The views of a British Christian group have led to its bank dumping it. The problem – the group’s opposition to homosexuality puts it at odds with the bank’s commitment to “diversity”. There is no room for tolerance of dissenting views.

The Co-operative Bank has asked an evangelical Christian group to close its account because of its anti-homosexual views.

The bank said the opinions of Christian Voice were incompatible with its support for diversity.

Christian Voice said the bank, based in Manchester, was discriminating against it on religious grounds.

It is now waiting for other religious groups with similar opinions to be asked to close accounts, it added.

Christian Voice has held an account with the Co-operative Bank for about three years.

But now the bank has decided the group's stance on homosexuality is so extreme, it has asked members to look for a new bank.

"It has come to the bank's attention that Christian Voice is engaged in discriminatory pronouncements based on the grounds of sexual orientation," a spokesman for the bank said.

"This public stance is incompatible with the position of the Co-operative Bank, which publicly supports diversity and dignity in all its forms for our staff, customers and other stakeholders."

So letÂ’s see if I understand the bankÂ’s position correctly. Diversity is so important that it cannot allow for a diversity of views among its customers. WouldnÂ’t that mean that the bank does not really value diversity, but instead values homosexuality over Christianity?

Posted by: Greg at 09:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

IÂ’ve been saying for some time that the excesses taking place in Canada and other foreign environs could eventually reach to within AmericaÂ’s borders. I just didnÂ’t expect it to come so soon.

Is there no longer a right for employees to engage in Constitutionally protected speech about their religious beliefs on their own time? DoesnÂ’t firing them for such activity constitute discrimination based upon such speech constitute employment discrimination based upon religion, which is banned by the statute by the federal government and all fifty states? Or does the judicially-discovered right to sodomy override those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights?

An employee of the Allstate insurance company has been fired from his job for comments that appeared in a men’s journal denouncing same-sex “marriage,” even though the statement was penned in the employee’s own spare time and from home.

“I explained to Allstate that the article was a reflection of my personal Christian beliefs, and that I had every right to both write it and to have it published,” J. Matt Barber told WorldNetDaily news. “I further explained that I had written the article while at home on my own time, that I never mentioned Allstate's name and that I neither directly nor indirectly suggested that Allstate shared my Christian beliefs or my views on same-sex marriage.”

Allstate made no attempt to hide its bigotry. According to its report, “The claimant was discharged from Allstate Insurance Company because an outside organization had complained about an article he had written while on his own time.” The company even tried to have Barber denied unemployment insurance, which can be withheld if a person was fired for a violation of company policy or rules.

Now what awful things had Barber written in the article to which the online publication appended a biography identifying his employer without his knowledge? What evil, hateful, discriminatory words had he caused to be published? How had he engaged in misconduct so grave that Allstate sought to have him denied unemployment benefits mere weeks after the birth of a child following a difficult high-risk pregnancy? Well, take a look.

more...

Posted by: Greg at 12:48 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 554 words, total size 4 kb.

We’ve all read about honor killings in Muslim countries – the murder of women whose behavior is considered “unchaste” by their families. Causes range from being sexually assaulted to being alone in a room with an unrelated male, as well as actual morally questionable actions like the commission of fornication and adultery – acts which still do not merit murder.

And now we are headed that way in the United States if we do not clamp down on such quaint socio-religious customs among Muslims in this country. Take this as an example.

The Oakland County Prosecutor's Office on Thursday will attempt to permanently end the parental rights of a Madison Heights couple who police say neglected to seek medical help for their daughter after her older brother allegedly beat her over her relationship with a non-Muslim boy.

The 15-year-old girl, who is a Madison Heights Lamphere High junior, suffered a broken back in the beating, according to court documents. The trial to determine whether parental custody rights should be terminated is set for Thursday before Oakland Circuit Judge Joan Young.

The girl's brother, Ahmad Abdelmomen, 21, is charged with aggravated assault in the April 29 incident at their home in Madison Heights. Abdelmomen is free on bond pending a July 13 preliminary hearing before Madison Heights 43rd District Judge Robert J. Turner.

"She complained of the injury to her parents, but they didn't take her to a doctor because they condoned the punishment her brother gave her," said Robert Zivian, an assistant Oakland County prosecuting attorney assigned to the neglect case.

The following day, when the girl was still complaining of injuries, her parents called for an ambulance, according to Madison Heights Police Detective Sgt. Ron Hillman.

"She was in a lot of pain, and when she eventually went back to school, it was in a wheelchair," Hillman said. "It was too painful for her to stand for any period of time."

The girl initially told hospital workers she fell, Hillman said. After being questioned by police, she admitted that her brother had beaten her because he was upset over her relationship with a boy who was not of their religious faith, Hillman said.

"She wrote me a two-page statement about how both her brother and her parents disapproved of the situation," he said. "She wrote that's what prompted the beating in the first place."

The girl was placed in temporary foster care following the incident, Zivian said.
"Now she is recanting the original story and also claiming she fell down some stairs," Zivian said.

more...

Posted by: Greg at 11:40 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 820 words, total size 5 kb.

Looks like the only Anglicans left on this continent might be the traditionalists.

Unconvinced by the justifications offered by both churches on Tuesday for ordaining an openly homosexual bishop and authorising same-sex blessings, members of the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Nottingham asked them to leave the council and its central finance and standing committees.
Although the motion invites the churches to withdraw voluntarily, it amounts in effect to expulsion.
The debate was held behind closed doors at Nottingham University, and the motion was passed 30 to 28 by secret ballot, with four abstentions.
The Anglican Consultative Council is one of the four "instruments of unity", of the worldwide church, but it is the only one with a legal constitution. Based in Britain, it is in effect the church's central administrative body.

Ultimately, it comes down to a simple question – will the Bible or the latest social science article be binding on matters of faith and morals.

Posted by: Greg at 11:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

An issue has been raised in the state of North Carolina about the use of religious texts for swearing in witnesses in courtrooms. It seems that often the only option available is the Bible, which creates a conundrum for those individuals whose faith does not recognize that book, While they could simply make a general affirmation of truthfulness without the book, Muslims are now asking to be permitted to use the Quran for taking the oath.

"There is no (statewide) policy ... and there is no particular plan in place to write a policy," said Dick Ellis, spokesman for the Administrative Office of the Courts. "We haven't gotten to the point yet that something has to be done."

Judges in Guilford County told a Greensboro Islamic center last week that they would not allow people to be sworn in with a Quran rather than a Bible.

In response, the Washington-based Council on Amerian-Islamic Relations asked Tuesday for a statewide policy allowing oaths to be taken on the Quran.

"Eliminating the opportunity to swear an oath on one's own holy text may also have the effect of diminishing the credibility of that person's testimony," CAIR Legal Director Arsalan Iftikhar said in a statement.

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said Wednesday that failing to establish a clear policy about the issue will lead to further confusion.

