'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage&#3

[Alta4ever]

'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban

'Burn their f---ing churches, then tax charred timbers'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: November 05, 2008

11:00 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Decisions by voters in Florida, Arizona and California to join residents of 27 other states with constitutional protections for traditional marriage have prompted threats of violence against Christians and their churches.

"Burn their f---ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers," wrote "World O Jeff" on the JoeMyGod blogspot today within hours of California officials declaring Proposition 8 had been approved by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent. Confirmation on voter approval of amendments in Florida and Arizona came earlier.

The amendments in all three states essentially limit marriage to one man and one woman. In California, the measure states the only marriages "valid and recognized" in the state are those between one man and one woman.

Thirty states now have adopted marriage amendments. However, in California, the vitriol appeared especially high since the state Supreme Court in May created same-sex marriage for homosexuals. Proposition 8 overruled the court decision, readopting the marriage definition California votersadopted in 2000.

full artical

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=...mp;pageId=80220

Its funny the left has problems doing as it preaches. They want you to be tolerant of them, but they do not want to be tolerant of society.

[eyeball]

Its funny the left has problems doing as it preaches. They want you to be tolerant of them, but they do not want to be tolerant of society.

No, its just you we can't tolerate.

"Burn their f---ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers,"

That's priceless.

[AngusThermopyle]

So what happens to gay people in California? If they were married before this are all their marital rights to be oveturned and the marriage not recognized?

That would really suck for them.

[capricorn]

So what happens to gay people in California? If they were married before this are all their marital rights to be oveturned and the marriage not recognized?

That would really suck for them.

Except for those gay couples who thought they were legally married and who are in divorce court or contemplating divorce. Marriages deemed illegal would fall outside divorce legislation. That would really suck for the lawyers involved.

[guyser]

Its funny the left has problems doing as it preaches. They want you to be tolerant of them, but they do not want to be tolerant of society.

World Net Daily ? You lose the argument when they are your source.

But moving past that, you could have used the protests that have occurred and still tried to make your point. Not that I would agree, but at least some respectability would have been in play.

That said, gays are and should be mad. There is seperation of church and state in america. With the govt getting involved, upholding rights available to only one "union" they are in violation.The 14th amendment states that No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...".

The church community should never be forced to perform something that does not conform to their beliefs.They have religious freedom to preach what they want. Go ahead and do that. But to take that fight to the street is and was wrong. However, they should not be forced to marry gays.They should also be careful since many churches have public money coming in.

Before anyone posts about 'civil unions' as the answer , stop and think about this for a moment. For one to be married in many US states, the oldschool marriage that is, one need only to have a member of the opposite sex and a licence. Thats all one needs to do, and is hardly a lofty requirement for an institution that is founded on what people say it is.

But for a gay couple, they have to be in a stable healthy relationship and domiciled of between six months and 12 months. So the inequaty continues.

So it is apparent that the law is unequal.

The Supreme Court of cali already dealt with this and they approved it. So it has been overturned by the populace. It will be overturned and re-instated by the Supreme Court once again. Count on it.

And the reason that most ballot initiatives for pro gay rights were defeated is because more of the black and hispanic voters exercised their rights.Both of those groups are notoriously anti-gay. Sometimes the populace is wrong.

[Alta4ever]

Sometimes the populace is wrong.

So what.

The fact is these people are advocating hate, they want to burn down churches, kill and hurt people. How is that showing tolerance towards the majority of Americans who hold the opinions and views they hold. They should be able to tolerate the church is what it is.

America is not state the seperates religion and state. The country was form undered calvinists. The fact is this group made its plea to the people it was overturned. the majority has to be respected. Maybe in time they will be able to convince the majority otherwise, but those are the rules and they must tolerate as the rest of the citizens do. The hypocracy is there in the artical to be seen. Even though you may question the source those internet posts probably exist.

But please go on live in your little world, were the left is always right and they never do any wrong.

I am using this artical as an example of how the liberals act and the hypocracy of their movement, I could really care less about prop 8. So please no one hijack this thread I do not want it to be about whether or not gays should have the right to wed. Lets keep it on the topic of the liberal hypocracy.

