Radical Homosexual Terrorism

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
If you commit the same sin repeatedly it is evidence you need to question your position in Christ. "i know that Jesus has forgiven me for that weakness"." is a convenient lie people tell themselves -

Do you tell yourself that Jesus will forgive you and you'll go to heaven even though you are not perfect and you sin, yourself? I mean, let's say you tell a lie. And get forgiveness. Two weeks later, you lie again. Were you unaware that you were lying? Or were you aware, AS you were lying, that you weren't telling the truth? So... you knowingly lied again... Or let's say it's a different sin. When you start to sin again, you are aware it's a sin, right?

What's the difference again?

No actually I don't. No one who is truly in Christ will. You are dead wrong.

You never commit the same sin TWICE? How does that work? You lied once and you haven't lied since then?

Humanity is the problem

Then all us humans are in a wagonload of trouble!

And you have psychic super powers in which you have verified the sins of all Christians? If they remain in a gay lifestyle they most likely are not in Christ.

So, it would follow that if a person remained "within ANY life of sin", they wouldn't be "in Christ". So, you have to be "without sin" to be "in Christ"... Gosh, I don't know anyone who doesn't do something that the bible considers a sin. So, we're all in the same boat, then. Except you, of course, because you don't do the same sin twice.

Or are you saying that because you repent, you get all clean and fresh again and this week's lie is the "first time" you've ever lied because you repented for last week's lie?

This thread is just too interesting. No wonder Maintal signs on but wont come back. Nice to see some people with some biblical knowledge and common sense around. Keeps the debate at a higher level than me and my good foes have been doing thus far.

Originally posted by MAINTAL
What CAN you do honestly?

Debate, for one.

What?? Is this that hard for you to figure out??? Is there some ambiguous gray area? some nebulous cloudy part of a this gang of thugs coming into a church, to accost those in the congregation with malicious angst aggression that you actually need something after the OP to substantiate who was in the wrong here!

They didn't do violence. They didn't intend to do violence. I'm sure it comforts you to see the world purely in absolutes, but that doesn't lend itself to comprehension. Your appeal to common sense is an empty one. I agree their behavior was immature and unhelpful, but I don't agree that the motive was malice and I don't agree that there was ever threat or pretense of threat. So, you know. No black and white.

In Fact Johnny, I have never seen you be anything BUT mean. Unless it's someone
sharing your worldview.

Then you haven't read closely enough at all. I can be quite a polite adversary when my opponent is similarly inclined. In fact, I've hardly been mean to you. Challenging, questioning, and a little tart != mean.

If it were me? the fact they are gay could be argued that in and of itself is punishment enough. However I would have dropped any charges as I am sure they would drop their charges against me in an exchange for what I'd have done to a number of them. That wouldn't have been the first time that has happened while a Church I was attending was raided like that and I am not one to take that kind of crap waiting for the police to get there just in time to take a report.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but it sure sounds scary. Non-violent protest in violation of your comfort zone justifies a violent response, if I'm reading you correctly. Suffice to say, not very Christ-like.

NO! Pay attention! The logical reason they should be punished is BECAUSE THEY BROKE THE LAW!

I did pay attention. You should owe up to your insinuations and assertions.

That isn't the "Logical end" that is JUST a REAL Possibility! To know the "Logical end" as you want to call it in your straw man named Kreskin, is the end one obviously would need a crystal ball to foresee. Conventional wisdom would suggest that one can only speculate on that and when things escalate where this kind of criminal behavior is allowed to go un-checked,, yeah the natural order of violence in violent delinquents like they are? People like that usually go too far before they finally find out how far they can go.

Glad to see you measuring your words a little more carefully. Suffice to say, you are to your side of the fence what they are to theirs, and if your views were marginalized like theirs, I'd be inclined to defend you in a similar circumstance.

GuFaW!!! BuHa HA HA HA WHAT!

Who the hell do you think you are? HA HA Ill tell you what son, Ill do what I want to do and YOU can threaten your ultimatums at someone more gullible than I

It's not an ultimatum. It's a sequitur. If you don't back your loudly stated claims with rational discourse, the validity of your point suffers.

That doesn't sound like something I said, at least not about gays anyway. Even if it was, and I was saying it to someone that was always on the side of the gays, that still wouldn't be an ad-hom, it would just be stating a fact.

When you dismiss their argument accordingly, it is indeed an ad hominem.

No?? really? stoutly?? Yeah I object to Gays getting married in same sex relationships, and as for the attempt to pull the race card on me,, Do you have any Idea my ethnic background?

Gee Ill bet you thought I was a White dude all this time.

Not really concerned with it. Fact is, you're battling the raging gays and defending America from an Obama presidency. Just saying, glass houses.

