The Vitriol of the Pro-Gay Agenda

[dbohm]

In a debate currently occurring under the title of "Can you choose what gender you are attracted to?", I have been called a homophobe, ignorant and bigot by people who I otherwise have a high regard for in this forum.

Nowhere did I even say that homosexuality was even so much as immoral in my posts. Yet because I was putting forward a secular argument against gay marriage that is opposed to the current pro-gay agenda, I'm called any number of names.

Is this really the way to debate what is currently a very controversial and significant issue for everyone? Is it a legitimate tactic to shout down your opponents by calling them ignorant bigots because they have reasoned concerns?

[KCKID]

If a Mom, in this case let's assume it is a female, during a Thanksgiving Dinner asks form someone to pass "her" a fork, and they pass her a chopstick, is a hate crime if "she" says that what was just offered to "her" is wrong?,,,,

This is incomprehensible. Please restate.

I have no doubt that you found that incomprehensible. Cognitive dissonance does produce confusion. You thought you had a zinger until it was turned into mush.

Telling of course that you left off "utensilaphobe."

Is a chopstick a fork? If your life depended on it? Your soul? You would fail even a first grade test if you answer question about what a fork is and you provided: A Chopstick.

Try real hard to comprehend. If you notice, KCKID even got it.

Not really. I just liked the "utensilaphobe" part.

[Joab]

@99% I think you missed this.

[Replying to Star]

It's not so straight forward as you'd like to make it. Legalising gay marriage does mean the imposition of that view on others if the Canadian experience is anything to go by

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/11/6758/

It's just as well you and McCulloch agree with gay marriage because life would not be so comfortable if you held a principled or reasoned objection to it.

I know some Christians who agree with Jesus about divorce and remarriage. To them, a person who gets a divorce for the wrong reasons and remarries is committing adultery, just as Jesus himself says. These people who hold a principled and reasoned objection to many remarriages, considering them to be adulterous. However, when a couple that they know, where one or both of the partners has been improperly remarried is presented to them, outside of a church situation, they still treat them as being married. If running a Bed and Breakfast, they would not think to insist that they keep separate rooms.

Yes, in Canada, where same sex-marriage is legal and where discrimination against sexual orientation is protected along with discrimination on religious, ethnic or racial grounds. If what you have to say about same-sex marriage would be discriminatory if applied for instance to mixed race marriage, then the publisher and/or writer of such statements can be charged with discrimination. In the enacting legislation, our Parliament took the extraordinary measure to explicitly exclude religious groups from having to perform same-sex marriages. Personally, I look at it like the prohibition against pork by certain other religions. They are free to refuse pork-eaters from their religious groups and to refuse themselves from eating pork. But for those who are not Jewish or Muslim, they have no right to curtail my bacon and ham. Similarly, Christian religious groups are free to exclude same-sex couples and to refuse to perform same-sex marriages. They are even free to tell their own members that homosexual behavior (or pork eating) is a sin or unclean. But they have no right to make the rules for those who do not adhere to their beliefs. They cannot discriminate against same-sex couples any more than Jews or Muslims could discriminate against pork eating people.

Similar pressure can be—and is—brought to bear on dissenters by professional governing bodies (such as bar associations, teachers’ colleges, and the like) that have statutory power to discipline members for conduct unbecoming of the profession. Expressions of disagreement with the reasonableness of institutionalizing same-sex marriage are understood by these bodies to be acts of illegal discrimination, which are matters for professional censure.

This is as it should be. If the disagreement with same-sex marriage is based only on their religious beliefs, then it has no place in their professional conduct. A Christian teacher, for example, should not publicly while at work, expound on his belief that a same-sex marriage is sinful any more than his belief that certain Hindu parents of some of the students may be idolators according to his beliefs.

Since one of the tenets of the new orthodoxy is that same-sex relationships deserve the same respect that we give marriage, its proponents have been remarkably successful in demanding that same-sex marriage be depicted positively in the classroom. Curriculum reforms in jurisdictions such as British Columbia now prevent parents from exercising their long-held veto power over contentious educational practices. [...] Courts have been unsympathetic to parental objections: if parents are clinging to outdated bigotries, then children must bear the burden of “cognitive dissonance�—they must absorb conflicting things from home and school while school tries to win out.

