Sally Kern, "Gay's are Infiltrating our City Council."

reply to post by forestlady


In my opinion, you're incorrect. She does have the right and if those who elected her agree, she isn't doing anything "wrong". She also has the responsibility to live with the repercussions of her actions. If the people don't agree with her, she will be removed from office.

IMO, you're attempting to defend your fascist calls for silence by putting a fancy outfit on it.

If you don't agree with her, that's great. I sure don't. But, to say she shouldn't have the right to say it or she shouldn't be allowed to say it in public is wrong and intellectually dishonest, IMO.

She can say whatever she wants. She can also live with the repercussions of her actions. If the town agrees with her, and I sure hope not, she's not doing anything wrong, per se. We may not agree with her, we may think she's a tool but if she is accurately representing the views of the electorate, she's actually doing her job.

The way to defeat people like this is through the exchange of ideas, articulate discussion and making the best case against her we can.

The wrong way to defeat her is to embrace your own brand of fascism.

Please understand, I am not advocating, defending or agreeing with what she said. I am questioning the charge of fascism and the fascist-like remedies some are voicing. That’s all =)
Can we agree on that?

Originally posted by themillersdaughter
We should?? Who says? You?

We should what?

Can you clarify your question?

And please take a deep breath before you respond to me, I expect level headed conversation, not emotion-vomiting.

OK, now we are dealing in semantics.
We can do that.
First the letter Paul wrote in Romans was about Jews and Gentiles both. That particular section was about the Result of Gentile unbelief.

Now back to semantics.

Otay, let's see We are saying that two willing participants should be able to do what they want right? Where does it end? What about bestiality? If a man and an animal wish to have sex should they? Don't tell me an animal can't agree or disagree. I have never seen a dog or cat that will let you pet it or pick it up if it didn't want you to. What about pedophilia? If a 16 year old girl wants to have sex with a 24 year old man should she? How about a 12 year old? It's funny that most courts say a child is mature enough at age 12 to 14 to make life changing decisions as to which parent he or she lives with, but can't legall have sex until 18. Where does it end?

It is obvious that people will try and justify their sins until the day they die.
Answer me this.....
To all of the pro homosexuals, what is morally wrong? As far as sexual things are concerned?

reply to post by blackthorne


Seriously, we are talking about dolphins using sex toys? Come on..........lol. Did we actually use tax dollars for this "study"? Wow.

Seriously, who cares what dolphins do (Sexually)? I sure don't. I reject dolphin evidence as evidence of anything other than what dolphins like. As far as group sex: are they supposed to find a room somewhere? I think the fallacy is attributing human behavior to a wild animal.

I thought we were talking about a council woman's opinions?

I'm seeing a lot of facts and figures being thrown around with zero sourcing. Aren't the biggest lies in life lies, dam lies and statistics?

I said this all tongue-in-cheek and if it seems like I am actually, forceful arguing, I am not. I think my points are valid, but I certainly am not hot under the collar and am trying to invoke a kidding tone.

Let's all lighten up =)

I think we can discuss one vocal woman in the middle of the country without pulling out the aquatic evidence, no?

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


She is supposed to be representing the people. Wanting to disenfranchise a whole group of people is NOT democratic; how does anything this woman says promote democracy?
I believe in freedom of speech with my whole heart; but I don't think it's responsible for any political representative to espouse this kind of bigotry. Hate speech helps no one and doesn't provide even one benefit to society, but it can perpetuate incorrect stereotypes and foment riots, etc.

Ya know, several long-time Southern senators have been castigated (and still are) for making anti-Black statements and that was about 50 years ago. This woman is doing the exact same thing, but it's OK for her to to be a bigot? Where's the fairness in that?

Originally posted by Christian Voice

I don't believe I've seen one single JEWISH PRIDE parade.

I have to comment on this. The Jewish Race is actually one big giant Pride Parade. That is one of the reasons for their ridicule over time. They've purposely separated themselves with their "chosen one" ideology, and all by-products that comes with.

We must remember that the bible was historical testament that identifies with only a small portion of the world at the time. And here we all are, effortlessly forgetting about all the other cultures that do not share our same certainties.

But here we are, lock inside our beliefs that leaves billions of people to die without Gods approval.