"I think there really does need to be a clear statement one way or the other," Hooper said. "Whether only a single religious text is viewed as holy scripture or whether, in our multi-faith, multi-ethnic society, there are a variety of texts that would be viewed as valid."

Now as much as I hate to agree with Ibrahim Hooper or any other representative of the terrorist-front group that is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), I have to agree with him. The use of a religious text is customary in our society, and the denial of the use of one's text is certainly problematic in a society that has significant grups practicing minority religions. Why shouldn't there be more thna one text used, at the discretion of the witnes? All that is needed is to ascertain in advance the text desired by the witness, and there will be no disruption. Either that, or eliminate the practice of taking an oath on religious texts, something that Most Americans (including me) would oppose.

Now if this happens, there needs to be a clear understanding that no text gets preferential treatment. That means none of the Gitmo-style wrapping the Quran in a towel, handling it with white gloves, or any of the other extreme veneration of the book required of service personnel for fear of offending the terrorists who have made war on the US and who still want to kill us. The Quran would have to be stored, handled and presented in a fashion identical to those other books. And if that means that the bailiff who holds the Quran after lunch is a menstruating woman who still has grease on her fingers from her BLT, no objection can be raised.

After all, treating the Quran differently would be "promoting one faith over another, and that is not what's allowed by the Constitution." And we wouldn't want that, would we Mr. Hooper?

Posted by: Greg at 11:50 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 555 words, total size 3 kb.

Look at this solution to the fractures within the Anglican Communion – and notice that certain folks are now simply one “subgroup” among many in this so-called Christian body.

A draft of a constitution detailing a proposed realignment of the worldwide Anglican Communion became public this week, outlining for the first time how divisions over homosexuality may change the face of the more than 70-million-member church.

The unsourced and undated four-page document, named "The Organizing Constitution of the Anglican Global Initiative," has been circulating among some executive members of the Episcopal Church since January, after it was brought to the church's New York headquarters following a meeting of African bishops in Nairobi.

Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh, a group of clergy and lay people, made the document available on its Web site. Its existence was first reported this week by the Guardian newspaper in Great Britain.

The articles of the constitution state that the Anglican Global Initiative would be an organization of Anglicans from the Global South, which includes Africa, Asia and parts of the Southern Hemisphere, and those in the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada who "hold to the centrality and authority of Holy Scripture."

“The centrality and authority of Holy Scripture.” One would have hoped that those were a given for a body that claims to be Christian, not simply one option among many.

Posted by: Greg at 10:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.

Look at this solution to the fractures within the Anglican Communion – and notice that certain folks are now simply one “subgroup” among many in this so-called Christian body.

A draft of a constitution detailing a proposed realignment of the worldwide Anglican Communion became public this week, outlining for the first time how divisions over homosexuality may change the face of the more than 70-million-member church.

The unsourced and undated four-page document, named "The Organizing Constitution of the Anglican Global Initiative," has been circulating among some executive members of the Episcopal Church since January, after it was brought to the church's New York headquarters following a meeting of African bishops in Nairobi.

Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh, a group of clergy and lay people, made the document available on its Web site. Its existence was first reported this week by the Guardian newspaper in Great Britain.

The articles of the constitution state that the Anglican Global Initiative would be an organization of Anglicans from the Global South, which includes Africa, Asia and parts of the Southern Hemisphere, and those in the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada who "hold to the centrality and authority of Holy Scripture."

“The centrality and authority of Holy Scripture.” One would have hoped that those were a given for a body that claims to be Christian, not simply one option among many.

Posted by: Greg at 10:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, there seems to be a new term of derision directed at those of us who follow the Christ. That term is “Christer”, used in a sense not unlike “nigger” or “kike” by bigots. Take this example, which is the source of the current controversy.

Today’s Christer protests are targeting a different kind of subversion. Chip Berlet, senior analyst at the labor-funded Political Research Associates, has spent over 25 years studying the far right and theocratic fundamentalism. He is co-author of Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. Berlet — who was one of the speakers at a conference last month co-sponsored by the N.Y. Open Center and the City University of New York Graduate Center on “Examining the Real Agenda of the Christian Right” — says that “What’s motivating these people is two things. First, an incredible dread, completely irrational, of a hodgepodge of sexual subversion and social chaos. The response to that fear is genuinely a grassroots response, and it’s motivated by fundamentalist Christian doctrines like Triumphalism and Dominionism, which order Christians to take over the secular state and secular institutions. The Christian right frames itself as an oppressed minority battling the secular-humanist liberal homofeminist hordes.”

Posted by: Greg at 10:12 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 725 words, total size 5 kb.

Well, there seems to be a new term of derision directed at those of us who follow the Christ. That term is “Christer”, used in a sense not unlike “nigger” or “kike” by bigots. Take this example, which is the source of the current controversy.

Today’s Christer protests are targeting a different kind of subversion. Chip Berlet, senior analyst at the labor-funded Political Research Associates, has spent over 25 years studying the far right and theocratic fundamentalism. He is co-author of Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. Berlet — who was one of the speakers at a conference last month co-sponsored by the N.Y. Open Center and the City University of New York Graduate Center on “Examining the Real Agenda of the Christian Right” — says that “What’s motivating these people is two things. First, an incredible dread, completely irrational, of a hodgepodge of sexual subversion and social chaos. The response to that fear is genuinely a grassroots response, and it’s motivated by fundamentalist Christian doctrines like Triumphalism and Dominionism, which order Christians to take over the secular state and secular institutions. The Christian right frames itself as an oppressed minority battling the secular-humanist liberal homofeminist hordes.”

Posted by: Greg at 10:12 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 728 words, total size 5 kb.

The Liberty Counsel, a group dedicated to the preservation of religious and civil liberies, has sued a library in Woodland Park, Colorado, regarding its policy on the use of community rooms for meetings.

The Woodland Park Library says its community room is "available to nonprofit civic, cultural and educational organizations for events open to the public." But the policy also says, "Meetings open to the public that are religious or political in nature must provide a balanced view and [meet] with the Board of Trustees' approval."

The Liberty Counsel said it applied to use library's community room at the end of May and again on June 6. The Liberty Counsel noted on the application that the meeting would present a biblical perspective on marriage and homosexuality and would include prayer and scripture reading.

But library officials responded that since the proposed meeting was religious, someone else must present an opposing view.

The policy is not just unconstitutional. On what possible grounds could this government agency insist upon requiring groups to sponsor speech with which they disagree?

Posted by: Greg at 09:59 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

As I've said, I like to watch international trends to determine what eventual tactics and demands we in the Unied States will encounter from those seeking to impose homosexual marriage on this country against the will of the American populace. This latest development from Canada shows that those who claim that religious believers will be left aone if they don't support the fundamental redefinition of the concept of marriage are very likely lying, biding their time until they are in a position to punish that opposition.

