|
"God Hates Fags" coalition plans rally near New Paltz NY churches (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by brian
I couldn't have said this any better. Thanks. |
Heh, cheers. :p
| quote: | | Fred Phelps is one of the few people who I think should hurry up and die already. |
Agreed. I tuned in to an interview with his son (Tim Phelps) on www.infidelguy.com recently. Suffice to say, his son is possibly even more insane than he is. He almost had to taken off air due to his persistent use of the f word and other expletives, not to mention him talking over the top of callers and Reggie (the host) - and this took place on an atheist radio show. Certainly throws a few common stereotypes out the window. :haha:
Nou - Be careful not to taint all religions and all religious beliefs with the same brush. Admittedly there are some downright sick and twisted religions and religious denominations, but there are also some amazingly compassionate and caring groups as well. Buddhists are one group I greatly admire, I came close to converting awhile back - but have since chosen secular humanism. Taoism (and Shinto, as Lira mentioned) is another religion/philosophy that generally has a positive impact.
Christianity (believe it or not ;)) can be a force for good as well. The Gnostic Christians I've encountered are incredibly principled and compassionate, as are the UUs:http://www.uua.org/. Some of the liberal protestant denominations are great as well, the Anglican church in Australia is always the first to stand up for human rights and the like. Paganism and Deism are generally pretty good - and Confucianism is another positive influence.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not religious, but it doesn't mean that religion has had a uniformly bad effect on the world. It's undoubtedly inspired some terrible things (the Salem witch trials, the inquisition, the crusades, Islamic terrorism, discrimination and so on) - but is isn't all bad. |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by SpecialEd
that still doesn't change my opinion on gays. their still dysfunctional humans for the fact that they can't do our main purpose as a species, breed. |
Are infertile couples dysfunctional humans as well?
Imagine that Nelson Mandela had no kids (He might, he might not, I honestly don't know). Would he be a dysfunctional human because he didn't reproduce? Nevermind the fact that he brought South Africa out of apartheid, guided the country through the ensuing rough patch, and lead the fight against AIDS. Hey, he had no kids, so he's dysfunctional anyway! :rolleyes:
| quote: | | humans are kind of like a plague, we're all over the world and we're what pollutes and ravages our world. But it's all in some way for one purpose, our strive for evolution. by evolution, that can only be achieved by heterosexuals. Homosexuals are part of the negative factors in our evolution as a species. |
If we're a plague, then why wouldn't homosexuality be a good thing? Logically, it would help contain population growth - which is always a good thing. We can't feed everyone on earth at the moment, so we certainly don't want too many more mouths.
You're argument is utterly nonsensical, not to mention illogical. Many people don't have kids - are they dysfunctional as well. What about people who dedicate their lives to working for charity but don't have kids - are they failures as humans as well?
By the way - gay people can (and do) adopt, so there's another fundamental flaw in your argument. You'll also need to oppose IVF, as that (like adoption) isn't a natural method of reproduction either.
| quote: | Originally posted by SpecialEd
dude? wtf? when did i EVER bring in race mother ******. I'm asian, if anything I know how african-americans view the world more then any white man. |
This wasn't addressed to me - but due to the bigoted, xenophobic hate-filled spiel you're spewing, I'll respond anyhow.
The race issue was brought up because it's a relevant analogy - and in my opinion, it holds.
| quote: | | I had ADD as a child? i still use adderall as part of my treatment. Mental difficulties, like down syndrome? I can't hate. not anyone's fault(maybe except incest) they we're born that way, so what's there to hate. |
The general consensus is that it's the same with homosexuality. Therefore, you shouldn't hate them, but you apparently do. Hypocrite anyone?
| quote: | | Homosexuals choose to be gay |
Back that up with evidence. You're at odds with the vast majority of the medical establishment here, and as such the burden of proof is upon you.
Once you prove to me that someone can choose to be straight, I'll believe that gays choose to be that way. Regardless, it doesn't actually matter if they choose to be like that, there's nothing wrong with it, choice or not.
| quote: | | that's the real thing that I dislike. |
Great, we're even - I dislike you.
| quote: | | Chemical imbalance of estergin in their systems? something with them being too feminent? it's just what the hell. I can understand some reasons why they choose to be gay, but it just isn't quite logical in the sense of yourself contrary to being a human. |
You still haven't proven that they choose to be gay.
TO be perfectly honest - with people like you around giving them all the time - something tells me that nobody in their right mind would choose to be gay.
