Christians Angry Over Gay Rights Laws ....

[Sklar]

I wonder how the fundies would like it if we:

1) Made it illegal for them (fundies) to get divorced.

2) Made it illegal for them (fundies) to be married more than once.

3) Banned anyone from being a fundamentalist if they:

a) had pre marital sex

b) committed any act or moral perpatude (sp)
i.e. speeding, spitting on a sidewalk, wearing clothing that to
revealing. You get the picture.

c) missed any church service for any reason

d) their children committed ANY act of violence, disobediance or just
misbehaved in public

4) Banned any fundamentalist gathering of 3 people or more outside of
a church or the church's property


That's all I can think of at this point in time.


Sklar

 

[Nelly Gay]

does anyone care really? let them do their thing and the rest of the planet will do theirs..

Which would apparenly be listening to Kylie records while Rome burns ?!!
Gays are the largest minority group but the weakest politically and your inertia sums up just why ...

 

[Nelly Gay]

Discrimination against Queers? You must be jesting! As far as torches go this could be a major mistake--unless there were 3 of them with music in which case it could be viewed as a torch song trilogy. (Don't blame me, I don't write the jokes I just pass them along).

Two thingss here Nelly Gay I would like to know, where did you accquire this information from--BBC or London Times or the Sun or sonmething else? I like to know these things so I can look for followup stories, if any by the same media. Also, were thesee Christinas from any particular sect of Christianity?

I did a google search using the generic term "Christians demonstrate over Gay rights" and came up with approx. 68,200 hits
so not just the Sun newspaper but worryingly much more pervasive ...

 

[Onslow]

does anyone care really? let them do their thing and the rest of the planet will do theirs..

Which would apparenly be listening to Kylie records while Rome burns ?!!
Gays are the largest minority group but the weakest politically and your inertia sums up just why ...

What surprises me here is that the usual team of jumpers--those who jump in and respond to comments such as was left by hunGreek are being so f..king silent. Otheres may say in passing that there was a doccumentary about gays being A or B and there is immediate condemnation, this twerp comes along and says let gays be attacked and have their rights shredded just as long as I can play my fiddle and nobody blinks.

What hunGreek fails to see is that the 'Does anyone care really? let them do their thing...' comment is where the disaster begins (as I indicated on page 1 of responses) since it is similar to a raging forest fire, it is the first spark that starts the mess. Here it is the first spark of hatred and/or bigotry which starts the burning away of rights for all. Today the Queers, tomorrow the Greeks and the day after that some other group.

I did a google search using the generic term "Christians demonstrate over Gay rights" and came up with approx. 68,200 hits
so not just the Sun newspaper but worryingly much more pervasive ...

Thank you for that information Nelly Gay and for the post itsself.

 

[madame_zora]

The problem with hungreek's lack of reasoning is that everyone IS doing what they want about the issue- whether it be ignoring it or outright violence towards gays. Why should anyone have to get off their comfy couch to address something that "doesn't affect me"? Because sooner or later it DOES affect you, or someone you know.

I get so disgusted with people who claim that all equal rights leigislations are really special rights- shut the fuck up! If there wasn't a "special need" there wouldn't be a need for special laws. The special need is almost always the persecution of a minority group, and *gasp* the persecuting is most often being done by the majority! So, let's get this straight- the majority gets pissed when it's insinuated that their position as Supreme Lord and Master is being challenged, and that they should treat others as equals. They refuse to do so, step up their efforts to continue promoting their agenda, then make fun of those in lesser positions for being whiners. Very Christian, I'm impressed.

Now, tell these same fucktards that Jesus didn't act like that (because he didn't) and they get all huffy, saying how dare you call them fucktards. I really do hate the way Christianity has been so horribly misused by people who are so extremely unqualified to interpret shit.

Food for thought- "the establishment" crucified Jesus. What's so great about being on the side that's winning?

 

[Gillette]

does anyone care really? let them do their thing and the rest of the planet will do theirs..

FWIW, I interpreted this statement to mean the protesters should leave the gays and lesbians to do their thing. In which case it should not have been inflamatory.

