Why gay marriage is wrong!

[-S-]

I can't believe so many people here are defending the Confederacy. How un-American can you get?
What is wrong with conservatives nowadays?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Even the Pope is back on board.

POPE TAKES ON FEMINISTS, GENDER THEORISTS, GAY ACTIVISTS

Continuing with his insistence that Christians speak the truth boldly and “without fear” of the consequences, on Wednesday Pope Francis took on both the gay lobby and radical feminists by contending that men and women are essentially different and not interchangeable.
Starting from the biblical passage that reads “in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them,” the Pope went on to say that both men and women are necessary to truly “image” God.

“Not only the man taken in himself is the image of God; not only the woman taken in herself is the image of God, but also man and woman together, as a couple: they are the image of God,” he said.

Just last week, a New York Times op-ed suggested that the Bible can be interpreted to read that gay relationships are just as much a part of God’s plan as marriage between man and woman. Citing gay activist Mitchell Gold, the op-ed declared that church leaders “must be made to take homosexuality off the sin list.”

Pope Francis seems not to have gotten the memo, since he continues to proclaim that God intended the covenant between men and women to reveal Him in a distinctive way.

Pope Takes on Feminists Gender Theorists Gay Activists

 

[bripat9643]

Since Lincoln was a bloodthirsty mass murdering tyrant, I also loath it.

Ha ha, fail. You need to get over the ass kicking you got during the civil war, and focus on reality.

Lincoln had his flaws, but being bloodthirsty or power hungry weren't it. The real irony is that if the South had remained in the union, then it would have taken till the 1960s just to free all the slaves - as northern states would have probably conceded to compromise.

Instead the South had a temper tantrum and left the union, and went secessionist wanting to build their own country.

So rather than blaming the North and Lincoln, you should look to those politicians that left the government, and surrendered the political representation of their states.

Lincoln invaded the South and started a war that led to the deaths of 850,000 people. He had people executed without a trial. His troops raped, pillaged and murdered millions of American citizens. They burned a number of Southern cities to the ground. The claim that Lincoln didn't condone these actions is utterly fatuous.

Your post is little more than intellectual scat. It's meaningless shit, in other words.

The South shouldn't have started something they couldn't finish, eh?

Lincoln invaded Virginia. The South didn't invade the Union. You are the kind that would tell a woman being raped that she shouldn't have worn the slinky outfit.

It is not merely coincidence that the defenders of the Confederacy also happen to be big homophobic bigots.

"Homophobia" is a myth invented by sleazy lying libturd propagandists. Toads like you paint objecting to government infringing on your freedom as bigotry because you have no logic or facts to support your idiot theories of how to perfect society.

 

[Syriusly]

I don't see why it's so hard for people to understand.

I absolutely loathe the way the current 'Republicans' consider themselves to be members of the 'Party of Lincoln.'

What an embarrassment. If he were resurrected today, he'd be a registered Democrat by tomorrow.



My rule of thumb when it comes to social issues: If the majority of South agrees with it, it should probably be banned.

Since Lincoln was a bloodthirsty mass murdering tyrant, I also loath it.

Ha ha, fail. You need to get over the ass kicking you got during the civil war, and focus on reality.

Lincoln had his flaws, but being bloodthirsty or power hungry weren't it. The real irony is that if the South had remained in the union, then it would have taken till the 1960s just to free all the slaves - as northern states would have probably conceded to compromise.

Instead the South had a temper tantrum and left the union, and went secessionist wanting to build their own country.

So rather than blaming the North and Lincoln, you should look to those politicians that left the government, and surrendered the political representation of their states.

The civil war was not fought to free the dam' slaves.
...

The Civil War was fought because the South feared that they would lose the right to own slaves.

No one in the North went to war to free the slaves- the South went to war to ensure that they could keep their slaves.

Wrong. Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves. The South did not start the war. Lincoln did.

Sigh- you sir or madam- are a liar. The war started with the attack by Southern troops on Federal troops at Fort Sumter. Lincoln did not invade Virginia, the American Army- called the Union Army- invaded the Confederacy.

