[QUOTE=Easyrider;457503]June is Gay Pride Month, which immediately begs two questions: 1. Says who? 2. How is it that we have become a nation of such compliant sheep that we accept this rubbish?[QUOTE]

Can't answer your first question but as for your second question...

We've been a nation of compliant sheep pretty much since the beginning when we as a people accepted the real rubbish which we call religion. Blindly following an invisible man in the sky because your book of fairy tales or your local deluded preacher told you to is the ultimate definition of a compliant sheep.

[QUOTE=Xcaliber;457513]

Originally Posted by Easyrider

We've been a nation of compliant sheep pretty much since the beginning when we as a people accepted the real rubbish which we call religion. Blindly following an invisible man in the sky because your book of fairy tales or your local deluded preacher told you to is the ultimate definition of a compliant sheep.

When you can bust the resurrection of Christ then your fairy tale accusations might start taking on some merit. Until then it's just more hot air from the loony-tune, far left peanut gallery.

[QUOTE=Easyrider;457526]

Originally Posted by Xcaliber

When you can bust the resurrection of Christ then your fairy tale accusations might start taking on some merit. Until then it's just more hot air from the loony-tune, far left peanut gallery.

It's already been busted by not having any empirical evidence of it ever taking place . I don't have the burden of proof... You do. You make the claim of the resurrection, it's up to you to prove it. And you have to Prove it without using the only source of the fairy tale...

Originally Posted by Xcaliber

It's already been busted....

Horse manure.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

June is Gay Pride Month, which immediately begs two questions: 1. Says who? 2. How is it that we have become a nation of such compliant sheep that we accept this rubbish?

The Viacom corporation, on the other hand, thinks it's the perfect opportunity for its MTV and gay Logo channels to announce they're creating a second "It Gets Better," anti-bullying special starring their favorite gay bully, Dan Savage.

Savage is "more mainstream than ever before," oozed a recent profile in the Chicago Tribune. In their article, we discover it is now "more mainstream" for Savage to proclaim that the nation's most devout religious leaders are cheerleaders for teen suicides. "Every dead gay kid is a moral, rhetorical victory for them. They stand on a pile of dead gay kids."

This man (Savage) not only hates Christians, he despises Christianity itself.

Earth to Viacom: You are ridiculous when you announce anti-bullying specials hosted by pathetic bullies like Dan Savage. It makes about as much sense as a special promoting vegetarianism hosted by Ronald McDonald.

Pathetic Dan Savage | CNSNews.com

He despises, as I do, any group that tries to force its beliefs on others through the law. You and this post are a perfect example of my point. You would be so happy to have us live under your christianist Taliban rule and have us subjected to christian sharia law.

Originally Posted by Matthew S

He despises, as I do, any group that tries to force its beliefs on others through the law. You and this post are a perfect example of my point. You would be so happy to have us live under your christianist Taliban rule and have us subjected to christian sharia law.

You mean like the homosexual lobby?

Originally Posted by Matthew S

He despises, as I do, any group that tries to force its beliefs on others through the law. You and this post are a perfect example of my point. You would be so happy to have us live under your christianist Taliban rule and have us subjected to christian sharia law.

"Force our beliefs"?

Did we kick down some people's doors or something?

You're quite deranged, you know. If I as a Christian, with other folks like me, decide to vote to outlaw gay marriage, and we prevail, then that's Constitutional. And if we have enough votes we can even legally do an amendment to the Constitution declaring gay sex illegal in America. That would be constitutional also.

The Taliban doesn't like people voting and will instill their beliefs by force, not be ballot.

And that's where your thinking is deranged.

And Dan Savage is a hypocrite and is also deranged. That would be chapter 1 of Romans for the Sodomites to review.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

"Force our beliefs"?

Did we kick down some people's doors or something?

You're quite deranged, you know. If I as a Christian, with other folks like me, decide to vote to outlaw gay marriage, and we prevail, then that's Constitutional. And if we have enough votes we can even legally do an amendment to the Constitution declaring gay sex illegal in America. That would be constitutional also.

That is why the constitution is insufficient. Force advocated by the majority is still force. It is appropriate to use force, but only against those who initiated it. Those who violated rights first.