If I'm wrong then I certainly agree this is an upsetting statement and deserves to be called out for what it is.

As it stands the sentence is too nonspecific for me to react to. Until hunGreek takes a specific stand I see no reason to stand with or against him.

This could be the reason for the silence you percieve, Onslow.

 

[joyboytoy79]

I would like to see where this Catholic bishop would stand if we stepped back in history a bit and practicing Catholicism in the UK was punishable with death. There are laws that protect him and his flock from being descriminated against, and those laws impose morality on the public. Many people who are opposed to catholocism are forced to hire catholics, forced to allow catholic groups to use their facilities, forced to adopt children out to catholic families.

If the UK is willing to repeal the laws that protect catholics from descrimination, i'm OK with them repealing laws that protect gays from descrimination.

 

[D_Neeson Niceone]

Ugh, I don't really see why people care so much what other people do in their private lives. I don't give a damn what you do so long as it doesn't impede on me or hurt anyone else.

 

[Onslow]

FWIW, I interpreted this statement to mean the protesters should leave the gays and lesbians to do their thing. In which case it should not have been inflamatory.

If I'm wrong then I certainly agree this is an upsetting statement and deserves to be called out for what it is.

As it stands the sentence is too nonspecific for me to react to. Until hunGreek takes a specific stand I see no reason to stand with or against him.

This could be the reason for the silence you percieve, Onslow.

Non-specific? Are you kidding me? hunGreek says these vitriolic attacks are perfectly okay. Now Then let's put it in a different context--how would you be reacting if we added the words to the So-called Christians statements and they said and the Queers should be beaten and shot dead--and maybe people with the letter K anywhere in their name just for good measure There are those who say being against abortion is okay and as such it is if it is a persons own choice. However the Christians jump up and down screaming how abortion is murder and then someone comes along and fires a gun at a person going into an abortion clinic or comits another crime against that person--car bombing anybody? This is precisely why a sit on your ass and allow them to do whatever they want to attitude is dangerous. If (and only if) hunGreek had said "let them do whatever they want in their bedroom" that would have been fine and I'd have no issue with this. The problem is that there are people out there indicating that they find homosexuality to be a dreadful sin and many of these people move to the next step--restricting rights. How would you react if you heard that a homosexual was turned down for a job, denied access to a movie theater or restaurant because3 of their sexuality? And what follows? Public hangings? Mob attacks?

I am deeply angered that the so called free thinkers around here are NOT expressing outrage over4 this but they will express outrage over the applause which Junior received from 3 or 4 Republicans the other night. Both things deserve attention and both are dealing with massive killings.

As I indicated (why the fucking hell can't anyone read the first page?) I indicated that back in the earluy 1920s Adolph Hitler started targeting homosexuals and we saw where that led. Perhaps you and hunGreek don't give a rats ass about freedoms and having rights. Right now this group is going on an attack on gays. Maybe next year it will be women over 6 foot tall or men under 5 foot tall or blondes or redheads or people with green eyes. Hatred gets started and is allowed to simmer until it the fanned flames push it to a rapid boil and the victims are tossed in and all the while peop;le lay back buffing their fucking fingernails and saying it doesnt mattere cause its not on my block. Same thing has happened with homel;ess folks. They are sweet and loveable until they end up in your neighborhood., Who knows, maybe this is what the world reallly wants in which case nothing--NOT a Fucking g.D. thing--has been learned over the centuries that humans have been on earth. Just Chisel N.I.M.B.Y. on every tombstone. Then again Hitler liked massive graves so maybe just a huge banner across the top where millions of queers and otheres are disposed of. Many still living and breathing as the dirt is thrown on top of them. When the government decided to crack down on sites with any sexual material (photos or comments) people went berserk, this is no different. Religious bigots push and push and tthen the politicians--the law makers--side with the bigots and crush the seeds of hope. They grind downt every last shard of possiblity until all that remains is a vast boring monotonous landscape where everyone has to dress and smile the same while living in similarly matching cardboard huts furnished by government restructuring restrictions. Restriction--learn the word Gillette because this is what is heading down the pike at us if we don't do anything, if we continue along with the 'let them do what they want' artillary firing statements and never question it. NellyGay put forward and important issue and peop;e as is so sadly so often the case these days just shrugged their collective shoulders. Perhaps the Stateside folks here would have reacted more if it haD come from the lips of one of the U.S. alleged Christians and been directed towars our own shallow halls of congress. Actually they have at times at least moved a little on that front, so why not emotionalize just as loud and fiercely when it is placed in front of us from across the ocean?

