Gay Mob Attacks Christians

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I think the next order of business should be for the Muslims to sue to have a Muslim installed as the priest of some Hindu temple in your area. That would be hilarious. I can see him declaring all of your idols haram and having them burned, whilst inviting his co-religionists to come to services where he preaches jihad against you. We can’t have any discrimination of any type, after all.

Sure. I don’t go to a temple though.

Just like how I don’t think gays have any right to force a church to marry them, they can still go to a church that DOES do gay marriage ceremonies.

Do you see what I’m getting at here? YOU and your Church still should be able to turn away people for marriage based on your beliefs, but you can’t say they can’t go somewhere else to get married.[/quote]

Uh, Me and my Church have that right until the homosexuals sue in a favorable jurisdiction to their cause. See what I’m getting at?

222

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Uh, Me and my Church have that right until the homosexuals sue in a favorable jurisdiction to their cause. See what I’m getting at?
[/quote]

So, to you it’s all about preserving the right of your church to deny? Not about stopping gay marriage at a federal level?

223

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Uh, Me and my Church have that right until the homosexuals sue in a favorable jurisdiction to their cause. See what I’m getting at?
[/quote]

x2
Mak, do you really believe that this would be left alone without any legal actions?

224

[quote]RebornTN wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Uh, Me and my Church have that right until the homosexuals sue in a favorable jurisdiction to their cause. See what I’m getting at?

x2
Mak, do you really believe that this would be left alone without any legal actions? [/quote]

You’re working with a slippery slope. I don’t definitively know, and neither do you. If they do try to force your church to marry them, that’s another issue entirely.

225

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
They should be charged with hate crimes.

Who?

Those that were involved in the attack.

No, they should be charged with assault. No matter the provocation, assault remains unacceptable.

A hate crime implies no provocation. I’d be pretty pissed off if someone came up to me and started preaching about how being a Hindu is immoral and will get me stuck in hell.[/quote]

And if a homosexual is lisping, tip-toeing, and bearing a rainbow flag on his/her car and yard?

226

[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Uh, Me and my Church have that right until the homosexuals sue in a favorable jurisdiction to their cause. See what I’m getting at?

So, to you it’s all about preserving the right of your church to deny? Not about stopping gay marriage at a federal level?[/quote]

Yes. The issue is multi-faceted to me, but it primarily has to do with the homosexual priesthood infringing upon my existence. To be honest, I find the “evangelical” establishment off-putting and self-righteous.

I don’t want them in charge, and I’d prefer they learned to understand the two-kingdom pattern of governance found in Scripture. But I definitely don’t want the homosexual inmates running the asylum I live in. There is a slippery slope, and we are on it.

The gays clearly have an agenda for the rest of us and I don’t see why we should be subjected to the tyranny of their minority. If they cared about gay rights at all, really, they would be working for the benefit of the gays murdered in Iran and other Islamic countries, not suing private organizations for failing to cater to their whims. It’s all about their political muscle flexing.

227

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And if a homosexual is lisping, tip-toeing, and bearing a rainbow flag on his/her car and yard? [/quote]

On their own car/yard? Why is that a problem?

228

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Uh, Me and my Church have that right until the homosexuals sue in a favorable jurisdiction to their cause. See what I’m getting at?

So, to you it’s all about preserving the right of your church to deny? Not about stopping gay marriage at a federal level?

Yes. The issue is multi-faceted to me, but it primarily has to do with the homosexual priesthood infringing upon my existence. To be honest, I find the “evangelical” establishment off-putting and self-righteous.

I don’t want them in charge, and I’d prefer they learned to understand the two-kingdom pattern of governance found in Scripture. But I definitely don’t want the homosexual inmates running the asylum I live in.

There is a slippery slope, and we are on it. The gays clearly have an agenda for the rest of us and I don’t see why we should be subjected to the tyranny of their minority. If they cared about gay rights at all, really, they would be working for the benefit of the gays murdered in Iran and other Islamic countries, not suing private organizations for failing to cater to their whims. It’s all about their political muscle flexing. [/quote]

Well, now I see where you’re coming from. And to be perfectly honest, I don’t find it to be a bad position. I just don’t agree with the pathways you choose is all.

I don’t think the slope is as slippery as you think. I still believe we can grant marriage to gay people without have them impose additional beliefs on existing religious groups.

229

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Well, now I see where you’re coming from. And to be perfectly honest, I don’t find it to be a bad position. I just don’t agree with the pathways you choose is all.

I don’t think the slope is as slippery as you think. I still believe we can grant marriage to gay people without have them impose additional beliefs on existing religious groups.[/quote]

Can you explain to me why they need marriage, if they already have civil unions? Why would they wish to be married in a religion that does not believe in homosexual marriage (In cases that apply)

230

[quote]RebornTN wrote:
Can you explain to me why they need marriage, if they already have civil unions? Why would they wish to be married in a religion that does not believe in homosexual marriage (In cases that apply)[/quote]

First point - federal rights.

