Onward Gay Activists

[Atokal]

OMG this is what ALL GAY MEN DO, Bastards all of them

http://sympaticomsn.workopolis.com/serv ... 0911/UCC11

[Xzion]

What the fuck is your problem?
Are you seriously trying to make a case against gays by attempting in a weak-ass manner to label them all as child molestors?
Hell, theres an assload more christian child molestors then gay ones, il tell you that right now.

Your argument is paralell to saying "a black man killed his wife two days ago, all black people will kill there wives and im against interracial marriage because i dont want my daughter to be killed by one of those colored folks while i conveniantly ignore all white crime, or dismiss the murderers as "liberal pussys"

[Aaeamdar]

No, what he is trying to do is draw parallels. In this particular case, presumably, suggesting that Gay Activists share a vice with the Catholic Church.

Toker's issue however, is just one of fundemental logic flaws. See, this would be a great parallel, showing the corruption of gay activism, if in addition to the criminal activity quoted, the person committing the crimes was a gay activist AND if the Congregation of Gay Activists (there is no such thing) engaged in a repeated instances of covering up sexual abuse of this kind, then secretely moved Mr. Brown (and others like him) to other unsuspecting communities where he could, with the full knowlege of the CGA, sexually abuse other boys.

Unfortunately for Toker, no such things exist or happen. Well, I mean they do, but not for Gay Activists, just for Catholics.

Toker is not attempting to attack gay people by his post, he is attempting to discredit attacks on Catholics, the Catholic Church, and Christianity in general by suggesting that there is some parallel between the arguements. Essentially, he is saying, if you are going to condem Catholics and the Catholic Church for the sexual abuses carried out by various Clergy, then you must also condem gays for the sexual abuses of various gay men. The logic would then go that since you clearly would not condemn all gays for the actions of Mr. Brown that in turn you should not condemn Catholics and the Catholic Church for the actions of a small fraction (apx 6% irrc) of their clergy.

Unfortunately, Toker lacks the intellectual rigor to understand the flaws in his arguement. The biggest, of course being that no one is condemning Catholics and the Catholic Church for the sexual abuses commited by clergy, but instead for the systematic way in which the Church both covered up such actions and in fact provided clergy they knew were sexual abusers with more victims by moving those abuser to new parishes (in some cases multiple times).

[Xzion]

Unfortunately, Toker lacks the intellectual rigor to understand the flaws in his arguement. The biggest, of course being that no one is condemning Catholics and the Catholic Church for the sexual abuses commited by clergy, but instead for the systematic way in which the Church both covered up such actions and in fact provided clergy they knew were sexual abusers with more victims by moving those abuser to new parishes (in some cases multiple times).

Very true, being that a lot of christian fanatics always try to paint themselves as the downtrodden victim, and try to use that to justify there attacks on gay rights and other regressive issues, the irony is sweet

[*~*stragi*~*]

The irony of Atokal creating this thread is just priceless. Now not only do you fuck kids, you're gay!

[Akaran_D]

I just thought he made the post to make fun of you, dar..

[noel]

If anyone cared about Jeffrey, they'd take away his Internet access before he hurts himself thinking.

Hint: No one cares about Jeffrey.

[Arundel Pajo]

Very true, being that a lot of christian fanatics always try to paint themselves as the downtrodden victim, and try to use that to justify there attacks on gay rights and other regressive issues, the irony is sweet

I've noticed that this is also true for republicans in general. Not to say that all religious zealouts are repubs, it's just an interesting parallel. Apparently, both demographics feel the need to constantly feel the victim in any given situation... Perhaps perceived victimization creates a strong rallying point around which to incite the weak minded into group-think. The irony of course being that these organizations that use the victim mentality and the weakness it engenders so effectively do so while preaching strength, be it spiritual or national.

Look out for the Gay Agenda(tm)....they have it in for you.

edit>> Just to be clear, I'm speaking of zealots here. I believe we can all recognize the distinction between a normal person with a set of beliefs and a zealot. There are a good many who are religious or political who are not in this camp.