Keep in mind Gilette this is not anger directed at you directly it is anger towards the people of the world and this board who refuse to react. What the hell happened to people with pepper in their veins who would fight injustice?




Ranting over I will now leave--much to everyones happiness I am sure, but keep the happiness guarded for I will be back later.

 

[Onslow]

...doing what they want about the issue- whether it be ignoring it or outright violence towards gays. Why should anyone have to get off their comfy couch to address something that "doesn't affect me"? Because sooner or later it DOES affect you, or someone you know.

Someday I will hopefully learn to just quote the words of the wise beofore going ballistic.

 

[HUNGHUGE11X7]

LONDON:
Hundreds of Christians staged a torch-lit demonstation against laws designed to protect lesbians and gays from discrimination. The demonstartors claim the laws will stop people making decisions based on their faith and say they "actively condone and promote" gay sex.

How Christian of them................ Christ would be so proud were he alive today to know that his followers listened to him .
These are the morons and hypocrites that give Christianity a foul name.

These are the same imbeciles that are pro-life yet pro-death penalty................. I am not Christian but having gone to Private and/or Christian schools all my life I know a great deal about the Bible and in The Ten Commandments I don't recall a caveat to THOU SHALT NOT KILL !!!, which clearly shows among other things the inherrent contradiction of their belief.


:banana:
HORSE

 

[palmit]

Not to be an a-hole here, but if the homosexuals mobilized as well as the "christians" do, they could be just as effective stiring things up. Even if their protest is about hate, it's their right, besides hate has never needed any clever artifice.

 

[Spoogesicle]

I hesitate to use the word "Christian" to denote fundamentalists; they are not synonymous. A true Christian is one who follows Christ's teachings of love, compassion, tolerance and brotherhood. One who truly believes biblical doctrine should heed 1 John 4:7-8:
"Beloved,
let us love one another
because love is of God;
everyone who loves is begotten of God
and has knowledge of God, for God is love."

Got it, fundies? I love, therefore I am born of God and know God. God is love, therefore those who profess hate are professing the opposite of God. Why is it that the fundamentalists are the ones who conveniently forget the biblical verses that state the fundamental beliefs of Christianity? Look to your own flaws before you try to point out mine. I'm well aware of my imperfections, and guess what: what you perceive to be "wrong" with me is between me and God, and has nothing to do with you. What I feel and do with some other consenting adult is no threat to you or to the sanctity of marriage. If it doesn't affect you, and if you really don't understand it (and trust me: you don't), you need not be so vocal in denouncing it. Pray for yourselves and for others of your congregation; pray for understanding.

 

[Nelly Gay]

Not to be an a-hole here, but if the homosexuals mobilized as well as the "christians" do, they could be just as effective stiring things up. Even if their protest is about hate, it's their right, besides hate has never needed any clever artifice.

Sadly, "homosexuals" whilst being the largest of minority groups (conservative estimates say 10% of the population are gay whilst Kinsey found 37% of the population have had same-sexexperiences) are too lax. Witness, HungGreek's apparent apathy...
Many gays lead closeted existences, still marry and have families and are in complete denial about their true sexuality.
They would never politicise for gay rights and indeed their internalised homophobia would make them take the opposite stance.
Haggard anyone ?
Other queens prefer discos, clubs, fashion and ignore realities as it "does not affect them".
The group is also split socially ; no fats, no femmes, no blacks being often the order of the day.
Many gays present "safe" images in that the screamer, bull-dyke, etc are non-threatening to the general public . Stereotypes rule !

