Gay Rights??

Homercles · Post by **Homercles** » October 19, 2004, 4:34 pm

I think Miir is upset with this whole thing because hes found himself on the same side of this Christian Coalition Group.

I bet if it was Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Push Coalition (or some other special interest group that was left leaning) that threatened to boycott the bank, Miir would have no problem with the result.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 19, 2004, 4:38 pm

Upset? Nah.

I just think it sets a disturbing precedent.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 19, 2004, 4:39 pm

That it was a Christian group or a group in general?

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » October 19, 2004, 4:39 pm

The irony this thread has taken is nice. Toker created it to complain that Christians were being abused. WHile the arguement was stupid, that was its purpose. Now, as it turns out, its the bible thumpers that got their way.

While I think the program was assinine, I think its a great picture, again, of the hatred and bigotry of the Jesus freaks. The program was stupid, but it certainly was not hurting anyone. Christians, however, don't like the idea that a place could be "safe" for gays, so they rally their hatred up and get the program crushed.

Do they have the right to do this? Yes, of course. That's not really the point. The point is why did they do it? The answer is they are all hateful bigots.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » October 19, 2004, 4:56 pm

Not all of us Dar, not all of us

Homercles · Post by **Homercles** » October 19, 2004, 6:32 pm

Do they have the right to do this? Yes, of course. That's not really the point. The point is why did they do it? The answer is they are all hateful bigots.

You yourself admit the program was assinine. Miir thinks its a bad program. Nearly everyone that posted on this thread thinks it was a bad program. Are we all hate filled bigots because we sit here and criticize the program? Or does one only become a hate filled bigot when they take action against such an assinine program? Or does one only become a hate filled bigot when they take action AND theyre part of a Christian organization?

You call them hate filled bigots for acting upon what you yourself demmed assinine. Your logic escapes me on this matter.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 19, 2004, 6:47 pm

My opinion, and this is just a guess is that...

Most of us see it as assinine for wholly different reasons than a Christian group would.

I personally think the program is stupid because I (already) don't treat anyone any differently based on race or sexual preference.

(Some) Christian groups seem to protest everything related to sexuality as though it were paint that if they get on their skin, they can't keep it off. Last I checked, homosexuality isn't contagious.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 20, 2004, 1:11 pm

I personally think the program is stupid because I (already) don't treat anyone any differently based on race or sexual preference.

Hoorj for open mindedness!

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 20, 2004, 1:22 pm

The Christian group would have most likely protested as well if they had been forcing people to display stickers proclaiming their area to be a "Chicks who suck cock in the parking lot on their lunch break" safe zone.

I don't care what group you represent, I would not be displaying shit like that if I was forced to either. They could fire me and deal with the lawsuit directly after. We are becoming way too PC thes days. There is a huge difference between not discriminating against someone and giving them special treatment. Why didn't that bank display a Black Safe Zone? How about a Jew safe zone? Fucking ridiculous.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · October 20, 2004, 1:25 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:The Christian group would have most likely protested as well if they had been forcing people to display stickers proclaiming their area to be a "Chicks who suck cock in the parking lot on their lunch break" safe zone.

I don't care what group you represent, I would not be displaying shit like that if I was forced to either. They could fire me and deal with the lawsuit directly after. We are becoming way too PC thes days. There is a huge difference between not discriminating against someone and giving them special treatment. Why didn't that bank display a Black Safe Zone? How about a Jew safe zone? Fucking ridiculous.

Here! Here!

It's not about gays or whther the group is Christian. It's just wrong. Period.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 20, 2004, 1:26 pm

Hi i am a_label_00

Post by **Sylvus** » October 20, 2004, 1:29 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:It's not about gays or whther the group is Christian. It's just wrong. Period.

I thought it was cute earlier in the thread when you said

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Black people are people. Their population percentage can increase through reproduction.

as if homosexuals weren't people. You sure seem to jump around a lot on hating/accepting gay people.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 20, 2004, 1:31 pm

Technically, homosexuals cannot reproduce with each other, unless you have a gay male and a lesbian female, so in that aspect, homosexuals cannot increase their population through reproduction the same way racial groups can.

That sounds insanely hateful, but it is not meant as such, only a statement of fact.

miir · Post by **miir** » October 20, 2004, 1:32 pm

I don't care what group you represent, I would not be displaying shit like that if I was forced to either.

