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.
No: Racists made those arguments, racists who found their way into the loving arms Nixon's Republican Party, thanks to the Southern State Strategy.
I run away from nothing, but with you no one can debate anything. You already know everything. You still have not answered two questions, which means you are not interested or capable. So, I simply gave up on you.
Your lack of knowledge in history is disturbing. You're reaching. The first anti miscegenation laws were passed in Virginia IN 1691! Not by the Nixon Administration. Moreover, A Georgia Democrat, Seaborn Roddenberry in 1912 and 1913, proposed a nationwide ban on interracial marriage.
No brutality, no infamy, no degradation in all the years of southern slavery, possessed such villainious character and such atrocious qualities as the provision of the laws of Illinois, Massachusetts, and other states which allow the marriage of the negro, Jack Johnson, to a woman of Caucasian strain. [applause]. Gentleman, I offer this resolution ... that the States of the Union may have an opportunity to ratifty it. ...
Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania.
... Let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy
Congressional Record, 62d. Congr., 3d. Sess., December 11, 1912, pp. 502503
In 1928, Senator Coleman Blease (Democrat of South Carolina) proposed another ban on interracial marriage which went far beyond Roddenberry's.
No, Stat. I think not.
Yes, Blease was a Democrat, back in the day when the Democratic Party was the more Conservative of the two parties. You do realize this simple fact, right? Your lack of knowledge about this very simple fact is most disturbing.
You see, I can issue those kind of insults too. What the fuck is wrong with you? You used to be a real human being, actually willing to engage.
What a shame.
We are done here. For good.
fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb
Good morning, everyone.
I'd like to share with you some of my views regarding the topic of homosexuality. So, here goes.
You must be a hateful bigot. No. Just because I don't accept or agree with everything homosexuality doesn't make me a hateful bigot. That is intellectually lazy, not to mention very partisan. Since when does I don't support gay marriage, agree with people being born gay, or think it's moral the same as I hate you for being gay. There is so much difference there. Disagreeing isn't automatically hating. You may not believe it, but there are Christians out there who believe homosexuality is a sin and hate it, but don't hate the actual person.
...it's OK to insult and mock homosexuals? Sure, you can do that, if you want to be a completely incredulous jerk. That's especially bad when in the same breath you're calling homosexuality a sin. You give homosexuals justified ammo to call you hateful when you deliberately insult and mock them. Do you think Christians should mock and insult people with vile slurs like faggot? No. Those who don't support homosexuality can certainly be civil and respectful in their disagreement.
How completely intolerant of you.... Not 100% accepting homosexuality means I'm intolerant? Really? I don't think so. If I could not tolerate you, I would attempt to erase you from existence. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't tolerate you. I tolerate you plenty, with your obscene gay pride parades, snarky and flamboyant drama, and your annoyingly forced lisping. And when I say you, I mean certain loud homosexuals like Perez Hilton. So, no. I'm more than happy to disagree with you while coexisting peacefully. One can tolerate those who disagree. Do you?
But wait, homosexuals are pedophiles!!! Oh, god, be quiet. Homosexuality is when two people of the same sex have sexual attraction towards one another, which typically leads to them having sex. That ain't pedophilia. Being a pedophile is when you have sexual attraction towards a child. Gay, straight, and bisexual pedophiles exist. If you really want to poison the discussion, keep calling homosexuals pedophiles and see what happens. They are two completely different things.
Portrayal and reality regarding homosexuality. For some reason people have made it seem like homosexuals are happy, carefree, fabulous people. And they even took our rainbow and put it in their background. Now, the rainbow, a beautiful and natural phenomenon, has become a symbol of something that's not quite natural or beautiful. The reality is that gay men penetrate the anuses of other men with their genitalia. That means part of their body is going to have feces on it. Does that sound beautiful? No. Saying it like it is isn't a bad thing. Perhaps the fabulous imagery some homosexuals enshroud themselves in is compensation for the disgusting nature of their sex. As for lesbians, I've heard one puts on a modified strap that resembles male genitalia. I don't quite understand that. Do more expensive models warm up? Why a woman would prefer another woman with some modified contraption to a living, breathing man merits its own pile of questions. I don't believe in sacred cows, so I have no problem discussing any unsavory detail so long as it's done in a civil manner.