 

[Gillette]

does anyone care really? let them do their thing and the rest of the planet will do theirs..

FWIW, I interpreted this statement to mean the protesters should leave the gays and lesbians to do their thing. In which case it should not have been inflamatory.

If I'm wrong then I certainly agree this is an upsetting statement and deserves to be called out for what it is.

As it stands the sentence is too nonspecific for me to react to. Until hunGreek takes a specific stand I see no reason to stand with or against him.

This could be the reason for the silence you percieve, Onslow.

Onslow,
As I said before I thought the use of the word "them' could just as easily refer to gays and lesbians, in which case hunGreek is actually in agreement with many of the posters on this page in that the Catholics should leave them alone. I'm assuming that English is not his first language so his sentence is not as crystal clear as it could be.

When I said nonspecific, what I meant was that the sentence does not specify which of the subjects he is referring to with the word "them".


Example.
There is a gang dressed in red on one side of the street and a gang dressed in blue on the other. Both sides are shouting insults at the other.

An observer says, "they should leave them alone"

To which does the speaker refer?


From reading other posts by hunGreek which indicate that he is gay I seriously doubt that he is defending the Catholic protesters. And based on that I'm not about to attack him as others have.

If you read what I've highlighted in red from my own post, you would not be jumping down my throat for this. In no way, shape or form do I side with the protesters. I don't disagree with anything you've said regarding the protesters behavior, nor the importance of gay rights. My only issue was your directing all your comments at one poster due to his ambiguous post.


*that was easy! under hunGreek's avatar it states that he is 100% gay. Talk about reading the first page! Wish I'd noted that in my first post.

 

[Onslow]

Onslow,
As I said before I thought the use of the word "them' could just as easily refer to gays and lesbians, in which case hunGreek is actually in agreement with many of the posters on this page in that the Catholics should leave them alone. I'm assuming that English is not his first language so his sentence is not as crystal clear as it could be.

When I said nonspecific, what I meant was that the sentence does not specify which of the subjects he is referring to with the word "them".


Example.
There is a gang dressed in red on one side of the street and a gang dressed in blue on the other. Both sides are shouting insults at the other.

An observer says, "they should leave them alone"

To which does the speaker refer?


From reading other posts by hunGreek which indicate that he is gay I seriously doubt that he is defending the Catholic protesters. And based on that I'm not about to attack him as others have.

If you read what I've highlighted in red from my own post, you would not be jumping down my throat for this. In no way, shape or form do I side with the protesters. I don't disagree with anything you've said regarding the protesters behavior, nor the importance of gay rights. My only issue was your directing all your comments at one poster due to his ambiguous post.


*that was easy! under hunGreek's avatar it states that he is 100% gay. Talk about reading the first page! Wish I'd noted that in my first post.

I also have directed comments towards otheres. Additionally read the words from NellyGay in the comments just before your most recent post. Nelly Gay makes mention of Different groups of gays--the screamers, the disco queens of the "does not affect them" mentality. The flippant comment from hunGreek seemed (to me and a few otheres apparently) to fit into that catergory. If you see it differently then that is as it is. Being 100% gay does not mean a person gives a fuck about their rights being demolished one tile at a time--as long as it hasn't made it into their bedroom they really don't care what happens in the next house over. That, Gillette, is how I read it. Since hunGreek as of yet has not chimed in to indicate what the comment really meant, we may never know.

 

[Nelly Gay]

LONDON:
Hundreds of Christians staged a torch-lit demonstation against laws designed to protect lesbians and gays from discrimination. The demonstartors claim the laws will stop people making decisions based on their faith and say they "actively condone and promote" gay sex.

Boyz (the London-based free gayper) has taken a rather flippant stance on the Christian demonstrators after stating they were a mixed Christian, Muslim, etc group it portrayed old ladies in bad coats, ranting happy clappers and dishevelled old men with "appropriately witty" captions !
The Pink Paper missed the demonstration altogether ....