Within a few short years, homosexuals have gone from persecuted to persecutors...

[LittleNipper]

Libtards have absolutely equated sexuality with race. They won't talk about homosexuality without equating it with a race. This is where they get their self-righteous authority to impose their morality on others.

It's a blatantly racist argument that they persist in making—suggesting that being a morally- and psychiatrically-defective sexual pervert is equivalent to being of an ethnic minority.

Dear Bob Blaylock
I find it's a case of the shoe being on the other foot.
For too long it's the Christians criticized for judging others and for projecting their beliefs on others and through govt.

Liberals and LGBT could not see how any of this was by good intent but imagined it was all for hatred.

Now when they are caught doing the same things with their LGBT beliefs, judging others and insisting on imposing their beliefs through govt, suddenly the tables are turned.


If their intentions are good, what about Christian's whose intentions are good? If Christian's aren't allowed to incorporate their beliefs expressions and rituals through govt, who are the LGBT advocates to take their beliefs and force everyone to comply through govt?

This is to give the liberals a chance to stand and walk in the same shoes of those they criticize. They can either learn how this happens even if the intent was good, or they can decide both cases are wrong and neither sides beliefs belong in govt / public policy but should remain private free choice of belief without govt endorsement regulation or other interference

I firmly believe that most fervent Christians have never acted in a way hurt people. In general it was biblical influence that ended slavery. It was considered Christian to allow people to speak their minds without reprisals. If you imagine that it was Christians who beat up "gay" in bars, usually, Christians wouldn't frequent bars nor bathhouses,

The Amish are a very good example of Christian behavior. They will share their beliefs but mostly they want to be left alone. I cannot help it if most people would rather live next to a church or in a "Christian" community than live next to a X Rated Book Store or some "club"...

 

[TheParser]

I agree with those members who have pointed out that:

1. Male gay people have been terribly treated throughout American history.
2. Most gay people have NO interest in wanting to persecute the straight majority.

*****

* Even today, some police departments still send handsome plainclothes officers into restrooms in order to entice gay men and then arrest them. (Remember the United States Senator from Idaho who was entrapped some years back in an airport restroom?)



* Back in the 20th century, some police officers would go to gay men's landlords and tell them to kick them out of their apartments.

* Some years back, guess what newspaper crusaded against gays? Answer: The New York Times.


* President Lyndon Johnson lost one of his assistants who was caught with another man in a bathroom stall. The police had a peephole.

*****

I do agree with some members who are concerned with some demands by gay activists.




* I personally feel that the word "marriage" should be the province of straights; "Civil unions" could give gays many of the rights of married couples.

* I personally feel that sex education should simply explain that being gay or bisexual is not bad or evil, it is just different. But the emphasis should be placed on wholesome straight sex.

* I personally feel that it is inaccurate to say that there is no difference between gay and straight people except for what they do in the bedroom. Although many straight people are far from faithful to their spouses, many do work very hard to limit themselves to one partner for life. Generally speaking, gay men enjoy having "friendships:" with a variety of people (and that's their business, I feel).

* I personally feel that gay men should not donate blood. NO chances should be taken that someone with HIV is allowed to donate blood.

 

[Montrovant]

Did you write a book about religion in which you claimed Islam is more than 2000 years old? Everything I've ever read about Islam says that it began in the 7th century AD,

Please look for the substance rather than the literal. My book is not about general religion much less Islamic faith and I never said that Islam was over 2000 years old. I was saying that while Christian views have softened on the matter, Islamic views have not. BTW, Muhammad is believed to have been born in 570CE.

Of course, you made your own tense error when you said "the Bible condemns homosexuality as a perversion, 2000 years ago." Condemned would be the right word to use when describing something from 2000 years ago.

The Bible /condemns/ sexual perversion, it did not "condemn" it. You are mistaking something as a discreet textural post action which is over that happened at a given time and date with a word which is living, organic, ongoing, eternal, and whose word continues to condemn it with the same weight and validity as when originally spoken. Tense is correct.

