You use the term radical a lot, but you never use it when talking about Mass Resistance or Spearhead. I can’t help but think that you don’t believe they are radical.
Is Mass Resistance a radical far right anti-gay website? Is a history denying, bathroom taping, fighting against homosexual kids being bullied website radical or simply a place for a lot of good information?
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Lol! You’re really insane aren’t you? Desperately trying to ‘expose’ me and paint me as an extremist. I’m just a supporter of traditional marriage. Not a fucking klansman. Good grief…
[/quote]
Exposing you? By looking at the websites you link us to in a thread? By wondering if the websites you read is why you have some of the thoughts you do? You never really addressed that despite me asking you about it multiple times.
Ok Sex I want to believe that you aren’t a regular reader of those type of websites because you agree they are horrific right? You accidentally found your way there because no way would you actually want to read those type of sites?
I mean can we at least agree on how bad those places are? You can agree that the messages and musings of what is found on the websites you linked to are disgusting and vile? Would you agree? [/quote]
Some of things you quoted from the sites I strongly disagree with. For example preventing girls from obtaining higher education. My mother was an academic for 40 years and one of the smartest people I have ever known.[/quote]
So you wouldn’t read sites like Mass Resistance or Spearhead? [/quote]
I would read them critically. Mass Resistance has an enormous amount of information on the gay rights movement. I have read it in the past. However as I stated I came across Spearhead for the first time yesterday whilst looking for a graph of marriage rates during a discussion about them in this thread.
[/quote]
And none of the stuff I posted about Mass Resistance gives you hesitation about supporting the website? None of it gives you hesitation to read it when it doesn’t even attempt to hide its bias? Being against helping bullied gay kids, filming people as they walk in the bathroom, none of this makes you think you know these people are actual lunatics and I shouldn’t support this kind of hate? When you use the term radical gay activists would you not call these activities radical anti-gay advocates? [/quote]
I don’t ‘support’ the website. And I didn’t link to any opinion pieces. I merely used it as an intermediary link to quotations from a book and studies listed in the references.
[quote]H factor wrote:
You use the term radical a lot, but you never use it when talking about Mass Resistance or Spearhead. I can’t help but think that you don’t believe they are radical.
Is Mass Resistance a radical far right anti-gay website? [/quote]
I’ve already explained my position on the matter.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
You use the term radical a lot, but you never use it when talking about Mass Resistance or Spearhead. I can’t help but think that you don’t believe they are radical.
Is Mass Resistance a radical far right anti-gay website? [/quote]
I’ve already explained my position on the matter.
[/quote]
Yeah, you’ve danced around the question a lot, but you haven’t answered it. Should kids be exposed to a website like Mass Resistance? Is this type of website highly dangerous and hate filled? Or are you only capable of pointing out something you dislike from the opposite side of your thinking? Can you only spot radicals that think differently from you?
At least you admit you’re a reader of the site as opposed to a stumbled upon that shit on accident like the other two.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I agree with you about homophobia. The Greek phobos means fear. However in modern parlance a homophobe is used to refer to someone with a hatred of homosexuals.[/quote]
We hate what we fear. [/quote]
Really? I fear G-d but I don’t hate him.[/quote]
Maybe you have reason to fear Him. [/quote]
We all do.
[/quote]
No, we don’t. That’s what Jesus taught us. [/quote]
Uh huh…
‘I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.’ - Luke 12:4-5[/quote]
The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.-
Do you believe a website that fights against help for bullied gay children is following what Jesus would want?
Would Jesus support secretely filming people as they walk in the bathroom?
See I think people like Mass Resistance and Spearhead are going to be in the hottest parts of hell if it actually exists.
[/quote]
I’ve already said I don’t ‘support’ the website and that I strongly disagree with some of the stuff there.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Florists and bakers have been prosecuted for refusing to bake cakes and send flowers to gay weddings. That is a breach of the first a amendment.
[/quote]
Florists and bakers are not churches who refuse to perform gay weddings. I agree in my own personal philosophy that a private business should be able to refuse or deny service to whomever it wishes, BUT legally a business open to public accommodation cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in most states (churches are not legally treated as businesses operating for-profit and open to public accommodation). Thus, religious people are not being prosecuted for refusing to participate in gay weddings, but rather for refusing service on the basis of sexual orientation as the law is presently written. A better approach would be to rewrite the laws to allow specific exclusions for business owners whose provision of the service in relation to a gay wedding would require him or her to be complicit in the ceremony, thereby violating that person’s faith. The AZ law was overly broad in allowing businesses to deny service on the basis of sexual orientation - period - which is why it deservedly failed.