It's all rubbish. All are equal!

AAC



[edit on 9-3-2008 by AnAbsoluteCreation]

reply to post by forestlady


Stop, slow down and breathe. You've attributed something’s to my comments I didn't say.

My thesis is thus: she didn't say anything "fascist". Articulating an opinion - even an unpopular one - is not facist. Saying she should be silenced because you don't agree with her opinion is.

She isn't disenfranchising anyone with her comments. You're (IMO) claiming a whole lot more weight to one woman's opinion as a way to legitimize your (IMO) fascist call for her silence, while at the same time calling her a fascist for simply articulating her opinion.

If she does represent the public's local opinion on this subject, then she's not doing anything "wrong" per se.

I didn't say she was right, or that I agreed, or anything like that. We agree, with the exception that I don't think those that disagree with me should be removed from public office for expressing an opinion. Even if that opinion is born from stupidity.

EDIT: I didn't directly answer your questions and I apologize for that. I think the term "hate speech" is thrown around by the gay and lesbian community when they should be using the term "opinion". It's not hate speech, IMO, to have a negative opinion of the gay lifestyle. It's not hate speech to claim, like a complete fool, that the city council is being "infiltrated" by gays. It's stupid to be sure, but not hate speech. I honestly believe that the point your trying to make, while dancing around it, is that people should not be allowed to have this opinion, nor should they be allowed to articulate it because you don’t agree with it.

The system will take care of her, or if the electorate agrees with her, they won’t. Either way, there are checks and balances in place to deal with this. The problem is, not everyone sees things the way we do. More importantly, to force them to see things the way we do is, in fact, facist.

She, they, them are entitled to their opinion and the electorate is entitled to representation that reflects their, locally held views. Even if we don’t agree with them.

That's all.


[edit on 9-3-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

reply to post by cavscout


I was replying to your assertion of what we "should" do. Please take a moment to take a deep breath before you you get your knickers in a twist. I suppose emotion-vomitting is what you refer to as expressing evidence contrary to the accepted.

The animal homosexual activity link was in response to another poster's assertion that animals don't have sex for fun. Scientifically speaking, not true. Has nothing to do with the places I "deficate" (sic). If you need any more help discerning my posts, please don't hesitate to ask.


[edit on 3/9/08 by themillersdaughter]

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar



I don't believe he was referring to dolphins using sex toys, but bonobos.
And it was in response to an erroneous assertion that lesbians all do. In an effort to deny ignorance, would you have people NOT address obvious fallacies?

The research that I mentioned included names and dates it was conducted.
I'm sure it's available on the net.

The dolphin behavior was actually a NOVA, and no..they didn't get a hotel room...they just got together in a big old group. The film was the first of it's kind and was part of the study of pods and the way they use 'military style' drills to protect the young and sick of the pod.

Honestly, the thread would go this way:

Mean-spirited Christian fanatic expresses her opinion!!
What? Again? How rude!
End of thread.

When people post opinion as fact, it's MY opinion that they might be interested in knowing they are wrong, so they don't go about in ignorance.

Of course...that's just my opinion. Often people are so trapped in their belief systems they really don't care about the actual facts.

Edit for typos and sarcasm

[edit on 3/9/08 by themillersdaughter]

Originally posted by themillersdaughter
I was replying to your assertion of what we "should" do.

Ah, I see.

I stand by my statement, as it makes perfect sense. WE SHOULD assume that we are speaking of the 99% majority when using a broad term such as "Christian." If someone wants to speak about what less than 1% of a population believes then should not apply it to the other 99%. Most Christians accept Pauline doctrine.

If you have some sort of logical argument against that perhaps you should say it instead of doing a drive by one liner and expecting everyone to know what you were referring to.

I suppose emotion-vomitting is what you refer to as expressing evidence contrary to the accepted.

No, “emotion-vomitting”[sic] is what got you that warn.

The animal homosexual actrivity link was in response to another poster's assertion that animals don't have sex for fun.

And that would explain the dolphin argument, but not a list of species that are gay.

I stand by what I said. Don’t point out animal sex “actrivity”[sic] as justification for human acts if you aren’t willing to apply the rest of animal behavior to yourself, or your brother and sister.