Originally posted by JohnnyElohim

They didn't do violence. They didn't intend to do violence.

You call that honesty ?? Putting words in my mouth then accusing me of seeing the world in absolutes and like most of you in here so busy obfuscating the truth by misrepresentation, mis quotes and quote mining, I see you doing the same thing here. You don't know what their intentions were Johnny, for how could you? They certainly were acts of angst aggression as I said moreover it WAS malicious, as I said. Now saying their intentions were not violent? How many of you would consider that doing something like they did might just cause someone to attack some of those who were perpetrating this idiotic, stupid, act of intolerance and hate. Like I said, if it were me at that church, their most likely would have been. I would welcome this kind of protest where I attend Church as I know many there would have escorted the bitchs to the door and most of us "carry" having concealed weapons permits. It's just that kind of cowardice these radical queers as they call themselves are about though, only picking on places and people they can get away without a fight. That is STILL a gamble however and for you to suggest they had no intention of violence is so damn presumptuous of you Johnny, I think you need to debate someone who is say,, more your speed, someone like Light Angel for instance.

I mean really you look at the gays today and what they are about is hate hate hate. They talk about intolerance and against bigotry saying religion oppresses them when what I think is they are the worst kind of hypocrite, the worst kind of bigot and the worst kind of oppressor.

Just look at most Gaythesist websites where they are constantly and I DO MEAN Constantly mocking everyone even their own Gays they say need to be "OUTED" which is a form of emotional extortion where anyone they deem is a closeted homosexual is harassed by them or as they say "exploited till they come out and admit what they are" Well what if they are wrong? In many cases they were and law suits are pending now because of this asinine crap Gaytheists are pulling.





This kind of behavior makes me cringe. Yeah, that'll make people more open to your beliefs, if you act like that. Don't give me any garbage saying "This is the way civil and equal rights are won" It's one thing to protest, it's wholly another to aggressively confront someone in their house of worship. Can you imagine if this same scene was played out in a mosque? There'd be a lot of headless gay folks soon afterward, I imagine. But, as usual, the liberal American double-standard applies. It's somehow OK for gays to harass straight people, but if a straight person even whispers a word like "homo" it's a hate crime.

I'm sure it comforts you to see the world purely in absolutes, but that doesn't lend itself to comprehension. Your appeal to common sense is an empty one. I agree their behavior was immature and unhelpful, but I don't agree that the motive was malice and I don't agree that there was ever threat or pretense of threat. So, you know. No black and white.

No John John, the Black and White is DEAD ON that this was WRONG and THEY were WRONG and YOU ARE WRONG TOO. what is this " I'm sure it comforts you to see the world purely in absolutes, but that doesn't lend itself to comprehension." WTF is that ?? You talk to me as if you think I give two cents about what you think. Here is something for you to comprehend,, I DON'T CARE

I did pay attention. You should owe up to your insinuations and assertions

Look John John,, YOU asked the question using a one of the most asinine straw men I have ever seen suggesting I was saying "the reason they should be punished is because I said it could escalate and someone can get killed." When anyone at a 7th grade reading level would understand what is logical in that statement and that is

1) The possibility exists that someone might get killed if this is allowed to escalate

2) It WILL escalate if they are allowed to continue un-punished and we sweep it under the rug using pretty lil sayings like this " I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but it sure sounds scary. Non-violent protest in violation of your comfort zone justifies a violent response, if I'm reading you correctly. Suffice to say, not very Christ-like."

Spare me that Christian Reputation you think I am to live up to because this was done in a CHURCH and ya know what Jesus would have done if you acted like this? He would have thrown your butts out like he did the money changers.

3) So the LOGICAL REASON I think they should be punished is again THEY BROKE THE LAW!
So when you say,,

You should owe up to your insinuations and assertions

I just did AGAIN and any further deliberate misunderstandings by you and Ill put you on ignore, like Light Angel who is now, I have better things to do than argue with people that are just too much exercise when they willfully intend to remain a fool ignorant of the truth and irreverent of facts. Choice is yours.

Glad to see you measuring your words a little more carefully. Suffice to say, you are to your side of the fence what they are to theirs, and if your views were marginalized like theirs, I'd be inclined to defend you in a similar circumstance.

Oh RLY!

Gays have nothing to bitch about pal and if anyone has been marginalized is is Christians and maybe this would be a good time to educate those lurking on these boards and those seeking to know what is really behind all this stuff because it isn't about gays not being able to marry. No this is about more than that.

This is about letting them get a good look in the mirror and I don't have to be a Christian to get livid over this, no this is what Gays have been doing for quite some time and I say, we better get a good look at ourselves because once this is heading in the direction it has started to, we are libel to end up where we are headed and I for one, find it repugnant.