You seem to be equating the legal defense of marriage as being the same as a religious conception of marriage, but the two can be mutually exclusive. Just having civil unions at the legal level does not destroy the religious institution of marriage, which any couple can seek on their own free will with the congregation of their choice.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
You use the term radical a lot, but you never use it when talking about Mass Resistance or Spearhead. I can’t help but think that you don’t believe they are radical.
Is Mass Resistance a radical far right anti-gay website? [/quote]
I’ve already explained my position on the matter.
[/quote]
Yeah, you’ve danced around the question a lot, but you haven’t answered it. Should kids be exposed to a website like Mass Resistance? Is this type of website highly dangerous and hate filled? Or are you only capable of pointing out something you dislike from the opposite side of your thinking? Can you only spot radicals that think differently from you?
At least you admit you’re a reader of the site as opposed to a stumbled upon that shit on accident like the other two.
[/quote]
Kids are exposed to all kinds of nasty stuff on the internet. However that has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
You use the term radical a lot, but you never use it when talking about Mass Resistance or Spearhead. I can’t help but think that you don’t believe they are radical.
Is Mass Resistance a radical far right anti-gay website? [/quote]
I’ve already explained my position on the matter.
[/quote]
Yeah, you’ve danced around the question a lot, but you haven’t answered it. Should kids be exposed to a website like Mass Resistance? Is this type of website highly dangerous and hate filled? Or are you only capable of pointing out something you dislike from the opposite side of your thinking? Can you only spot radicals that think differently from you?
At least you admit you’re a reader of the site as opposed to a stumbled upon that shit on accident like the other two.
[/quote]
Kids are exposed to all kinds of nasty stuff on the internet. However that has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.
[/quote]
Kids are exposed to all kinds of nasty stuff. Including Mass Resistance a website you read. Would you let your kids read a website like that? Or does other bad shit out there mean this isn’t that bad?
The website which you took the information from has nothing to do with the subject of the thread? The three far right websites you linked to in this thread have nothing to do with it? Finding that logic hard to follow.
[quote]JR249 wrote:
Florists and bakers are not churches who refuse to perform gay weddings. I agree in my own personal philosophy that a private business should be able to refuse or deny service to whomever it wishes, BUT legally a business open to public accommodation cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in most states (churches are not legally treated as businesses operating for-profit and open to public accommodation). Thus, religious people are not being prosecuted for refusing to participate in gay weddings, but rather for refusing service on the basis of sexual orientation as the law is presently written. A better approach would be to rewrite the laws to allow specific exclusions for business owners whose provision of the service in relation to a gay wedding would require him or her to be complicit in the ceremony, thereby violating that person’s faith. The AZ law was overly broad in allowing businesses to deny service on the basis of sexual orientation - period - which is why it deservedly failed.
You seem to be equating the legal defense of marriage as being the same as a religious conception of marriage, but the two can be mutually exclusive. Just having civil unions at the legal level does not destroy the religious institution of marriage, which any couple can seek on their own free will with the congregation of their choice.[/quote]
I’ve already stated that I’m against legal recognition of gay marriage on secular grounds. And I didn’t claim churches were being prosecuted I said ‘religious people’ were being prosecuted.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Florists and bakers have been prosecuted for refusing to bake cakes and send flowers to gay weddings. That is a breach of the first a amendment.[/quote]
And these are sad things which I won’t defend. What is the response to them? Being against gay bullied kids? Filming people as they walk into the bathroom? A hate filled radical anti-gay website?
You choose to fight one wrong with a bunch of other ones? What about the rights to privacy of people being filmed by Mass Resistance? What about the decency? What about denying parts of the Holocaust? What about filming kids at schools to create anti-gay propaganda?
See the websites you linked have everything to do with the thread, not nothing. They are where hate originates.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’ve already stated that I’m against legal recognition of gay marriage on secular grounds. And I didn’t claim churches were being prosecuted I said ‘religious people’ were being prosecuted.
