Court says 'gay' rights trump Christian rights

reply to post by xion329alpha


a tax excempt church is not the same as public property. This event happened happened on public property, and therefore, the christians had a right to be there. While I do think they went about it the wrong way, there rights were violated. On the turn, if the gays wanted to band together and protest outside on the walkway beside the church, that is there right too. That is public property, the driveway, church and parking lot, are private.

Let me say one more thing, any church worth its weight, would ask the protesting group to come in, and try to settle there differences before GOD, if there is one.

This is the problem that I have with all groups, gay-activists, to christian activists. They try to push there views. Is this what Jesus did? No, he went and preached outside of town, on top of a hill. Did he beat up the prostitutes and thieves? NO, he sat down, and had dinner with them, he talked to them about GOD.

I personally refuse to be part of any religion that blocks the rights of another. Once you are part of that group, you are no different then the NAZI's or Stalinists, etc. To be willing to give up rights to violate others rights is a slippery slope. Once you start, its hard to turn back and it may just be you eventually, that are loosing your rights.

Just my 2 cents,

Camain

Originally posted by spitefulgod
reply to post by pavil

 

pavil video posted on page 3 is the funniest video of the day, I suggest you all watch it.


On topic... you need a good female and male role model in parenting, so as long as one of the guys is more effeminate then I guess it's Ok.

i am interested in where you have the data backing this up. since tons of research shows that there are more broken homes with straight famlies than gay by exponential calculations, how can you even pretend to say this is true? based on what? all the single mothers that raise their kids with no deadbeat dad in sight?
what you say sounds right, seems good, just plain ol makes sense. unless you are not a closed minded bigot and take a look at some sociology books, national statitistics, or anything really. it feel good to just say stuff and think it is true doesnt it. too bad i keep saying millions of dollars show up at my door every day but that isnt panning out just yet. guess i dont have your "i said it so its true" magic.

Originally posted by camain
reply to post by xion329alpha

 

a tax excempt church is not the same as public property. This event happened happened on public property, and therefore, the christians had a right to be there. While I do think they went about it the wrong way, there rights were violated. On the turn, if the gays wanted to band together and protest outside on the walkway beside the church, that is there right too. That is public property, the driveway, church and parking lot, are private.

Camain

that is the key. while i do not condone gays flaunting their sex lives publicly, you have to admit, they never go out of their way to tell any other group that they are not allowed to exsist. they do not protest churches so i guess we see who is the better man.

Number of Christians: 11
Number of Gays: Many more than 11

The larger group got their way
Democracy in action

reply to post by Maxmars

The law is not about Christians vs. Gays (do you capitalize that?). It is very straightforward. Example: I hold a legal gathering, another group arrives and disrupts that legally arranged gathering. Not legally cool. Public gatherings are not battlegrounds, they are events arranged for a legal gathering. End example.

What the Christians did was predatory and confrontational. Legally - not cool. There is NO other argument. The acceptance or rejection of one side other's' position on the matter has NO legal relevance . . let's not discount the fact that they may well have known what they were doing was illegal, and exercised the option to attract public attention to the issue. In which case they are no better than political opportunists, and if I'm not mistaken, they need to examine their conscience to see if breaking the law is really the way to achieve their goals.

I like this! Let me C
Concise. Correct. Constitutional. Capital! Classic. Controlled. Constrained. Collegial. Comforting. Considerate. Compliant. Conformed. Collectible. Capo! But that's me.

[edit on 7/20/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by re22666

let me see if i get this straight. people come to your door and harass you for being christian because you do not have a cross in your yard warding them off?

I don't see it as harassment, to start with. I have a personal problem with censoring who is and is not allowed to knock on my door. I prefer to withhold judgment on someone who walks up until they show me what their motives are. It's not harassment, it is a degree of hospitality.

But to answer your question, yes, I get visits quite regularly form people who are going door-to-door to tell others of their personal beliefs. Some match mine; most do not. Ever hear of Jehovah's Witnesses? They do this all the time. I wouldn't go door to door, and I think they cause more harm to their cause than good, but that does not mean I want to restrict their ability to walk up to me.