The Battle of Fort Sumter (April 12–14, 1861) was the bombardment and surrender of Fort Sumter, near Charleston, South Carolina, that started the American Civil War. Following declarations of secession by seven Southern states, South Carolina demanded that the US Army abandon its facilities in Charleston Harbor. On December 26, 1860, Major Robert Anderson of the U.S. Army surreptitiously moved his small command from the indefensible Fort Moultrie on Sullivan's Island to Fort Sumter, a substantial fortress controlling the entrance of Charleston Harbor. An attempt by U.S. President James Buchanan to reinforce and resupply Anderson, using the unarmed merchant ship Star of the West, failed when it was fired upon by shore batteries on January 9, 1861. South Carolina authorities then seized all Federal property in the Charleston area, except for Fort Sumter.

During the early months of 1861, the situation around Fort Sumter increasingly began to resemble a siege. In March, Brigadier General P. G. T. Beauregard, the first general officer of the newly formed Confederate States Army, was placed in command of Confederate forces in Charleston. Beauregard energetically directed the strengthening of batteries around Charleston harbor aimed at Fort Sumter. Conditions in the fort grew dire as the Union soldiers rushed to complete the installation of additional guns. Anderson was short of men, food, and supplies.

The resupply of Fort Sumter became the first crisis of the administration of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln. He notified the Governor of South Carolina, Francis W. Pickens, that he was sending supply ships, which resulted in an ultimatum from the Confederate government: evacuate Fort Sumter immediately. Major Anderson refused to surrender. Beginning at 4:30 a.m. on April 12, the Confederates bombarded the fort from artillery batteries surrounding the harbor. Although the Union garrison returned fire, they were significantly outgunned and, after 34 hours, Major Anderson agreed to evacuate. There was no loss of life on either side as a direct result of this engagement, although a gun explosion during the surrender ceremonies on April 14 caused two Union deaths.

Following the battle, there was widespread support from both North and South for further military action. Lincoln's immediate call for 75,000 volunteers to suppress the rebellion resulted in an additional four southern slave states also declaring their secession and joining the Confederacy. The Civil War had begun.

 

[bripat9643]

I can't believe so many people here are defending the Confederacy. How un-American can you get?
What is wrong with conservatives nowadays?

What could be more American than fighting against an oppressor for your right to self government? That's what the American revolution was all about.

 

[bripat9643]

Since Lincoln was a bloodthirsty mass murdering tyrant, I also loath it.

Ha ha, fail. You need to get over the ass kicking you got during the civil war, and focus on reality.

Lincoln had his flaws, but being bloodthirsty or power hungry weren't it. The real irony is that if the South had remained in the union, then it would have taken till the 1960s just to free all the slaves - as northern states would have probably conceded to compromise.

Instead the South had a temper tantrum and left the union, and went secessionist wanting to build their own country.

So rather than blaming the North and Lincoln, you should look to those politicians that left the government, and surrendered the political representation of their states.

The civil war was not fought to free the dam' slaves.
...

The Civil War was fought because the South feared that they would lose the right to own slaves.

No one in the North went to war to free the slaves- the South went to war to ensure that they could keep their slaves.

Wrong. Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves. The South did not start the war. Lincoln did.

Sigh- you sir or madam- are a liar. The war started with the attack by Southern troops on Federal troops at Fort Sumter. Lincoln did not invade Virginia, the American Army- called the Union Army- invaded the Confederacy.

The Battle of Fort Sumter (April 12–14, 1861) was the bombardment and surrender of Fort Sumter, near Charleston, South Carolina, that started the American Civil War. Following declarations of secession by seven Southern states, South Carolina demanded that the US Army abandon its facilities in Charleston Harbor. On December 26, 1860, Major Robert Anderson of the U.S. Army surreptitiously moved his small command from the indefensible Fort Moultrie on Sullivan's Island to Fort Sumter, a substantial fortress controlling the entrance of Charleston Harbor. An attempt by U.S. President James Buchanan to reinforce and resupply Anderson, using the unarmed merchant ship Star of the West, failed when it was fired upon by shore batteries on January 9, 1861. South Carolina authorities then seized all Federal property in the Charleston area, except for Fort Sumter.

During the early months of 1861, the situation around Fort Sumter increasingly began to resemble a siege. In March, Brigadier General P. G. T. Beauregard, the first general officer of the newly formed Confederate States Army, was placed in command of Confederate forces in Charleston. Beauregard energetically directed the strengthening of batteries around Charleston harbor aimed at Fort Sumter. Conditions in the fort grew dire as the Union soldiers rushed to complete the installation of additional guns. Anderson was short of men, food, and supplies.