I don't know what long-held veto power Bradley Miller thinks that parents have. Do you think that educational material with positive depictions of mixed race marriages would be withdrawn because some white supremacist parents complained? Neither do I. Do you think that teachers should be taught to not teach the civic duty to vote to their female students, if some of the parents' religions were strongly patriarchal? This is no different.

Neither does it prevent provincial and municipal governments from withholding benefits to religious congregations because of their marriage doctrine. For example, Bill 13, the same Ontario statute that compels Catholic schools to host "Gay-Straight Alliance" clubs (and to use that particular name),

What Bradley Miller neglected to make clear, is that in Ontario, unlike just about any other jurisdiction in North America, the Roman Catholic school system is not a private school system run by a church. It is a fully publicly funded school system. And while the taxpayers of Ontario fully pays the bill for this system, they are obliged to follow the same curriculum and human rights principles as the other publicly funded system. Personally, I agree with the United Nations Human Rights Tribunal; Ontario should not fund one religious educational system.

Once one abandons a conjugal conception of marriage, and replaces it with a conception of marriage that has adult companionship as its focus, there is no principled basis for resisting the extension of marriage licenses to polygamist and polyamorist unions.

I do find it amusing to see (presumably Christian) opponents of gay marriage bring up the polygamy issue. Don't they know that the prohibition in the Bible against homosexuality is so much clearer than any alleged prohibition against polygamy? What they are in essence saying is that we should not allow this which is clearly wrong, according to our Bible, because it might encourage people to do that where the prohibition is ambiguous. Ha ha.

He seems to have a problem with the idea that marriage is about satisfying adult desires for companionship. Isn't it? Should my widowed mother not remarry?

I read your entite post. My mouth agape that Catholics are forced to endure pro homosexuality groups such as GSA. But Oh Well I guess. Once they start funding Muslim and Jewish schools, then Christ as God Almighty will have to a place for expression in these Muslim and Jewish schools. Kind of a fringe benefit, maybe, coming our way

But what I find odd is how the promotion of homosexuality seems to be missed by secularists. To homosexual activists, gay marriage is about the full acceptance (by compulsion of law) that homosexual acts are just another version of the erotic fun people can have sexually. Otherwise you would hear of teachings ANF preaching from gay liberation proponnents that gay sex is wrong for people that are not, or do not "possess" a homosexual orientation.

And of course, once again, I guess that's just something that we Christians must teach our children (at every or any age) to be able to contend against once they are in the "anything goes" morality of "public" education. Or, as in the case of Ontario, the publically funded education system. Like Paul has written, it is time for Christians to grow up and face the reality in a mature manner, that we live in a hostile and permissive world of erotica that seeks more and more flesh to imbibe. I mean, have you ever heard a pro-gay sermon preaching holiness of sexual behavior? That would be quite the oxymoron don't you think? Talk about cognitive dissonance.

And, if we want our children, our families and converts to the faith, to be able to defend against the onslaught of unfettered lasciviousness being pushed onto our children, we have to get a bt more savvy about what our adversaries have in store for the most vulnerable in our congregations. The rise of gay power gives us the great opportunity to showcase the world and its ways, versus the mission of The Church. Right now, we still have the freedom to reach out to parents and youth in society that are strarting to realize that something has gone too far. It's exciting to see that we are basically back to the sexually permissive environment of the First Century Church. With the same charge of hostes humani generis, "Enemies of Mankind" (http://christiannews.net/2013/06/27/sca ... uman-race/) for our vocal and Biblical dissent of unfettered sexual expression and the attack on the definition of marriage.

For the time has come: . . . when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

This is exciting times to be a Christian.

You continue to speak on behalf of christians.

Who gave you any such authority?

In my opinion you would have greater credibility were you to admit that you speak for you and no other.

[Danmark]

If a Mom, in this case let's assume it is a female, during a Thanksgiving Dinner asks form someone to pass "her" a fork, and they pass her a chopstick, is a hate crime if "she" says that what was just offered to "her" is wrong?,,,,

This is incomprehensible. Please restate.

I have no doubt that you found that incomprehensible. Cognitive dissonance does produce confusion. You thought you had a zinger until it was turned into mush.

Telling of course that you left off "utensilaphobe."

Is a chopstick a fork? If your life depended on it? Your soul? You would fail even a first grade test if you answer question about what a fork is and you provided: A Chopstick.

Try real hard to comprehend. If you notice, KCKID even got it.