The program was strictly voluntary.
It was a pilot project aimed to gauge peoples reaction and acceptance to possible future initiatives aimed at promoting a more tolerant/accepting workplace.

There is a huge difference between not discriminating against someone and giving them special treatment. Why didn't that bank display a Black Safe Zone? How about a Jew safe zone? Fucking ridiculous

Because there isn't rampant discrimination against those minority groups. Blacks and Jews share the same rights as everyone else. Homosexuals do not. The government doesn't discriminate against any people of colour or religion.

Post by **Sylvus** » October 20, 2004, 1:35 pm

Akaran_D wrote:Technically, homosexuals cannot reproduce with each other, unless you have a gay male and a lesbian female, so in that aspect, homosexuals cannot increase their population through reproduction the same way racial groups can.

That sounds insanely hateful, but it is not meant as such, only a statement of fact.

No shit? It takes sex between a man and a woman to produce offspring? Who'd have thunk it.

I was specifically referring to the part where he says "Black People are people" but didn't want to take it out of context.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » October 20, 2004, 2:09 pm

whoa whoa whoa wait
It takes a man and a woman to procreate?
Shit, no wonder my dog hasn't gotten pregnant.
Miir lied to me =(

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 20, 2004, 2:11 pm

Bleh. I misread the emphasis.
No need to get nasty, I've already hit my leg and knee with a sledgehammer several times today. Let's call the bruises even, mkay?

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » October 20, 2004, 2:17 pm

Sylvos wrote:whoa whoa whoa wait
It takes a man and a woman to procreate?
Shit, no wonder my dog hasn't gotten pregnant.
Miir lied to me =(

Yeah...and in your case don't forget that they need to be of the same species. =D No ammount of "helping the dog get pregnant" is going to help.

-=Lohrno

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 20, 2004, 2:46 pm

Lohrno wrote: No ammount of "helping the dog get pregnant" is going to help.

-=Lohrno

As far as you know, there are no known cases of a male humans injecting their balls with dog sperm before mating with a female dogs?

googling...

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » October 20, 2004, 2:58 pm

Well yeah as far as I know...=D

-=Lohrno

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » October 20, 2004, 3:01 pm

Winnow wrote:
Lohrno wrote: No ammount of "helping the dog get pregnant" is going to help.

-=Lohrno
As far as you know, there are no known cases of a male humans injecting their balls with dog sperm before mating with a female dogs?

googling...

WTFF

check animalfarm.com mmmk?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 20, 2004, 3:19 pm

miir wrote:
I don't care what group you represent, I would not be displaying shit like that if I was forced to either.
The program was strictly voluntary.
It was a pilot project aimed to gauge peoples reaction and acceptance to possible future initiatives aimed at promoting a more tolerant/accepting workplace.

Putting a dumbass sticker up doesn't mean there is tolerance at all. If tolerance exists, then it doesn't need to be advertised.

Because there isn't rampant discrimination against those minority groups. Blacks and Jews share the same rights as everyone else. Homosexuals do not. The government doesn't discriminate against any people of colour or religion.

They also do not discriminate against people of any sexual orientation. It is illegal to discriminate against homosexuals. Before you even begin your crying about gay marriage, let me remind you that most people...and by most I mean 75%+...believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. A company today would be sued instantly if they failed to hire someone based off of sexual orientation.

Let me take this even further......

If I was to sit here at my desk right now and say "Fags suck" I would be canned before the day was over. If I uttered the phrase "Christians suck" there would be zero repurcussions by management.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » October 20, 2004, 3:26 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:WHile the arguement was stupid, that was its purpose. Now, as it turns out, its the bible thumpers that got their way.

of the hatred and bigotry of the Jesus freaks.
Christians, however, don't like the idea that a place could be "safe" for gays, so they rally their hatred up and get the program crushed.

Do they have the right to do this? Yes, of course. That's not really the point. The point is why did they do it? The answer is they are all hateful bigots.

HAHAHAHAHAHA you sir are what you hate.

Post by **Sylvus** » October 20, 2004, 3:30 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Putting a dumbass sticker up doesn't mean there is tolerance at all. If tolerance exists, then it doesn't need to be advertised.

