60
   

California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

 
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 09:36 am
@RexRed,
Two wrongs do not make a right.
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 12:57 pm
@Foofie,
You are wrong about your homophobic religion and wrong about your hate... and still you think it is right.

TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT...

Persecuted homosexuals are the fruits of your wrongs... and you claim to support life...

Hypocrites.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 01:10 pm
@RexRed,
I won't be sinking to those depths Rex to prop up my case. Are you trying to suggest that those of us who support Prop 8 are in favour of such things or think it any less evil than you do? Don't you think that even a hint of such a suggestion is grossly insulting.

And I'll tell you something else too. This "they" stoned homosexuals in the Bible stuff is a complete travesty. Isn't "they" such a convenient word. They stoned everybody. You got off or you got stoned. Stealing a sheep, pulling faces at the judges. And a lot of it was to do with family and tribal feuds. And there was no judiciary, or fines or prisons. 50 lashes was our one week probation. All in different villages dotted all over the place with no motorways.
RexRed
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 02:17 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

I won't be sinking to those depths Rex to prop up my case. Are you trying to suggest that those of us who support Prop 8 are in favour of such things or think it any less evil than you do? Don't you think that even a hint of such a suggestion is grossly insulting.

And I'll tell you something else too. This "they" stoned homosexuals in the Bible stuff is a complete travesty. Isn't "they" such a convenient word. They stoned everybody. You got off or you got stoned. Stealing a sheep, pulling faces at the judges. And a lot of it was to do with family and tribal feuds. And there was no judiciary, or fines or prisons. 50 lashes was our one week probation. All in different villages dotted all over the place with no motorways.


Gays don't know how to love and are unworthy of marriage, oh. but Christians sure know how to love? How many gays are persecuting those of faith like what was done to Matthew Shepard? You have others (of all faiths derived from eh Hebrew scriptures) who have already sunk to such depths taught by their parents, Rabi's, Imams, and preachers this book of hateful words. GROSSLY INSULTING? Read some of your own posts... I am gay because my mother treated me like a girl? Did you say that? Oh so if they had prisons back in biblical times they would have imprisoned gays instead, i see... Well what is the excuse for your hate today? You are in favor of your religious book aren't you? It is the true God's word, every single word huh? There is always an excuse that "THEY" can point to a scripture to justify their hate and say God told them to do it.

So are you saying God changed and no longer thinks homos need to be stoned to death? Then what of all of your words against gays for the last 46 pages nothing of reconciliation just fear mongering and hate.

Do you think I like being the heavy one and going against the status quo? This is certainly not helping my music sales any. I do it unselfishly and with unconditional love. Something Christians preach but do not practice.

What are your motives for your hate and fear that you perpetuate?

Am I sinking low or rising to defend out of a just need to protect my fellow brethren the scourge of hateful religiosity?

California voters approve homophobia brought on by propaganda lies and blood money donated by the loving and compassionate Mormons and Christian right.... SHAME. Until this hate and fear mongering stops I will rise to defend homosexuals and lesbians.

http://www.timschraeder.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/god-hates-fags.jpg

http://grannygeek.us/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/phelps-followers.jpg

http://progressivenation.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/fred-phelps-fags-die.jpg

Is this the "them" I speak of?
Are these your friends? Are you proud to be one of THEM?

How does a gay teen feel riding by on the bus to school and reading something like this? Free speech or yelling fire in a movie theater?

Are these the people who support prop 8?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 02:31 pm
@RexRed,
Those signs by christians are hilarious! They've forgotten all the teachings of their bible; love thy neighbor...
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 03:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
They sure have. They are stupid.

There is nobody persecuting homosexuals where I am. I'm certainly not. I'm in favour of Prop 8 standing until voters reverse it. I'm in favour of heterosexual, monogamous couples being entitled to the status of "marriage" exclusively for reasons I have given and which have not been argued with.

Post your outbursts about other matters to the sites where those awful bigots can read them. They are nothing to do with me. We don't even know whether those signs were made by the homosexual lobby to discredit its opponents and nor do we know whether that young man was beaten to death because he was a homosexual. Plenty of heterosexuals have been beaten to death for a large number of reasons. Homosexuals can aggravate people just as good as heterosexuals can.

failures art
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 03:41 pm
Don't mind spendi Rex, he's the flat earth type that's worried about what will happen to the kids if they see a globe. What terror!

He's going the way of the dodo, so let him piss and moan. His whining can be the tune to dance to.

His word salad posts are great for crosswords, but not much else.

A
R
T
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 03:53 pm
@spendius,
spendi, You contradict yourself in the same post. You want to discriminate against gays by not allowing them "marriage," while claiming you are not a bigot.

Your comprehension concerning what determines bigotry is missing from your brain.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 04:32 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I'm not allowed to declare myself lots of things. Impersonating an officer is illegal. We cannot be allowed to just assert we are entities defined in dictionaries.
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 04:43 pm
@cicerone imposter,
It does apear that by definition that spendius is a bigot, he also does not know that the man in the white hat holding the sign is a bigot and a poor example of a christian. He is well known for his poor behavior.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 04:52 pm
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
It does apear that by definition that spendius is a bigot,


A bigot is someone who asserts things, like that, without providing any evidence.