I still don't know what you meant by: " is a hate crime if "she" says that what was just offered to "her" is wrong?"

You underestimate the incomprehensibility of your management of the English language. "... is a hate crime if...."

What do you mean by this? You have previously demonstrated you don't know the definition of 'hate crime,' yet you continue to use this term. 99, really, this has nothing to do with the content of your writing. I am addressing your incompetence of speech. You simply do not express yourself clearly. I could hazard a guess at what you are saying, but when I have done so previously you have complained that I have misinterpreted what you said. When you use "form" for "from" I'm not sure what word you mean. When you write "is a hate crime if" and you have no clear antecedent, am I supposed to guess at what you mean when you write gibberish?

When you write so incomprehensibly, I cannot tell if it is because your thoughts or your English is disordered . . . or whether it is both.

In short, what the heck is it you are claiming is a "hate crime?"

[Clownboat]

So then there is no such thing as homophobia and hatred of homosexuality and all the other little poltical propaganda labels applied to the opposition to gay liberation. And certainly opposition of gay activism is nothing but a sensible choice. Just nature in its proper order.

We get it 99. You seem to view yourself as some sort of soldier for god against the gay agenda fighting to help preserve your chosen religion.

From the outside, your actions appear homophobic and hateful. From the outside you justify this behavior by hiding behind your chosen religious beliefs.

Due to this, I see why you think that there should be no such thing as homophobia and hatred of homosexuality even though that is exactly how your behavior appears IMO.

If it walks like a duck.........
Can a person walk like a homophobe, talk hateful, yet avoid where the conclusion leads just because they believe they are justified by uncertainty in a book? IMO... no. You will know them by their fruits and no amount of you justifying why your fruit tastes so bad will overcome the fact that your fruit tastes bad IMO.

I'm just glad you don't abide by the Old Testament. Murdering a homosexual would be much worse than just berating them and treating them like they are lesser humans. Humans that don't even deserve to be able to follow your specific flavor of religion, nor enjoy being married in your church and allowed to attend to worship your same god with their love of their life like you can, just because they are of the same sex.

[dianaiad]

If a Mom, in this case let's assume it is a female, during a Thanksgiving Dinner asks form someone to pass "her" a fork, and they pass her a chopstick, is a hate crime if "she" says that what was just offered to "her" is wrong?,,,,

This is incomprehensible. Please restate.

I have no doubt that you found that incomprehensible. Cognitive dissonance does produce confusion. You thought you had a zinger until it was turned into mush.

Telling of course that you left off "utensilaphobe."

Is a chopstick a fork? If your life depended on it? Your soul? You would fail even a first grade test if you answer question about what a fork is and you provided: A Chopstick.

Try real hard to comprehend. If you notice, KCKID even got it.

Moderator Warning


The tone of this post, being a sarcastic personal attack, is distinctly uncivil. Address the content of the posts, not the authors of it.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 83:

..
Telling of course that you left off "utensilaphobe."

Is a chopstick a fork? If your life depended on it? Your soul? You would fail even a first grade test if you answer question about what a fork is and you provided: A Chopstick.
...

In short, what the heck is it you are claiming is a "hate crime?"

Handing someone a set of chopsticks, when they asked for a fork.

It's the duty of every citizen to have on hand a supply of forks, such that if the whole town came to dinner, wouldn't none of 'em hafta eat with no dang stick.

[Danmark]

From Post 83:

..
Telling of course that you left off "utensilaphobe."

Is a chopstick a fork? If your life depended on it? Your soul? You would fail even a first grade test if you answer question about what a fork is and you provided: A Chopstick.
...

In short, what the heck is it you are claiming is a "hate crime?"

Handing someone a set of chopsticks, when they asked for a fork.

It's the duty of every citizen to have on hand a supply of forks, such that if the whole town came to dinner, wouldn't none of 'em hafta eat with no dang stick.

Thank you Joey.
In future I shall try to be more hospitable. Just because I prefer to eat salad with chopsticks, doesn't mean I should force my choice on others.
I'll keep a big box of plastic forks on hand from now on.
Maybe that's not being generous enough. I'll get some made of paper as well.
Just so I can say, "Paper? Or Plastic?"

[Goat]

Who gave homosexuals the right to redefine marriage? Can a man be another man's wife? OR husband?

Who gave you the right to define marriage for others?