The resupply of Fort Sumter became the first crisis of the administration of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln. He notified the Governor of South Carolina, Francis W. Pickens, that he was sending supply ships, which resulted in an ultimatum from the Confederate government: evacuate Fort Sumter immediately. Major Anderson refused to surrender. Beginning at 4:30 a.m. on April 12, the Confederates bombarded the fort from artillery batteries surrounding the harbor. Although the Union garrison returned fire, they were significantly outgunned and, after 34 hours, Major Anderson agreed to evacuate. There was no loss of life on either side as a direct result of this engagement, although a gun explosion during the surrender ceremonies on April 14 caused two Union deaths.

Following the battle, there was widespread support from both North and South for further military action. Lincoln's immediate call for 75,000 volunteers to suppress the rebellion resulted in an additional four southern slave states also declaring their secession and joining the Confederacy. The Civil War had begun.

The problem with the accepted government dogma you spout is that firing on Ft Sumter was not an act of war. Ft Sumter was within the territorial boundaries of South Carolina. Union troops had no right to be there after South Carolina ordered them to leave. they were trespassers. The Union most certainly had no right to violate the territorial waters of South Carolina when it attempted to resupply the Fort.

 

[-S-]

I can't believe so many people here are defending the Confederacy. How un-American can you get?
What is wrong with conservatives nowadays?

What could be more American than fighting against an oppressor for your right to self government? That's what the American revolution was all about.

An 'oppressor'?

It was the US government, simply telling people to treat other people like people.

Are you saying that you agree with the Confederate value that slave labor should have been continued?

 

[bripat9643]

Unfortunately plenty of intelligent rational people have swallowed the liberal Kool-Aid and believe so-called "Civil Rights" are actually rights.

Yet you are completely unable to explain why you believe that- or provide any rational explanation.

Again.

I have explained it many times. Whenever I ask a queer to explain his/her theory of rights, they run away like the cowardly bodecea runs away.

I have yet see you explain anything. Whenever challenged, you cower and whine like bigots always do.

Ask bodecea to explain her theory of rights. If she stops running away from that, then perhaps I'll explain mine. I've actually already explained it in this forum at least 100 times.

I have yet see you explain anything. Whenever challenged, you cower and whine like bigots always do.

That's a big fat lie.

 

[hipeter924]

It's no coincidence that the heart of the resistance to marriage and racial equality has been in the South. The South has a long history intolerance and inequality. It's no coincidence that the southern states unlike most other states only accepted women's suffrage when it was forced on them by the 19th amendment. Nor is it a coincidence that the Equal Rights Amendment failed because not a single southern state would ratify it. In small southern towns Jews, Catholics, and foreigners were regarded with suspension throughout most of the 19th and 20th century. The Klan repeated pressured local and state government to ban government hiring of Catholics and Jews.. Although the South has changed a lot in the last hundred years, much of the old intolerance and bigotry of the past still exists.

I don't see why it's so hard for people to understand.

I absolutely loathe the way the current 'Republicans' consider themselves to be members of the 'Party of Lincoln.'

What an embarrassment. If he were resurrected today, he'd be a registered Democrat by tomorrow.



My rule of thumb when it comes to social issues: If the majority of South agrees with it, it should probably be banned.

Since Lincoln was a bloodthirsty mass murdering tyrant, I also loath it.

Ha ha, fail. You need to get over the ass kicking you got during the civil war, and focus on reality.

Lincoln had his flaws, but being bloodthirsty or power hungry weren't it. The real irony is that if the South had remained in the union, then it would have taken till the 1960s just to free all the slaves - as northern states would have probably conceded to compromise.

Instead the South had a temper tantrum and left the union, and went secessionist wanting to build their own country.

So rather than blaming the North and Lincoln, you should look to those politicians that left the government, and surrendered the political representation of their states.

The civil war was not fought to free the dam' slaves.

And it should be noted that it was not a 'civil war'. It was a war by the United States; A sovereign nation, which invaded the Confederate States; a sovereign nation. The consequences of which was the United States conquering the Confederacy.

Had it been an actual Civil war... The south would have prevailed. The civil war which is about to start will demonstrate that...