[/quote]
Yes, you are correct, I reread your quote and edited mine to reflect “religious people” and not churches per se.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree, as I don’t see a valid secular argument for disallowing gay marriage, or at least civil unions, either. Of course, I am biased to a degree because I am gay, but I am not going to engage in passive aggressive forms of “snarking” to get my point across, as is so common on both sides of the debate in this thread, as well as many others in the PWI sub-forum.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
You use the term radical a lot, but you never use it when talking about Mass Resistance or Spearhead. I can’t help but think that you don’t believe they are radical.
Is Mass Resistance a radical far right anti-gay website? [/quote]
I’ve already explained my position on the matter.
[/quote]
Yeah, you’ve danced around the question a lot, but you haven’t answered it. Should kids be exposed to a website like Mass Resistance? Is this type of website highly dangerous and hate filled? Or are you only capable of pointing out something you dislike from the opposite side of your thinking? Can you only spot radicals that think differently from you?
At least you admit you’re a reader of the site as opposed to a stumbled upon that shit on accident like the other two.
[/quote]
Kids are exposed to all kinds of nasty stuff on the internet. However that has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.
[/quote]
Kids are exposed to all kinds of nasty stuff. Including Mass Resistance a website you read. Would you let your kids read a website like that? Or does other bad shit out there mean this isn’t that bad?
The website which you took the information from has nothing to do with the subject of the thread? The three far right websites you linked to in this thread have nothing to do with it? Finding that logic hard to follow. [/quote]
You’re twisting my words again. Whether or not children should be allowed to read Mass Resistance has nothing to do with the thread subject. Whether or not I would allow my children to read Mass Resistance has nothing to do with the thread subject. The contents of the links I posted are related to the subject. The opinion pieces you quoted aren’t. Try sticking to what I have actually said and posted instead of building straw men and demanding I answer questions unrelated to the topic.
[quote]JR249 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’ve already stated that I’m against legal recognition of gay marriage on secular grounds. And I didn’t claim churches were being prosecuted I said ‘religious people’ were being prosecuted.
[/quote]
Yes, you are correct, I reread your quote and edited mine to reflect “religious people” and not churches per se.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree, as I don’t see a valid secular argument for disallowing gay marriage, or at least civil unions, either. Of course, I am biased to a degree because I am gay, but I am not going to engage in passive aggressive forms of “snarking” to get my point across, as is so common on both sides of the debate in this thread, as well as many others in the PWI sub-forum.
[/quote]
I haven’t really considered legal recognition of gay unions however I don’t really see a problem with it.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
You use the term radical a lot, but you never use it when talking about Mass Resistance or Spearhead. I can’t help but think that you don’t believe they are radical.
Is Mass Resistance a radical far right anti-gay website? [/quote]
I’ve already explained my position on the matter.
[/quote]
Yeah, you’ve danced around the question a lot, but you haven’t answered it. Should kids be exposed to a website like Mass Resistance? Is this type of website highly dangerous and hate filled? Or are you only capable of pointing out something you dislike from the opposite side of your thinking? Can you only spot radicals that think differently from you?
At least you admit you’re a reader of the site as opposed to a stumbled upon that shit on accident like the other two.
[/quote]
Kids are exposed to all kinds of nasty stuff on the internet. However that has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.
[/quote]
Kids are exposed to all kinds of nasty stuff. Including Mass Resistance a website you read. Would you let your kids read a website like that? Or does other bad shit out there mean this isn’t that bad?
The website which you took the information from has nothing to do with the subject of the thread? The three far right websites you linked to in this thread have nothing to do with it? Finding that logic hard to follow. [/quote]
You’re twisting my words again. Whether or not children should be allowed to read Mass Resistance has nothing to do with the thread subject. Whether or not I would allow my children to read Mass Resistance has nothing to do with the thread subject. The contents of the links I posted are related to the subject. The opinion pieces you quoted aren’t. Try sticking to what I have actually said and posted instead of building straw men and demanding I answer questions unrelated to the topic.
[/quote]
You linked to a hate filled radical anti-gay website and don’t want anyone to actually talk about that fact. You then posted to another hugely biased website and don’t want anyone to talk about that. You then “found” accidentally another hate filled radical website to link to and don’t want to talk about that.
You want to talk about anything other than the actual contents of the sites you linked us to because you can’t defend them. I don’t blame you.
[quote]H factor wrote:
And these are sad things which I won’t defend. What is the response to them? Being against gay bullied kids? Filming people as they walk into the bathroom? A hate filled radical anti-gay website?