Can a woman be another woman's wife? OR husband?

They can call themselves whatever they wish. It doesn't matter.

The intolerance didn't start with the "protect marriage crowd."

I never said it did. Try sticking to arguing what I actually say, please.

Liberals, progressives, atheoists yada, yada, yada, are imposing their views on others. knocking over the apple cart and then blaming the apple cart's owner for being intolerant and in the way of the disrutive action.

You seem to be confused about what "imposing" means. Existing, and being tolerated and accepted, isn't imposing. Imposing is when you try forcing others to conform to your personal moral code for no good defensible reason. You have no right to dictate how people live when 1) that's the way they were born, and 2) they're consenting adults, and 3) they aren't hurting anything.

Get over it.

I don't know. Asking 'if a woman can be another woman's wife' is sort of like asking which of the two chop sticks is the fork.

Is a chopstick a fork? No it is not. It's academically absurd to make the comparison. But I like the anaolgy when applied to gay behavior and logic. it shows it for the unreasonable nature that it truly is.

Can a woman become pregnant from a rubber replica of a penis inserted into her? Now be careful, dildo's are not just a tool used in lesbian sex acts. And of course, sperm in rectum needs no logical treatment, humorous or scientific.

My, my how analogies aren't asd funny when seen in the light of maturity. Well, maybe not funny all the time, but quite the use of rationalism in a highly emotionally charged envirnonment can make truth look quite non-insulting.

Well, I don't see how the question 'can a woman become pregnant from a dildo' has any bearing on the love and bonding two woman can go though, That is a non-sequitur, and actually , that kind of comment demeans marriage period, not just 'gay marriage'.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 87:

In future I shall try to be more hospitable. Just because I prefer to eat salad with chopsticks, doesn't mean I should force my choice on others.

No wonder you didn't know what a fork was. Didn't get you no proper fork 'preciation coming up. I still say that's forgivable, and don't you bear you no shame, for your never having you the luxury of a fork.

I'll keep a big box of plastic forks on hand from now on.
Maybe that's not being generous enough. I'll get some made of paper as well.
Just so I can say, "Paper? Or Plastic?"

No, dangit. Paper is made of wood, and wood is made of sticks, and that we don't want nobody having to eat with him no dang stick if he don't wanna. Get with the program. You're the reigning champion of the debater of the year, for the year it matters if ya are, and we expect more out of ya.


I gotta tell it, and I'm sorry for those of y'all who hafta sit through it...

So I was this outfit, and we got a contract to build us this big ol' project. Millions of dollars worth of work was mentioned, of which, I'd get me a good dollar and half of it, but I didn't set out to brag about that. So they set to it, that we'd all of us break bread at this fancy eating place, and ya had to go to it, 'cause it wouldn't come to you. Had blankets on the table to keep 'em warm and everything, all the trappings of high society. Didn't matter if a hunderd head needed them a milkin' right then and there, you was expected to show up, and the assumption that you'd show up hungry, 'cause here it was, we was all fixing to eat. I went to wash up first, 'cause the old lady came too, and you don't want that grief, and they even had vacuum cleaners mounted on the wall. Only they was broke and didn't suck up the wash water near as much as to spread it out evenly across ya. And sure enough, we'd done run into the great, great grandmomma's house of the stick loving to eat with people. That right there is where I learned that sometimes it ain't near as fun to eat, as it is to watch grown men try to get food to their mouths with sticks.

So now the old lady and me, neither one gets too upset if we ask you for dinner, and find you a-whittlin' away while she gets it ready. Watching folks try to pick up gravy with a stick is about the funniest thing we know.


So then, on the issue of the "gay agenda", it ought'n matter if you're a-spoonin, a-forkin', a-chop-stickin', or a-scissorin' for that matter. It shouldn't matter if you like to lick the plate, or have someone else lick your plate for ya. Steak, fish, or surf 'n turf - doesn't matter except to hope you can find you someone with a plate of it.

What matters is if you can find you someone to love, who they don't laugh at your utensil.

[Clownboat]

But answer me this please? Why is it wrong to oppose homosexuality?

A chopstick may not be a fork, but a homosexual IS a human being, with feelings just like you and me. Therefore, it is wrong for you to restrict something from a fellow human that you hold dear for yourself.

Or... simply put, for the same reasons it would be wrong to oppose heterosexuality.