thousand thousand years, burned at the stake, imprisoned, and denied the right to legally commit yourself to the person you love, it is certainly reasonable that you feel some intolerance to those that have persecuted you and made your life a living hell.
Right, so you plan to do the same to the so called oppressors, right? They gave you hell so you want to give them hell back. How mature. Gays are playing the role of judge, condemning their oppressors in the same way their oppressors condemned them. How colossally ironic.
Funny how I have people accusing me of not knowing what tolerance is, yet here I see people like you issuing your own definitions of tolerance, while passing down judgement on those wicked bigoted Christians! Gays want to fight persecution of their way of life, yet fully intend to persecute those who don't "tolerate" them, i.e. those of faith.
How dare you fight for tolerance? You don't want tolerance, you want outright capitulation. You want revenge, not acceptance. You don't want to build, you wish to destroy.
So, I wonder, how long will you keep this up until it completely backfires on you?
Not seeing the point here.
When a Christian Pastor and his deacons psychically and verbally abuse a gay couple to prevent them from entering their church, when Christian ministers across the country call gays an abomination in the sight of the lord, when Christian leaders for decades promoted cures for homosexuality that leaves teens in severe depression and suicidal, when Christian missionaries in Uganda fanned the flames of homophobia resulting in a death penalty for homosexuals, you don't think gays should speak out against such in tolerance and abuse.Exactly how are gays being intolerance toward the religious beliefs of other?Laws should not be made or refuted because of someone's religious beliefs. A religious person should show tolerance to someone else's beliefs if they expect people to respect their beliefs.After giving it some more thought, I realized I should be more concise about my charges against you:
1. You by your own silence are guilty of hypocrisy and double standards by not speaking out against the behaviors that the mainstream of your party engage in against Christians regarding the issue of homosexuality.
2. And by that silence, you demonstrated complicity in the behavior of other members of your party or members who share like mind.
3. You also demonstrated your lack of tolerance and colossal duplicitousness when you stated how you "respected" my stances on homosexuality due to my Christian faith and also how you had no qualms with how I live my life. However, theretofore, you asked this pointed question: "How can someone who has proven that he does not understand tolerance start a thread on it?"
Such a question implies an assertion on its own, asserting that I am intolerant and therefore do not understand or are incapable of exercising tolerance for homosexuals or their relationships. A genetic argument, to be sure, which I have demonstrated repeatedly to be false. You have yet to show how I have "proven" that I "do not understand tolerance."
I thereby challenge you to back up this claim, or concede the point.
4. An additional point. After reading this statement:
"If homosexual relationships are against someone's religion, that pertains to members of that religion, not everyone."
Am I to assume that such a belief should be confined only between members of a faith? That they shouldn't speak out based their belief because of their "intolerance"? Or is it that simply not everyone shares their belief? If it is the former, then that would yet be another contradiction, and would belie your so-called "tolerance" of other peoples opinions and beliefs.
However, if it is the latter, then I agree. Not everyone will share the same opinion on homosexual relationships. But I might add that you can't force them to have a favorable opinion of homosexual relationships in the same stead.
I am not a 'party man', I believe what I think to be right or wrong.
As for my silence, some of us have jobs and careers and cannot sit on a message board all day.
So are you saying that such tolerance for homosexuality shouldn't be reciprocated? No tolerance for the religious beliefs of others? Repay tolerance with intolerance? Why and how is that fair?
As for your slights about me not having a career or a job, while that is true, it has nothing to do with the fact that you have repeatedly dodged my questions and deflected my challenges to your arguments. And no, I don't spend all day on this forum. Time is better spent elsewhere.
I think I can answer this one ....
Some people have a religious belief that homosexuality is a sin, and should not be condoned.
Gay activists and supporters, on the other hand, want to stifle that view, and want to make it illegal.
That DOES sound like intolerance, doesn't it? Not allowing the anti-homosexuality people their place and their platform?
Seems kinda logical to me ...
Anti-homosexuals certainly have a platform to spread their hate against homosexuals in 350,000 congregations throughout the country and every word they say is protected by the constitution.
Got point, however 85% of the religious hate crimes were not directed at Christians.There is no comparison between incidents such as a street preacher being beaten up at at gay rights parade or graffiti painted on a church compared 1402 hate crimes against LGBT people which includes murder, gang rape, and mutilations. Now that's real intolerance. And that's not ancient history. That's 2013 FBI data.
Ahh, but the other part of that data says that roughly equal amounts of hate crimes take place against those of faith, or roughly 1,030 of 5,922 hate crimes were of a religious nature (17.4%).
Don't lecture me on intolerance.
There is no comparison between incidents such as a street preacher being beaten up at at gay rights parade or graffiti painted on a church compared 1402 hate crimes against LGBT people which includes murder, gang rape, and mutilations. Now that's real intolerance. And that's not ancient history. That's 2013 FBI data.
Ahh, but the other part of that data says that roughly equal amounts of hate crimes take place against those of faith, or roughly 1,030 of 5,922 hate crimes were of a religious nature (17.4%).
Don't lecture me on intolerance.
Oh, nice try...but take a look at the actual breakdown...
Of the 1,340 victims of an anti-religious hate crime:
- 62.4 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias.
- 11.6 percent were victims of an anti-Islamic bias.
- 7.5 percent were victims of a bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group).
- 6.4 percent were victims of an anti-Catholic bias.
- 2.6 percent were victims of an anti-Protestant bias.
- 0.9 percent were victims of an anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.
- 8.6 percent were victims of a bias against other religions (anti-other religion).