The Confederate states were never officially recognized, and never counted as a sovereign nation. Might have been different had they won against the North, but they didn't so claims to legitimacy are pretty much nil.

I never claimed it was fought purely on basis of the slavery issue, in fact one thread I disagreed with the premise it was a few months back.

However, if you are entering into moral claims i.e. x is more moral than y, then yes slavery by the South is a factor in the moral equation. I would counter, that there was little moral superiority either side could claim - though obviously millions of slaves being freed was a positive development.

As far as secession is concerned today, if a state wishes to leave the US it can, so long as legislation is passed by the House, Senate, and signed off by the President that allows a state to leave.

In fact, I would be apathetic if a state decided to leave, as it is their right of self-determination. But it wasn't a legislative process through the Federal government that created the Confederacy - rather it was violent secession.

 

[bripat9643]

I can't believe so many people here are defending the Confederacy. How un-American can you get?
What is wrong with conservatives nowadays?

What could be more American than fighting against an oppressor for your right to self government? That's what the American revolution was all about.

An 'oppressor'?

It was the US government, simply telling people to treat other people like people.

Nope. Again, Lincoln did not invade Virginia to free the slaves. He said many times that if maintaining slavery would "save" the Union, then he would do it.

Are you saying that you agree with the Confederate value that slave labor should have been continued?

That's a favorite scumbag liberal tactic: accuse anyone who points out Lincoln's crimes of supporting slavery.

 

[Syriusly]

Ha ha, fail. You need to get over the ass kicking you got during the civil war, and focus on reality.

Lincoln had his flaws, but being bloodthirsty or power hungry weren't it. The real irony is that if the South had remained in the union, then it would have taken till the 1960s just to free all the slaves - as northern states would have probably conceded to compromise.

Instead the South had a temper tantrum and left the union, and went secessionist wanting to build their own country.

So rather than blaming the North and Lincoln, you should look to those politicians that left the government, and surrendered the political representation of their states.

Lincoln invaded the South and started a war that led to the deaths of 850,000 people. He had people executed without a trial. His troops raped, pillaged and murdered millions of American citizens. They burned a number of Southern cities to the ground. The claim that Lincoln didn't condone these actions is utterly fatuous.

Your post is little more than intellectual scat. It's meaningless shit, in other words.

The South shouldn't have started something they couldn't finish, eh?

Lincoln invaded Virginia. The South didn't invade the Union. You are the kind that would tell a woman being raped that she shouldn't have worn the slinky outfit.

It is not merely coincidence that the defenders of the Confederacy also happen to be big homophobic bigots.

"Homophobia" is a myth invented by sleazy lying libturd propagandists..

Homophobia perfectly describes sleazy hateful lying Right wing nutjobs like yourself. Frankly when I see your protests about the term of 'homophobia' it just shows how on target the term is.

Homophobia is to anti-gay bigots as racist is to anti-black bigots as anti-semitism is to anti-Jewish bigots.

And Bigots like yourself hate it.

But then again - you are all assholes.

 

[Syriusly]

I can't believe so many people here are defending the Confederacy. How un-American can you get?
What is wrong with conservatives nowadays?

What could be more American than fighting against an oppressor for your right to self government? That's what the American revolution was all about.

An 'oppressor'?

It was the US government, simply telling people to treat other people like people.

Nope. Again, Lincoln did not invade Virginia to free the slaves. He said many times that if maintaining slavery would "save" the Union, then he would do it.

Lincoln didn't invade anything- Federal troops invading territory of the Confederacy- to maintain the Union.

However, the South seceded in order to protect the legal institution of slavery.

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D. 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

 

[bripat9643]

It's no coincidence that the heart of the resistance to marriage and racial equality has been in the South. The South has a long history intolerance and inequality. It's no coincidence that the southern states unlike most other states only accepted women's suffrage when it was forced on them by the 19th amendment. Nor is it a coincidence that the Equal Rights Amendment failed because not a single southern state would ratify it. In small southern towns Jews, Catholics, and foreigners were regarded with suspension throughout most of the 19th and 20th century. The Klan repeated pressured local and state government to ban government hiring of Catholics and Jews.. Although the South has changed a lot in the last hundred years, much of the old intolerance and bigotry of the past still exists.

I don't see why it's so hard for people to understand.