Homosexual activist Kevin Bourassa, co-sponsor of equalmarriage.ca, along with his “spouse,” Joe Varnell – whose Ontario court win paved the way for same-sex “marriage” for Canada – claimed Sunday that churches who vocally oppose the legalization of same-sex “marriage” for Canada should have their charitable status revoked, for participating in politics.

“We have no problem with the Catholic Church or any other faith group promoting bigotry,” Bourassa charged, as reported by the Ottawa Citizen. “We have a problem with the Canadian government funding that bigotry.”

more...

Posted by: Greg at 01:38 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 337 words, total size 2 kb.

Among the more despicable public figures in America today is Fred Phelps. Best known for picketing the funerals of homosexuals with crude and morally reprehensible signs, Phelps and the members of his cult-like congregation are now picketing the funerals of American military personnel killed in the line of duty.

A flier on the Web site of Pastor Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church claims God killed Cpl. Carrie French with an improvised explosive device in retaliation against the United States for a bombing at Phelps' church six years ago.

"We're coming," Phelps said Monday in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

Westboro Baptist either has protested or is planning protests of other public funerals of soldiers from Michigan, Alabama, Minnesota, Virginia and Colorado. A protest is planned for July 11 at Dover Air Force Base, the military base where war dead are transported before being sent on to their home states.

Why this funeral?

Phelps said the fact that French led an all-American life gives him all the more reason to picket her final public tribute.
"An all-American girl from a society of all-American heretics," he said.
"Our attitude toward what's happening with the war is the Lord is punishing this evil nation for abandoning all moral imperatives that are worth a dime," Phelps said.

Here’s hoping there are enough loyal American patriots – folks on both sides of the question of the War in Iraq – to make this hatemonger (who tarnishes the name of “Christian”) and his rag-tag disciples reconsider their plans, or beat a hasty retreat in the face of public outrage.

UPDATE: More from these fine bloggers:
Michelle Malkin
ninme
The Pink Flamingo Bar Grill
UrbanGrounds
the unequivocal notion
disinterested party
A voice crying out from the thickness
The Stupid Shall Be Punished
OldController
Our Way of Life
Darth Apathy

Posted by: Greg at 01:14 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 3 kb.

This neat story about the reaction of the Catholic faithful to the newly elected pontiff.

Two months into the papacy of Pope Benedict XVI, crowds are pouring into St. Peter's Square in near record numbers to see and hear him.

"The pope is here!" a man shouted in Italian Wednesday morning. Cheers rose from 35,000 as Benedict appeared, standing in a white Jeep-like popemobile. It circled the square, moving slowly as the 78-year-old pope, whose mane of white hair matched his vestments, waved to the faithful.

more...

Posted by: Greg at 01:56 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 475 words, total size 3 kb.

This little attrocity from India, where they define charitible activity by Christian missionaries as coercion.

ANGRY Hindu youths have beaten three American missionaries, and tried to kidnap one, as they held a bible studies class in Mumbai.

About 30 or 40 men attacked the missionaries, part of a group of eight, on Saturday night because they thought the Americans were trying to convert Hindus in the Indian financial capital, police said.

The three were treated for bruises and cuts at a hospital but were not seriously injured.

"While this kind of attack is rare in Bombay, the police must take serious action against those responsible and send a clear message that religious intolerance will not be accepted in India," Mumbai Catholic Sabha president Dolphy D'Souza said.

Christians are often accused of "forcibly" converting poor and uneducated low-caste Hindus by bribing them with money and gifts.

Missionaries deny the charge.

I guess those Hindus are scared to death that some more of their untouchables will convert to Christianity and escape the barbaric caste system that still holds sway in India, despite legal attempts to end it.

Posted by: Greg at 01:48 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

We know, of course, that homosexual marriage advocates would NEVER attempt to force religious groups or individuals to violate their firmly held beliefs against homosexual marriage. So then why does the proposed law permitting homosexual marriage not protect such groups, and why are there already legal actions against religious groups that do not choose to participate in them.

Liberals will tweak their contentious same-sex marriage bill but can't guarantee ironclad religious protections, admits Justice Minister Irwin Cotler.

Churches won't be forced to perform gay weddings, he says.

But it's beyond his legal reach to protect provincial marriage commissioners or religious organizations who turn away same-sex couples, he conceded yesterday.

"That's right," Cotler said, when asked if his hands are tied by jurisdictional limits.

Ottawa has the authority to define marriage but provinces have the power to solemnize weddings.

A range of conflicts has already emerged.

Human rights challenges are underway in cases where religious groups refused to rent halls for gay celebrations.

And given the things that such legislation will apparantly allow to be foisted upon unwilling religious believers, what makes anyone think it will be long before protection for churches themselves is jettisoned?

Posted by: Greg at 05:42 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.

An earthly loss for the persecuted Church in China -- but they gain one more saint before the throne of God to intercede on their behalf.

Bishop John Wang Xixian, who was arrested for being a Christian and who lived 21 years in a forced labor camp, has died. He was 79.
Bishop Wang of Hohhot, in the Inner Mongolia region, ended his two-year struggle with bone cancer last week, according to the Fides news service.

Father Wang had been a priest only four years when he was arrested in 1957 for the faith.

After 21 years of forced labor, he was released, and in 1980 he returned to his life as a priest. He was ordained a bishop in 1997.

When near the end he was told that Benedict XVI had been informed of his illness and assured him of his prayers, Bishop Wang murmured: "I am unworthy of such consideration."

Bishop Wang's funeral was held May 31 at Sacred Heart Cathedral in Hohhot.

The Diocese of Hohhot has 50,000 Catholics. It has 50 priests, about 100 women religious and 40 seminarians.

May the day soon arrive when the oppressed believers of China see the dawn of a new day of freedom. And may all of us remember the heroic sacrifices of believers like Bishop Wang, and be inspired to work toward the coming of that day.

Posted by: Greg at 05:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 1 kb.

It is black letter law in Washington state -- schools are available for rent outside of school hours. It is also black letter law that school districts cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination in renting out such facilities -- especially not on the basis of the religious teachings of an organization.

So why is the Lake Washington Education Association demanding that one particular church be denied its rights under the US Constitution and Washington state law?
more...

Posted by: Greg at 01:49 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 651 words, total size 4 kb.

If a Muslim suffers even the most incidental slight, we have cries about hate crimes. If someone fails to show sufficient deference to the Koran, there are riots in the streets of the Muslim world.

On the other hand, if Muslims murder Christians for being Christians, it hardly qualifies as news.

A Baptist lay pastor has been beheaded in Bangladesh, the second Christian leader to lose his life in that country in a year, a Christian news organization has reported.

Posted by: Greg at 01:17 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 377 words, total size 3 kb.

If a Muslim suffers even the most incidental slight, we have cries about hate crimes. If someone fails to show sufficient deference to the Koran, there are riots in the streets of the Muslim world.