Homosexuals can't be good parents. I don't believe that for a minute. While in my view it'd be better if a child has both a mommy and a daddy for balance, I don't think gay couples are inherently bad parents, or people, at all. Two men or two women can definitely love, cherish, and care for children. It just isn't the same as one mama and one papa. For thousands of years it's been normal for offspring to have one mother and one father. Child's going to be confused, in my opinion. That imbalance doesn't mean homosexual people can't be loving parents. There are two issues here: 1) The imbalance two male or two female parents can bring and 2) Assuming homosexual couples are automatically bad, unfit parents. On the 2nd, no, that assumption is really wrong. On the 1st, I do favor how the yin and yang of man and woman together can bring a balance of two vastly different worlds and perspectives together. I wish my fellow conservatives would stop making that cruel assumption.
If you disagree, you must be gay. That's just juvenile. Seriously. You're not a teenager.
Don't you know people are born gay? According to who? How so, and why? Like I say to religious folk: show me your scientific evidence. In my opinion, people are born straight, because nature has it so that both man and woman have what they need to mate and procreate. I don't understand why homosexual people have their homosexual feelings/attractions. I may be wrong about everything; who knows? It could very well be due to a chemical imbalance in the brain. At the very least keep that possibility in your mind for the sake of unbiased, scientific research explanation. Instead of flying into a furor when some try to research and better understand the science behind homosexuality without a progressive slant, let everyone research the issue. Knowledge is power, and nothing should be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. I wonder what research would unearth if the intelligentsia weren't of an incredibly liberal---or conservative---slant.
Homosexuals are evil and deserve Hellfire. Boy, this one is tough. I was raised in an Apostolic-Pentecostal home. Now, I'm a nonreligious conservative. Do I believe the traditional Bibles consider it a sin in spite of what revisionist liberals say? Yes. Do I believe in the Bible? Currently, no. That's a whole 'nother discussion. Are homosexuals inherently evil? Absolutely not. All have sinned in the eyes of God... ...assuming a god even exists, and the one in question at that. Some liberal Christians say we shouldn't judge homosexuals as sinning, but I could just as easily turn the tables by taking the dusty old book and ask them why they absolutely won't acknowledge homosexuality as a sin, unlike other sins they do. If homosexuality is sinful, OK. Now how about greed, lust, and any other conceivable sin out there the Bible mentions? I think it would be wise for liberal Christians to stop ignoring what the Bible mentions about homosexuality, say alright, and then point out every other sin that all people so casually do. And I do completely acknowledge how supremely hypocritical some religious people can be.
You've a different opinion? How DARE you!! As history has shown, there's been quite a bit of outrage by some on the left when someone has an opinion in favor of Traditional marriage, etc. I don't understand how some people could get so angry and inflamed over someone else voicing an opinion. That kind of crap needs to stop, because it's immature and detrimental to general discussion. Not only that, but taking it a step further and actually trying to destroy peoples' livelihoods... Holy crap that's wrong. OH, you believe in taxation? How dare you! I'm going to try and destroy everything you've worked so hard for! Imagine if someone told you that because you did something so innocuous as sharing your opinion when asked for one. The whole Duck Dynasty debacle is one example of that kind of overreaction. Same with Chick-Fil-A. Same with Miss California (Carrie Prejean) and that loudmouth, Perez Hilton. People like those responsible for this kind of inflamed, Herpe-like overreaction is one thing that hurts the image of ALL homosexual people. It makes them look like they absolutely cannot stand opposing views, and that they have really, really, really thin skin. I'm aware people have very different views from mine, but you don't see me hopping up and down with seething rage while trying to ruin your life over it.
Romeikes & Mathericks. Europe isn't free like America.
Homosexuals and the Military Not sure what to say about this. Let 'em fight for our country. If they sexually harass other military members or do lewd sexual acts in front of other soldiers, punish them for misconduct. Have them fight, but don't tolerate sexual harassment from anyone, whoever they are.
Summary. I'd like to see everyone stop fighting, insulting, disrespecting, and slandering one another over this. All that does is stir up more hatred and anger, which is never going to bring peace about for all here. Respect each other's right to have an opinion, and don't freak out or try to destroy people for disagreeing with you. These sensitive issues aren't nearly as cut-and-dried as some would have you believe. Don't assume homosexuals are pedophiles or bad parents. Don't assume Christians are hateful or bigoted. You don't really understand each other, which makes it very easy to lob attacks. This vicious cycle of hatred and bitterness by all sides will result in nothing good for all involved. Please, I am asking you to stop, step back, and really question and think about how you've been thinking about people. Challenge yourselves to point out your own assumptions and question them vigorously. Ask others to help you if you want. And, whatever you do, talk with people as if they are people. As if they're your neighbors. Don't treat them special, but give them mutual respect. I strongly believe we can talk about virtually anything without becoming consumed in the raging fires of anger and hatred. We are as capable of understanding, coming together, and maintaining peace as we are the reverse.