I absolutely loathe the way the current 'Republicans' consider themselves to be members of the 'Party of Lincoln.'

What an embarrassment. If he were resurrected today, he'd be a registered Democrat by tomorrow.



My rule of thumb when it comes to social issues: If the majority of South agrees with it, it should probably be banned.

Since Lincoln was a bloodthirsty mass murdering tyrant, I also loath it.

Ha ha, fail. You need to get over the ass kicking you got during the civil war, and focus on reality.

Lincoln had his flaws, but being bloodthirsty or power hungry weren't it. The real irony is that if the South had remained in the union, then it would have taken till the 1960s just to free all the slaves - as northern states would have probably conceded to compromise.

Instead the South had a temper tantrum and left the union, and went secessionist wanting to build their own country.

So rather than blaming the North and Lincoln, you should look to those politicians that left the government, and surrendered the political representation of their states.

The civil war was not fought to free the dam' slaves.

And it should be noted that it was not a 'civil war'. It was a war by the United States; A sovereign nation, which invaded the Confederate States; a sovereign nation. The consequences of which was the United States conquering the Confederacy.

Had it been an actual Civil war... The south would have prevailed. The civil war which is about to start will demonstrate that...

The Confederate states were never officially recognized, and never counted as a sovereign nation. Might have been different had they won against the North, but they didn't so claims to legitimacy are pretty much nil.

So winning makes your cause right and losing makes it wrong?

I just love what passes for ethics among liberals.

I never claimed it was fought purely on basis of the slavery issue, in fact one thread I disagreed with the premise it was a few months back.

However, if you are entering into moral claims i.e. x is more moral than y, then yes slavery by the South is a factor in the moral equation. I would counter, that there was little moral superiority either side could claim - though obviously millions of slaves being freed was a positive development.

This only issue is whether Lincoln was justified in invading Virginia. Slavery is irrelevant to that issue. If it was relevant, the U.S. would have been justified in invadining all the territories in the Caribbean and all the nations in South America.

Turds like you keep trying to make the war about slavery because you can't win anyo ther way. You use the slavery issue to bludgeon people so the real issues won't get discussed. It's just typical leftwing sleazy propaganda

As far as secession is concerned today, if a state wishes to leave the US it can, so long as legislation is passed by the House, Senate, and signed off by the President that allows a state to leave.

In other words, it can't leave. Unfortunately for your theory, there isn't a shred of historical or legal evidence to support it. There is no language in the Constitution that says a state must get permission from the federal government to secede, so your claim is entirely unsupported. It's pure hooey.

In fact, I would be apathetic if a state decided to leave, as it is their right of self-determination. But it wasn't a legislative process through the Federal government that created the Confederacy - rather it was violent secession.

That's big of you (sarcasm). There was no violence until Lincoln invaded Virginia.

 

[Syriusly]

That's a favorite scumbag liberal tactic: accuse anyone who points out Lincoln's crimes of supporting slavery.

Lincoln so supported slavery that he made the Emancipation Proclamation.

 

[hipeter924]

Lincoln invaded the South and started a war that led to the deaths of 850,000 people. He had people executed without a trial. His troops raped, pillaged and murdered millions of American citizens. They burned a number of Southern cities to the ground. The claim that Lincoln didn't condone these actions is utterly fatuous.

Your post is little more than intellectual scat. It's meaningless shit, in other words.

The South shouldn't have started something they couldn't finish, eh?

Lincoln invaded Virginia. The South didn't invade the Union. You are the kind that would tell a woman being raped that she shouldn't have worn the slinky outfit.

It is not merely coincidence that the defenders of the Confederacy also happen to be big homophobic bigots.

"Homophobia" is a myth invented by sleazy lying libturd propagandists..

Homophobia perfectly describes sleazy hateful lying Right wing nutjobs like yourself. Frankly when I see your protests about the term of 'homophobia' it just shows how on target the term is.

Homophobia is to anti-gay bigots as racist is to anti-black bigots as anti-semitism is to anti-Jewish bigots.

And Bigots like yourself hate it.

But then again - you are all assholes.

Think you are wasting your time with him, he hates who he perceives as 'liberals' with a passion. So it is best to take it with a grain of salt, and laugh it off.

 

[Syriusly]

There was no violence until Lincoln invaded Virginia.

Bald faced lie.