This is about their lifestyle and sticking it back in the closet so it isn't in our children's classes our straight web dating match maker sites like e-harmony where Gay Lawsuits forced the owner to allow Gays on a straight dating website. Why? Because you had your rights violated? This guy is straight that owns it and the people there are all straight. If Gays want a damn matchmaker website MAKE THEIR OWN!

Holy Matrimony between a man and a woman or marriage for all its flaws and mishaps and divorces it is something Christians don't want gays involved in SO the state in its attempts to placate the whining cryers of Gaytheism created "Civil Unions" MOST of which have every possible benefit Marriage has with the exception of the words Marriage to "Husband and Wife"

This isn't about equal rights because they HAVE those rights, it is about having something they can't have without being straight and that is a feeling of acceptance married couples have.
That is what this is about and the slippery slope is where they intend to take it after they get that they won't settle for just that, NOOO they want our damn KIDS too!.



Most gays you read about have this idea in their heads that all woman are good for is breeding and that most straight men are gay if they only get an opportunity to show them "Gay is the way". If you read the following article, you'll see one of the Gay movements most vocal spokespersons actually says that being Gay is a learned behavior and THAT is just what I am saying is WE DON'T WANT IT LEGITIMIZED when if they are going to say it's genetic in one argument yet has to be learned on another. The double standards are seemingly infinite when it comes to using the ACLU to turn this country into the most debased immoral unethical type of Disneyland for adults and adulterers .

They are pushing NOT just Christians but rednecks, bikers, bricklayers Butchers bakers and candlestick makers too far and UNLIKE the Civil Rights Movement where equality is defined as a people of any color the Gay movement has the same distinction. They are any color but because they think they have sex a "special way" we are supposed to allow them to indoctrinate their way of having sex as if it is a distinction like race or gender when it is about ONE THING and that is a self indulgent act of SEX that's IT! When they asked the largest gay forum on the internet to ofer a thread asking what favorites posts were we get a real fine picture where the average gay persons head is at just by checking out the thread and I warn you it IS graphic and it IS vulgar and sickening to say the least yet we are to think they should be considered as equal to parents of familys with a MOM and DAD

NO WAY NO HOW AND NO NOT EVER

Ya know what, I think the kind of sex they have is sick and twisted but that is THEIR BUSINESS, but when they want to screw my son via public schools they are having sex with my boy by proxy cognition. They want to get in my face about that?? Ill tell you what will get in their face and it has five knuckles sent with bad intentions. Call me a Bigot and Ill call you one, Call me intolerant and Ill call you that too I see too much of the same they are guilty of they accuse us for. You wanna call me a homophobe as if I am afraid, I fear NO MAN and if their is a word for fear of straight men with an axe to grind then I'd say to them BE afraid, Be VERY AFRAID as I am pretty certain most would have reason to fear me, this kind of thing gets me that angry and again it is about taking from us what is NONE of their business and forcing their sexual religion of humanism on our children and THEY are NONE of THEIR business!

A University of Michigan class that earlier prompted state lawmakers to consider a 10 percent budget penalty for the school and is taught by a homosexual professor openly endorsing the "uncompromising political militancy" of "lesbian and gay studies" is returning.

But so is the opposition.


David Halperin

The class at the tax-funded University of Michigan in Ann Arbor is called "How to be Gay: Male Homosexuality and Initiation," and is taught by David Halperin.

It surfaced in 2000, returned the following year and again a couple years later. Now university officials have confirmed it is returning, and Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, said "it was and remains an outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars."

"Each time it has been offered we have renewed our objections to it. The first time around the Michigan House of Representatives came with a few votes of cutting the university budget by 10 percent," he said.

He said Halperin "makes no bones about it on the other side of the world, knowingly using tax dollars to promote the militant political agenda of homosexuality."

Glenn was referring to Halperin's writings on his activities as part of his work in Australia, where he spends part of each year.

There, Halperin has written, "The fact is that lesbian and gay studies simply is the academic wing of the lesbian, bisexual, gay, and transgender movement … no one in the field has ever (to my knowledge at least) contested this…"

"Let there be no mistake about it: lesbian and gay studies, as it is currently practiced in the U.S., expresses an uncompromising political militancy," he wrote.

"We have lobbied universities and professional associations to adopt and enforce anti-discrimination policies, to recognise same-sex couples, to oppose the U.S. military's anti-gay policy, to suspend professional activities in states that criminalize gay sex or limit access to abortion, and to intervene on behalf of human rights for lesbians, bisexuals, and gay men at the local and national levels," he wrote in Australian Humanities Review.