There is a lot of talk about hate speech but the only people I've heard talking about hate speech laws are Marco Rubio and some Christian leaders. This is an old political ploy, set yourself up as defender against an imaginary evil. People will assume that it really exist and you the one that will save them.Wrong.Exactly how are gays being intolerance toward the religious beliefs of other?So are you saying that such tolerance for homosexuality shouldn't be reciprocated? No tolerance for the religious beliefs of others? Repay tolerance with intolerance? Why and how is that fair?
As for your slights about me not having a career or a job, while that is true, it has nothing to do with the fact that you have repeatedly dodged my questions and deflected my challenges to your arguments. And no, I don't spend all day on this forum. Time is better spent elsewhere.
I think I can answer this one ....
Some people have a religious belief that homosexuality is a sin, and should not be condoned.
Gay activists and supporters, on the other hand, want to stifle that view, and want to make it illegal.
That DOES sound like intolerance, doesn't it? Not allowing the anti-homosexuality people their place and their platform?
Seems kinda logical to me ...
Seeking one's comprehensive civil rights does not make one an 'activist,' nor does it 'deny' other citizens their rights.
And it's a ridiculous lie to claim that gay Americans wish to 'stifle' those hostile to homosexuals, or to make it 'illegal' to be hostile to gay Americans – nothing could be further from the truth.
Consequently, there is no 'intolerance' toward those hostile to gay Americans, they are at liberty to express their ignorance, fear, and hate with impunity, where no one is advocating they be prohibited from doing so through force of law.
It's as if you and others on the right don't even care that you're liars.
Hmmmm ---- if gay supporters aren't interested in stifling those "hostile to homosexuals" - then what is that move to have all anti-gay speech declared hate speech, or those movements attempting to have LGBT be afforded special class protection available to blacks and women? Why do i constantly see cowardly attacks of misrepresentation, half truths, and outright lies on those (the latest was Rubio) who make the 'mistake' of even mentioning the LGBT crowd? Why do I see constant attacks, on these threads, on those who profess their commitment to Christianity?
That's probably not trying to silence people, huh?
The EU has had a law against hate speech for years however, speech in the US is protected by constitution, hate or otherwise. Public rallies with people carrying signs for the Nazi Party that say “Kill Jews”, Klu Klux Klan (KKK) white supremacist demonstrations shouting “Kill *******” and lunatic, Christian, preachers with their signs that say “God Hates Fags” are all protected expressions of freedom of speech in the United States.
Not allowing gays to marry is what is intolerant.Exactly how are gays being intolerance toward the religious beliefs of other?Laws should not be made or refuted because of someone's religious beliefs. A religious person should show tolerance to someone else's beliefs if they expect people to respect their beliefs.After giving it some more thought, I realized I should be more concise about my charges against you:
1. You by your own silence are guilty of hypocrisy and double standards by not speaking out against the behaviors that the mainstream of your party engage in against Christians regarding the issue of homosexuality.
2. And by that silence, you demonstrated complicity in the behavior of other members of your party or members who share like mind.
3. You also demonstrated your lack of tolerance and colossal duplicitousness when you stated how you "respected" my stances on homosexuality due to my Christian faith and also how you had no qualms with how I live my life. However, theretofore, you asked this pointed question: "How can someone who has proven that he does not understand tolerance start a thread on it?"
Such a question implies an assertion on its own, asserting that I am intolerant and therefore do not understand or are incapable of exercising tolerance for homosexuals or their relationships. A genetic argument, to be sure, which I have demonstrated repeatedly to be false. You have yet to show how I have "proven" that I "do not understand tolerance."
I thereby challenge you to back up this claim, or concede the point.
4. An additional point. After reading this statement:
"If homosexual relationships are against someone's religion, that pertains to members of that religion, not everyone."
Am I to assume that such a belief should be confined only between members of a faith? That they shouldn't speak out based their belief because of their "intolerance"? Or is it that simply not everyone shares their belief? If it is the former, then that would yet be another contradiction, and would belie your so-called "tolerance" of other peoples opinions and beliefs.
However, if it is the latter, then I agree. Not everyone will share the same opinion on homosexual relationships. But I might add that you can't force them to have a favorable opinion of homosexual relationships in the same stead.
I am not a 'party man', I believe what I think to be right or wrong.
As for my silence, some of us have jobs and careers and cannot sit on a message board all day.
So are you saying that such tolerance for homosexuality shouldn't be reciprocated? No tolerance for the religious beliefs of others? Repay tolerance with intolerance? Why and how is that fair?
As for your slights about me not having a career or a job, while that is true, it has nothing to do with the fact that you have repeatedly dodged my questions and deflected my challenges to your arguments. And no, I don't spend all day on this forum. Time is better spent elsewhere.
I think I can answer this one ....
Some people have a religious belief that homosexuality is a sin, and should not be condoned.
Gay activists and supporters, on the other hand, want to stifle that view, and want to make it illegal.
That DOES sound like intolerance, doesn't it? Not allowing the anti-homosexuality people their place and their platform?
Seems kinda logical to me ...
Why don't you read what is posted???? Damn --- it's tough dealing with the close-minded.Ignorant nonsense.When voices that defend traditional Judeo-Christian values can be smeared, labeled and dismissed as “hateful” by radical ideologues with impunity, America has turned away from its commitment to free speech.
Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D, is the new executive director of the World Congress of Families who will be hosting their first gathering in the United States this year.
Crouse has dedicated her life’s work to research and policies promoting optimal outcomes for families, women and children.
The doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between and among private citizens, where government alone has the authority and means to limit or restrict speech consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence.
When 'defense' of traditional Judeo-Christian values manifests as seeking to deny citizens their civil rights through force of law in violation of the Constitution, it's perfectly appropriate for private citizens to denounce such efforts, and correctly identify the ignorance and hate that motivate efforts to violate citizens' civil rights.
For private citizens to denounce ignorance and hate in the context of private society, and in a free and democratic society, in no way undermines America's commitment to free speech.