Except that you said the Bible condemns homosexuality as a perversion, 2000 years ago. If you wanted to use condemns, you probably should have said something like "The Bible condemns homosexuality as a perversion, and has done so for 2000 years." The way you put the sentence together, the tense is wrong. However, since the sentence is put together pretty poorly, the tense might make sense in what you meant to say.

You certainly did say that Islam is more than 2000 years old, and I quoted the post in which you did so. I'll do so again:

the Bible condemns homosexuality as a perversion, 2000 years ago, the Muslims even longer and still to this day

Muslims are people who follow Islam. If Muslims have condemned homosexuality for longer than 2000 years, then Islam must have existed for more than 2000 years.

 

[Syriusly]

And you seriously want anyone to believe you’re straight?

You cannot make this shit up!

I don't really give a flying fuck. Think what you want, if you think at all.

I know the difference between a rectum and a vagina..

To Pops, the difference between a rectum and a vagina is that a rectum is what Pop talks out of, and a vagina is a mythical destination that he dreams of someday reaching.

Lol, you make me laugh.

To you the sight of anus is heaven on earth.

As long as I have made you laugh Pops, I have done my good deed for the day.

 

[Syriusly]

To swing back to the poor little snowflakes who are being persecuted by being told that they have to follow the same laws that protect them from discrimination.....

For 200 years Christian Conservatives actually persecuted gays in America- passing laws that could throw gays in jail, passing laws to have gays banned from employment, passing laws against even publishing anything that mentioned gays.

For the snowflakes to call being held to the same law that says a Jew can't refuse to sell to a Christian- 'persecution' is just an insult to not only gays- but to every other minority in America who has also suffered actual persecution.

The whole time they should have taxed you at 110%.

Who should have taxed me at 110% for what?

Being better looking and smarter than the religious bigots?

 

[Syriusly]

Libtards have absolutely equated sexuality with race. They won't talk about homosexuality without equating it with a race. This is where they get their self-righteous authority to impose their morality on others.

It's a blatantly racist argument that they persist in making—suggesting that being a morally- and psychiatrically-defective sexual pervert is equivalent to being of an ethnic minority.

The interesting thing is that pretty much most people who are racist against blacks- are also flaming homophobic bigots also.

I find it funny how desperately you want to be equated with black discrimination, yet have zero in common with it

???? I am a white hetero man, raised in a Christian family- I have suffered absolutely none of the discrimination that blacks, Jews, Mexicans, gays, Chinese, Japanese, etc have experienced in their lives.

I just was observing- based upon posts here at USMB- when you find the people who are openly racist towards blacks here- they are pretty much always openly bigoted towards gays also.

The other way around is not necessarily true- those who are openly homophobic- are not always racist towards blacks.

 

[Syriusly]

Libtards have absolutely equated sexuality with race. They won't talk about homosexuality without equating it with a race. This is where they get their self-righteous authority to impose their morality on others.

It's a blatantly racist argument that they persist in making—suggesting that being a morally- and psychiatrically-defective sexual pervert is equivalent to being of an ethnic minority.

Dear Bob Blaylock
I find it's a case of the shoe being on the other foot.
For too long it's the Christians criticized for judging others and for projecting their beliefs on others and through govt.

Liberals and LGBT could not see how any of this was by good intent but imagined it was all for hatred.

Now when they are caught doing the same things with their LGBT beliefs, judging others and insisting on imposing their beliefs through govt, suddenly the tables are turned.


If their intentions are good, what about Christian's whose intentions are good? If Christian's aren't allowed to incorporate their beliefs expressions and rituals through govt, who are the LGBT advocates to take their beliefs and force everyone to comply through govt?

This is to give the liberals a chance to stand and walk in the same shoes of those they criticize. They can either learn how this happens even if the intent was good, or they can decide both cases are wrong and neither sides beliefs belong in govt / public policy but should remain private free choice of belief without govt endorsement regulation or other interference

I firmly believe that most fervent Christians have never acted in a way hurt people. In general it was biblical influence that ended slavery. ...