"Just because you happen to be a gay man doesn't mean that you don't have to learn how to become one," he writes in the University of Michigan course description. "Gay men do some of that learning on their own, but often we learn how to be gay from others, either because we look to them for instruction or because they simply tell us what they think we need to know, whether we ask for their advice or not."

Further, he advises potential students, "the course itself will constitute an experiment in the very process of initiation that it hopes to understand."

University officials posted a defense of the decision to allow the course on the university website, a tacit acknowledgment of its controversial nature.

"This course is not about encouraging people to become gay, but about how individuals in our society create meaning and beliefs about gay culture from literature and the arts," explained Robert M. Owen, associate dean for undergraduate education. "The course also makes no assumptions about the sexual orientation of its students."

"We are aware that much of the concern is with the title of the course and acknowledge that the interpretation of that title is very troubling for some people. The English Department … approved this course," he said.

Provost Paul Courant boasted of the evolution of the school into one "of the finest public institutions of higher education in the world" and attributed that to "the free and open exchange of ideas."

He said Halperin's course "is similar to literature courses taught at many other universities in our state and across our country."

Concerns over Halperin's actions were raised even within the homosexual community. In an online forum for homosexuals, one wrote, "Having a course in initiating young people into the gay lifestyle? Isn't that what Christian Fundementalists (sic) claim actually goes on in the gay community? Thank you Dr. Halperin for confirming their suspicions."

Halperin also has written that, "I still find the possibility of an open, uncensored, honest, and sexually explicit gay male literature thrilling, and I expected my students to do the same…"

"Lesbian/gay studies necessarily straddles scholarship and politics …. It would be hard to be more explicit than that," said Halperin, who is has written several homosexual-oriented books.

In the past, Glenn promised, "Every time U-M offers this ludicrous class, you and I cannot fail to speak out against it."

Reports said in 2003, Halperin refused to meet Glenn's offer for a face-to-face public debate on the merits of the class.

References to a "mother" and "father" in any school text appear to be threatened, because they could be interpreted as "reflecting" a bias against the "Partner 1" and "Partner 2" of same-sex lifestyles.

Homosexual activists are expected to show up today at the trial of a Massachusetts man arrested while attempting to secure a promise from school officials to notify parents before teaching about homosexuality in his son's kindergarten class.

Why do they care that we want a notice about what OUR kids are learning about gays. They DON'T HAVE A RIGHT as they say because they are OUR KIDS! If they are Gay, they don't need GAYS teaching them how to be gay no more than I did to be straight no more than the monkeys do in nature.

Gay webs are loaded with this hate speak and a total obsession with the most filthy disgusting depraved debauchery they want to call "love making" and it is THAT they are defined as NOT what they are ,, but what they do. It is what they do that we, DO NOT HAVE TO TOLERATE and it is THAT we have become to soft on and too accepting because I ain't buying their BS

It's not an ultimatum. It's a sequitur. If you don't back your loudly stated claims with rational discourse, the validity of your point suffers.

An ultimatum (Latin: the last one) is a demand whose fulfillment is requested in a specified period of time
en.wikipedia.org... If you don't learn ENGLISH it isn't JUST the validity of your point that suffers, your whole life will suffer but this is all besides the point when I know you are splitting hairs in the first place.

WHY does silly little minutia like this have to be taken time to explain to you when it has nothing to do with the central message of the OP. In the interest of expedient efficiency, can we stick with what is at the heart of the matter here rather than nit pick at things I am going to prove you wrong about anyway? I mean I feel like I am picking on you now but hey,, you ask and as usual, you are lost without a clue.

When you dismiss their argument accordingly, it is indeed an ad hominem..

You dismiss the whole argument getting us off track on more minutia guy,, if you think my fonts are to loud then turn your volume down. I can't help you and your silly sensitivities and am finding your passive aggressive posting style so smack dab in the middle of the typical gay hypocrisy it is hysterical

EXAMPLE: The thread "Sparks Fly As 'Gay" Activist Mob Swarm Christians www.abovetopsecret.com...'

In this thread the Gays are suggesting here too that it was the Christians ASKING for this because they were in the "gay turf" or demonstrating in the Gay Dist. This to me is where people like you suggesting this crap where we can't handle having our comfort zone threatened, falls on deaf ears when I can say the SAME THING about them in the so called "Gay Dist" .

The facts are the facts and in EACH of these two cases, the facts are clear and Gays are wrong for acting this way and surely is not the same thing as Racial Civil Rights or Woman's suffrage. This is NOT going to go away without Gays finding out the hard way that they have pushed their agenda to the point where THEY WILL BE HATED and who they are having sex with will have NOTHING to do with it. It is the Idea they think we have to bow down to their sexual religion ideology that will inevitably be their undoing and unlike racial issues, again, this isn't about what they are, but what they do and what they do, is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS. So they best keep it to themselves or THEY WILL find there is a HUGE difference between a Christian Right that is wrong and one that if crushing gays to the point of violence is wrong, they won't want to be right and they won't really give a rats azz what God thinks about it.