[Jice Virago]

Both groups rely heavily on the ignorance of their followers to sustain themselves. In a way, it is why they are so fanatical and unified.

[kyoukan]

I put my ham sandwich down at work today just for a second and the gay agenda ate the whole thing.

[Arundel Pajo]

I put my ham sandwich down at work today just for a second and the gay agenda ate the whole thing.

They're tricky like that. It took me 20 minutes to find my car keys the other morning. I'm relatively certain that the Gay Agenda was behind it.

Who you gonna call? 1-800-FAL-WELL

[Zaelath]

[Marbus]

It looks to me Aaeamdar was smacked up side the head with the staff of wisdom this morning... EXCELLENT post my friend, very good points IMHO.

Arundel it's nice to see your well thoughtout posts more often again

After what they have said I really don't have anything else to add...

Marb

[Atokal]

No, what he is trying to do is draw parallels. In this particular case, presumably, suggesting that Gay Activists share a vice with the Catholic Church.

Toker's issue however, is just one of fundemental logic flaws. See, this would be a great parallel, showing the corruption of gay activism, if in addition to the criminal activity quoted, the person committing the crimes was a gay activist AND if the Congregation of Gay Activists (there is no such thing) engaged in a repeated instances of covering up sexual abuse of this kind, then secretely moved Mr. Brown (and others like him) to other unsuspecting communities where he could, with the full knowlege of the CGA, sexually abuse other boys.

Unfortunately for Toker, no such things exist or happen. Well, I mean they do, but not for Gay Activists, just for Catholics.

Toker is not attempting to attack gay people by his post, he is attempting to discredit attacks on Catholics, the Catholic Church, and Christianity in general by suggesting that there is some parallel between the arguements. Essentially, he is saying, if you are going to condem Catholics and the Catholic Church for the sexual abuses carried out by various Clergy, then you must also condem gays for the sexual abuses of various gay men. The logic would then go that since you clearly would not condemn all gays for the actions of Mr. Brown that in turn you should not condemn Catholics and the Catholic Church for the actions of a small fraction (apx 6% irrc) of their clergy.

Unfortunately, Toker lacks the intellectual rigor to understand the flaws in his arguement. The biggest, of course being that no one is condemning Catholics and the Catholic Church for the sexual abuses commited by clergy, but instead for the systematic way in which the Church both covered up such actions and in fact provided clergy they knew were sexual abusers with more victims by moving those abuser to new parishes (in some cases multiple times).

No aaeamdar I was merely trying to point out the flaws in your view point that labeling an entire segment of society "Christians" in your case based upon a few examples where Christians come off as nutjobs is about as stupid as my starting this thread stating that ALL GAY MEN are rapists of young boys.

I have never once defended the Catholic Church for its irresponsible behaviour in hiding and protecting criminal priests.

Nor have I ever defended a single person whether they are Christian or secular when they have committed a crime. Where you and I differ is the labelling and continued BS attacks on one group of people and presenting them all as the same.

Cheers and back to your intellectual rigor.

[Atokal]

What the fuck is your problem?
Are you seriously trying to make a case against gays by attempting in a weak-ass manner to label them all as child molestors?
Hell, theres an assload more christian child molestors then gay ones, il tell you that right now.

Your argument is paralell to saying "a black man killed his wife two days ago, all black people will kill there wives and im against interracial marriage because i dont want my daughter to be killed by one of those colored folks while i conveniantly ignore all white crime, or dismiss the murderers as "liberal pussys"

HAHAHA exactly shit for brains you got it but didn't.

[Voronwë]

a/s/l toker?

[Aaeamdar]

Nor have I ever defended a single person whether they are Christian or secular when they have committed a crime. Where you and I differ is the labelling and continued BS attacks on one group of people and presenting them all as the same.

I'll try again. Not sure its worth it, but what the heck.