There have been times in my life when I was stranded, in need of a simple local telephone call to get help. I approached a few houses in that situation. I am thankful I did not approach any of yours, because I am supposing I would be questioned as to my religion, sexual preference, political leanings, etc. before I could ask "Please, sir, may I use your phone?"

If someone walks up here, the only thing I ask is "Can I help you?" It's called hospitality.

TheRedneck

reply to post by re22666

that is the key. while i do not condone gays flaunting their sex lives publicly, you have to admit, they never go out of their way to tell any other group that they are not allowed to exist. they do not protest churches so i guess we see who is the better man.

According to this case, other groups can exist then, as long as they keep their existence to themselves. Or am I misunderstanding you?

TheRedneck

Finally, I can agree with a court decision, which is getting harder to do lately. Gay and Women's rights should equally be addressed legally as well. Religions should be forced to upgrade to the highest degree of human rights, and I wish it would happen the world over. They are ancienct and barbaric and the human race needs to evolve (nwo aside for a moment.) I left the Catholic Church over its male priests and only went to Churches with female ministers onboard. Now, I prefer my own spirituality in my own home. But every now and again, I get the urge to attend somewhere, the question is where. Well if I do put in a few appearances, the ones that manifest the highest level of human rights fit the bill for me. They've known sexuality was related to physical differences for years. I remember a good friend making a presentation like that before his United denomination, which was more up to date.

reply to post by infinite


How is quoting the Bible forcing my beliefs on you? I have the right to post, you have the right to ignore. You can't muzzle me and I can't force you to read my posts. I have a right to speak my mind, you have a right to disagree. There is no force implied or applied.

Originally posted by re22666

Originally posted by camain
reply to post by xion329alpha

 

that is the key. while i do not condone gays flaunting their sex lives publicly, you have to admit, they never go out of their way to tell any other group that they are not allowed to exsist. they do not protest churches so i guess we see who is the better man.

Oh, but you are very wrong. Their main objective is to dismantle the BSOA. There is no other reason for what they do to those kids other than wanting to infiltrate their ranks. They are not the better men. They are sick and twisted and need to go somewhere else to have their vile "gay pride" parades.

No good comes from their abnormal behavior in public. What are they thinking when they do crap like that?

Here are just a few links of the hypocritical homos doing exactly what you say they don't. They want it both ways and they are winning. I think its sick that society is letting this happen... The homos have more rights than any other group in America and it needs to stop.

www.worldnetdaily.com...
www.citizenlink.org...
www.ebar.com...
news.smh.com.au...

Originally posted by mystiq
Finally, I can agree with a court decision, which is getting harder to do lately. Gay and Women's rights should equally be addressed legally as well. Religions should be forced to upgrade to the highest degree of human rights, and I wish it would happen the world over. They are ancienct and barbaric and the human race needs to evolve (nwo aside for a moment.) I left the Catholic Church over its male priests and only went to Churches with female ministers onboard. Now, I prefer my own spirituality in my own home. But every now and again, I get the urge to attend somewhere, the question is where. Well if I do put in a few appearances, the ones that manifest the highest level of human rights fit the bill for me. They've known sexuality was related to physical differences for years. I remember a good friend making a presentation like that before his United denomination, which was more up to date.

Ok so we should be forced or we should evolve? Which one is it? Or is this a new age religion of forced evolvement?

How can you agree with this court decision? The homosexuals are doing the exact same thing to everyone else everywhere else so how can you agree with it unless you are part of the radical homosexual movement?

I will say it again... The queers have more rights than the normal people walking down the street. If you are queer by all means have sex in the street. If you are a married hetrosexual and protest this sickness off to the lions with you... Whatever...

Anyway, Forced Evolvement huh? Sounds very new age for the queer movement!