I agree that it doesn't need to be advertised, but what is the harm in advertising it? What exactly was causing the Christian group that prostested this pilot program enough harm that they felt the need to protest it?

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:It is illegal to discriminate against homosexuals.

And yet there is institutionalized discrimination against homosexuals practiced by our government today in not allowing same-sex couples the same rights as opposite-sex couples. Try and compare the injustices thrown at Christianity and Homosexuality all you want, I can't recall any stories in recent memory (in our society) of a Christian being beaten or killed just because they were a Christian. Nor can I remember any stories of two Christians who were in love with each other being barred from becoming family in the eyes of the law.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » October 20, 2004, 3:42 pm

Sylvus wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Putting a dumbass sticker up doesn't mean there is tolerance at all. If tolerance exists, then it doesn't need to be advertised.
I agree that it doesn't need to be advertised, but what is the harm in advertising it? What exactly was causing the Christian group that prostested this pilot program enough harm that they felt the need to protest it?

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:It is illegal to discriminate against homosexuals.
And yet there is institutionalized discrimination against homosexuals practiced by our government today in not allowing same-sex couples the same rights as opposite-sex couples. Try and compare the injustices thrown at Christianity and Homosexuality all you want, I can't recall any stories in recent memory (in our society) of a Christian being beaten or killed just because they were a Christian. Nor can I remember any stories of two Christians who were in love with each other being barred from becoming family in the eyes of the law.

IIRC the problem that the Government and Christian organizations have with the "marriage" of gays is the term the gays wish to use. Most Christians that I know have no issue with gays having an official union that would entitle them to the same benefits as everyone else. What most people do not support is changing the definition of marriage.

A great example of reverse discrimination will occur this year at Christmas time. Where the celebration of Christ's birth has become a Seasons Greetings, where schools are not allowed to sing Christmas Carols and organizations like the Salvation Army have been banned from Government property because they do not support the gay agenda. However I saw on TV last night a Happy Ramadan wish go out to all of our Islamic brothers. How this is any different that saying Merry Christmas over television is beyond comprehension.

For the record I do support gays getting the same rights as anyone else where a union "cough" marriage is concerned. But I do love to laugh at Aaeamdar's rabid, name calling attacks at ALL Christians.

Cheers

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 20, 2004, 3:43 pm

Sylvus wrote: What exactly was causing the Christian group that prostested this pilot program enough harm that they felt the need to protest it?

Probably for the same reason every single person on this board that is now bitching about it was protesting it until the Christian group protested. Now every one of you who said it was a terrible idea to begin with is firmly against the Christian group. What the fuck kind of hypocrisy is that? I do note that each person who has reversed their stance is a liberal. Guess you are learning from your candidate of choice.

And yet there is institutionalized discrimination against homosexuals practiced by our government today in not allowing same-sex couples the same rights as opposite-sex couples. Try and compare the injustices thrown at Christianity and Homosexuality all you want, I can't recall any stories in recent memory (in our society) of a Christian being beaten or killed just because they were a Christian. Nor can I remember any stories of two Christians who were in love with each other being barred from becoming family in the eyes of the law.

And I just said in that same paragraph that I am disallowing this argument on gay marriage. It is a non-issue as it relates to discrimination. If you truly think no one has been ostracized or beaten purely because they were Christian, then you are completely blind and incredibly misinformed. Violent idiots abound that hate some group or another. Just because the gay isssue is the hot topic of the year doesn't mean other groups are not being targetted by hate groups.

Post by **Sylvus** » October 20, 2004, 3:58 pm

Atokal wrote:IIRC the problem that the Government and Christian organizations have with the "marriage" of gays is the term the gays wish to use. Most Christians that I know have no issue with gays having an official union that would entitle them to the same benefits as everyone else. What most people do not support is changing the definition of marriage.

From what I could tell from the debates, George Bush had nothing to say regarding "civil union" or anything along those lines. Both Bush and Kerry said they were against changing the definition of the word "marriage", but Kerry said that he is for granting some sort of civil union. The candidates' stances don't seem to be exactly what you were addressing, but Bush is a Christian and it appears he doesn't agree with the civil union part of it. While I think hanging onto a semantics issue and trying to own a word is kind of silly, as long as they have the same rights I suppose I won't complain.