There is a difference between labling a group based on the aberant behavior of some members of that group and another entirely to lable a group on

1. non-aberant behavior (Christian's, in general, support of hatred and their support of government discrimination towards minoirties (that minoirty happens to be gays right now, but there has never been a point in Christian history when Christains, as a whole - not just a few, have not targetted their power against some other group); or

2. the group's reaction and response to the aberant behavior of individuals or subgroups within itsself (e.g. it is fair to be critical of the Catholic church's pattern of hiding and moving preists that rape young parishoners and its fair to be critical of Catholic indivduals that continue to support the Church after the 100+ year history of these actions is revealed).

The above is even more true when the group in question asserts moral superiority, as Christians do.

You will never find a post of mine critisizing someone for merely being Christian and you will never find a post of mine comdemning Christians merely for the acts of one or a few of their members. I don't even condemn Christians for their policys of hate. They can hate all they like as long as they don't try and push that hatred on the rest of society through legislation. Other religions based on Jehova don't care much for gays either - orthodox Jews for example - but I have nothing to say about them because they don't legislate it (even in Israel, a religious based democracy, gays are allowed to openly participate in the military.)

[Atokal]

You will never find a post of mine critisizing someone for merely being Christian and you will never find a post of mine comdemning Christians merely for the acts of one or a few of their members. I don't even condemn Christians for their policys of hate. They can hate all they like as long as they don't try and push that hatred on the rest of society through legislation. Other religions based on Jehova don't care much for gays either - orthodox Jews for example - but I have nothing to say about them because they don't legislate it (even in Israel, a religious based democracy, gays are allowed to openly participate in the military.)

Gays can be gay all they want as long as they don't have Gay Pride Parades, don't try and change the laws that presently govern the land, and continue to keep their choice to be gay behind closed doors.

How fucking stupid does that sound???

As to your comment that you have never criticized someone for being Christian... one has to merely look at your signature and that my friend outs you as a liar. But you lack the intellectual rigor to see this.

[Akaran_D]

What's wrong with gay pride parades?

(odd question: Why do we never see 'straight pride' parades?)

[Xzion-]

What's wrong with gay pride parades?

(odd question: Why do we never see 'straight pride' parades?)

There was one in orlando i believe a few years back, it went threw downtown and ended at Rachels.

[Xzion-]

You will never find a post of mine critisizing someone for merely being Christian and you will never find a post of mine comdemning Christians merely for the acts of one or a few of their members. I don't even condemn Christians for their policys of hate. They can hate all they like as long as they don't try and push that hatred on the rest of society through legislation. Other religions based on Jehova don't care much for gays either - orthodox Jews for example - but I have nothing to say about them because they don't legislate it (even in Israel, a religious based democracy, gays are allowed to openly participate in the military.)

blacks can be black all they want as long as they don't have MLK lead protest, don't try and change the laws that presently govern the land, and continue to keep their genetic disorder of being black behind our "seperate but equal laws".

[Arundel Pajo]

Gays can be gay all they want as long as they don't have Gay Pride Parades, don't try and change the laws that presently govern the land, and continue to keep their choice to be gay behind closed doors.

How fucking stupid does that sound???

Blacks can.... aw hell, Xzion beat me to it. We can do it again, though:

Women can be women all they want as long as they don't have either a suffrage or feminist movement, don't try to own land or property, continue to settle for less pay, and continue to keep in the kitchen where those bitches belong.

In response to your query, it sounds pretty fucking stupid, Toker...

[Aaeamdar]

Like I said:

Not sure its worth it, but what the heck.

Probably should have stuck with first instincts. Somehow Toker manages to equate people trying to gain freedom and equality with those doing their best to oppress. /shrug.

[Drolgin Steingrinder]

Is it not written

Oooh, you're so sharp you just might cut yourself!

?

[Atokal]

Like I said:

Not sure its worth it, but what the heck.

Probably should have stuck with first instincts. Somehow Toker manages to equate people trying to gain freedom and equality with those doing their best to oppress. /shrug.

Oh I see as long as the cause is yours, one that you view to be moral then it is ok to trample another persons rights just as long as you are heard and the laws are changed to make you feel warm and fuzzy?