Edited November 6, 2008 by Alta4ever

[Kitch]

Its funny the left has problems doing as it preaches. They want you to be tolerant of them, but they do not want to be tolerant of society.

Well, one (presumably) gay person makes a comment and you attribute this to the entire 'left'?

Besides, even if you could blame this group of people you label the 'left' (as though political ideology is as definite as nationality) for being intolerant... they're intolerant of society? If I marry my girlfriend, what impact does that have on society? (And we're not talking tax benefits here. The definition of marriage has been disputed). What happens to me when a gay couple gets married in my town? Is it all because you're going to be struck down by the 'lord' because some dude polishes another dude's pole? (And when I say you, I'm referring to those who care enough to tell people who can get married and who can't).

[Kitch]

The fact is these people are advocating hate,

Define "these people".

[Alta4ever]

Well, one (presumably) gay person makes a comment and you attribute this to the entire 'left'?

Besides, even if you could blame this group of people you label the 'left' (as though political ideology is as definite as nationality) for being intolerant... they're intolerant of society? If I marry my girlfriend, what impact does that have on society? (And we're not talking tax benefits here. The definition of marriage has been disputed). What happens to me when a gay couple gets married in my town? Is it all because you're going to be struck down by the 'lord' because some dude polishes another dude's pole? (And when I say you, I'm referring to those who care enough to tell people who can get married and who can't).

I asked poeple to keep this on topic why does this hypocracy exist, or why do you say it doesn't.

The thread isn't about who can or can't get married, its about the response of these people who are asking society to be tolerant of them, but they feel no need to be tolerant of society.

If you read the whole artical, their are many many posts of intolerance and hate of catholics and mormans.

[Alta4ever]

Define "these people".

The people that are used as examples in the artical.

[Kitch]

I am using this artical as an example of how the liberals act and the hypocracy of their movement, I could really care less about prop 8. So please no one hijack this thread I do not want it to be about whether or not gays should have the right to wed. Lets keep it on the topic of the liberal hypocracy.

You used a particular example to highlight some ill-considered opinion and you think discussing that example is going off topic?

Is it a 'conservative' trait to categorize so broadly? Especially when speaking of people or ideas you disagree with? Or is that limited to people who, more fairly, are just closed-minded?

[Kitch]

The people that are used as examples in the artical.

So how does that extend to the 'left'?

[Kitch]

I asked poeple to keep this on topic why does this hypocracy exist, or why do you say it doesn't.

The thread isn't about who can or can't get married, its about the response of these people who are asking society to be tolerant of them, but they feel no need to be tolerant of society.

If you read the whole artical, their are many many posts of intolerance and hate of catholics and mormans.

How do we stay on topic if the discussion is contingent on how we define the people who are intolerant (in your view) and the rest of society (as you define it)?

So gay = the entire 'left'?

[Alta4ever]

How do we stay on topic if the discussion is contingent on how we define the people who are intolerant (in your view) and the rest of society (as you define it)?

So gay = the entire 'left'?

Provide proof that that discredits whats posted here? What political stripe do most who preach tolerance come from? What would be the resonse if it were the religious groups saying this of any other group what the response be, and what political ideology would they be assumed to be a part of? That is the hypocracy.

Edited November 7, 2008 by Alta4ever

[Kitch]

Provide proof that that discredits whats posted here? What political stripe do most who preach tolerance come from? What would be the resonse if it were the religious groups saying this of any other group what the response be, and what political ideology would they be assumed to be a part of? That is the hypocracy.

You're trying to steamroll your point without acknowledging that your premises are being debated before your issue can be discussed.

What political stripe to most people who preach tolerance come from? Liberal

The people who said the things that you posted very well might be liberal.

The connection is made, right? Sorry bud. But it's not. IF you want to carry on under the assumption that people come wearing only one of two stripes, we'll do so. Let's say these people who claim to want to burn down churches are liberals. They are a subset of an entire political ideology. So you can't extend their words (not actions, mind you... maybe they should be taken seriously, maybe not) to a broader group of people.