While the difference between the majority voting something is immoral and then using force against it, and the majority merely voting to use force against it may not practically exist within the confines of modern government systems; there is a great theoretical difference. There is no good reason why the range of proper law cannot be defined free for all time from popular vote. Then people would have to break the law in order to enact injustice.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

The Taliban doesn't like people voting and will instill their beliefs by force, not be ballot.

The ballot is force if the decision you are voting on applies to the minority voters.

Originally Posted by Freedom

That is why the constitution is insufficient. Force advocated by the majority is still force. It is appropriate to use force, but only against those who initiated it. Those who violated rights first.

While the difference between the majority voting something is immoral and then using force against it, and the majority merely voting to use force against it may not practically exist within the confines of modern government systems; there is a great theoretical difference. There is no good reason why the range of proper law cannot be defined free for all time from popular vote. Then people would have to break the law in order to enact injustice.

The ballot is force if the decision you are voting on applies to the minority voters.

Like outlawing pedophilia? They're minority voters.

In such cases as that and curbing the onslaught of ungodly sodomy, then the force of the ballot box is a good thing. If the sodomites don't like it they can pack up their gerbils and move elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Freedom

That is why the constitution is insufficient. Force advocated by the majority is still force. It is appropriate to use force, but only against those who initiated it. Those who violated rights first.

While the difference between the majority voting something is immoral and then using force against it, and the majority merely voting to use force against it may not practically exist within the confines of modern government systems; there is a great theoretical difference. There is no good reason why the range of proper law cannot be defined free for all time from popular vote. Then people would have to break the law in order to enact injustice.


The ballot is force if the decision you are voting on applies to the minority voters.

Indeed, but this entire debate is about semantics. Christians don't care if gays are gay, they only care when gays call themselves married. In this case; some English/history expert needs to determine what the word marriage actually means. Regardless, some contract law reform could create generic contracts by which gays (Or anyone) could have an identical legal arrangement to actual matrimony.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

"Force our beliefs"?

Did we kick down some people's doors or something?

You're quite deranged, you know. If I as a Christian, with other folks like me, decide to vote to outlaw gay marriage, and we prevail, then that's Constitutional. And if we have enough votes we can even legally do an amendment to the Constitution declaring gay sex illegal in America. That would be constitutional also.

The Taliban doesn't like people voting and will instill their beliefs by force, not be ballot.

And that's where your thinking is deranged.

And Dan Savage is a hypocrite and is also deranged. That would be chapter 1 of Romans for the Sodomites to review.

With the same institutions and the same voting we could use the same double edge sword of democracy against you and your Christianist Taliban. Be careful what you wish for, because one day you could find youself and your ilk in and extermination camp also. You are the American Taliban you just use the law to make us suffer. You argue to take my first amendment rights away and make your nutty, reviling religion the official religion of this country.

Originally Posted by Freedom

You mean like the homosexual lobby?

The difference is that we are fighting for equality and justice under the law for ourselves and our families. They are fighting to exclude us from their privilege, to destroy are families and to make everyone you included, live by their Christianist sharia law.

Originally Posted by Matthew S

The difference is that we are fighting for equality and justice under the law for ourselves and our families. They are fighting to exclude us from their privilege, to destroy are families and to make everyone you included, live by their Christianist sharia law.

When homosexuals on this forum stop demonising people like this..
US woman jailed for shooting sex tape with son - World News - IBNLive

and insist on a complete redefinition of ' marriage' then your BS about' Christianist sharia law' will only be contrived emotionally charged hyperbole , doing nothing but attempting to legalise one form of sexiant deviant marriage while demonising other equally deserving ones.
Homosexualist sharia law in fact

Originally Posted by gansao

When homosexuals on this forum stop demonising people like this..
US woman jailed for shooting sex tape with son - World News - IBNLive

and insist on a complete redefinition of ' marriage' then your BS about' Christianist sharia law' will only be contrived emotionally charged hyperbole , doing nothing but attempting to legalise one form of sexiant deviant marriage while demonising other equally deserving ones.
Homosexualist sharia law in fact

We are not trying to make them live by our standards. They can still be the religious fools and nazis all they want to be. All we are asking is equality for ourselves and our families. All they have to do is aknowledge that equality and react to us as they do other religions. You don't hear ez and his immoral Ilk calling for the criminalization of catholism or bhudsim.