But remember this was not about all the bullshit you are spewing at the moment. It is about a gay man who Hates bigotry, apparently hates stupidity, and yet continues to attack Christians at every opportunity in spite of the fact that he has never been directly hurt or infringed upon by a Christian.

This is about you being a fucking pink neck. You know a gay red neck.

Let the Christians have their opinion, don't blindly label ALL Christians as being the same, and you and I will have no problem. I realize that some Christians do not have a very Christ Like attitude towards their fellow man. But your ignorance when branding this group is beyond understanding.

Cheers

[Akaran_D]

See, the really sad part is that I kinda agree with Toker.
/someone hurt me. Please.

[masteen]

The problem with most gay pride parades is that they reinforce the negative image that most people have about fags in a very public way.

[Aaeamdar]

Oh I see as long as the cause is yours, one that you view to be moral then it is ok to trample another persons rights just as long as you are heard and the laws are changed to make you feel warm and fuzzy?

What rights are you talking about? Here, we'll do an exercise. You list an activity that Christians are forbidden to do by law BECAUSE they are Christian.

Example:

Marriage - A gay person cannot marry, a straight person can.

Military participation (US) - a gay person cannot be a member of the military, a straight person can.

Adpotion (varries State to State, but generally) - a gay person cannot adopt, a straight person can.

That's a short list. Just meant to give you a form to follow. There is a part II to this, but lets have you make your list first.

Again your form, generically, should be:

Act - a christain cannot [act], a non-christain can.

[masteen]

A Christian cannot bugger altar boys in the rectory. A non-Christian... wait a second...

[Rekaar.]

If your point is that Christians have values they believe, if followed, would benefit society in general and thus try to get their ideas adopted...well isn't that the point? Christian values look eerily similar to the values laid out in the Constitution. Forgive us for being on the right side of historical precedent.

[Show]

Christian values and the values many Christians practice are two entirely different things. Try not to be such a bigot =p

Things forbidden to Christians? Why would the mainstream group be compared to a non-mainstream group in such a way? It's like you're complaining about being a green apple that got moved into the red apple shipment, crying about no one accepting you. It's a society, not a utopian anarchy. You give up certain freedoms to enjoy membership. Don't like this society? Work for positive change or go get your own. Nobody respects a "victim" like yourself.

It comes down to, in many people's minds, the difference between someone viewed as normal vs someone viewed as abnormal. Today many people see gay folk as abnormal. Change that and you'll see a more general acceptance into the mainstream along with the rights and priviledges that go along with it. Unfortunately the burden of proving yourselves to society rests on you, and not society.

[Arborealus]

It comes down to, in many people's minds, the difference between someone viewed as normal vs someone viewed as abnormal. Today many people see gay folk as abnormal. Change that and you'll see a more general acceptance into the mainstream along with the rights and priviledges that go along with it. Unfortunately the burden of proving yourselves to society rests on you, and not society.

You really should spend some time trying to understand the constitution. Everyone has the same rights inherently...the burden of proof is always on those who would remove rights...always...

You can think what you like you are quite simply wrong and 228 years of case law says you are wrong...

[Aaeamdar]

Change that and you'll see a more general acceptance into the mainstream along with the rights and priviledges that go along with it. Unfortunately the burden of proving yourselves to society rests on you, and not society.

You have a fundemental misunderstanding of "rights" and "legislation." Your burden is right on for minoirty groups wanting targetted legislation. It, however, has nothing to do with rights - the right generally in question where gays are concerned being that of equal protection of the laws. No one, from those that are a minoirty of one to those in a majority, has the burden of "proving themselves to society" to avail themselves of the rights deliniated in the Constitution. As I have said before (I'm sure you just missed it), if *rights* had to be gained through the legislative process, then they would be meaningless. The entire point of a *right* in a democracy is to protect a minoirty from "the tyrany of the majority." It is certainly possible to have a *majority always wins* system of democracy, but such a system does not exist (and has never existed) in the United States.

Things forbidden to Christians? Why would the mainstream group be compared to a non-mainstream group in such a way?