This is something whammy and I may disagree on too but I am as ticked off by Christians who put up with this garbage and have made the idea of hating the sin and not the sinner such a politically correct addition to Christian Church's they just don't get it anymore. Gays DON'T CARE ABOUT OUR GODS DISAPPROVAL OF THEIR SIN and anymore, unless they are seeking us out, I think we should leave them the hell alone but when it comes to politics and their ultimate agendas AND THERE ARE MANY, that is when ALL of us need to take a good hard look at what gays really want and why. Most straights NEED to read Gay Bloggs and Forums if the yreally want to find out and after you do I think you'll find your support of gays rights is NOT in your best interests all you straight gaytheist sypathizers out there.

So I say then the hell with that, CARE about what we will do if they keep pushing. The name Bash Back is what they think they are doing as an answer to Religious imposing oppression? They have NO idea what's on the horizon

Not really concerned with it. Fact is, you're battling the raging gays and defending America from an Obama presidency. Just saying, glass houses.

NOT CONCERNED WITH IT?? Hey Johnny my boy,, if you ain't concerned with it,, then DON'T BRING IT UP!

Is this so hard to do?? Can we dismiss with the nit picky BS and stay on topic rather than opine away thinking you are waxing poetic about the protocols of logical fallacy and inductive reasoning as if you think you know anything about it because you don't and that my friend, is undeniable.

Ill tell you I really don't care what your opinions are regarding this Idea you have that you are a writing critic or what you think makes you look intelligent. I know more people with Doctorates that are just educated idiots, so I am not impressed with your attempts to malign me as somewhat of a bully here when I can use the same logic YOU do and suggest that you just can't handle your worldview being challenged. Again, the whole thing is argumentative.

You know what is most funny about Gaytheists they call a view held by less than ten percent of the American public "common sense".

They berate the Mormon Church for their finacial support against prop 8 yet and Black list Rosie O'Donnel for NOT supporting it while not seeing the monumental hypocrisy in garnering any financial support from Hollywood. You feel that Christians who go into atheist chat rooms are "shoving their beliefs down people's throats", and that gaytheists who go into Christian chat rooms are only trying to educate. The gays are stupid enough to think gaytheists are treated like second-class citizens. Yet they spend most of their day belittling Christians and other religious people on these boards


I only care what FACTS are and so far their has been a good argument that terrorism may be overstated by the OP, HOWEVER, the fact IS this and many more actions like this perpetrated by gays are INTOLERABLE and believe it or not,, NOT EVERYTHING EVERYONE DOES Should be tolerated, this in fact is one of many things you and many more here seem to be defending the actions of those who were unequivocally DEAD WRONG and making excuses for them when this and many more acts on the Gays agenda, should definitely,,

NOT BE TOLERATED

PERIOD













[edit on 23-11-2008 by MAINTAL]

WOW! And he thinks Bash Back is scary?!?!?

On many levels there have been times I wished I could have done something similar to what Bash Back has done - - only about keeping religion out of government.

Maybe their actions will help wake up the government to equality over religion.

It's TIME! - - before blood shed.

reply to post by MAINTAL


Wow, con, that was quite a whine and a half. Names change, but style doesn't. Must have been very cathartic.

Perhaps we need a summary in less than 50 words?

I assume it would go something like:

'gays readily make me angry and violent, they're intolerant sickos, I'll kick their ass if I see one in my face, I don't want my kids knowing about such depravity, so get yo ass back in that thar closet, monkey loving gaytheists!'

About right? Must have been hard work to get all the bogeymen in one post on this issue, but the post did well - I scanned and saw evolution, gay/atheists = gaytheists, ACLU, fatwa envy, pointy-headed academics. Still room for improvement, though, as it could have been even more awesome with some 'war on christmas' stuff.

[edit on 23-11-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Annee
WOW! And he thinks Bash Back is scary?!?!?

On many levels there have been times I wished I could have done something similar to what Bash Back has done - - only about keeping religion out of government.

Maybe their actions will help wake up the government to equality over religion.

It's TIME! - - before blood shed.

BashBack are nothing to me, they don't "scare" me and their website is a the most pathetic excuse for a wannabe Al-Jazeera website I have ever seen and how would acting like a complete idiot with a pink mask on yelling pro gay idioms in the rotunda keep religion out of Government?

What Religion is our Government anyway? I hear they are Democrats this time the God of Tax and Spend.