Therefore, if you want to accuse this broad, diverse group of people you call the 'left' of hypocrisy... choose another example.

[guyser]

Provide proof that that discredits whats posted here? What political stripe do most who preach tolerance come from? What would be the resonse if it were the religious groups saying this of any other group what the response be, and what political ideology would they be assumed to be a part of? That is the hypocracy.

Discredit what? That there are militant gays who want to do something stupid?

Oh please grow up.

I have read and seen plenty in the past two days where the "right" , who as the days dwindled to the election said " let us not be like the left and their cries of Bush stole the 2000 election, and BDS is the moonbats problem"

So, the day after, they (the right) are filled with rage that the MSM (ahem....) stole the election, BO is a Muslim , pictures of his wife doctored to look like a monkey(particularly disgusting) and so on.

So, using your logic (or lack of it apparently) this would then represent the right, the religious right?

No it doesnt.

But what your post is is merely a thinly vieled attack on the left couched in terms you want to define.

Nice try, but only one of limited knowledge would aspire to even attempt. Yes, that is a putdown, and reading the above posts, you have had your ass handed to you on this one.

Slam dunk-you lost

And unequivacally YES, World Net is not a trusted source.

[Alta4ever]

You're trying to steamroll your point without acknowledging that your premises are being debated before your issue can be discussed.

What political stripe to most people who preach tolerance come from? Liberal

The people who said the things that you posted very well might be liberal.

The connection is made, right? Sorry bud. But it's not. IF you want to carry on under the assumption that people come wearing only one of two stripes, we'll do so. Let's say these people who claim to want to burn down churches are liberals. They are a subset of an entire political ideology. So you can't extend their words (not actions, mind you... maybe they should be taken seriously, maybe not) to a broader group of people.

Therefore, if you want to accuse this broad, diverse group of people you call the 'left' of hypocrisy... choose another example.

Thank you, for the real debate and keeping it on topic.

The purpose of this exercise was to show that tolerance is something that we very rarely see from either side. What people are looking for is really acceptance not tolerance for the view, belief, or group. Tolerance is the code word for acceptance, and when people get the acceptance of their opinion belief ect. we have this type of response.

[marksman]

I asked poeple to keep this on topic why does this hypocracy exist, or why do you say it doesn't.

The thread isn't about who can or can't get married, its about the response of these people who are asking society to be tolerant of them, but they feel no need to be tolerant of society.

If you read the whole artical, their are many many posts of intolerance and hate of catholics and mormans.

Your 1st post is just wrong. Gay doesn't equal left so you can't claim leftist hypocrisy on this.

You're also mistaken about tolerance. The people making those comments aren't asking for tolerance they're asking for equal rights. At least that's what's in the comments you were refering to. It's not a case of someone saying I want tolerance for my views but won't be tolerant about your views. It's a case of someone saying I won't be tolerant about being treated unequally any more.

The comments talking about burning churches and killing people are wrong. So were the comments about burning gay friendly places and killing gays when those comments were made.

[Alta4ever]

Your 1st post is just wrong. Gay doesn't equal left so you can't claim leftist hypocrisy on this.

You're also mistaken about tolerance. The people making those comments aren't asking for tolerance they're asking for equal rights. At least that's what's in the comments you were refering to. It's not a case of someone saying I want tolerance for my views but won't be tolerant about your views. It's a case of someone saying I won't be tolerant about being treated unequally any more.

The comments talking about burning churches and killing people are wrong. So were the comments about burning gay friendly places and killing gays when those comments were made.

You know what I appologise this didn't turn into the debate I wanted it to. I was looking at where these votes were and linking them to political ideologies I would assume they support due to very basic profiling. To debate a human reaction, group a won't tolerate group b and vise versa, and they hypocracy of one side being able to spit out hate speech, because they lost. It was never about the subject of the vote just the reactions of group a and group b and how one can't respect the other even though they both claim higher moral value.

Again sorry I never should have bothered I was wrong to have even tried.