I have no idea. Ask Toker. He is the one that insists the *rights* of Christians are being trampled upon by gays. I agree with you that I do not see how that is possible.

[Atokal]

Oh I see as long as the cause is yours, one that you view to be moral then it is ok to trample another persons rights just as long as you are heard and the laws are changed to make you feel warm and fuzzy?

What rights are you talking about? Here, we'll do an exercise. You list an activity that Christians are forbidden to do by law BECAUSE they are Christian.

Example:

Marriage - A gay person cannot marry, a straight person can.

Military participation (US) - a gay person cannot be a member of the military, a straight person can.

Adpotion (varries State to State, but generally) - a gay person cannot adopt, a straight person can.

That's a short list. Just meant to give you a form to follow. There is a part II to this, but lets have you make your list first.

Again your form, generically, should be:

Act - a christain cannot [act], a non-christain can.

Voice their opinion - A Christian cannot without being branded a bigot
Voice their opinion - A Gay person can in the most biggoted way and be considered the voice of reason.

A Christian Cannot teach their values in our schools
The Gay community has won the right to teach alternative lifestyle in our schools.

A Gay person can enter the military by the way
Gay couples can and do adopt


STOP trying to be straight and using Straight institutions to legitimize your choices. If you want certain rights that are being denied you then fight for them.

But don't point the finger at Christians as the devil incarnate when it comes to your very "special interest group"

BUT YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT YOU INTELLECTUAL GIANT.... YOU ARE A FUCKING BIGOT. END OF STATEMENT. Once again for the learning disabled, this is about YOU not about this stupid debate you keep sucking me into.

[Fat]

I just graduated from 13 years of public schools and not once was a "gay value system" ever mentioned as part of the curriculum. They might have preached tolerance, but some sort of gay belief code? I wasn't even aware that this existed. (And isn't tolerance a Christian belief, I was always taught it was).

Being branded by society as a bigot is not some infrigment on any rights afforded by the consitution. That's possibly the most idiotic misstatement I've ever read.

Seriously, read your damn posts before you post.

-Alfan

[Jice Virago]

Voice their opinion - A Christian cannot without being branded a bigot
Voice their opinion - A Gay person can in the most biggoted way and be considered the voice of reason.

A Christian Cannot teach their values in our schools
The Gay community has won the right to teach alternative lifestyle in our schools.

A Gay person can enter the military by the way
Gay couples can and do adopt


STOP trying to be straight and using Straight institutions to legitimize your choices. If you want certain rights that are being denied you then fight for them.

Even you cannot possibly be this retarded (or possibly insularly ignorant). Point by by point:

Anyone giving a bigotted opinion will be labelled a bigot. The fact that the bulk of Christians (especially the more vocal ones) feel morally obligated to hold certain prejudices against gays, muslims, atheists, and other groups and teach this intollerance in their services just cements the fact that they will be viewed (by an objective observer) as bigotted, ignorant, and prejudiced. How else can you label someone whos only rationale for disliking a certain class of people is "my imaginary deity told me to" ?

Criticising people who are targetting you with their hatred does not make you a bigot. I am not gay, but I sure as hell am critical of the Crispie bunch and I back my shit up with facts. Does that make me a biggot? No. It makes me partisan on the issue of religion and sociology, but not a biggot.

Christian trappings are already dominant in schools. Pledge of allegiance? Western history dominating curriculums? Affiliations between public schools and churches? There are schools seriously trying to ditch evolution in favor of creationism. This is a fact. Can you name one single school that has a gay lifestyle curriculum?

Since when is marriage a straight institution? There are recorded instances of gay marriage that predate the hebrews by a millenia. There are recorded instances of same sex marriages in the middle ages between nobles to secure political alliances. There are no institutions in this society that are restricted to one class of people (which is what makes this country great btw) no matter what close minded people might try and make you believe. Do you think that if you somehow managed to bury your homophobia long enough to go hang out at a ay bar with Dar that you would be tossed out of the door for not liking teh man ass?