For what it's worth, the word marriage already has multiple meanings. On one hand it is a contractual union of two people in the eyes of the law, on the other it implies a Sacrament that is a contract between two people and God (at least in the Catholic belief). I don't see why those people who like the word for it's Holy connotations should even concern themselves with the legal definition of it since their God doesn't even recognize it.

Atokal wrote:However I saw on TV last night a Happy Ramadan wish go out to all of our Islamic brothers. How this is any different that saying Merry Christmas over television is beyond comprehension.

I'm not certain how it is in Canada, but most television programming in the United States is not broadcast by the government. I would expect that I will see "Happy Ramadan", "Happy Chanukkah" and "Merry Christmas" messages during their respective seasons. I don't think that schools that disallow Christmas being specifically mentioned in decorations and whatnot will allow other religions to decorate specifically for their holidays either.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · October 20, 2004, 4:04 pm

Sylvus wrote: I agree that it doesn't need to be advertised, but what is the harm in advertising it? What exactly was causing the Christian group that prostested this pilot program enough harm that they felt the need to protest it?

With that line of thinking, what is the harm in advertising a "Nigger-free zone" or a "Fag-free zone"? It's just a nice safe place for like minded people to be able to hang around without the persecution of fag's and niggers pushing their cultures upon people who don't want it right?

Try and think about both sides of the issue before you take such strong stances one way or the other.

You're one of the people who think Bush rushed to war without properly planning out everything right? Well...be consistent in your philosophies then.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » October 20, 2004, 4:07 pm

I think everyone should wear codpieces. That way we are all equal in the region of the crotch. Regadless of race,creed,color, gender - the codpiece shall be the great equalizer.

In 2004 , Vote for The Codpiece. Let Freedom Ring.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » October 20, 2004, 4:08 pm

Fag is a hate word for gay, Nigger is a hate word for black.

But yeah the idea is kind of stupid...

-=Lohrno

Post by **Sylvus** » October 20, 2004, 4:13 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Probably for the same reason every single person on this board that is now bitching about it was protesting it until the Christian group protested. Now every one of you who said it was a terrible idea to begin with is firmly against the Christian group. What the fuck kind of hypocrisy is that? I do note that each person who has reversed their stance is a liberal. Guess you are learning from your candidate of choice.

Who has reversed their stance? I reread through the first page and a half or so and saw like 2 or 3 people say that they thought that sexual preference didn't need to even be an issue in the workplace. That's a far cry from threatening to bocott the bank unless they stop the program.

And I just said in that same paragraph that I am disallowing this argument on gay marriage. It is a non-issue as it relates to discrimination. If you truly think no one has been ostracized or beaten purely because they were Christian, then you are completely blind and incredibly misinformed. Violent idiots abound that hate some group or another. Just because the gay isssue is the hot topic of the year doesn't mean other groups are not being targetted by hate groups.

So you're assuming that someone has committed violent acts against Christians, but you don't have any evidence anecdotal or otherwise to back that up? Because I can think of at least one or two specific instances against homosexuals off the top of my head, and I'm pretty sure you can too. You pretty obviously don't like gay people, but can you honestly say that there is anywhere near the level of hatred and discrimination of Christians that there is for Homosexuals?

And gay marriage is absolutely not a "non-issue as it relates to discrimination". Nowhere in that post did I say the word marriage, the definition I gave is more of a civil union one. I'll let the homophobes win the semantics issue. Until a same-sex couple has the same rights as far as tax status, insurance, etc. that opposite-sex couples have they are being discriminated against.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » October 20, 2004, 4:20 pm

Atokal wrote:A great example of reverse discrimination will occur this year at Christmas time. Where the celebration of Christ's birth has become a Seasons Greetings, where schools are not allowed to sing Christmas Carols and organizations like the Salvation Army have been banned from Government property because they do not support the gay agenda. However I saw on TV last night a Happy Ramadan wish go out to all of our Islamic brothers. How this is any different that saying Merry Christmas over television is beyond comprehension.

Do not support the gay agenda? WTF does christmas have to do with gays? I'm fairly confident there are many gay people going to be decorating their christmas tree in a couple of months.