Yeah and I can sum up melot's post the same way I did when the op said something similar and only in one word not fifty.

HUH?

Also seeing your avatar I'd think maybe your being lesbian is why you are so Biased? Just a guess but It would explain you think your sexual orientation has to be shoved down our throats. I mean after all that is what gays are about if they want to make this about any real distinction that would separate them from being given "equal rights" it would be that wouldn't you agree or am I wrong in assuming?

The reason I ask is, you seem to be an intelligent bird maybe YOU can tell me why Gays would reject civil unions and why they MUST have what is between a man and a woman definition of marriage? Do you also think a man can be as a female is in that role of Mom or why your kids if you have any should be taught about transgenderism in kindergarten without the right of parents knowing? I agree with separation of Church and state as much as the next guy but I really don't see this as JUST a problem religion is having with Gays, their are plenty of reasons Joe Six pack who has never seen the inside of a church might not want gays being married either but I bet you would insist it has to be some form of homophobia and not just simply see it as an encroachment of how we want our kids growing up. Sorry about the two girls disappearing in your avatar.

Perhaps they should have rented a room

Originally posted by melatonin


'gays readily make me angry and violent, they're intolerant sickos, I'll kick their ass if I see one in my face, I don't want my kids knowing about such depravity, so get yo ass back in that thar closet, monkey loving gaytheists!'

About right?
[edit on 23-11-2008 by melatonin]

Glad we understand each other.

So I know I have covered all the bases,,

Happy Festivus! or what ever you call it these days



[edit on 23-11-2008 by MAINTAL]

reply to post by MAINTAL


I think I get it. We are all usnig English. All be Maintal. So we are all arguing because we just do not understand each other. Because in English, this reads this way -

You call that honesty ?? Putting words in my mouth then accusing me of seeing the world in absolutes and like most of you in here so busy obfuscating the truth by misrepresentation, mis quotes and quote mining,

Quote mining to misrepresent you? Is that like coal mining to get diamonds from slate rock? If they are quote mining, they are getting quotes and using them. How is that misrepresenting you when we even use your own quotes?

Second of all, logic is all off here. Is it black and white or not? You insist it is wrong to accuse you of seeing absoloutes and then...

No John John, the Black and White is DEAD ON that this was WRONG and THEY were WRONG and YOU ARE WRONG TOO

(off-topic text removed)

Please stay on-topic.

[edit on 11-23-2008 by chissler]

MAINTAL:

Let's take a step back and try to keep things civil. If I've truly misinterpreted you, by all means, take a moment to correct me. It might help if you quote exactly what it is that I've misinterpreted and explain in context just what you meant by it. Regarding the practice of debate: I may be dismissive to your points if I feel they're not valid, but I take great pains to avoid personally attacking you. If I've done so, point it out, and I'll apologize. I don't think that's a good way to conduct a disagreement and I hope you'd agree. In that interest, then, please refrain from attacking me on a personal level. We are all capable of getting too fired about any number of issues and conducting ourselves poorly. Honestly, when I see a post peppered with personal attacks, it takes me a few minutes to step back and remember that I'd like to conduct myself admirably in spite of that. Not to sound too pie in the sky, but why don't we all help one another to bring the debate to a higher place?

That being said, I'm going to try here to respond to your core points without engaging in the tit-for-tat style. Frankly, I don't think I can do that in under 4000 characters and I think a series of posts would just add to the confusion. So, here goes. I'm going to deliberately ignore the personal "you're putting words in my mouth" material. If you really feel I've done so, I invite you to take me up on it per the first paragraph.

Your first assertion: The acts of the group that protested on the church's property were violent and malicious.

I beg to differ. They didn't attempt to inflict bodily harm. If they had desired to do so, they certainly could have. The fact remains that they were not armed and did not cause physical damage to anyone's personage. The facts I've stated clearly indicate that any belief that their intent was violent or malicious is purely speculative and I don't wish to engage in a dispute over dueling speculations. The facts speak for themselves. If their motive was to do harm, they certainly could have. But they did not.

Next up: The gays today are about hate, hate, hate. (This claim combined with a source where an apparent LGBT activist is advocating publicizing the sexual preference of other members of the LGBT community who'd rather not be known.)

I don't think your claim is backed by your source. This isn't intra-community hatred, this is frustration. The idea here is that it's much more difficult to establish rights and challenge the normative societal structure when members of the community desiring rights are essentially reinforcing the status quo by going to great pains to avoid rocking the boat. I don't agree with the author of the quoted source but I do understand what they're saying, and again, I don't think it connects with violence, threatening behavior, or hatred. The introduction of this material strikes me as a bit of a red herring. Pointing out that other, separate LGBT activists are willing to consider outing unwilling LGBT's doesn't really shore up your assertion that the acts of the first group were violent or malicious.