You do realize that it was 'biblical influence' which was used to justify slavery also.

I certainly admire the Christian abolition movements prior to the Civil War- but at the same time that was happening there were mainstream Christian churches supporting slavery- citing the Bible.

And I don't know what you mean by 'fervent' in this context- but if you mean 'passionate' well certainly history is full of passionate Christians harming others- in the name of Christianity.

That is not to say that I believe Christianity is in and of itself bad- it means I believe lots of Christians have used their religion as an excuse to hurt, oppress, murder, or persecute people.

As in the 200 years of persecution of gays in America.

 

[Syriusly]

Did you write a book about religion in which you claimed Islam is more than 2000 years old? Everything I've ever read about Islam says that it began in the 7th century AD,

Please look for the substance rather than the literal. My book is not about general religion much less Islamic faith and I never said that Islam was over 2000 years old. I was saying that while Christian views have softened on the matter, Islamic views have not. BTW, Muhammad is believed to have been born in 570CE.

Of course, you made your own tense error when you said "the Bible condemns homosexuality as a perversion, 2000 years ago." Condemned would be the right word to use when describing something from 2000 years ago.

The Bible /condemns/ sexual perversion, it did not "condemn" it. You are mistaking something as a discreet textural post action which is over that happened at a given time and date with a word which is living, organic, ongoing, eternal, and whose word continues to condemn it with the same weight and validity as when originally spoken. Tense is correct.

Except that you said the Bible condemns homosexuality as a perversion, 2000 years ago. If you wanted to use condemns, you probably should have said something like "The Bible condemns homosexuality as a perversion, and has done so for 2000 years." The way you put the sentence together, the tense is wrong. However, since the sentence is put together pretty poorly, the tense might make sense in what you meant to say.

You certainly did say that Islam is more than 2000 years old, and I quoted the post in which you did so. I'll do so again:

the Bible condemns homosexuality as a perversion, 2000 years ago, the Muslims even longer and still to this day

s.

but....but....but....he wrote a book!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

* I personally feel that the word "marriage" should be the province of straights; "Civil unions" could give gays many of the rights of married couples.

For someone who seems to be fairly accepting of gays, this is a strange idea that I don't think you fully considered. As an ally and supporter of gay and Lesbian people, I feel their pain when they are told that they should have been satisfied with civil unions as a compromise and that they are being “divisive” for having pushed for and won the right to marry.

Civil Unions are a Sham and a Failure - by Progressive Patriot 5. 7. 16

Long after Obergefell, I’m still hearing that gay people should have been satisfied with civil unions or domestic partnerships instead of pushing the issue of marriage. This is the familiar separate but equal argument reminiscent of the Jim Crow era. To begin with, the simple fact is that even if they are equal on paper, in reality they are not equal if for no other reason, because they are called by different names. “Marriage” is universally understood to mean a certain thing… a bond and a commitment between two people. “Civil Unions” carry no such instantly understood meaning. Now, I know that there are those who will say that marriage is understood to mean a man and a woman, but those people are living in a bygone era.

Similarly, there are those who contend that marriage is a religious institution, but they too are living in a world that no longer exists, if it ever did. While there were times and places in history where it was-and for some still is -for the most part it is anything but religious. Therefore, neither heterosexuals nor the religious own “marriage”

I firmly believe that those who claim that they believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians but are against marriage in favor of civil unions are using that story line so as not to appear to be anti -equality while not really believing in equality at all. This may be conscious process that is deliberately deceptive, or a rationalization to make themselves feel good about how magnanimous they imagine themselves to be, but the motive, and the outcome is the same.


Words are powerful. Consider the word “Citizen” In this country anyone who is born a citizen -as well as those who are naturalized – are simply” citizens” They all have the same rights and responsibilities. But let’s say that we decided that naturalized citizen could not and should not be called “citizens” but rather they must be distinguished from those who were born into citizenship by calling them something like Permanent Legal Domestic Residents. Still the same rights and responsibilities but are they equal in reality? How many times will they have to explain what that means? For instance, will hospital staff understand when there is an issue with visitation or making a medical decision regarding a spouse?