You are misdirecting your bigotry here. While you do direct your Christmas inspired hate properly at the Islamics later on you forgot to throw some hate out for the jews, hindu and athiests (etc etc). You know, all those other people that would have christianity shoved down their throats if you had your way.

If you are going to be a bigot then please try to do so properly.

Post by **Sylvus** » October 20, 2004, 4:22 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Sylvus wrote: I agree that it doesn't need to be advertised, but what is the harm in advertising it? What exactly was causing the Christian group that prostested this pilot program enough harm that they felt the need to protest it?

With that line of thinking, what is the harm in advertising a "Nigger-free zone" or a "Fag-free zone"? It's just a nice safe place for like minded people to be able to hang around without the persecution of fag's and niggers pushing their cultures upon people who don't want it right?

Try and think about both sides of the issue before you take such strong stances one way or the other.

You're one of the people who think Bush rushed to war without properly planning out everything right? Well...be consistent in your philosophies then.

Christ man, every day you prove to me that you are stupider than I thought you were the day before.

I am pretty consistent in my philosophies. In fact, the one that I have been stressing most recently - my last few posts - is that of equal rights. Gay people should have every right that I do. Black people, women, the elderly, the handicapped, etc. Even though I pretty much loathe you with ever fiber of my being, I also believe that even you deserve every right that I do.

The problem with your example is that in that case it is promoting discrimination by not allowing black people or homosexuals to enter an area. The original issue was one of advertising acceptance of one group while simultaneously allowing all groups to participate in their activities. Having a "Gay is A-Okay" zone is not even close to being similar to a "Straight people suck, go home" zone.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 20, 2004, 4:32 pm

Lohrno wrote:Fag is a hate word for gay, Nigger is a hate word for black.

But yeah the idea is kind of stupid...

-=Lohrno

Nigger isn't a bad sounding word. It rolls off the tongue and seems less offensive than calling someone by their color such as whites, blacks, and yellows. It's a shame it has negative connotations. Take away the word's history and I think it's a better term than African American or European American.

If nigger was never used with negative connotations historically, would you like it better than being called black?

Caucasian was always an odd term for me:

1. A member of the Caucasoid race (huh?)
2. Of or relating to the geographical region of Caucasia

You almost never hear someone being called a caucasoid in a fight. This word may potentially have the same appeal that neocon has.

The Caucasus is a region in eastern Europe and western Asia between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea which includes the Caucasus mountains and surrounding lowlands. It is occasionally considered part of Central Asia.

Noun 1. Caucasia - a large region between the Black and Caspian seas; oil is its major resource

Aha! It seems whites have always been all about the oil.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 20, 2004, 4:34 pm

Sylvus wrote:Who has reversed their stance? I reread through the first page and a half or so and saw like 2 or 3 people say that they thought that sexual preference didn't need to even be an issue in the workplace. That's a far cry from threatening to bocott the bank unless they stop the program.

Why would they care if they boycotted?

You pretty obviously don't like gay people, but can you honestly say that there is anywhere near the level of hatred and discrimination of Christians that there is for Homosexuals?

I have no hatred for gay people. I do dislike agendas. In Cincinnati, the council passed laws there that give homosexuals greater rights than any other group. They have more rights than straight people....yet I don't recall coming on here to bitch about how they have something I am not allowed to have. Shit...the straight people in Cincinnati are being discriminated against.

And gay marriage is absolutely not a "non-issue as it relates to discrimination". Nowhere in that post did I say the word marriage, the definition I gave is more of a civil union one. I'll let the homophobes win the semantics issue. Until a same-sex couple has the same rights as far as tax status, insurance, etc. that opposite-sex couples have they are being discriminated against.

If you had ever read any post I have made regarding this subject, I do think there should be civil unions. I do think that same sex couples should be afforded certain luxuries that straight couples have. Tax breaks and other monetary issues...including insurance...I have a problem with. Forcing insurance by law to cover same sex partners is going to force health care costs higher....more people covered means more cash being thrown at ridiculous health care prices. Insurance coverage should be decided by the individual employers as a policy. You have a choice in whether to work at that company if they do not offer coverage.