Originally posted by re22666

Originally posted by spitefulgod
reply to post by pavil

 

i am interested in where you have the data backing this up. since tons of research shows that there are more broken homes with straight famlies than gay by exponential calculations, how can you even pretend to say this is true? based on what? all the single mothers that raise their kids with no deadbeat dad in sight?
what you say sounds right, seems good, just plain ol makes sense. unless you are not a closed minded bigot and take a look at some sociology books, national statitistics, or anything really. it feel good to just say stuff and think it is true doesnt it. too bad i keep saying millions of dollars show up at my door every day but that isnt panning out just yet. guess i dont have your "i said it so its true" magic.

Fewer than 20 empirical studies have been done on homosexual parents. These studies have been small, biased, and generally fail to address many of the traditional concerns regarding homosexual parenting. However, the limited evidence they have generated supports what common sense would expect.

The largest study, and the only one based on a random sample, estimated that less than half of a percent of Americans have had a homosexual parent. Those who did were more likely to:

1. report having had sex with a parent,
2. experience homosexuality as their first sexual encounter,
3. be sexually molested,
4. become homosexual or bisexual, and
5. report dissatisfaction with their childhood.

The various studies, added together, suggest that the children of homosexuals are at least 3 times more apt to become homosexual than children raised by the traditionally married.

Further, there is reasonable evidence, both in the empirical literature and in dozens of court cases dealing with the issue, that children of homosexuals are more apt to be sexually exposed to the homosexual lifestyle and/or molested.

Finally, substantial evidence suggests that children of homosexuals are more apt to doubt their own sexuality, be embarrassed by their homosexual parent(s), and be teased and taunted by their peers.

It really is a bad idea folks. Homosexuality as a lifestyle should not be encouraged. Giving them the right to marry and adopt kids will be a national disaster.

I know some will say the below link is homophobic and biased. Fine, whatever but the facts are the facts. Homosexuals want to adopt a child for the novelty, to use as a pawn and for the same reason they have their “gay pride sex in the street events”. It’s for the shock value. It’s their sick twisted game of cultural warfare and they are winning.

www.familyresearchinst.org...

Originally posted by Perplexed
Giving them the right to marry and adopt kids will be a national disaster.

I like the way you use the word "them" because it implies homosexuals are not citizens of your country and are not entitled to the same rights. How would it be a disaster btw? This is not the 17th Century. We've moved on in the Western World and are extremely liberal - we do not restrict people's rights based on race or sexuality.

Do you wish we become like Iran and execute homosexuals? If so, let me go and get some stones to throw

Response to ThePiemaker:

"If you aren't gay and don't like gays, don't go to outfest. and if you aren't "christian" and don't believe in their god, then don't go to church. There's no point in doing otherwise other than to cause trouble."

I agree with your comment. It follows right in line with my philosophy that one's will should not be imposed on another becuase doing so would assume a false sense of superiority. Nice



Response to Icarus Rising:

"You don't have the right to tell people when and where they can meet and practice their faith. The protest at this event was perfectly legal under the Constitution. Your assumption is hypothetical and baseless. I personally am always willing to engage in a discussion of the merits of Christianity and The Word anywhere and anytime except when I am in bed asleep."

While legal under the Constitution, the mannor the protest was conducted in was all together inept. There are much more effective ways of expressing one's opinion and many of these more effective ways result in actual change (which is ultimately the reason for any protest or act of opposition). As Ephiram-Lo put it "Which brings us back to the point of not picking fights, with the addendum that you especially should not if you can't win them."

When it comes down to it...the protesters were incompetent in their approach to achieving their goal.

Also, the hypothetical, so long as it is realistic in its founding, should always be considered because it may offer a better insight into the objective reality of a situation than a narrow-minded, one-track view of the world might possess.

"True Christians want others to be aware of the consequences of making bad choices, and to offer another way, The Way, to true fulfillment."

I would disagree whole-heartedly on this one. Even if an evil entity (ie: Satan) existed, you have now made a comment about the actions of Christians and the motivations for those actions.

My issue with your agrument is as follows: it doesn't work.