I could be like you and say this is typical of all Conservative turds- but no- just typical of the turd that is you.

 

[Syriusly]

The South shouldn't have started something they couldn't finish, eh?

Lincoln invaded Virginia. The South didn't invade the Union. You are the kind that would tell a woman being raped that she shouldn't have worn the slinky outfit.

It is not merely coincidence that the defenders of the Confederacy also happen to be big homophobic bigots.

"Homophobia" is a myth invented by sleazy lying libturd propagandists..

Homophobia perfectly describes sleazy hateful lying Right wing nutjobs like yourself. Frankly when I see your protests about the term of 'homophobia' it just shows how on target the term is.

Homophobia is to anti-gay bigots as racist is to anti-black bigots as anti-semitism is to anti-Jewish bigots.

And Bigots like yourself hate it.

But then again - you are all assholes.

Think you are wasting your time with him, he hates who he perceives as 'liberals' with a passion. So it is best to take it with a grain of salt, and laugh it off.

I know- He is pro-Confederacy and pro-Gay hate.

Not a coincidence.

 

[bripat9643]

Lincoln invaded the South and started a war that led to the deaths of 850,000 people. He had people executed without a trial. His troops raped, pillaged and murdered millions of American citizens. They burned a number of Southern cities to the ground. The claim that Lincoln didn't condone these actions is utterly fatuous.

Your post is little more than intellectual scat. It's meaningless shit, in other words.

The South shouldn't have started something they couldn't finish, eh?

Lincoln invaded Virginia. The South didn't invade the Union. You are the kind that would tell a woman being raped that she shouldn't have worn the slinky outfit.

It is not merely coincidence that the defenders of the Confederacy also happen to be big homophobic bigots.

"Homophobia" is a myth invented by sleazy lying libturd propagandists..

Homophobia perfectly describes sleazy hateful lying Right wing nutjobs like yourself. Frankly when I see your protests about the term of 'homophobia' it just shows how on target the term is.

Homophobia is to anti-gay bigots as racist is to anti-black bigots as anti-semitism is to anti-Jewish bigots.

And Bigots like yourself hate it.

But then again - you are all assholes.

There's no similarity between the two. "Homophobia" is just a term that liberal morons dreamed to make opposition to the queer agenda sound like a mental illness. It's a classic Alinskyite tactic. Anyone using the term only identifies himself as an ignominious hosebag.

 

[Syriusly]

The South shouldn't have started something they couldn't finish, eh?

Lincoln invaded Virginia. The South didn't invade the Union. You are the kind that would tell a woman being raped that she shouldn't have worn the slinky outfit.

It is not merely coincidence that the defenders of the Confederacy also happen to be big homophobic bigots.

"Homophobia" is a myth invented by sleazy lying libturd propagandists..

Homophobia perfectly describes sleazy hateful lying Right wing nutjobs like yourself. Frankly when I see your protests about the term of 'homophobia' it just shows how on target the term is.

Homophobia is to anti-gay bigots as racist is to anti-black bigots as anti-semitism is to anti-Jewish bigots.

And Bigots like yourself hate it.

But then again - you are all assholes.

There's no similarity between the two. "Homophobia" is just a term that liberal morons dreamed to make opposition to the queer agenda sound like a mental illness. It's a classic Alinskyite tactic. Anyone using the term only identifies himself as an ignominious hosebag.

Homophobia perfectly describes sleazy hateful lying Right wing nutjobs like yourself. Frankly when I see your protests about the term of 'homophobia' it just shows how on target the term is.

Homophobia is to anti-gay bigots as racist is to anti-black bigots as anti-semitism is to anti-Jewish bigots.

And Bigots like yourself hate it.

But then again - you are all assholes.

 

[-S-]

That's a favorite scumbag liberal tactic: accuse anyone who points out Lincoln's crimes of supporting slavery.

How did I know you would pussy out of answering the question?

You say there is nothing more American than what the south fought for, yet won't nut up and say you agree with the continued slavery that a Confederate win would have resulted in..

I thought conservatives were supposed to be strong and stand by what they believe. Where's your backbone, Bripat?

Also, I never claimed Lincoln was perfect. He definitely had the moral high ground though.

Man up, bro. If you have a viewpoint, at least have the courage to stand by it. I always stand by what I believe.