[edit on 9-3-2008 by cavscout]

reply to post by themillersdaughter


Okay, no problem. I was trying to interject some humor into a conversation I thought might be heading into total anger.

I appreciate and understand your view and if I (in any way) minimized your opinion, please accept my apology. I certainly didn't mean to.

I hope we can discuss something as charged as this and at the end of the day, even if we don't agree, be on the same "side".

Cheers!

Originally posted by Christian Voice
OK, now we are dealing in semantics.
We can do that.
First the letter Paul wrote in Romans was about Jews and Gentiles both. That particular section was about the Result of Gentile unbelief.

Now back to semantics.

Otay, let's see We are saying that two willing participants should be able to do what they want right? Where does it end? What about bestiality? If a man and an animal wish to have sex should they? Don't tell me an animal can't agree or disagree. I have never seen a dog or cat that will let you pet it or pick it up if it didn't want you to. What about pedophilia? If a 16 year old girl wants to have sex with a 24 year old man should she? How about a 12 year old? It's funny that most courts say a child is mature enough at age 12 to 14 to make life changing decisions as to which parent he or she lives with, but can't legall have sex until 18. Where does it end?

It is obvious that people will try and justify their sins until the day they die.
Answer me this.....
To all of the pro homosexuals, what is morally wrong? As far as sexual things are concerned?

oh purleeaase. It's all about consent. A child or an animal is INCAPABLE of giving consent. So Please,don't compare homosexuality between those again. It makes you look incredibly ignorant.

reply to post by cavscout


Actually, what got me that warn was a Christian fanatic who took umbrage at a post that asserted that if Christians didn't want to live by ALL the tenets of their faith they should "shut the hell up" because they were only giving lip service to their dead god. Funnily enough, it was directed at no PARTICULAR Christian or poster on this forum.

Regardless, it was a pretty funny thing to happen as I was given applause for contributing to the thread (Sauron) and after shift change was given the warning (FredT) taking those 500 points away. Personally, I'm not really sure what the point thing is all about, but it seemed pretty strange that the comment was there for hours before it was seen as insulting to someone (evidently some absent apostate Christian?)

And this seems a little off topic (apologies to the OP), but it seemed appropriate to correct your wrong assumption.



[edit on 3/9/08 by themillersdaughter]

reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation


if this woman have such a hate for gays and she is actually promoting fear about gays, and she is fearful about how the gays would change her and every other persons way of living. and across this country people have been tortured and killed for being gay... couldn't you say she was a terriost?...i mean all you have to do is to substitute the word "gay" and put in the word "american", and you get my drift.

What does the Bible really say about Homosexuality?


Enjoy the film

For the Bible tells me so.


It should open a few eyes.

edited to remove link to site - we can't allow the link for obvious reasons

[edit on 9-3-2008 by Crakeur]

reply to post by SavageHenry


One long series. After watching for just a few moments already agitates me and makes me rather mad I'm forced to go to church.

Edit - when I say first few moments I mean like 1-3 minutes or so

[edit on 9-3-2008 by Leviatano]

reply to post by SavageHenry


why you kill them of course... and isn't that a great philosphy for our times. i'm still amazed that people still take the bible literally.

thank God that gay folks like me are the biggest problem on Earth. and I've wasted all my time worrying about gas prices, the economy, the environment.. silly queer lol

Originally posted by cavscout
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

That letter was written to a Jew. You look ignorant trying to apply it to Christians.

The reason that letter is so effective is that it is not applied to its intended audience, the Jews, who for the most part WOULD agree that those things are abominations and that those people should be killed, even if contemporary Jewish leaders will not often allow it.

Yet you falsely direct this letter at Christians, the majority of whom have no idea why it is a sin to follow the laws of Leviticus because Leviticus is a book of laws that have not been taught to Christians.

Um...so the Old Testament is no longer a part of the Bible? I kinda thought the deal was that it was all the word of God.

Silly me...just carry on then...

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Look, if you want me to explain it to you again I will, but I don’t think you do based on your dismissive statements. You are a smart fellow, I think you understood what I said.

If you want to go on in willful ignorance that is fine with me but know that every time you pull that letter out to show Christians that you are intentionally deceiving people by choosing to remain ignorant of Christianity.

Use that letter on the Jews to whom it was originally penned.