Thanks for the humbling guyser and marksman, I can say lesson learned, not a good way to try to start a debate.

Edited November 7, 2008 by Alta4ever

[Kitch]

You know what I appologise this didn't turn into the debate I wanted it to. I was looking at where these votes were and linking them to political ideologies I would assume they support due to very basic profiling. To debate a human reaction, group a won't tolerate group b and vise versa, and they hypocracy of one side being able to spit out hate speech, because they lost. It was never about the subject of the vote just the reactions of group a and group b and how one can't respect the other even though they both claim higher moral value.

Again sorry I never should have bothered I was wrong to have even tried.

There isn't an idea unworthy of consideration. You should ALWAYS bother and always try.

If I'm a liberal/leftist and claim to be tolerant of others, yet others see me as intolerant, it wouldn't be a bad thing to have this point of view brought up.

That being said, I think that there are still a few things that can be discussed... if you'd like.

These gay people that you exemplified are not being intolerant either. Marksman said it well. They're being treated unequally. As I said above, what effect does the marriage of two people, gay or straight, have on society? There is no effect. But society has decided to impact on the lives of gay people by preventing their ability to marry each other... which, again, doesn't harm anybody.

So while it's not... nice (I'm not going to say wrong because I strongly believe in freedom of expression), these gay people are not being hypocritical.

[Alta4ever]

There isn't an idea unworthy of consideration. You should ALWAYS bother and always try.

If I'm a liberal/leftist and claim to be tolerant of others, yet others see me as intolerant, it wouldn't be a bad thing to have this point of view brought up.

That being said, I think that there are still a few things that can be discussed... if you'd like.

These gay people that you exemplified are not being intolerant either. Marksman said it well. They're being treated unequally. As I said above, what effect does the marriage of two people, gay or straight, have on society? There is no effect. But society has decided to impact on the lives of gay people by preventing their ability to marry each other... which, again, doesn't harm anybody.

So while it's not... nice (I'm not going to say wrong because I strongly believe in freedom of expression), these gay people are not being hypocritical.

I was posting out of frustration which was my mistake. There is a bit of a double standard these people probaby will never be prosecuted for these statements but if had been the opposition that made these statements you bet their would be an investigation and they would all be charged and convicted of uttering hate speech.

[jdobbin]

They want you to be tolerant of them, but they do not want to be tolerant of society.

18,000 people have been married in California. Do you tolerate their marriages? Or do you want to end them?

[Kitch]

I was posting out of frustration which was my mistake. There is a bit of a double standard these people probaby will never be prosecuted for these statements but if had been the opposition that made these statements you bet their would be an investigation and they would all be charged and convicted of uttering hate speech.

Perhaps you're right, but there's a history of 'gay bashing' whereas I'm not aware of any examples of 'religious bashing' by gay people. So maybe threats by the "opposition" would be taken a little more seriously.

That being said, I've seen and heard people say MANY derogatory and threatening things to and/or about gay people without investigations.

[Alta4ever]

Perhaps you're right, but there's a history of 'gay bashing' whereas I'm not aware of any examples of 'religious bashing' by gay people. So maybe threats by the "opposition" would be taken a little more seriously.

That being said, I've seen and heard people say MANY derogatory and threatening things to and/or about gay people without investigations.

As a society we need to move past this both sides should be able to say their peace without resorting to threats and hate speech. True tolerance would suggest that these arguements would be handled diferent and compromise would be made but neither wants this. Both groups want total acceptance of their position.

[Kitch]

As a society we need to move past this both sides should be able to say their peace without resorting to threats and hate speech. True tolerance would suggest that these arguements would be handled diferent and compromise would be made but neither wants this. Both groups want total acceptance of their position.

Which is understandable in this case because the desires of both groups are mutually exclusive. We (humans?) need to figure out why or why not gay people should be allowed to engage in this human idea called 'marriage'. Are gay people not human?

It's not necessarily about tolerance from the perspective of gay people. As Marksman said, they just want to be treated equally. So what reason do people... society, as you called them... have for voting against allowing gay people to marry?