I say this because of one simple word in the statement above: offer.

In many cases of gay rights (the right to marry being the primary focus here) Christians do not offer a way...they demand it.

To offer a way is to show people the consequences of said "way" and the route to follow it. This is perfectly fine as the offer involves a choice: it is a selfless act from one person to another.

Prohibiting homosexuals from marrying is certainly more than "offering a way". It is demanding that they follow the "way" that you have offered them. This is a self-rightous, presumptuous, irrational, and abhorable act as it infringes upon the free-will of another individual.



Response to EverythingYouDespise:

"Gay rights = the rights for consenting adults to bang each other.
Christian rights = the rights to prevent strangers from doing with each other whatever they want."

I think you just hit the nail on the head.

Gay rights, in this particular case, requires only that consenting people act on consenting people. Here, there is no imposition of one's will on another.

Christian rights, in this particular case, requires all people to adhere wether they consent or not. This is a typical stance taken by many conservative, right-wing, Christians. The justification for this stance is usually based on the assumed existance of a moral-defining deity.

reply to post by Icarus Rising


I never said you didn't have a right to post, don't play the free speech card, I was pointing out the absurd remark in your post.

There is an element of hypocrisy because you are promoting your faith in your arguments. It translates into "I'm right because my religion says..." and we are all wrong for not believing what your religion states.

So to claim you are not forcing your religion onto us is false.

reply to post by Icarus Rising


Many people here are beating around the bush. So, I think it's time for someone to come out and say it.

In response to the mannor in which you validate your opinions, Icarus Rising, I believe the foundations of your religion as you are holding it to be wrong and your reasons for adhering to it to be irrational.

You are proposing just as another user on this thread has pointed out: you are using your religion to validate your arguments. In order to rightly do this I ask, "Can you validate your religious beliefs?"...or does it just come down to, "I believe what I believe because I believe it?" If the case is the latter for ANYONE then I feel that it is a safe assumption to make in saying that your opinion can be called ungrounded in logic and can be largely ignored by people who try to hold a rational debate.

To make it clear, I am not proposing that your religion is wrong. I am proposing that the light in which you hold your religion is not rational.

Ball's in your court.

WorldNetDaily does not even try to hide the fact that they are biased towards evangelical christians. Icarus quoting them is like a gay person quoting out.com. That being said, even if the event was taxpayer funded doesn't mean anyone has carte blanche to disrupt it. As others have said, the gay people had a permit to organize - the others didn't.
And what's this nonsense about gays having more rights? Come to me with that bull when I can sponsor my Taiwanese boyfriend for citizenship. Till then...Pfft.

reply to post by Icarus Rising

So trying to push your religion on people who obviously want none of it is the correct solution? I mean, the bible says you cant be gay, so these people are obviously not interested in the bible. Those christians were there to do what, preach to people who obviously dont want to hear...Like i said, i want to see what your response would be if a bunch of homos showed at a christian convention to let you know that they think christianity is wrong, and an incorrect choice...

I mean, i used to go to church and did the whole ordeal until i realized it was just a bunch of people who didnt want to go to "hell", and were willing to do w/e the pastor tells them to keep it that way. I have nothing against christian, if you want to believe in a higher power who needs your money, gives you "free choice" but you spend eternity in pain, suffering, and ultimate torture if you choose anything but what he tells you...IDK, maybe the debils gotta hold of me!!!


OH NOEZ!


[edit on 20-7-2008 by SilentBob86]

Originally posted by infinite

Originally posted by Perplexed
Giving them the right to marry and adopt kids will be a national disaster.

I like the way you use the word "them" because it implies homosexuals are not citizens of your country and are not entitled to the same rights. How would it be a disaster btw? This is not the 17th Century. We've moved on in the Western World and are extremely liberal - we do not restrict people's rights based on race or sexuality.

Do you wish we become like Iran and execute homosexuals? If so, let me go and get some stones to throw

Homosexuals should not be afforded more rights than hetrosexuals and in this case it happened or did you not read the article? The Homosexuals are more than just citizens in this country. Indeed they are more than that around the world. They are afforded more rights in most western countries than the citizens that "give" them those rights.