Face the fucking facts. Gays do not exclude non-gays (as a general rule) but the reverse is nowhere near true of Christianity (or most religions for that matter). Trying to call gays who nail your balls to the carpet for your bullshit is just a weak ass attempt at deflecting the real issue.

[Xzion-]

Oh I see as long as the cause is yours, one that you view to be moral then it is ok to trample another persons rights just as long as you are heard and the laws are changed to make you feel warm and fuzzy?

What rights are you talking about? Here, we'll do an exercise. You list an activity that Christians are forbidden to do by law BECAUSE they are Christian.

Example:

Marriage - A gay person cannot marry, a straight person can.

Military participation (US) - a gay person cannot be a member of the military, a straight person can.

Adpotion (varries State to State, but generally) - a gay person cannot adopt, a straight person can.

That's a short list. Just meant to give you a form to follow. There is a part II to this, but lets have you make your list first.

Again your form, generically, should be:

Act - a christain cannot [act], a non-christain can.

Voice their opinion - A Christian cannot without being branded a bigot
Voice their opinion - A Gay person can in the most biggoted way and be considered the voice of reason.

A Christian Cannot teach their values in our schools
The Gay community has won the right to teach alternative lifestyle in our schools.

A Gay person can enter the military by the way
Gay couples can and do adopt


STOP trying to be straight and using Straight institutions to legitimize your choices. If you want certain rights that are being denied you then fight for them.

But don't point the finger at Christians as the devil incarnate when it comes to your very "special interest group"

BUT YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT YOU INTELLECTUAL GIANT.... YOU ARE A FUCKING BIGOT. END OF STATEMENT. Once again for the learning disabled, this is about YOU not about this stupid debate you keep sucking me into.

Godamn man, you cant be that close minded.
PRIVATE RELIGIOS SCHOOLS...
Christians voicing there "values" in public schools is a direct violation of the 1st amendment. There are no schools i know of that embrace an alternative lifestyle, unless you consider teaching tolerance towards all groups of people and no treating them as inferiors or looking down apon them (gay people are discriminated in public schools more then any other group out there)
Your type of scum is no better then the terrorist, spewing intolerance towards that which do you not like or simply do not understand, if you were born in Saudi Arabia or any other militant middle eastern country, your weak-minded ass would be just the type to be recruted into Al-Qaeda or another terrorist organization

[Rekaar.]

Criticising people who are targetting you with their hatred does not make you a bigot.

Making sweeping statements like: Christians hate gays, would be a prime example of your own prejudice now wouldn't it Mr. Tolerance.

[kyoukan]

a true christian wouldn't hate or opress gay people. sadly probably less than one percent of all christians are true christians who actually follow the teachings and philosophies of jesus christ. the rest are just hypocrites that want to belong to a club and pass judgement on other people.

so when someone says christians hate gays they are more than likely referring to the overwhelming majority of "christians" in the west that socially and financially support institutions that actively deny and oppress homosexuals, and are actually proud of their hatred.

[Xyun]

crying about no one accepting you. It's a society, not a utopian anarchy. You give up certain freedoms to enjoy membership. Don't like this society? Work for positive change or go get your own. Nobody respects a "victim" like yourself.

While I agree that one must give up certain freedoms to participate in a society, I think the argument cannot be made here. The freedoms gay people give up are ones that are granted to other members of the same society. That is not a compromise, it is oppression of a minority. Gay people are victimized, and you the oppressor are telling them to quit crying and fight for their rights, which is pretty ironic considering that it is you who is taking those rights away.

The idea of America is not just majority rule, it is majority rule with minority rights. I learned this in jr. high, and it is highly disappointing that many people didn't. All you have to do as a Christian is be tolerant, that is all. When you choose to be so intolerant, what right do you have to get angry when others intolerate you?

[Winnow]

crying about no one accepting you. It's a society, not a utopian anarchy. You give up certain freedoms to enjoy membership. Don't like this society? Work for positive change or go get your own. Nobody respects a "victim" like yourself.