On the other hand, if Muslims murder Christians for being Christians, it hardly qualifies as news.

A Baptist lay pastor has been beheaded in Bangladesh, the second Christian leader to lose his life in that country in a year, a Christian news organization has reported.

Posted by: Greg at 01:17 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 3 kb.

We keep hearing from advocates of homosexual marriage that no church will ever be required to perform such ceremonies if they run contrary to church teachings. Supporters of overturning millenia of Western Culture on the matter of marriage insist that they only want to have their relationships recognized by the state and obtain benefits.

I think, though, that recent events in France tell us otherwise.

About two dozen protestors scuffled with priests and security guards at Notre Dame Cathedral Sunday. As stunned worshipers looked on the protestors marched down the aisle to the alter where one, dressed like a priest, performed a mock marriage ceremony for a lesbian couple.

As priests and security guards tried to hustle group out of the nave, one priest was knocked to the ground. The demonstrators chanted "Pope Benedict XVI, homophobe, AIDS accomplice."

Monsignor Patrick Jacquin, who received a minor injury, called the protest an outrage.

Most of the protestors were from the group Act Up Paris. A spokesperson for the group said the demonstration was timed to coincide with the first year anniversary of France's first same-sex marriage.

Interrupting worship services. Profaning the sacrament and the sanctuary in the Cathedral. Assaulting the priest.

The demand for acceptance will not stop with the passage of laws recognizing homosexual marriage. The next demand will be for a law requiring that religious organizations perform such marriages -- no doubt on pain of refusing to recognize any marriages performed if the teachings of the church are not jettisoned.

The line has been drawn.

Posted by: Greg at 04:45 PM | Comments (45) | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

1 C'mon. It was done in the name of mockery. The Act-Up organization is famous for shock value -- it was in response to the years of abuses, homophobic messages spewed by its Church on gays.

Hey, payback is bitch, is it?

Cry me a river, please. You're sinking. Your religion is slowly disintegrating and guess what? Jesus will never come by -- after all, he's DEAD.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Mon Jun 6 21:33:04 2005 (ODDFf)

2 Sorry -R, but you're WAY off base here.

Churches are private property. What you have here is Criminal Trespass and Battery. These people need to be jailed.

I can *say* whatever I like. That never gives anyone a right to come on to my property and harass me.

Rephrased - if someone tried to invade say...my home...in such a manner...they would be shot...repeatedly.

Who do they think they are? Someone hurts their feelings so they get to knock people down, push their way into a sacred ceremony, and interrupt what they were doing?

Also - WHAT abuses? Do you mean condemning the behavior? THAT is not abuse. THAT is an opinion. Further, the Church is not homophobic. I cannot STAND that term. They believe (wrongly I think) that homosexuality is a sin. That does not mean they somehow fear it - it means they believe it to be a sin. Don't read more into it than that.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Tue Jun 7 00:35:22 2005 (r/FBF)

3 I wonder -- how many dead activists would there have been if they had tried this at a mosque? Would it be an international cause celebre, with demands for harsh punishment of those who desecrated a Muslim house of worship and failed to show proper respect to Islam?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jun 7 03:51:10 2005 (4nXaP)

4 Sub, that is YOUR opinion. Let me emphasize this again -- ACT UP is the radical organization founded during the Reagan Years in response to use the shock tactics to force the government/churches to look at their lack of efforts in finding solutions in early 80s.

Today, the ACT UP remains to be the most radical organization of gay spectrum. Their actions, sometimes, are not something that I approved but am I ever surprised with their antics when they crashed through the Cathedral and make the situation a mockery of their faith? NO, NOT AT ALL! In fact, I EXPECTED IT ALL.

Churches, you may argue that it is private, are not probably private in France.

You can *say* whatever you like. Absolutely. You remind me of a videotape I saw where the gay neighbor installed the secret videotape to videotape the harassments they received at the hands of their straight neighbor. AS the gay man was tending the front yard, he was harassed by the straight man with throwing beer cans, objects and at times, the straight man ran across the property and socked the guy down then fled back. They called the cops. Nothing was being done because there was lack of evidence. Even with the guy providing the tape, they said that it is not enough. One word: bullshit. Like you said, if someone do that to me on my property, I'll shoot them but guess what? I'll still go to the jail.

What abuses? Pedophilia. Its repeated arrogance of telling people that being gay is wrong and less than 2nd class citizen (it encouraged people the option to attack gay people as whole). You argued that it is an opinion. But the nutty Church try to make it an authority on their opinion for others to follow. The Church is homophobic, period. The Church will dissipate if people continue to learn the truth that they are nothign but a tool to control the mass of the people.

When I heard that the ACT UP organizers crashed through the Cathedral, I laughed. It is so typical of them. I'm so used to it. You should be.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Tue Jun 7 03:55:37 2005 (ODDFf)

5 Absolutely not. Book 'em. Charge 'em with felony counts. Attempted murder. Assault. Let them enjoy prison time.

A church is a sanctuary. And I WILL drag them out if that happened in my church. A church is private property but open to those who seek refuge and learning, but not desecration.

Of course, RWR, "R" won't answer the mosque question. He must think everything in a Christian concept.

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 7 04:13:15 2005 (zudZk)

6 I think the key here is, as Ridor mentioned, Act Up is a radicial organization. If you are going to say that Act Up represents all people who think gay people are human, then I fully expect you to say that all Christians are just like Fred Phelps. Well??


Secondly, what do this event have to do with same-sex marriage. Nobody involved as trying to force a church to conduct a same-sex wedding ceremony. This particular radical group used a mock same-sex wedding as a form of protest, but nobody even once claimed that the church should be required to perform any marriage ceremony, especially since even Civil Marriage isn't an option for French same-sex couples.

Finally, I don't know where you live, but here in American, France doesn't make our policy decisions for us.

Posted by: dolphin at Tue Jun 7 04:15:00 2005 (fgsGh)

7 You must have been commenting the same time I was mcconnel. Attempt murder? for walking into a church? Assault is a potential charge since a priest was knocked down in the struggle, but attempted murder??

Geezz now THAT'S a precentdent I wouldn't want to see set.

Posted by: dolphin at Tue Jun 7 04:17:27 2005 (fgsGh)

8 RWR wrote: "I wonder -- how many dead activists would there have been if they had tried this at a mosque?"

Absolutely none. Because they are all dead. Think about it. ;-)

Basically, I'm all for the desceration of holy places -- including the mosques AND Christian churches. It is my personal belief that these are just a building that people tried to make it "sacred".

But again, ACT UP is the radical organization that does not reflect all gays as whole. I enjoy their antics because it is hilarious. It poked fun and mocked at the system that does not work at all.