I will look up some hate crimes against Christians if you want.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » October 20, 2004, 4:43 pm

Winnow wrote: Nigger isn't a bad sounding word. It rolls off the tongue and seems less offensive than calling someone by their color such as whites, blacks, and yellows. It's a shame it has negative connotations. Take away the word's history and I think it's a better term than African American or European American.

You can go into the historical detail of it. IE: One theory is that it came from the word Niger as in Nigeria. But anyone who uses it now is not using it as a friendly term for black people. I think we should keep it all simple though. I think Black people and White people is fine. I don't want to be called a 'caucasian' and I don't want to call Black people 'African Americans' or some other such PC term.

But yes, now it's a hate word. Don't use it if that's not your intent.

-=Lohrno

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » October 20, 2004, 4:44 pm

Winnow wrote: Caucasian was always an odd term for me:

1. A member of the Caucasoid race (huh?)
2. Of or relating to the geographical region of Caucasia

You almost never hear someone being called a caucasoid in a fight. This word may potentially have the same appeal that neocon has.

The Caucasus is a region in eastern Europe and western Asia between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea which includes the Caucasus mountains and surrounding lowlands. It is occasionally considered part of Central Asia.

Noun 1. Caucasia - a large region between the Black and Caspian seas; oil is its major resource
Aha! It seems whites have always been all about the oil.

That's another reason to not use 'Caucasian' or 'African'. Maybe the person in question isn't.

-=Lohrno

Post by **Sylvus** » October 20, 2004, 4:45 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:I have no hatred for gay people. I do dislike agendas. In Cincinnati, the council passed laws there that give homosexuals greater rights than any other group. They have more rights than straight people....yet I don't recall coming on here to bitch about how they have something I am not allowed to have. Shit...the straight people in Cincinnati are being discriminated against.

I'm unaware of Cincinnati's local government policies, what rights have they granted gay people that straight people do not have?

If you had ever read any post I have made regarding this subject, I do think there should be civil unions. I do think that same sex couples should be afforded certain luxuries that straight couples have. Tax breaks and other monetary issues...including insurance...I have a problem with. Forcing insurance by law to cover same sex partners is going to force health care costs higher....more people covered means more cash being thrown at ridiculous health care prices. Insurance coverage should be decided by the individual employers as a policy. You have a choice in whether to work at that company if they do not offer coverage.

I just had to select my insurance carrier for next year this morning, turns out I'm paying more than twice what I paid this year. I'm all for lower insurance rates. As far as I know (I'm not married), you still have to pay to have coverage for a dependent, and you have to pay even more if it is multiple dependents. I don't know how the sex of that dependent would raise the cost of healthcare, but I welcome enlightenment.

I will look up some hate crimes against Christians if you want.

I'm pretty confident in my belief that there are more hate crimes in the United States vs. gays than there are Christians. If you think you can provide evidence to the contrary, I'll be happy to look at anything you provide. If you don't think you can, or if you were just using hyperbole to make the point that there is discrimination against Christians as well, there's no need. I wasn't trying to say that there is no discrimination or hate crimes against Christians, just that it exists to a far lesser degree than against homosexuals.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 20, 2004, 4:48 pm

http://boards.aetv.com/threadedout.jsp? ... =300014580

- A homosexual shot up a church youth group meeting several years ago in Arkansas, killing several high school students. Note also that the mainstream media did not report this, or gave it just a one-liner and then dropped it.

http://www.ccicinc.org/politicalaffairs/052603.html

Last year, in Chicago an elderly woman was murdered by a homosexual man incensed over the fact that she came to preach the gospel to him, and criticised his lifestyle. This murder, was not deemed a hate crime by the state of Illinois.

One interesting fact...the FBI refuses to track hate crimes against Christians.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 20, 2004, 4:57 pm

By repealing Article XII, it gives the Cincinnati City Council the power to give “quota preference or other preferential treatment” to persons who claim to be homosexual, lesbian or bisexual.

It is actually up for vote this November.

Post by **Sylvus** » October 20, 2004, 5:18 pm

The first link is to a forum post, and the second is from the Christian Coalition of Canada. I'm not trying to say that they may not have some truth to them, but they are obviously written by pretty anti-gay authors.

the first link also wrote:- Homosexual rights groups attacked a ministry that helps homosexuals to find God through Jesus Christ, and then renounce their sins.