While I agree that one must give up certain freedoms to participate in a society, I think the argument cannot be made here. The freedoms gay people give up are ones that are granted to other members of the same society. That is not a compromise, it is oppression of a minority. Gay people are victimized, and you the oppressor are telling them to quit crying and fight for their rights, which is pretty ironic considering that it is you who is taking those rights away.

The idea of America is not just majority rule, it is majority rule with minority rights. I learned this in jr. high, and it is highly disappointing that many people didn't. All you have to do as a Christian is be tolerant, that is all. When you choose to be so intolerant, what right do you have to get angry when others intolerate you?

Those are the best two paragraphs you've written on VV.

[miir]

Excellent post, Xyun.

[Arundel Pajo]

Excellent post, Xyun.

Indeed. Very well said. Let's see if Toker's comeback is at all as clever as I'm expecting it to be...

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

There is no constitutional right to marriage. There are a myriad of things that can be considered oppression for gay people that can also be said of anyone that does not have an opposite sex spouse.

Now certain things I will agree with, but the biggest "oppression" is that gays cannot be married. Many companies are already giving benefits to same sex partners as they would to a hetero couple. I would also have to agree that many rights conveyed to hetero couples in regards to right of attorney and family rights in medical situations etc.

As to what can a Christian not do? Gays would have the right to hang a banner in a school or on government property. A Christian would not be allowed to put a copy of the 10 Commandments there. Gays are not forbidden by law to be separated from the state.

You also fail to grasp what the Christians hate and do not hate. Christians love the person, but hate the lifestyle. I know that is a tough concept to grasp, but someday you might understand it.

[Atokal]

First off, my self admitted stupidity on this thread was carefully thought out. Aaeamdar continues to make this about FUCKING GAY RIGHTS, I have no problem with gay rights. As a matter of fact I totally agree with Xyun's post on the matter.

What I have a problem with is Aaeamdar's Bigotry and all consuming stupidity towards one group and one group only. He has danced around the issue, twisted and turned in order to avoid admitting that he has become that which he hates.

Nuff said.

[miir]

As to what can a Christian not do? Gays would have the right to hang a banner in a school or on government property. A Christian would not be allowed to put a copy of the 10 Commandments there. Gays are not forbidden by law to be separated from the state.

WTF a banner?
Are fag banners running rampant in public schools in the US these days?

If that fag banner was promoting a homosexual agenda would it be tolerated?

If a christian group wanted promote a christian 'day camp' would they be allowed to put up a 'banner'?
What about the Jews? If they wanted to hang a banner encouraging people to come to the local JCC would they be allowed?


How often do homosexuals try to push their lifestyle on non-homosexuals?

[Arborealus]

There is no constitutional right to marriage. There are a myriad of things that can be considered oppression for gay people that can also be said of anyone that does not have an opposite sex spouse.

There is a constitutional right to equality...seperate is inherently unequal...

You also fail to grasp what the Christians hate and do not hate. Christians love the person, but hate the lifestyle. I know that is a tough concept to grasp, but someday you might understand it.

Well that makes all the difference in the world now doesn't it...Ok we'll love the Christian and hate the lifestyle...We can outlaw church-going, preaching, and all statements of belief but ya know you can still be a christian...and we love you but you are forbidden to express your belief...

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

That was an example. It was asked by Aeyayoudedar what a Christian cannot do that a non-Christain can. Christian teachers cannot throw out anything religious in their teaching. They cannot put up anything about religion in the school. They are the only specific group that has a law targetted at them about this. I could bet you that if you took 2 teaches in one school and one put a cross or the 10 commandments on their desk and the other put a rainbow flag on theirs, the cross would be the one to draw complaints.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Where exactly does it say anything about gays being forbidden to express their gayness?

[*~*stragi*~*]

When they hell did they start teaching people alternative lifestyles in school?

HAY GUYZ I TRIED TO SIGN UP FOR FAGGOT 101 BUT ATOKAL ALREADY FILLED THE CLASS LOL

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

There is a constitutional right to equality...seperate is inherently unequal...

So you are saying that every single person in the United States should also have every tax break and should have every right that a married person has.