Telling Africans not to wear condoms is sending them to death -- and that is abuse, subjugator, by withholding the information that could save lives -- for a change, I ain't talk to you, mcconnell.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Tue Jun 7 04:55:54 2005 (ODDFf)

9 We weren't there. And we don't know if they planned (or expected) to see some hurtin' while protesting. Murder (or manslaughter) is a potential given the volatility of that group's action, whether intentional or unintentional. But I agree with you dolphin, murder may be a bit too far, however, only time will tell when you have extremist groups who get nuttier every year who infringes and trespasses other people's property.

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 7 04:59:51 2005 (zudZk)

10 Ever hear of this group, Protest Warrior? http://www.protestwarrior.com

They respect people's property. Debate with a cool head. They protest in their assigned spots. No resorting to violence. Avoid violence at all costs. And use clever signs to make a point. However, even then Liberals attack them with violence. How ironic.


You don't have to "talk" to me "R". But you just did. Keep quiet on that part for a change. Keep your word. Keep it to an absolute bare minimum. Agree? Shhhhh...

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 7 05:13:36 2005 (zudZk)

11 McConnell: Member of ProtestWarrior, own a lot of shirts and a bumper sticker, as well as their (new) DVD.

Dolphin: A person that shoves their way into my house, knocking me aside, is an intruder...an invader...into my home. A person who decides to break in to my home had better expect a swift and sure response. As far as what this has to do with same-sex marriage; the participants in this invasion/protest made it fairly clear that at least part of their protest is due to the Catholic church refusing to allow same sex marriage within the scope of the religion.

-R - The sex scandals are just that...scandalous and evil. Their response to it has been FAR less than it should be. I totally agree. Now let's talk about abuses against GAYS.

Their abuses against gays are...none? Telling people not to use condoms is not an abuse. It's a tenet of their religion. Telling people that being gay is wrong is also a tenet of their religion. Jews tell people that eating pork is a sin - I am not hurt by this, despite the fact that I consume large quantities thereof. Muslims tell people that consumption of alcohol is a sin, and I am not hurt by that either (though I only drink very rarely).

So - why are you for the descration of something that someone else finds to be sacred? Why do you CARE that someone else finds it to be sacred? They're not hurting you by thinking that a statue, building, tree, salt stain on a wall, or smoking brazier is sacred...what's your problem where you want to make them feel bad over it?

As for me saying whatever I like, so long as I am not being incredibly loud, and am not violating the rights of another (i.e. I'm not throwing things at them like the cretin in your example), I can say whatever I wish. I do not dislike or have a problem with homosexuals myself - I don't even think it's sinful. That said; I firmly believe in someone's *RIGHT* to believe as they wish and respond appropriately within the scope of their religion (so long as it does not violate a person's rights in so doing - i.e. you can teach that something is wrong, but cannot hurt them or otherwise violate them).

It sounds to me as if you believe that the right to exist includes the right to make others appreciate your beliefs, views, and desires. Many people dislike me and don't follow my viewpoints. That does not give me ANY right or excuse to invade their property, shove them aside, and do as I wish on their property.

You have the right to exist as a human being. You have the right to peaceful enjoyment of your home...to a certain degree (you can't tell your neighbor to stop growing a certain kind of flower or something like that because it interferes with your enjoyment (unless it's in your CC&Rs or is illegal).
You have the right to coexist in some way with the partner(s) of your choice.

You do not have the right to marry in the church of your choice unless they are willing to do so.
You do not have the right to have everyone like you and what your choices or desires are.
You do not have the right to tell others what the tenets of their religion are.
You do not have the right to go onto other people's property to protest their belief system.
You do not have the right to damage the property of others because you do not agree with their beliefs.

You're all for the desecration of people's sacred objects or sites?

I am all for the arrest of you or anyone else who does so with any property that is not your own.

Again, in the event that another invades MY property, they can expect to be shot. Thankfully, in Indiana, if someone breaks into your house (or is even TRYING to break into your house), the presumption is that they intend you or your family harm, and you can shoot on sight. I do not suffer people who break into my home or otherwise threaten my family gladly, and will do whatever is necessary to protect them in the event that such is necessary.

Note that such does NOT include a detailed query as to the intent of the person who threatens my family.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Tue Jun 7 06:39:52 2005 (lkCzp)

12 Dolphin: A person that shoves their way into my house, knocking me aside, is an intruder...an invader...into my home. A person who decides to break in to my home had better expect a swift and sure response.

Ok, not sure what that has to do with anything at all, but thanks for sharing.

As far as what this has to do with same-sex marriage; the participants in this invasion/protest made it fairly clear that at least part of their protest is due to the Catholic church refusing to allow same sex marriage within the scope of the religion.

While I disagree with you assessment (and suspect that oyu're not familiar with the methods of Act Up), if that was the ENTIRE point of their protest I don't see how that is representative of government policy forcing churchs to marry couples they'd rather not marry, as RWR suggested. The Catholic Church doesn't marry divorcees, the government has never made them. It's merely scare tatics to suggest that this will be any different, a way of avoiding the issue at hand if you will.

That said; I firmly believe in someone's *RIGHT* to believe as they wish and respond appropriately within the scope of their religion (so long as it does not violate a person's rights in so doing - i.e. you can teach that something is wrong, but cannot hurt them or otherwise violate them).

I agree wholeheartedly with you on this one. My view on same-sex marriage is, believe it's wrong if you want but don't try to hurt me by denying me legal rights.

Posted by: dolphin at Tue Jun 7 07:34:22 2005 (fgsGh)

13 Sub,

Yes, PW sells mechandise. It's called "free enterprise." Anything wrong with that? Perhaps the extra $$ for future protests and help cover expenses such as paying for their website. What of it?

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 7 07:44:30 2005 (LmcbS)

14 Subjugator, you are overreacting.

It is interesting to note that some considered gay to be an active form of evil. And when the sex scandals within the Church is considered to be "evil" -- it is OK as long as the Church gets to delegate what's wrong and right so that they can say, "It was not my fault. It was the Devil's acts!" Hogwash. The Church is responsible for its behavior, whether if it is evil or not.

They preached for years that gay sex is abhorrent. The Mormon Church encourage the electric shock to turn the gays into straight guys. There are horror stories that the Church went as far as to do things.

Look at Fred Phelps! Focus on the Family! Exodus International! These are typical of Christian's behaviors. Look at Michael Sacavarage (sp?), he used his "tenet of his religion" to bash on gays at the gay pride festivals. That is abuse. To attack people of their choices, trying to scare them with hocus pocus is a form of abuse! It is like telling an abused wife that if she tells the cop, she'll be dead.

It is my belief that not to share the necessary information about the protection, especially in Africa, is a form of abuse. This is to SAVE lives, not to worry about the tenet of one s religion!

Who cares about one's tenet of others?! The point is that there is a pandemic in Africa! Why worry about condoms? You do not believe in it, that is OK but to prevent others from getting it is not OK.