- Some homosexuals and liberals infiltrate religious groups with the idea of changing the religion. But true religions cannot be changed.

- Homosexuals denouncing religion as "wrong" because it doesn't allow homosexuality. That's like the bank robber saying the law is "wrong" because it doesn't allow bank robbery.

- Liberals writing tirades against the existence of religion in letters to the editor.

Some of those sound like conjecture rather than facts, it makes it more difficult to believe the rest of the "article".

the second article also wrote:1) Homosexual criminal molestation included that of 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley in Massachusetts in 1997, who was raped and murdered by two homosexual pedophiles.

2) In a case that was virtually ignored by the liberal media, a homosexual man was convicted of rape and first-degree murder after he and his lover allegedly criminally conspired together to bind, drug and sodomise for 5 hours 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising, in Arkansas.

While those are both horrific acts, the second "article" lists them as hate crimes. I disagree with that classification, they seem like the acts of crazy fucks. Why does the first one there even include "homosexual" in the description? It's unnecessary. A pedophile is a completely different animal than a homosexual, using that language seems to be trying to make the one imply the other.

At any rate, I was just trying to get you to admit that gays are the victims of much more hatred and discrimination that Christians, but it appears you're pretty firm in your belief that that is not true.

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Quote:
By repealing Article XII, it gives the Cincinnati City Council the power to give “quota preference or other preferential treatment” to persons who claim to be homosexual, lesbian or bisexual.

It is actually up for vote this November.

Quota preference is referring to Affirmative Action, or is it something else? And they are voting to repeal it which will then allow them to give quota preference? So it doesn't currently exist?

I'm not a big fan of Affirmative Action, the idea is an okay one but the implementation is wrong in my opinion. Regardless, it doesn't seem like "greater" rights than you.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » October 20, 2004, 6:11 pm

Forthe wrote:
Atokal wrote:A great example of reverse discrimination will occur this year at Christmas time. Where the celebration of Christ's birth has become a Seasons Greetings, where schools are not allowed to sing Christmas Carols and organizations like the Salvation Army have been banned from Government property because they do not support the gay agenda. However I saw on TV last night a Happy Ramadan wish go out to all of our Islamic brothers. How this is any different that saying Merry Christmas over television is beyond comprehension.
Do not support the gay agenda? WTF does christmas have to do with gays? I'm fairly confident there are many gay people going to be decorating their christmas tree in a couple of months.

You are misdirecting your bigotry here. While you do direct your Christmas inspired hate properly at the Islamics later on you forgot to throw some hate out for the jews, hindu and athiests (etc etc). You know, all those other people that would have christianity shoved down their throats if you had your way.

If you are going to be a bigot then please try to do so properly.

Forthe I have always believed you were ignorant and stupid. Cretin is a word I will add to describe you. Several times on many different threads people have said that Christians are not being persecuted or being treated any differently than anyone else. Discriminated because of religion... get it??

So in an amazing turn-around the gay movement has caused one of the most charitable organizations in the world to change venues in order to continue the Christmas tradition of collecting money for the poor... why? because they are Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 20, 2004, 6:16 pm

Atokal wrote:Forthe I have always believed you were ignorant and stupid. Cretin is a word I will add to describe you. Several times on many different threads people have said that Christians are not being persecuted or being treated any differently than anyone else. Discriminated because of religion... get it??

So in an amazing turn-around the gay movement has caused one of the most charitable organizations in the world to change venues in order to continue the Christmas tradition of collecting money for the poor... why? because they are Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin.

Forthe is neither ignorant or stupid. If you're going to brand everyone who doesn't hate homosexuals with your zeal as ignorant and stupid, I suggest you seek discussion elsewhere because we're all fools!

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » October 20, 2004, 6:25 pm

Why would the gay Agenda prevent schools from singing Christmas carols? I don't get it.

Homercles · Post by **Homercles** » October 20, 2004, 6:28 pm

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/1 ... .work.html

...a little look into this issue here in cincinnati.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » October 20, 2004, 6:28 pm

Atokal wrote: So in an amazing turn-around the gay movement has caused one of the most charitable organizations in the world to change venues in order to continue the Christmas tradition of collecting money for the poor... why? because they are Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin.

That's their problem. That's not discriminating against Christians. Nobody's FORCING them to change venues. They actually did it because they're discriminating against homosexuals. Get it?