Potential loss of couple’s home from medical expenses of one partner caring for another gravely ill one

Unlike a company’s contribution to an employee’s spouse’s health insurance, domestic partner benefits are taxed as additional compensation

Legal costs associated with obtaining domestic partner documents to gain some of the power of attorney, health care decision-making, and inheritance rights granted through legal marriage

Higher health costs associated with lack of insurance and preventative care: 20% of same-sex couples have a member who is uninsured compared to 10% of married opposite-sex couples

Current tax law allows a spouse to inherit an unlimited amount from the deceased without incurring an estate tax but an unmarried partner would have to pay the estate tax on the inheritance from her/his partner

Things like that. WRT your second point, I firmly believe a gay couple cannot force a religious group to accept them.

231

[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Uh, Me and my Church have that right until the homosexuals sue in a favorable jurisdiction to their cause. See what I’m getting at?

So, to you it’s all about preserving the right of your church to deny? Not about stopping gay marriage at a federal level?

Yes. The issue is multi-faceted to me, but it primarily has to do with the homosexual priesthood infringing upon my existence. To be honest, I find the “evangelical” establishment off-putting and self-righteous. I don’t want them in charge, and I’d prefer they learned to understand the two-kingdom pattern of governance found in Scripture.

But I definitely don’t want the homosexual inmates running the asylum I live in. There is a slippery slope, and we are on it. The gays clearly have an agenda for the rest of us and I don’t see why we should be subjected to the tyranny of their minority.

If they cared about gay rights at all, really, they would be working for the benefit of the gays murdered in Iran and other Islamic countries, not suing private organizations for failing to cater to their whims. It’s all about their political muscle flexing.

Well, now I see where you’re coming from. And to be perfectly honest, I don’t find it to be a bad position. I just don’t agree with the pathways you choose is all.

I don’t think the slope is as slippery as you think. I still believe we can grant marriage to gay people without have them impose additional beliefs on existing religious groups.[/quote]

The Elton John position is the best: take your civil unions and stop trying to piss everyone else off. They went after the Boy Scouts, they went after eHarmony, they went after the definition of marriage, what next?

Why can’t Big Gay Al and Elton John be in charge of the gay agenda? Speaking of gay agenda (and we’re told there isn’t one), look at this:
http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/faith/national_religious_leadership_roundtable

[quote]Established in 1997, we share resources, support one another and work in partnership with other social-justice-seeking groups to:

* Amplify the voice of pro-LGBT faith organizations in public discourse. Listen to this interview with Roundtable member Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum, in which she offers her insight into the legacy of Rev. Jerry Falwell.

* Promote understanding of and respect for LGBT people within society at large and in communities of faith.

* Promote understanding and respect within LGBT communities for a variety of faith paths and for religious liberty.

* Achieve common goals that promote equality, spirituality and justice.

[/quote]

Gosh, I hope my “community of faith” isn’t targeted. You can’t be a practicing homosexual in my “community of faith” any more than you can be an unrepentant adulterer. You’ll get excommunicated.

232

[quote]Makavali wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Can you explain to me why they need marriage, if they already have civil unions? Why would they wish to be married in a religion that does not believe in homosexual marriage (In cases that apply)

First point - federal rights.

Potential loss of couple’s home from medical expenses of one partner caring for another gravely ill one

Unlike a company’s contribution to an employee’s spouse’s health insurance, domestic partner benefits are taxed as additional compensation

Legal costs associated with obtaining domestic partner documents to gain some of the power of attorney, health care decision-making, and inheritance rights granted through legal marriage

Higher health costs associated with lack of insurance and preventative care: 20% of same-sex couples have a member who is uninsured compared to 10% of married opposite-sex couples

Current tax law allows a spouse to inherit an unlimited amount from the deceased without incurring an estate tax but an unmarried partner would have to pay the estate tax on the inheritance from her/his partner

Things like that. WRT your second point, I firmly believe a gay couple cannot force a religious group to accept them.[/quote]

Would it make sense to make a whole different catagory for homosexual couples? Instead of calling it a marriage, which in my beliefs is a religious union, why not make a legal version of a marriage? This could apply to atheist couples as well.

?

233

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Gosh, I hope my “community of faith” isn’t targeted. You can’t be a practicing homosexual in my “community of faith” any more than you can be an unrepentant adulterer. You’ll get excommunicated.[/quote]

I take that to mean they wish to avoid harassment by religious groups. You’re telling me there aren’t Christians and other religious nuts who take it upon themselves to tell gay people that they are an abomination and they MUST repent?

I think all they want is to be left in peace.

234

[quote]RebornTN wrote:
Would it make sense to make a whole different catagory for homosexual couples? Instead of calling it a marriage, which in my beliefs is a religious union, why not make a legal version of a marriage? This could apply to atheist couples as well.