Consider this:

Marriage is more perfect union: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it

Civil unions are in no way a legitimate substitute for gay marriage.

They fail on principle, because - as America should have learned from racial segregation - separate is never equal.

And they fail in practice, because couples who enter into this second-class marriage alternative in New Jersey and elsewhere are constantly denied the rights and benefits that married couples take for granted.

Which brings up a third way in which they fail - verbally. Imagine getting down on one knee and saying, "Will you civilly unite with me?"

All kidding aside, semantics matters when it comes to labeling our most important and intimate relationships. Denying gay and lesbian couples the right - and the joy and the responsibility and the ordinariness - to use the M-word is a profound slap in the face.

"When you say, 'I'm married,' everyone knows who you are in relation to the primary person you're building your life with," says Freedom to Marry director Evan Wolfson. " 'Civil union' doesn't offer that clarity, that immediately understood respect." http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/marriage-perfect-union-gay-marriage-debate-separate-equal-won-cut-article-1.364017


We had experience with civil unions here in New Jersey. It did not go well:

Since New Jersey’s civil union law took effect in February 2007, many employers across New Jersey have refused to recognize civil unions as equal to marriage, and therefore do not grant equal health benefits to partners of employees. Employers and hospitals say that if the legislature intended for the civil union law to be the same as marriage, the legislature would have used the same name.

Because these employers and hospitals don’t recognize civil unions as they would marriage, many same-sex couples go without adequate health insurance – a horror in this economy. And because of the real-world disparity between civil unions and marriage, some hospitals do not allow civil union partners to make medical decisions for one another, or even to visit one another in the emergency room. http://www.gardenstateequality.org/issues/civilunions/


Here is more:

Report: Civil union law fails to achieve goal of equality

This article first appeared in The Sunday Star-Ledger on Feb. 17, 2008.

When civil unions became available one year ago, Gina Pastino of Upper Montclair was "thrilled" to form one with her partner of a dozen years, Naomi Cohen.

But the couple are frustrated after a year of trying to explain -- at the bank, the passport office and repeatedly in hospitals -- that their civil union entitles them to be treated like spouses.

"People don't understand what civil unions are," said Cohen.

Judy Ford of Port Norris formed a civil union last April to add her partner to her health insurance plan. But the medical center that employs Ford used a loophole in federal law to deny coverage to her partner, Yvonne Mazzola.

Now, because of her civil union, she would be liable for her partner's uninsured medical bills. They might dissolve their civil union.


"It only puts us in a precarious legal situation," said Ford. "Now we have a civil union with no benefit and only detriment." http://blog.nj.com/ledgerarchives/2008/02/report_civil_union_law_fails_t.html

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

do agree with some members who are concerned with some demands by gay activists.

And what would those demands be exactly?

 

[bodecea]

Libtards have absolutely equated sexuality with race. They won't talk about homosexuality without equating it with a race. This is where they get their self-righteous authority to impose their morality on others.

It's a blatantly racist argument that they persist in making—suggesting that being a morally- and psychiatrically-defective sexual pervert is equivalent to being of an ethnic minority.

Dear Bob Blaylock
I find it's a case of the shoe being on the other foot.
For too long it's the Christians criticized for judging others and for projecting their beliefs on others and through govt.

Liberals and LGBT could not see how any of this was by good intent but imagined it was all for hatred.

Now when they are caught doing the same things with their LGBT beliefs, judging others and insisting on imposing their beliefs through govt, suddenly the tables are turned.


If their intentions are good, what about Christian's whose intentions are good? If Christian's aren't allowed to incorporate their beliefs expressions and rituals through govt, who are the LGBT advocates to take their beliefs and force everyone to comply through govt?