-=Lohrno

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » October 20, 2004, 6:40 pm

Gay people kept the Salvation Army off Gov. steps? WTF? And what dose Seasons Greetings have to do with the "Gay Agenda"? That started a LONG time ago when people starting considering religions other than Christanity... it has nothing to do with people who are gay unless you want to say that all Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Seiks are gay... which I HOPE you are not saying.

And if you REALLY want to get down to it, why are we celebrating Jesus' birth on the Winter Solstice anyway? If he died when he was 33 1/2 then his birthday would be in late Sept or early October. December 25th "ish" was originally the big orgy day in Rome dedicated to the Sun god so that he would start showing up more. As the majority of Pagans in Rome didn't want to give up such a fun day when they started becoming Christians they just changed it to the birthday of the Son of God. Convienent but they did have to give up the orgys though... I think...

My point is what does it matter? We celebrate Christ birth on Christmas and it's important to us to do so. But we won't win anyone else to our view of things by ignoring or condeming their beliefs... that's already been tried right? So how does it hurt you or I, Atokal, when someone else uses a secular greeting for a national Holiday rather than our Religious one? I can't see that it does. But what I can see is that more than ever, we as Christians need show people why being a Chrstian is a great thing. Why God's saving Grace brings so much freedom and happiness. At a time when so many, of numerous faiths want to condem others, is it not our job to be loving, accepting and treat others as Christ did? Believe me, I fail at that task on a regular basis but that dosen't mean I shouldn't pick myself up and try again... at least that is my understanding of the Scriptures.

Marb

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » October 20, 2004, 6:59 pm

we as Christians need show people why being a Chrstian is a great thing. Why God's saving Grace brings so much freedom and happiness. At a time when so many, of numerous faiths want to condem others, is it not our job to be loving, accepting and treat others as Christ did? Believe me, I fail at that task on a regular basis but that dosen't mean I shouldn't pick myself up and try again... at least that is my understanding of the Scriptures.

If more people thought that way there'd be a whole lot less strife and ill will in the country. Sad to say many Christians certainly don't uphold the core of Jesus' teachings and inexplicably use Christianity as a way to justify their hate and meanness toward their fellow man. It's easier to wrap oneself in a shroud of piety and point fingers than to actually live Christ's words. Didn't he preach that all men are sinners, and that we should love our brother? How can a true Christian then justify hating homosexuals or any other group?

I still want someone to point out to me where in the Bible did Jesus say homosexuality was a sin.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » October 20, 2004, 7:04 pm

Tenuvil wrote: I still want someone to point out to me where in the Bible did Jesus say homosexuality was a sin.

I don't think Jesus said it. I think one of those other fellows did. Somewhere there is something like "Don't lay with your fellow man like you lay with women..."

-=Lohrno

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » October 20, 2004, 8:31 pm

The only possible anti-homosexual comments in the bibble are in the old testament, one in Lectivus (sp?) and the other in the whole Sodom and Gammorah story. Neither are really relavent in any way shape or form.

The exerpt from Lectivus is widely subject to interpretation and is in no way clear if it is specifically refering to homosexuality, but could be interpreted as forbidding male homosexual activity, if you read it a certain way. Lectivus also includes lots of other fun things like misogynist practices and other clearly outdated stuff. It was, in theory, tossed out by Jesus in effect, as new testement dogma is supposed to replace old testement dogma. Crispies are pretty skilled at selective enforcement, however, so they like to bring this one up even though the new testement is pretty damn clear about the old being obsolete.

The references of Sodom and Gammorah were altered from the original text from "acts of sexual deviance" to specifically citing homosexuality by (if I remember correctly) King James. While it could be argued that homosexuality does constitute sexual deviance, so does oral sex, hand jobs, masturbation, and about a hundred other things not involving missionary sex for procreation, as far as Jesus freaks are concerned.

I seriously doubt that love of the cock was even considered a pertinent spiritual issue by early christians, as it didn't even make any direct reference to homosexuality (beyond one vague statement in Leviticus), let alone make it as one of the commandments. The whole anti-gay angle of christianity was introduced during the last period of Rome and has simply become the last refuge for hate mongering radical crispies to tap into mainstream fears.