Though you may disagree, at least try to love and respect one another.
Seriously?
Have you ever dealt with an alcoholic? You don't get very far with one by giving them all the booze they can drink just because you love them. You have to hate their drinking, but sill love them. In other words, you hate the sin, but love the sinner.
You really should try thinking before you post, or does that give you a headache?
noYes, just like you don't hate a smoker, but still point out that smoking is bad for their health. You should try it sometime.
no it doesn't.It also shows your hypocrisy.
Don't let that stop you thoug, it is so much easier to be a hypocrite than to take the time to educate a person out of their ignorance.
he didnt agreeDamn, you called him stupid for agreeing with you.
What does that say about you?
I didnt chase you.That explains why you chased me around the board calling me gay until you realized I wasn't that easy to insult.
So is your belief that people are born gay.
Maybe you have the religious right to do your job. A couple is getting married, they go look for a baker to make a wedding cake, they find one they like and ask for a wedding cake, the baker says, "No, I won't make a cake for you because God says you're evil."In what way is the business owner's faith threatened? It's a business that makes wedding cakes that doesn't want to make wedding cakes for paying customers. That sounds like a really stupid fucking business model.
Wow, now you're being dense.
By asking him to violate the tenets of his faith to condone (by that I mean serve) that which he sees as sinful, you are threatening his religious liberty... no, stripping him of it. By what right do you have to do that to someone of any faith?
Where the fuck did the couple infringe on anyone else's rights? By walking into a publicly advertised business for a product? And you want to call me 'dense'? Come on, man. You're not even trying to make sense.
If you oppose gay marriage, you may be tolerant of gay people....but are you tolerant of gay people being equal to you?
I know gay people that oppose gay marraige. Does that mean they want to be lesser people, or does it mean that the issue might be a little more complicated than you are portraying it?
You know gay people who oppose gay marriage?
I call bullshit.
No, but racist Southern Dixiecrats became racist Southern Republicans because of the southern strategy. That's why it's absolutely hilarious and horrifying to see Republican mouth-breathers today trying to claim to be the party of Lincoln.Lol. No. Anti interracial marriage laws had nothing to do with Nixon's Southern Strategy, KNB.
I know gay people that oppose gay marraige. Does that mean they want to be lesser people, or does it mean that the issue might be a little more complicated than you are portraying it?
You know gay people who oppose gay marriage?
I call bullshit.
Call it anything you want, but I have gay friends who know how important it is for children, whether they are gay or straight, to have a mom and dad in the home and do not want to do anything to weaken traditional marriage as an institution. They are all for keeping the traditional definition of marriage while accommodating all those, gay and straight, who need the protections and benefits but for whatever reason do not wish to enter into a traditional mariage but are more than willing to call it something other than 'marriage'. Such people give me hope that maybe political correctness has not warped our entire culture.
So basically, the First Amendment be damned, correct? .
Your first amendments rights stop when it starts impacting on others civil rights. Let's change out the words "gay marriage" for "black" or "woman" and see how well your argument stacks up...
Likewise for you. So, someones right to be gay can infringe on my civil rights? Am I hearing this correctly? Not buying it. Your right to equality ends when it infringes on MY civil rights, buddy.
I know gay people that oppose gay marraige. Does that mean they want to be lesser people, or does it mean that the issue might be a little more complicated than you are portraying it?
You know gay people who oppose gay marriage?
I call bullshit.
he tends to be full of this
Call it anything you want, but I have gay friends who know how important it is for children, whether they are gay or straight, to have a mom and dad in the home and do not want to do anything to weaken traditional marriage as an institution. They are all for keeping the traditional definition of marriage while accommodating all those, gay and straight, who need the protections and benefits but for whatever reason do not wish to enter into a traditional mariage but are more than willing to call it something other than 'marriage'.
You want them to have every benefit that heterosexual married couples have....but not call it marriage? Is that what you are saying?