Just as we have seen in this case homosexuals are winning the cultural war. You can be jailed in some countires for saying being a homosexual is wrong and I am afraid we are headed there. If this case is any indicator we are already there.

No, my friend I am not the one who wishes to execute homos. On the contrary, Its the homos that want to execute the family and have their way anyway they want at any cost. No cost is too big for their agenda and denying these 11 people their right to protest is the norm.

Some of the most unlikely attendees of Sunday's kinky leather fetish festival were under four feet tall. Two-year-olds Zola and Veronica Kruschel waddled through Folsom Street Fair amidst strangers in fishnets and leather crotch pouches, semi and fully nude men.

The twin girls who were also dressed for the event wore identical lace blouses, floral bonnets and black leather collars purchased from a pet store.

Fathers Gary Beuschel and John Kruse watched over them closely. They were proud to show the twins off.

"Why do (these people) bring kids here? This is a leather fair for god's [sic] sake," said Bahran Aliassa, who was masturbating in public. He has been doing it annually for the past six years.

Now if this is not an attack on traditional families I don't know what is. Again I ask if the KKK or Nazis came to tow to protest gays would gays stand by and let them or would they counter protest and if they did would they go to jail? I think not and there is the double standard. You can't have it both ways in this country unless you are a queer.

Source
www.moonbattery.com...

Edit to add: Yes, I do believe these two queers who put leather dog collars on these kids and paraded them around masturbating queers in the streets should be executed. Just as all child molesters should be killed. If this wasn’t a form of molestation I don't know what is... If they do this I can only imagine the horrors those two children see behind closed doors...

[edit on 01/01/2008 by Perplexed]

reply to post by infinite and everyone else.

I like the way you use the word "them" because it implies homosexuals are not citizens of your country and are not entitled to the same rights. How would it be a disaster btw? This is not the 17th Century. We've moved on in the Western World and are extremely liberal - we do not restrict people's rights based on race or sexuality.

And so the debate rages on... and on... and on...

A single word used is cause enough to brand a person, regardless of what they truly believe or how they truly conduct themselves. A court ruling is to be oblivious to the law, because it is someone's 'right' to do as they please and to not be bothered with the rights of others. A simple statement of belief is to be turned into an agenda, incorporating everything someone else claiming to be of that particular faith has said for the last 2000 years.

This thread started as an article (which we now know was biased to some extent) about how one group's rights were declared inferior to another's. That is wrong from any perspective, religious, legal, humanitarian, or moral. But it has turned in to a war between two diametrically opposing forces, each of which is intent on destroying the liberties of the other.

Your war will never end. Your anger will never fade. Your agenda will never materialize. Your beliefs will never gain substance.

While it is usually far from me to reference a (fantasy) movie or TV show, there is one that fits this situation so perfectly that I cannot help but recall it. Those familiar with the original Star Trek shows will remember "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield", I'm sure. For those who aren't, allow me to recant the plot:

A planet is inhabited by two races of beings, both humanoid, both identical in every way, except that one is black on the right side and white on the left, the other is black on the left side and white on the right. These two races hate each other, one because of the 'persecution' their people have suffered at the hands of their 'oppressors' the other because they have given small liberties and expected to be congratulated for doing so. Neither side will talk to the other, neither side will negotiate or try to compromise to achieve true equality. In the end, the Enterprise is taken to their home world, which is now destroyed and barren, lifeless from the war that has taken place in their absence. Their families, their homes, their friends, all is gone. This only serves to enrage both men, and in the end, they transport to the surface to try and kill each other for this final atrocity. A sad ending to an extinct race of haters.

So go ahead and hate each other. Sling the cries of "religious intolerance" and "perversion" in every direction. Destroy everything you hold dear in that eternal quest for hate.

But do it by yourselves. I am outta here before I throw up.

TheRedneck