?[/quote]

Marriage is a word. It’s not the property of any one (or any) religion. Again, you don’t have to personally recognize it. Your church doesn’t have to recognize it. Just because YOU view it one way, it doesn’t mean other should either.

235

[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Gosh, I hope my “community of faith” isn’t targeted. You can’t be a practicing homosexual in my “community of faith” any more than you can be an unrepentant adulterer. You’ll get excommunicated.

I take that to mean they wish to avoid harassment by religious groups. You’re telling me there aren’t Christians and other religious nuts who take it upon themselves to tell gay people that they are an abomination and they MUST repent?

I think all they want is to be left in peace.[/quote]

I’m sure there are people who target them. How many? I don’t know. There were 1500 hate crimes against homosexuals last year, which is not a high number.

We have hate crime legislation in place for that sort of thing, which is now taking on the Orwellian trajectory of making certain speech a “hate crime,” and the definition changes depending on who holds the political reigns at the time.

I would happily work with homosexuals against the Dobson types if I believed that’s all they wanted. Too many lawsuits have convinced me otherwise.

236

[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Gosh, I hope my “community of faith” isn’t targeted. You can’t be a practicing homosexual in my “community of faith” any more than you can be an unrepentant adulterer. You’ll get excommunicated.

I take that to mean they wish to avoid harassment by religious groups. You’re telling me there aren’t Christians and other religious nuts who take it upon themselves to tell gay people that they are an abomination and they MUST repent?

I think all they want is to be left in peace.[/quote]

I’m going to have to disagree with you on the grounds that they seem to be making quite a big stink about this. And we have also recently had a gay right’s club appear in my school. That is not being left in peace, that is blatant advertising. If they don’t like that I will comment on the club, they shouldn’t have it being announced publicly.

237

[quote]Makavali wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Would it make sense to make a whole different catagory for homosexual couples? Instead of calling it a marriage, which in my beliefs is a religious union, why not make a legal version of a marriage? This could apply to atheist couples as well.

?

Marriage is a word. It’s not the property of any one (or any) religion. Again, you don’t have to personally recognize it. Your church doesn’t have to recognize it. Just because YOU view it one way, it doesn’t mean other should either.[/quote]

Can I then apply that to any word? If what you recognize is accepted as a world, and the standard conventions of the English language, why should I have to? If I want to view the word “legal” as in meaning mother, you are saying that I have the right to?

If marriage is just a word, then how can it have any legal implications/ramifications/bindings/ or consequences? If you are saying that the meaning of the word is based on perspectives, how do you propose that there is any basis on which to found a legal conclusion?

Also, marriage is a concept, which would entail that if you wish to use in the form of said concept (which in this case would be the bindings of two people), you cannot change it. You are setting multiple standards, in that the word marriage means nothing- is not affiliated with any church- but yet has legal consequences which set it apart from a civil union?

Care to clarify your point?

238

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And if a homosexual is lisping, tip-toeing, and bearing a rainbow flag on his/her car and yard?

On their own car/yard? Why is that a problem?[/quote]

And if christians are carrying their own signs and bibles on public property?

239

[quote]RebornTN wrote:
Can I then apply that to any word? If what you recognize is accepted as a world, and the standard conventions of the English language, why should I have to? If I want to view the word “legal” as in meaning mother, you are saying that I have the right to?

If marriage is just a word, then how can it have any legal implications/ramifications/bindings/ or consequences? If you are saying that the meaning of the word is based on perspectives, how do you propose that there is any basis on which to found a legal conclusion?

Also, marriage is a concept, which would entail that if you wish to use in the form of said concept (which in this case would be the bindings of two people), you cannot change it. You are setting multiple standards, in that the word marriage means nothing- is not affiliated with any church- but yet has legal consequences which set it apart from a civil union?

Care to clarify your point?[/quote]

What makes marriage any different from a civil union? Nothing in this day and age. Both are pretty much controlled by the government.

If you were to say… I don’t know, something like Catholic marriage, then you’re free to say it’s between 1 man + 1 woman. If you say marriage, you aren’t attaching a specific (or any) religion to it. It’s still open to interpretation. Specifics become important when playing around with a loaded term where multiple denominations use it.

Also, I don’t personally like the idea of government involvement in any marriage, but removing it would make a whole lot of other problems.

Also, you’re assuming marriage has always been 1 man + 1 woman. It hasn’t. Gay marriage and polygamy have been around for a LONG time.

240

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And if a homosexual is lisping, tip-toeing, and bearing a rainbow flag on his/her car and yard?

On their own car/yard? Why is that a problem?

And if christians are carrying their own signs and bibles on public property?[/quote]

There is a difference between their own property and public property. I’m pretty sure even the “gay brigade” needs a permit to have a gay parade.