[/quote]
Sigh…I don’t support any of those things.
Sigh…I don’t support any of things.
I didn’t link to any of the things above. You did. Then you tried to pretend that I supported those positions.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I haven’t really considered legal recognition of gay unions however I don’t really see a problem with it.[/quote]
This is why I see both sides winning with the uniform civil union approach on a legal level, for both heterosexual and gay couples. The state itself is removed from the institution of “marriage” in name only. The legal benefits remain the same for all couples - e.g., tax benefits, deductions, insurance, social security, pensions, end of life decisions, etc, it’s just legally referred to as a certificate of civil union.
I understand that you believe that the state should legitimize marriage, legally, for secular reasons too, but this reflects a compromise for all parties to some extent. If a couple desires to get married, they can obtain a certificate of civil union from the state and opt for a private marriage ceremony at, say, the church of their choice. Churches cannot and should not be under any legal obligation to perform a marriage ceremony under circumstances that are antithetical to their core beliefs, vis-a-vis the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It really only changes the legal definition or terminology of what otherwise amounts to the same exact institution in practice. It’s no different than referring to the “garbage man” as a sanitation engineer, assuming the functions and duties of the job remain the same.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
And these are sad things which I won’t defend. What is the response to them? Being against gay bullied kids? Filming people as they walk into the bathroom? A hate filled radical anti-gay website?
[/quote]
Sigh…I don’t support any of those things.
Sigh…I don’t support any of things.
I didn’t link to any of the things above. You did. Then you tried to pretend that I supported those positions.
[/quote]
Actually I didn’t. I wondered why you wouldn’t acknowledge the massive issues that take place on a website that you have read more than once. See I never want to go to Mass Resistance or Spearhead again. They are sick depraved websites that i didn’t know anything about. Knowing that they support ANY of those things makes me want to never read their other stuff.
I didn’t know any of the things (or even those websites existed) before you linked us to them. Maybe be careful what you read is all I’m saying. You send the wrong types of messages when you read websites that don’t even ATTEMPT to hide agendas and hate. It’s very hard for me to understand why you would read websites like that. I’ve been trying to get it. I still don’t. The people who write for them are vile, disgusting, and scary.
I will take your word though that you don’t like those type of websites and don’t agree with the type of things you can find on them. I just don’t know why you’d ever want to read them.
Have a good one.
[quote]JR249 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I haven’t really considered legal recognition of gay unions however I don’t really see a problem with it.[/quote]
This is why I see both sides winning with the uniform civil union approach on a legal level, for both heterosexual and gay couples. The state itself is removed from the institution of “marriage” in name only. The legal benefits remain the same for all couples - e.g., tax benefits, deductions, insurance, social security, pensions, end of life decisions, etc.; consequently, it’s just that which was once legally considered a “marriage” is now legally defined as a certificate of “civil union.”
I understand that you believe that the state should legitimize marriage, legally, for secular reasons too, but this reflects a compromise for all parties to some extent. If a couple desires to get married, they can obtain a certificate of civil union from the state and opt for a private marriage ceremony at, say, the church of their choice. Churches cannot and should not be under any legal obligation to perform a marriage ceremony under circumstances that are antithetical to their core beliefs, vis-a-vis the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It really only changes the legal definition or terminology of what otherwise amounts to the same exact institution in practice. It’s no different than referring to the “garbage man” as a sanitation engineer, assuming the functions and duties of the job remain the same.
[/quote]
At first thought that seems like a good idea. It would seem we’re largely in agreement.
This pretty much says it all:
[quote]JR249 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Florists and bakers have been prosecuted for refusing to bake cakes and send flowers to gay weddings. That is a breach of the first a amendment.
[/quote]
Florists and bakers are not churches who refuse to perform gay weddings. I agree in my own personal philosophy that a private business should be able to refuse or deny service to whomever it wishes, BUT legally a business open to public accommodation cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in most states (churches are not legally treated as businesses operating for-profit and open to public accommodation). Thus, religious people are not being prosecuted for refusing to participate in gay weddings, but rather for refusing service on the basis of sexual orientation as the law is presently written.
[/quote]
I ask this in all honesty: Could the business model of “Curves” run into this exact issue? After all, it’s denial of service based on gender, which we saw run into issues with golf course clubs etc.