I'm all for the desceration of sacred stuff -- know why? To minimize the hocus pocus. People are obsessed over materialism. People needs to see that burning Vatican to the grounds will not halt the world from turning into the tomorrow. Nuke Jerusalem will not bring the armageddon. IN fact, everything will just roll on. People needs to see that there is more to life than religions. But that is my personal belief.

They do not hurt me but they do offend me when they attempt to decide things for me. For instance, I knew of a born-again Christian who came to me and my brother and told us that they can cure us of our deafness because they are born-again Christians. Whoopee! I politely declined and told them that we are fine being deaf. Guess what they did next? They put their hands on my heads and start to pray. What do I do? I shoved the bitch down and knocked her down. For a minute, she thought she was seeing the devil incarnate!

That is the whole point -- the religious groups claimed that they did nothing wrong but they go around and criticize others, telling them what ot do with their lives. IN the past, they destroyed faiths that rejected Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Ask Natives, ask Irish, ask Pagans, ask Canaanites!

Sometimes they need to feel bad for doing things like that.

Like you, I respect their beliefs, but for them to use the bullhorns trying to spread misinformation, that is crossing the line. So when the ACT UP did this, you could say payback is bitch.

It is not a good excuse but it happens all the time. I could use disability issue to point that I abhor hearing people. I could use religion issue to point that I can't stand religious nuts. I could use the politics to point out that I despise conservatives prick but guess what? They are still there, I already accepted that a long time ago -- but I do not have to respect nor listen to their craps.

I already wrote in my blog a long time ago that the Church reserved the right not to perform the same-sex marriage. I personally will not get caught dead setting my foot in the church property.

Just few days ago, Pope Benedict spoke against the gay marriages and urged the governments to stop it -- this man is trying to make us 2nc class citizen. He is willing to use his religion to pressure governments to succumb to his will. The whole point is that many gays need the marriage license, not to marry, but to get the benefits, protections and rights. We do not care about the weddings that you see on reality-based TV shows!

Who wants to visit Indiana? Certainly not me.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Tue Jun 7 07:45:46 2005 (ODDFf)

15 Finally, I don't know where you live, but here in American, France doesn't make our policy decisions for us.

Tell that to the Supreme Court who has had the inclination to use foreign legal precedent as foundation for some of their opinions!

Posted by: Hube at Tue Jun 7 07:50:59 2005 (hLmHh)

16 I guess people are for the desecration of gay marriage, too. But I don't like the Mormon church or any overly religious zealots. If they want to pray for you, they can. Just do it privately.

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 7 08:44:37 2005 (LmcbS)

17 Umm...McConnell?

*I* am a member of PW. *I* own shirts. *I* bought the DVD.

Heck, I'm wearing a PW shirt right now (the one that shows the signing of the Declaration of Independence and says 'Right Wing Extremists' on it).

Furthermore, I'm a capitalist. I love it when people make money from my purchases...that means they're more likely to be there the next time I need something.

I was talking about what a great site it is, not complaining.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Tue Jun 7 08:51:36 2005 (lkCzp)

18 Sub,

Ah. Duly noted now that you've explained.

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 7 09:11:02 2005 (LmcbS)

19 Hehe.. I just saw a site talking about PW. He got kicked out, because he offered a suggestion that they hold a rally at a military recruiting center and those of appropriate age all join up. He posted the suggestion on his site, it was incredibly polite and actually I thought a good idea.

Posted by: dolphin at Tue Jun 7 09:19:21 2005 (fgsGh)

20 Dolphin: Sorry, I completely misread something you'd said earlier. When you said, 'Attempt murder...for walking into a church?' I thought you were saying that in answer to my statement about someone going into my house. Ignore that and muy apologista.

Re: the ACT UP protest - I'm not entirely familiar with them. I mean, I've heard about some of the stuff they've done from friends of mine who are gay (I don't remember anything specific though), I don't follow their actions.

You and I are dead on in agreement with religion and how it relates to marriage. My position on marriage is that it's none of the government's business and it's between the people and their religious personage(s).

-R: The pedophile priests are practicing as much evil as you say. I know all too well how much havok a pedophile can wreak on the life of a child, and am dealing with the fallout of that right now. Further, the response of the church has been weak at *BEST*. A lot of people have a lot to answer for that. Unfortunately, we agree all too much on how much evil has been spread there.

Also, please make NO mistake...
I do NOT think homosexuality is evil or a sin.
I do NOT think that homosexuality means one is a pedophile (as some mind blowingly stupid people do).
I do NOT think homosexuality is the result of mental illness (once again, as some mind blowingly stupid people do); though I do think that depression can quite naturally result from people being jerks to homosexuals.

The only reason I'd ever be concerned about one of my children being a homosexual is that, as above, people can be jerks to them and that can make life harder.

That associate of yours that tried to heal you against your will was rude and intrusive. I do not support that sort of behavior; that's called 'battery' and when done in a religious context has the same smell as rape to me (though not nearly as strong).

Here's one to throw a few of you through a loop, but I believe in the allownace of plural marriages and find it to be astonishing that it's illegal. I also find it to be astonishing that some people have gone so far as to make same sex marriage specifically illegal. I mean, what do they care about who marries who? THEY don't have to be in the marriage, so they have no reason to care.

The one objection I have to *any* sexual relationship is when people are overt with public displays of affection. I don't mean hand holding or a quick peck, but deep kissing and public touching of private areas. Keep that to private or secluded places please. I don't want my kids to have to either re-live bad memories or have to explain anything to them. They've experienced enough thank you, and now that they're mine (and not the monsters who abused and allowed the abuse), I'm keeping them nice and sheltered until they're older.

That also means that sex education is under MY purview. I don't want them being introduced to anything that's going to throw them for a loop without my wife or me being the one to introduce it to them. Stuff they see on a day-to-day basis won't make them wonder, but stuff they see rarely *will* make them wonder. In other words, I don't care if they see two guys or gals holding hands or giving each other pecks, but I don't want their teachers reading to them about Rainbow Parties (they do not refer to homosexuality, but to group oral sex), same sex households, or other advanced subjects on sexuality without my express consent.

Sorry...got off on a tangent there.

Sub

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Tue Jun 7 09:30:58 2005 (lkCzp)

21 Maybe you should turn over your children to my mother who bluntly cut to the chase when I was a kid, she said in ASL: "RT (that's my sign name)! MUST TELL YOU IMPORTANT. YOU NOW TEENAGER. YOU KNOW ALL BOYS HAVE PENISES! ALL GIRLS HAVE VAGINAS! IF YOU PUT IN GIRLS' VAGINAS, CAN GET PREGNANT. YOU CANT DO THAT OR I WILL DISOWN YOU! YOU UNDERSTAND ME??"

That was a blunt and straightforward education but I already knew I liked boys when I was 12. But I do not forget what she said. It cuts to the chase then on my own time, I ask about things related to sex.