It ISN'T marriage as marriage has been defined for many millenia. The traditional marriage laws are/were currently 100% equitable and applied without to every single man, woman, and child in whatever state. And every single law related to marriage was to a) encourage traditional marriage and b) provide essential protection for any children resulting from such marriage. Obviously no children will be produced from a gay union and a gay union is not traditional marriage, so you cannot allow gays to 'marry' without changing the definition and purpose of the marriage laws; i.e. without making marriage into something different than it is.
At the same time, there are those, gay and straight, who for whatever reason cannot or do not want to enter into a traditional marriage, but who need some tax benefits, visitation and inheritance rights, etc. enjoyed by married people, and who need/want to form themselves into legally recognized family units for that purpose. I very much support laws to accommodate this. I just want it to be called something other than marriage.
It ISN'T marriage as marriage has been defined for many millenia. The traditional marriage laws are/were currently 100% equitable and applied without to every single man, woman, and child in whatever state. And every single law related to marriage was to a) encourage traditional marriage and b) provide essential protection for any children resulting from such marriage. Obviously no children will be produced from a gay union and a gay union is not traditional marriage, so you cannot allow gays to 'marry' without changing the definition and purpose of the marriage laws.
At the same time, there are those, gay and straight, who for whatever reason cannot or do not want to enter into a traditional marriage, but who need some tax benefits, visitation and inheritance rights, etc. enjoyed by married people, and who need/want to form themselves into legally recognized family units for that purpose. I very much support laws to accommodate this. I just want it to be called something other than marriage.
Being the incredibly intelligent person that you are, I expect the sheer idiocy of your point of view here will not register.
You want the name of what they do to be called something else. As if not doing so will in some way effect anyone, anywhere.
What shall we call it? Got any suggestions? What should Bob ask Bill on one knee? Fill in the blank, please.
"Bill........will you _______________ me?
I really don't care what Bob and Bill call it. But it won't be traditional marriage even if they call it that. Those who are unwilling to compromise in the least to accommodate something that is good just so they can be considered 'no different than' somebody else, are not advocating equality. They are demanding one group give up something very important to them to accommodate somebody else. That is not equality. And many believe it is as wrong as the National Football League being required to change its rules and concept to accommodate women or the NBA having to change its format to allow short guys to play with the giants or requiring Christian churches or Jewish synagoguea to include Atheist beliefs in their liturgy. This would give the illusion of 'equality' but it would not be that. It would be taking something away from another group to accommodate a different group and thereby completely change what the original concept is.
God didn't claim that homosexuality is a sin, the Bible did.
God didn't write the Bible, humans did.
Greed is a sin, but not homosexuality, according to God in the Bible.
God didn't claim that homosexuality is a sin, the Bible did.
God didn't write the Bible, humans did.
Greed is a sin, but not homosexuality, according to God in the Bible.
So, you quot scripture on that ? Where you get that justcoutcof curiosity. Even so, Nature rejects homosexuality.
Maybe you have the religious right to do your job. A couple is getting married, they go look for a baker to make a wedding cake, they find one they like and ask for a wedding cake, the baker says, "No, I won't make a cake for you because God says you're evil."Wow, now you're being dense.
By asking him to violate the tenets of his faith to condone (by that I mean serve) that which he sees as sinful, you are threatening his religious liberty... no, stripping him of it. By what right do you have to do that to someone of any faith?
Where the fuck did the couple infringe on anyone else's rights? By walking into a publicly advertised business for a product? And you want to call me 'dense'? Come on, man. You're not even trying to make sense.
Except that isn't how it happened. Gay couple goes to get a wedding cake and the baker declined because he his religious convictions did not support gay marriage and doing the wedding cake would have required the baker's attendance at that function. Large wedding cakes are almost always assembled and decorated on location, not at the bakery.
If the baker had declined to set up a large cake at the Westboro Baptist Church or a Ku Klux Klan meeting or a dog fight or some other less politically sensitive venue, nobody would have thought much about that. But because the couple was gay, the baker is branded an evil person even though he would quite willingly serve everybody, gay or hooded Klansman or anybody else who walked into the business and could pick it up on premises.
If gay people want respect and tolerance for who and what they are, they really should allow others to be who and what they are too.
God breathes, huh? In the vacuum of space, right?God didn't claim that homosexuality is a sin, the Bible did.
God didn't write the Bible, humans did.
Greed is a sin, but not homosexuality, according to God in the Bible.
So, you quot scripture on that ? Where you get that justcoutcof curiosity. Even so, Nature rejects homosexuality.
WHY post your ignorance for all to see????===2 Timothy 3:16 ►
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
