It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Christians sue for right to burn gay teen novel

page: 19
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 04:02 AM
Yeah - let's burn ALL bad books, or books that go against the grain of the majority.

Only a sane and rational population would do that, right?


posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 12:59 PM

Originally posted by UltraAgentGirl

Originally posted by nunya13
reply to post by UltraAgentGirl

Nice try...

Very interesting since you left out all the serial killers who most certainly were not gay or bi-sexual:

The BTK killer, Ted Bundy (loved the women), the Zodiac Killer killed men AND women and didn't have sex with them either, the Green River killer, Jack the Ripper (throwing it back to the old school :lol
, Eddie Gein (the Buffalo Bill character of Silence of the Lambs was based on him)...

I could also go on and on.

Edited to make my point more succinct

Also edit to add: you said in one post that you will turn the other cheek yet you immediately followed that with you will dish out whatever someone gives you.

That's not turning the other cheek. That is eye for an eye. The two are not compatible.

[edit on 17-6-2009 by nunya13]

[edit on 17-6-2009 by nunya13]

Nones taken my eye out and I turned the other cheek at the begining of this thread, the list is to answer a post having nothing to with all serial killers being gay and ted bundy did NOT "love" woman, he beat the living crap out of them bludgeoned them in the face to their death and got off on it. Not my idea of love and thanks for the tip on letting all the woman out there know what YOURS is

Very funny, you really think that's my opinion of love? I was being sarcastic. Lighten up a little...sheeze.

And I am a woman.

posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 01:51 PM

Originally posted by UltraAgentGirl
reply to post by nunya13

Now you know why the parents wanted this moved, they picked it up not expecting to read such material because it was not in the right area of the library. You'll notice in the begining they didn't want it burned, they only wanted it moved to an age appropriate area. So what do you think enraged them so much they now want it burned?

I don't understand how previously not intending to want to burn the book justifies changing their mind and deciding burning it is a good idea. Like I said that's not tolerance. That's hatred. Not becoming of a Christian.

Lastly, from what I can tell about this book, other than the supposed graphic nature of it, it seems to me that the books main purpose is to help you identify with a person who is gay but experienced some horrible intolerance to the point of being beaten almost to death. This really happens in our society, and it is often perpetrated by people who claim to be Christians.

It is often the Christians that do this? No it isn't and it is NO and 98% of the violence they do experience in 911 calls are domestic violence perpetrated on their gay lover.

You're going to have to back that one up with a source. And, in thinking about it, I may have been wrong about Christians being violent against gays. You're right, gay people have been just as violent. But I do think that Christians (the one's who do not practice Jesus' teaching of loving everyone and being tolerant), among other religions (but Christians make up the majority of religious Americans) do make up the majority of those who believe being gay is simply wrong and express it verbally or through actions.

This is the same BALONEY PBS tried to convey and many pushing for hate crimes legislation to protect the poor poor homosexual all because lil matthew sheppard got his homosexual face beat beyond all recognition and all Christians got the blunt end of the blame when it was one of Mats Bi-sexual lovers and past drug customers who did it but THAT never got mentioned in the PBS documentary and why?

Once again, you're comments aren't doing much to try to divert attention away from the hatred that is directed towards gays.

THIS kind of ignorance that people like you and the op keep pushing till tolerance for Gays is and has already shown signs that people are fed up with it and they are PUSHING their luck.

Pushing our luck? What the heck do you mean by that? That worries me because according to you, when pushed to the limit these people that previously did not want to burn a book felt like they were forced to do so to make a statement. So what would they be pushed to do if we keep "pushing our luck"? Because, according to you, you've all been SO tolerant to this point. (I don't really feel that your emotion is one of tolerance jumping off the computer screen by the way)

Take Proposition 8 it was not evil and done out of "intolerance" or the desire to "impose other people's religious principles on everybody else." In fact, it had nothing to do with it.

Actually, it is the other side ( presumably YOUR side...) the one that has been making a wonderful display of intolerance and lack of respect for the will of the majority. You are the ones who want to change the definition of a word to suit your own agenda.

The definition of marriage is based MAINLY on a religious view.

The only reason that governments recognize marriage has nothing to do with religious beliefs. It has to do with legally acknowledging the union in order that married couples may enjoy certain benefits such as sharing insurance, filing joint tax returns, and inheritance of retirement plans should one spouse die. Other than those incidents (and some others) there is no legal reason for a government to acknowledge a marriage. Any one can marry anyone anytime they want if it solely in order for God to recognize their holy union and see them as one person--no one HAS to make their marriage legal. The only reason you have to make it legal is to enjoy those benefits. You don't make it legal, you don't get those benefits. It has nothing to do with it being recognized by God.

So why don't people want gays to enjoy those benefits? If marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, mainly according to religion, then God would not recognize it as a holy union. But that's not something the government should determine. That's not governments place. The government is discriminating against gays by not letting the enjoy the benefits that other couple's enjoy in a legally recognized marriage.

The book purports to suggest that Gays are the subject of discrimination and that couldn't be further from the truth.

I think there is a real problem if you honestly think that gays are not discriminated against or looked down upon for it. Discrimination is not limited to the opportunities available to gay men (take gays being banned from entering the military for example, that is discrimination). Discrimination includes verbal harassment and gays experience these types of behaviors from people from all walks of life. Even their own parents might completely shun them.

EXAMPLE this was an article from a gay website and explains why they are putting a bill through to make it legal to have public sex in places like bathrooms and state public parks.

Agreed, I don't think ANYONE should be having sex in public places. But you're generalizing. There are extremists from ALL walks of life.

[edit on 19-6-2009 by nunya13]

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:04 AM
Sorry if this has been posted as I haven't read all the pages yet but has anyone read 'Fahrenheit 451' written by Ray Bradbury? This issue/thread reminded me of it.
It's about book burning!

Discussion with Ray Bradbury

new topics

top topics
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in