Next up: Because Muslims might respond with violence, American liberals (?) are adhering to a double standard in defending the rights of the LGBT community.

I'm not sure this follows (i.e., non-sequitur), and it feels like a pretty big divergence from the topic. Just to be clear, I absolutely condemn a violent response to such a protest from anyone. I support calling the police.

(continued from above)

Next up: The whole issue is about absolutes and I know this absolutely, further, I don't care what you think.

I'm not surprised you're unconcerned with my opinions. Frankly, debate is usually for the benefit of others who want to see how the advocates of differing positions present their cases. I don't expect to change your mind, I expect both of our opinions to be elucidated by the debate. I echo another poster who mentions that it's interesting you in one moment think I'm putting words in your mouth by claiming you see a complex subject in black and white terms while later saying it is indeed completely black and white.

Next up: These protestors should be punished for their own protection because violence is likely to escalate if they are allowed to continue.

I actually don't mind the idea of them being charged for whichever laws they broke. Part of civil disobedience is taking your rap. I think I've more consistently argued that this isn't terrorism and that malice and violent aren't evident.

Next up: This is about forcing LGBT's back into the closet so their repugnant lifestyle isn't on display for the youth. (This is followed by a series of characterizations, speculations dealing with a "gay agenda", and assertions that homosexuality is sickening. A series of external sources are cited dealing with homosexuality in public life and education.)

And you can't see how your desire to make shameful LGBT life based on your preferences and beliefs might invite the very challenges to the normative that disturb you so much? Perhaps if the opposition weren't so staunch, the agenda to oppose it might loosen up as well?

Next up: A screed regarding a separate thread, uniting the behavior of all "gays" and those who defend them as being similar and insinuating that responsibility for the behavior of a few LGBT's is borne by the whole community.

This doesn't really invite reply. I feel like you're trying to hold me responsible for the opinions, beliefs, and actions of others. I could tell you what I think about that, but you've pretty clearly stated you just don't care.

Finally: A lengthy ad hominem followed by a vague reference to a gay agenda which should "not be tolerated"

I guess you and I differ in one important way. I do care what you think about these topics. I don't like to see our society divided like this. I wish everyone would just learn to turn the other cheek a little bit more often. What I don't care about, however, is what you think of me personally. As I alluded to above, I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm trying to expose where your opinions come from and allow you to do the same thing for me.

Edited to fix a broken bold tag.

[edit on 23-11-2008 by JohnnyElohim]

Originally posted by JohnnyElohim
MAINTAL:

Let's take a step back and try to keep things civil. If I've truly misinterpreted you, by all means, take a moment to correct me. It might help if you quote exactly what it is that I've misinterpreted and explain in context just what you meant by it.

I really hope this works so we can put to rest this whole "misrepresenting me" argument but I wish you luck my friend. So far anyone that did not agree has been guilty of twisting, lying, and missrepresenting. I also asked at one point for clear and concise words to explain the point in a way that could not be misconstrued and no luck.

So, to you, I wish you luck!

Originally posted by MAINTAL

Originally posted by Annee
WOW! And he thinks Bash Back is scary?!?!?

On many levels there have been times I wished I could have done something similar to what Bash Back has done - - only about keeping religion out of government.

Maybe their actions will help wake up the government to equality over religion.

It's TIME! - - before blood shed.

BashBack are nothing to me, they don't "scare" me and their website is a the most pathetic excuse for a wannabe Al-Jazeera website I have ever seen and how would acting like a complete idiot with a pink mask on yelling pro gay idioms in the rotunda keep religion out of Government?

I don't play "Ping Pong" debate. And I'm certainly not going to start now.

However - "The lady (gentleman) doth protest too much, methinks."

Young rebels are often a major - or - at least significant instrument in igniting change.

Its a quagmire to both Celebrate and Admonish the same behavior - but that is my position.

reply to post by melatonin

'gays readily make me angry and violent, they're intolerant sickos, I'll kick their ass if I see one in my face, I don't want my kids knowing about such depravity, so get yo ass back in that thar closet, monkey loving gaytheists!'

MAINTAL's reply;

Glad we understand each other.

And this from a man who has claimed more than once that he doesn't hate homosexuals!



Y'know MAINTAL,you are guilty of the same behaviour as some gay people.They lump all Christians in together,you lump all gays in together.These 'radical gays' do not represent all homosexuals,just as religious fundamentalists don't represent all Christians.

The facts are the facts and in EACH of these two cases, the facts are clear and Gays are wrong for acting this way and surely is not the same thing as Racial Civil Rights or Woman's suffrage. This is NOT going to go away without Gays finding out the hard way that they have pushed their agenda to the point where THEY WILL BE HATED and who they are having sex with will have NOTHING to do with it.