Subjugator, I hate to say that but I suspect we are much alike in many ways. I think overtly making out in public can be kept somewhere in the dark. But not in the public eye. But I think it's ok for a guy to hold another guy in the public. I feel that the plural marriages are fine as long as women wanted it as well. I mean, these ones in Utah is not good reflective of plural marriage because they forced the teenagers to pull out of school and wed. It has to be done of their free will. In fact, I knew of gay tri-relationship in Tacoma, Washington -- they are happier. Even worse, one of the partners' mother lived in a senior citizen's group home and she bragged that her son has two partners!

Live and let live, that is the motto -- the religious groups seemed to interfere people's lives at its best when people chose to decide for themselves.

Regarding the ACT UP, I believe the famous act that the ACT UP did to the Catholic Church in New York was throwing red paint on St. Patrick's Cathedral Church in New York which stunned the public at large. Its actions are absurd but at that time, very effective. But today, the ACT UP has become somewhat ineffective.

R-
R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Tue Jun 7 10:42:12 2005 (ODDFf)

22 I guess I am showing my age, folks, but I am old enough to remember when "homosexual rights" meant "stop vice raids on gay bars and bathhouses, and let us in the military." That was only 30 or so years ago.

Later it became "employment non-discrimination".

Then it became "domestic partner & hate crimes legislation".

Then it became "civil unions."

Then it became "marriage."

Next step? Require churches perform homosexual marriage or the government stops recognizing marriages performed by churches that won't -- or declare it a "human rights" issue that overrides religious freedom, which used to be considered a human right.

At least that is what I see, just from watching the trends -- from places like Canada, France, Sweden, and other countries.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jun 7 11:11:59 2005 (oNb3q)

23 RWR, just watch. The ACLU will probably be first to sue a church for not performing a gay marriage. Or has it already happened? Next comes the govt where Liberals will be all too happy to see the violation of separation and church and state by enforcing church to perform gay marriages. I may not be too off here considering the pace.

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 7 11:26:09 2005 (LmcbS)

24 RWR, GOOD! ABout time the religions are put in the closet ... permanently.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Tue Jun 7 18:59:39 2005 (ODDFf)

25 In other words, Ridor, that annoying little First Amendment thing in that irrelevant little Constitution thing needs to be violated and ignored in the name of what you view as the greater good.

Glad that you finally admitted that you don't believe in American values.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jun 7 23:25:59 2005 (MWljv)

26 Sorry Ridor, but religion should not be in the closet. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that we have to stop doing it. In much the same way that you should not have to be in the closet being gay, religion should not be a closeted society either. There is no shame involved in either.

Rather than being non-religious, you seem to be anti-religious...actively opposing it. That sounds suspiciously like bigotry.

Side note: the ACT UP paint splash incident - I don't call that protest, I call that vandalism, and it's a crime. They'd have been thrown in jail were it up to me.

See, protest is when you stand outside somewhere and make your point known. It's not when you destroy someone else's property.

It would seem you and I tend to agree on the subject of marriage. So long as it's voluntary and between adults, it's none of my business.

RWR: I think the busting up of gay bars was wrong so long as none but adults are inside and what happens inside is not visible or audible to the people nearby.

The employment and marriage stuff I would leave to the indivudual religion or business. I've always thought that bigotry was part of the right of expression, even if cretinous.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Wed Jun 8 00:14:05 2005 (r/FBF)

27 RWR,

You're right and the march to equality continues. Here's where your slippery slope argument breaks down. All that you have listed have been about establishing equality. None (save perhaps employment non-discrimination, which you don't agree with but it's still a matter of equality since it exists for everyone else) have been about making YOU change at all. To jump from "Gay people want the government to grant them the same rights is grants other citizens" to "churchs will have to change their beliefs" is not only a HUGE leap of logic, but it defies historical precedent and I strongly suspect you don't believe it yourself. The thing is, gay people have gotten married in this country now and the sky hasn't fallen and nobody's heterosexual marriage has broken up over. If the neo-con right has any hope of taking marriage equality away from us they have to shift their fear-tatics from "protecting marriage" to the (equally erroneous) "protecting religion." That's what you're trying to do here I believe.

I have said it many times. I don't WANT to get married in a church that thinks of me as less than human.

Posted by: dolphin at Wed Jun 8 04:12:41 2005 (fgsGh)

28 RWR....ROFLMAO!! Hadn't a good knee slapper in longgg time.

Posted by: mcconnell at Wed Jun 8 04:58:10 2005 (zudZk)

29 Dolphin...

Just to be clear, I also think that employers should be able to refuse employment to anyone for any reason they like at any time. If they want to refuse to hire me because I'm bald and/or fat (I look a lot like Elmer Fudd), they can do so in my world. If they want to refuse to hire me because I have splotchy skin (I have vitiligo (sp?)), they can do so in my world.

This is not restricted to any particular group. I figure it's their money to spend as they wish and kinda falls in line with the legal saying that allows pre-emptory dismissals of jurors:

I do not like thee, Doctor Fell,
The reason why, I cannot tell;
But this I know, and know full well,
I do not like thee, Doctor Fell.

You can hire whomever you like, so long as you live up to the contract(s) you sign when so doing.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Wed Jun 8 07:14:11 2005 (lkCzp)

30 Sub,

That's fine, while I might disagree, I understand that view, my point was that employment non-discrimination is something that's offered to ALL citizens so offering it to gay people fits in with equal rights not <gopbuzzword> special rights </gopbuzzword>. While I would disagree with taking away employment non-discrimination polcies, the most important thing abotu them is that they are applied (or not) the same to everyone.

Posted by: dolphin at Wed Jun 8 09:15:15 2005 (fgsGh)

31 /agree

I completely agree with you there Dolphin. If you're going to have a law protecting a set of things (employment, dog walking, shopping, marriage, what have you), then protect it for all rational subsets or not at all.

One of the 'minority' (now a majority I guess) groups that I belong to is fat people. I screamed with rage when a fat woman sued GNC because they refused to (now get this) WIDEN THE AISLES so she could FIT DOWN THEM. She called that a 'reasonable accomidation.' I called it 'not disabled' and said she needs to put down the fried chicken. Mind you, if anyone's got an excuse to be fat, I do (bad thyroid, low blood sugar (*NOT* from being fat), bad knee (work injury), and bad ankles (old skating injuries), not to mention just being flat uncoordinated)...and I know I can lose weight if I put my mind to it.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Wed Jun 8 09:38:29 2005 (lkCzp)

32 I'll agree with you, Sub, about the bars and bathhouses. And I even agree with dolphin about the employment issue -- there should be equal laws there, though I disagree with employment discrimination laws that apply to any entity except government.

I even support equal rights for homosexuals regarding marriage -- they can marry any individual of the opposite sex they desire.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jun 8 12:50:27 2005 (jNFpp)

33 *grin*

OK - I admit, the surprise there made me laugh.