This is to give the liberals a chance to stand and walk in the same shoes of those they criticize. They can either learn how this happens even if the intent was good, or they can decide both cases are wrong and neither sides beliefs belong in govt / public policy but should remain private free choice of belief without govt endorsement regulation or other interference

I firmly believe that most fervent Christians have never acted in a way hurt people. In general it was biblical influence that ended slavery. It was considered Christian to allow people to speak their minds without reprisals. If you imagine that it was Christians who beat up "gay" in bars, usually, Christians wouldn't frequent bars nor bathhouses,

The Amish are a very good example of Christian behavior. They will share their beliefs but mostly they want to be left alone. I cannot help it if most people would rather live next to a church or in a "Christian" community than live next to a X Rated Book Store or some "club"...

Keep in mind, it was also biblical influence that encouraged slavery....and the American Baptist Church split over it with the Southern Baptists being created in support of slavery.

 

[bodecea]

do agree with some members who are concerned with some demands by gay activists.

And what would those demands be exactly?

To be treated as equal law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.

 

[BulletProof]

Keep in mind, it was also biblical influence that encouraged slavery....and the American Baptist Church split over it with the Southern Baptists being created in support of slavery.

Keep in mind that you're a lying faggot who loves to misrepresent reality with a straight face. Biblical influence didn't encourage African slavery. Rather, shitheads distorted the Bible to claim it approved of African slavery, just like you now twist the Bible to argue that it encourages African slavery.

 

[Pop23]

Libtards have absolutely equated sexuality with race. They won't talk about homosexuality without equating it with a race. This is where they get their self-righteous authority to impose their morality on others.

It's a blatantly racist argument that they persist in making—suggesting that being a morally- and psychiatrically-defective sexual pervert is equivalent to being of an ethnic minority.

The interesting thing is that pretty much most people who are racist against blacks- are also flaming homophobic bigots also.

I find it funny how desperately you want to be equated with black discrimination, yet have zero in common with it

???? I am a white hetero man, raised in a Christian family- I have suffered absolutely none of the discrimination that blacks, Jews, Mexicans, gays, Chinese, Japanese, etc have experienced in their lives.

I just was observing- based upon posts here at USMB- when you find the people who are openly racist towards blacks here- they are pretty much always openly bigoted towards gays also.

The other way around is not necessarily true- those who are openly homophobic- are not always racist towards blacks.

Sure you are, that’s why we often see you in these threads acting gay!

 

[BulletProof]

???? I am a white hetero man, raised in a Christian family- I have suffered absolutely none of the discrimination that blacks, Jews, Mexicans, gays, Chinese, Japanese, etc have experienced in their lives.

Either you got a near perfect score on the SAT, or you're just plain too stupid to bother applying to an ivy league school, else you would have been discriminated against by having your college application rejected because you're white. You are discriminated against every day, such as the daily assumption you face of being an oppressor because you're white, or that there's racism benefiting you. Your skull is too full of shit for you to recognize reality.

 

[Pop23]

do agree with some members who are concerned with some demands by gay activists.

And what would those demands be exactly?

To be treated as equal law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.

As are smokers and alcoholics.

Live and let live, right?

 

[Pop23]

I decided to support the LGBTFAG cause, so I bought a lamp with a lesbian electric plug. I tried plugging into the wall outlet. I'm sure it's just my ignorance, but I couldn't get the lamp to work.

View attachment 167358

All female ends.

Lol

 

[bodecea]

do agree with some members who are concerned with some demands by gay activists.

And what would those demands be exactly?

To be treated as equal law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.

As are smokers and alcoholics.

Live and let live, right?

Yes. They are allowed to marry, are they not? They have full rights under the 14th Amendment, do they not?

 

[bodecea]

I decided to support the LGBTFAG cause, so I bought a lamp with a lesbian electric plug. I tried plugging into the wall outlet. I'm sure it's just my ignorance, but I couldn't get the lamp to work.

View attachment 167358

All female ends.

Lol

and......?

 

[Syriusly]

I decided to support the LGBTFAG cause, so I bought a lamp with a lesbian electric plug. I tried plugging into the wall outlet. I'm sure it's just my ignorance, but I couldn't get the lamp to work.

View attachment 167358

All female ends.

Lol

I knew that would turn you on.