The mode of expression is such that it is almost embarrassing to find oneself in the same ambience. 2 cringing errors in 11 words is a bit extraordinary. And that's leaving aside the ignorant and self-comforting bigotry.
wmwcjr
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 04:59 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote: We don't even know whether those signs were made by the homosexual lobby to discredit its opponents ...

Those signs definitely were not made by the homosexual lobby to discredit its opponents. I rcognize the man in the photo. He happens to be Fred Phelps. Those children happen to be members of his little group in Topeka, Kansas.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 05:09 pm
@spendius,
Spendius the reply I made was not meant to be hateful but was only what I observed from reading the definition of bigot and seeing the man in the white hat in other videos. Please do not take it as a personal attack but only as a observation.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 05:12 pm
This story in tomorrow's Daily Telegraph is a most unusual one. It is the first story I remember seeing where the Sky News "Paper's Review" had a lengthy discussion without the front page being shown on screen presumably for reasons to do with legal advice.

Quote:
Cabinet minister may act over false claims of gay affairs.
A Cabinet minister is ready to take legal action to halt a series of increasingly lurid but baseless rumours sweeping Westminster over his sexuality, The Daily Telegraph has learnt.


By Robert Winnett, Holly Watt and Jon Swaine
Published: 10:00PM BST 27 Aug 2010
Westminster; Cabinet minister may act over false claims of gay affairs
The Cabinet minister has faced repeated questions about his private life over the past few months Photo: PA

The minister, who is married, has been accused of having an affair with a Whitehall official and of having a long-term relationship with a journalist. He has strongly denied the allegations. Senior Downing Street aides are braced this weekend for “suggestive” reports to begin surfacing over the Cabinet minister’s private life.

Friends of the minister have warned that he will not hesitate to take “action” should unfounded allegations that he is homosexual, which are circulating on the internet, appear in mainstream medi

It is not clear whether this action would take the form of an injunction or a threat to sue following publication.

“He is happily married and is not gay, it is as simple as that,” said one source.

“He will not hesitate before taking the necessary action should someone overstep the mark and suggest something which is not true.”

The warning came as Crispin Blunt, a junior Tory minister in the Coalition, announced that he was separating from his wife to allow him to “come to terms with his homosexuality”.

Mr Blunt, the prisons minister, said there was nobody else involved and appealed for his family’s privacy to be respected.

It is not thought that his announcement was precipitated by any imminent newspaper revelation.

The Cabinet minister has faced repeated questions about his private life over the past few months. In recent weeks, The Daily Telegraph, along with several other newspapers, received details of two alleged male lovers of the Cabinet minister.

Photographers were present outside the home of one of the men, whose family are thought to have left the country.

The other alleged lover, a journalist, has also been approached by reporters over an apparent affair.

However, a source close to the man told this newspaper: “He has never met the minister. As someone who works in the media, he has never even been in the same room as him.”

He added: “If he was asked about an affair and it was true, he’d say publicly that he didn’t want to comment on a personal relationship.

“But in this case he doesn’t want to give the claims any credibility by publicly refuting them.”

It would be highly unusual for a Cabinet minister to instruct lawyers over an allegation surrounding their private life.

In the past, ministers have simply publicly denied such untrue allegations.

In 1991, the then chancellor, Norman Lamont, denied knowing anything about his London flat being used as a sex parlour after a Sunday newspaper claimed it had been rented out to a prostitute.

Unusually, he threatened legal action against anyone who “publishes anything which reflects adversely on me or my wife”.

Friends of the Cabinet minister hope that the threat of legal action will deter unfounded rumours surfacing publicly. The use of injunctions has been thrown into controversy recently after several footballers used the legal system to stop newspapers from disclosing details about their private lives.

However, these cases are different because the allegations are not unfounded, but are regarded by a judge as an invasion of their privacy.


Will someone explain the fuss to me if everything is so normal and socially acceptable in this area of life? What is it that bothers people so much as to get journalists camped (ahem!) outside houses and families leaving the country?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 05:14 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
The warning came as Crispin Blunt, a junior Tory minister in the Coalition, announced that he was separating from his wife to allow him to “come to terms with his homosexuality”.


Notice also the abandonment of a woman.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 05:18 pm
@wmwcjr,
Well okay--that is what's needed around here. Some facts, assuming they are facts; which I do on wm's say so.

I don't think I excused such behaviour.
wmwcjr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 05:34 pm
@spendius,
We know you didn't. At least I do.

You can verify my claim, I suppose, by doing a Google image search on "Fred Phelps" or by visiting his website (which, if my memory serves me well, is www.godhatesfags.com).
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 08:04 pm
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:

You are wrong about your homophobic religion and wrong about your hate... and still you think it is right.

TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT...

Persecuted homosexuals are the fruits of your wrongs... and you claim to support life...

Hypocrites.


Can you stop writing poetically? You need to explain with examples what you are trying to allude to.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 08:14 pm
@Foofie,
It's as clear as a bell, but some people fail to hear it.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 08:21 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

It's as clear as a bell, but some people fail to hear it.


I was asking the author of the post, not you. I am not thanking you for the opinion, since it seemed intrusive to me.
 

Related Topics

New York New York! - Discussion by jcboy
Prop 8? - Discussion by majikal
Gay Marriage - Discussion by blatham
Gay Marriage -- An Old Post Revisited - Discussion by pavarasra
Who doesn't back gay marriage? - Question by The Pentacle Queen
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 11/26/2024 at 06:30:32