I can't agree with you on the last bit RWR, simply because I think the government should stay out of marriage. It's none of their business who I marry or how I marry them. Marriage is a function of religion - if gays can find a religion to marry them, so be it - it should not have any relevance whatsoever with the government.

Management of property should be through standardized contracts (or non-standard ones), as should medical decisions, custody, etc...for ALL people, hetero and homo alike.

I hate that the government legislates marriage. I know WHY they do it, but I don't have to like it.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Wed Jun 8 14:56:51 2005 (r/FBF)

34 I even support equal rights for homosexuals regarding marriage -- they can marry any individual of the opposite sex they desire.

I always find that to be an interesting view that anti-gay individuals bring up whenever they can't back their hatred. First I find it interesting because it's word for word exactly the argument that was used against interacial marraiges, it went like this then: There's no discrimination, a black person can marry any member of the same race, just like a white person can." It wasn't right then and it's not right now. But I suspect such hate-groups and their followers will continue to try the same old tired rhetoric.

Secondly, there is NOT equality. Any woman in this country can marry a man but I can't. Why, ONLY because I'm male. If gender is a legitimate reason to discriminate aginst American citizens, then can I assume you are in support of removing womens sufferage? Can I quote you on that?

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 9 04:41:58 2005 (fgsGh)

35 No, you may not, as that is not my opinion.

Nor am I anti-gay -- merely pro-marriage.

Marriage was, is, and always will be the union of one man and one woman. The racial restrictions illegitimately imposed were not fundamental to the nature of marriage, and were, in fact, contrary to the clear dictates of the Fourteenth Amendment. The same cannot be said of homosexual marriage, which requires a fundamental disruption and reconfiguration of the institution of marriage as generally understood for the last couple of millenia in Western Society.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 9 05:53:03 2005 (DTBYN)

36 You are ANTI-MARRIAGE. You may think gay people don't deserve human rights but to claim to be "pro-marriage" is an outright lie. Who is trying to stop marriages from happening? YOU! You are not doing anything to help any marriage. That's a FACT, with the exception of Rick Santorum (and probabyl a few others) even the strongest opponents of marriage equality acknowlege that straight marriages can't be hurt by gay marriages.

Let's be CRYSTAL clear, the only people trying to ban any marriages at all is YOUR SIDE, PERIOD. Believe what you want but DO NOT delude yourself into thinking that seekign to ban marriage is anything less than ANTI-marriage and ANTI-family.

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 9 06:46:11 2005 (fgsGh)

37 I even support equal rights for homosexuals regarding marriage -- they can marry any individual of the opposite sex they desire.

By your definition, I'll lie to the woman that I'm not gay, I will cheat on her by fucking guys in bathhouses and adult bookstores ... as long as I am able to juggle both worlds in secrecy.

Such a fabulous idea! Not.

Your argument is so retarded.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Thu Jun 9 13:41:44 2005 (ODDFf)

38 Who said anything about lying.

If you decided to marry, I would hope you would be as up front about it as you are about your deafness.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 9 15:33:36 2005 (wfdL5)

39 Then your entire argument falls apart RWR.

It wasn't a very good argument to begin with but nobody is going to marry somebody they already know doesn't love them romantically. So now your back to denying marraige rigths just because a person is gay.

This is just one issue that is so plainly black and white that I can't bring myself to understand why there's even been a debate. Eitehr gay people deserve the saem rights as others or we don't. I'd like to think that in America there wouldn't be a question, but that's the America of ideals and until the far right has been knocked from power we will continue to see an America that looks quite different from anythign that could be refered to as the land of the free.

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 9 17:14:52 2005 (MIt/1)

40 So by your definition, America has never been the land of the free, and has always been ruled by hateful anti-gay right-wingers. After all, homosexual marriage has NEVER been permitted in the US, except under the rulings of a couple of rogue judges. And the American people have never supported homosexual marriage, as witnessed by the fact that EVERY TIME THEY VOTE they reject it.

You are absolutely hysterical.

Oh, and by the way, dolphin, the fact is that the issue is black and white -- marriage is between members of the opposite sex, not the same sex. That is why I cannot believe that we, as a society, are even having the debate.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 9 17:56:16 2005 (WrPVI)

41 RWR,

I repeat again, what is it that has given you such a vile and intense hatred for gay people. Were you wronged by a gay person. If so might I suggest you speak to a counselor. Perhaps you can learn to direct your anger at that one person, express it and move on, this hatred is actually bad for your health.

Posted by: dolphin at Fri Jun 10 04:05:06 2005 (fgsGh)

42 Excuse me, dolphin, but your dime-store psychoanalysis is quite off base.

I don't hate homosexuals.

I believe homosexual activity is sinful and immoral.

Big difference.

So why don't you go take a class in speech or logic and learn how to make an argument without ultimately returning to a baseless ad hominem attack on your opponent.

Posted by: at Fri Jun 10 04:54:13 2005 (LGV5B)

43 I'm assuming the above comment was made by RWR?

Posted by: mcconnell at Fri Jun 10 08:04:32 2005 (LmcbS)

44 Dolphin: While I don't believe homosexuality is a sin and immoral, I also don't equate believing so to being a hater of homosexuals.

Typically...or I should maybe say ideally, a person who believes another is engaged in sinful behavior will want to try and help the other and not hate them for it. Generally speaking I wish to help people that I see who are sinning...sometimes I also feel pity.

That said; even if I though homosexuality was a sin, I don't view it as any more of a sin than my pride, or my overeating, or, or, or...you get the idea. I'm a sinner as much as you or anyone else. It's a binary situation - either you are a sinner or you are not. I'd like to help other sinners...but frequently don't because it'll be intrusive and won't help at all.

Anyway - I'm a sinner, you're a sinner...we're all sinners.

...but God loves us all anyway. That's (part) of why He is so much better than us. He sees the beauty in everyone. My blind eyes see the beauty in but a few.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Fri Jun 10 09:00:47 2005 (lkCzp)

45 Well, Dolphin's not going to answer. Doesn't see intellectual diversity (honesty) for what they are.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Jun 11 05:34:01 2005 (zudZk)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

If this were done to the Koran, people would die. But since it is only the Bible, some will click their tongues and liberals will call it another blow against "right-wing Christian theocrats."

A publisher is touting a new edition of the Gospels that identifies Christ as a woman named Judith Christ of Nazareth.

LBI Institute says its version, Judith Christ of Nazareth, The Gospels of the Bible, Corrected to Reflect that Christ Was a Woman, Extracted from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, takes Thomas Jefferson's edited Gospel one step futher by "correcting" the gender of Christ and God.

"This long-awaited revised text of the Gospels makes the moral message of Christ more accessible to many, and more illuminating to all," says Billie Shakespeare, vice president for the publisher, in a statement. "It is empowering. We published this new Bible to acknowledge the rise of women in society."

And lest you think this is a joke, you can get confirmation here.

Posted by: Greg at 04:46 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 167 words, total size 1 kb.