We already are hated by some people.Look in the mirror,you'll see one such person.And gays have fought for their rights before,and,in a way the protest is like that of racial civil rights and womens suffrage as they too were treated like 2nd class citizens,they too were denied the rights available to others.

Gays DON'T CARE ABOUT OUR GODS DISAPPROVAL OF THEIR SIN and anymore, unless they are seeking us out, I think we should leave them the hell alone but when it comes to politics and their ultimate agendas AND THERE ARE MANY, that is when ALL of us need to take a good hard look at what gays really want and why.

Why should any non-Christian,gay or straight,care about that? It is not their God,it is not their faith.And what do you mean by 'our God'? The God of straight people only?? You mentioned somewhere that church and sate should be seperate,but now you're saying that when it comes to politics religion should get involved to oppose the rights of homosexuals.



[edit on 23-11-2008 by jakyll]

Originally posted by jakyll

And this from a man who has claimed more than once that he doesn't hate homosexuals!

yeah lol ,, that was until I started seeing how worthy of my indifference, people like those in the op are.

Y'know MAINTAL,you are guilty of the same behaviour as some gay people.They lump all Christians in together,you lump all gays in together.These 'radical gays' do not represent all homosexuals,just as religious fundamentalists don't represent all Christians.

I have never protested, demonstrated or invaded their gay clique's with mask on and some idiotic terrorist garb acting like a damn fool.

in a way the protest is like that of racial civil rights and womens suffrage as they too were treated like 2nd class citizens,they too were denied the rights available to others.

Is that so? I think all that was covered in this thread though so I won't repeat it but basically you have more rights than anyone just because you a minority of some kind, the questions is ,, what kind

Why should any non-Christian,gay or straight,care about that? It is not their God,it is not their faith.And what do you mean by 'our God'? The God of straight people only?? You mentioned somewhere that church and sate should be seperate,but now you're saying that when it comes to politics religion should get involved to oppose the rights of homosexuals.

You are under the mistaken impression that one has to be a Christian to be repulsed by the gaytheist lifestyle and what do YOU care what God it is Jakyl.

Jesus was a friend to people who others in his community thought shockingly immoral.

If this church had been full of followers of the teachings of Jesus, people who humbly followed His example, Bash Back would not have had a chance to protest.

They'd have been welcomed in, given seats and accepted as they are.

Jesus taught that it is not the business of any Christian to run around pointing out other peoples' "sins".

A true follower of Jesus will mirror His love in his/her own love of others.
A true follower of Jesus will see his/her own sins starkly illuminated by the purity of the Christ, and will pray for forgiveness and for help to change.
A true follower of Jesus would rather wash the feet of the people around him/her than stand in judgement over them.

A true follower of Jesus uses the Bible as a source of wisdom through which to hear god, not as a weapon to beat the heads of those they disagree with.

Sadly, the general acceptance of Christianity, and its importance as a garment to wear which can cover all secret hypocrisies, has led to many wearing the cloak of socially acceptable religion, while setting examples that drive honest people away from the Christ.

Very interesting post Kailassa, especially the last part that gives me something to think about. A lot of times a believer has to step back and ask themselves how to welcome the sinner without welcoming the sin (as we too are sinners but need to turn away from sins ourselves).

This thread is not about Christianity. This thread is about this group of protestors who wear masks, carry weapons and take a group photo of it much like similar photos we've seen coming from violent militant groups. Can we stay on topic please?

[edit on 24-11-2008 by saint4God]

reply to post by Kailassa


Nice Leonard Cohen quote in your signature.

"Jesus was a sailor when he walked upon the water/And he spent a long time watching from his lonely wooden tower/And when he knew for certain only drowning men could him/He said 'all men will be sailors then until the sea shall free them'"

Originally posted by JohnnyElohim
reply to post by Kailassa

 

Nice Leonard Cohen quote in your signature.

"Jesus was a sailor when he walked upon the water/And he spent a long time watching from his lonely wooden tower/And when he knew for certain only drowning men could (see) him/He said 'all men will be sailors then until the sea shall free them'"

Yes, similar in meaning.
Without having a crack, without knowing one is drowning, one is blinded to the numinous. Yet some people want to force others to patch up their perceived cracks instead of seeing the numinous through their own.

I guess that's why Leonard loved cracks and lakes so much.
BTW, he sings in Teachers of having had a homosexual experience.


"But if you're gonna dine with them cannibals,
Sooner or later, darling, you're gonna get eaten.
But I'm glad you've come around here with your animals
And your heart that is bruised but unbeaten."
(by Australia's answer to Leonard Cohen)