And what on earth do you mean by 'in the sense of yourself contrary to being human'. What does that even mean? Methinks someone might need to look up the definition of the word 'human' in the dictionary. |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
We all have fun lampooning these nut job extremists like Phelps, but on a more serious note, this shows what a douche bag Pat Robertson really is:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...9¬Found=true
| quote: |
Robertson Defends Liberia's President
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 10, 2003; Page A19
Charles Taylor, the Liberian president who has been indicted by an international court for crimes against humanity, has few remaining supporters in the United States. But one prominent American who has stuck with the West African leader is religious broadcaster and Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson.
In recent broadcasts of his cable TV show "The 700 Club," watched by an estimated 1 million households, Robertson has defended Taylor as a fellow Baptist and Liberia's "freely elected" leader. The "horrible bloodbath" taking place in Liberia, he has repeatedly said, is the fault of the State Department.
"So we're undermining a Christian, Baptist president to bring in Muslim rebels to take over the country. And how dare the president of the United States say to the duly elected president of another country, 'You've got to step down,' " Robertson said to his viewers on Monday.
What Robertson, 73, has not discussed in these broadcasts is his financial interest in Liberia. In an interview yesterday, he said he has "written off in my own mind" an $8 million investment in a gold mining venture that he made four years ago under an agreement with Taylor's government.
Yet, he added: "Hope springs eternal. Once the dust has cleared on this thing, chances are there will be some investors from someplace who want to invest. If I could find some people to sell it to, I'd be more than delighted."
Other Baptist and evangelical Christian leaders said they do not share either Robertson's support for Taylor or his criticism of President Bush's call for the Liberian leader to go into exile. "I would say that Pat Robertson is way out on his own, in a leaking life raft, on this one," said Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptist Convention's public policy arm.
Allen Hertzke, a professor of political science at the University of Oklahoma and the author of a forthcoming book on evangelicals and human rights, said many religious conservatives "will be horrified" by Robertson's stance. "His comments really feed into the media critique of Christian conservatives, that they are not sophisticated, they don't care about others, all they care about are Christians around the world -- when in fact that is a caricature of the faith-based human rights movement," Hertzke said.
In his broadcasts, Robertson has portrayed the Liberian civil war as primarily a fight between Christians and Muslims. Serge Duss, director of public policy for the international Christian relief group World Vision, called that a gross oversimplification.
World Vision and other Christian organizations lobbied successfully this year for legislation banning the importation into the United States of diamonds from war-torn African countries. Taylor has been indicted by a United Nations-established tribunal for allegedly backing militias -- funded largely by the sale of diamonds -- that raped and maimed civilians during the civil war in neighboring Sierra Leone.
Robertson said in a telephone call yesterday that the indictment "is nonsense and should be quashed."
"I have never met Taylor in my life. I don't know what he has done or hasn't done. I do know he was elected by the people, and he has maintained a relatively stable government in Liberia; and they observe the rule of law; they have a working legislature; they have courts. And though he may have certain dictatorial powers, so do most leaders in Africa," Robertson said.
Taylor seized power in Liberia by force in 1989 and was elected president in a 1997 vote that some observers charged was fraudulent. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other groups have condemned his human rights record.
Robertson agreed that Taylor has "become such a lightning rod at this point" that he should leave office, but in an orderly transition accompanied by the insertion of U.S. peacekeepers. "Frankly, the president's call for Taylor to step down immediately is not wise, because if Taylor leaves immediately, the country will descend into chaos," he said.
A staunch supporter of Bush, Robertson said he believes the president is getting bad advice from the State Department. In a "700 Club" broadcast June 26, he said the State Department "tried as hard as they can to destabilize Liberia and to bring about the very outcome we're seeing now."
"They had no endgame; they have no plan of what to do; they only wanted to destroy the sitting president and his government," he added. "Liberia has been a predominantly a Christian country. And the United States State Department is paving the way for the Muslims to take over Liberia."
Robertson said yesterday that his investment in the Liberian gold mining company Freedom Gold was intended to help pay for humanitarian and evangelical efforts in the country. One event he helped fund was a three-day rally, called Liberia for Jesus, in February 2002. Taylor declared a national holiday and, according to news reports on Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network, prostrated himself on the stage, saying: "I am not your president. Jesus is!"
"There are people who say that's phony baloney, but I thought it was sincere," Robertson said. "He definitely has Christian sentiments, although you hear of all these rumors that he's done this or done that."
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
|
I simply try to raise awareness before it's too late and we lose all of our freedoms. |
|
|
| SpecialEd |
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
Are infertile couples dysfunctional humans as well?
Imagine that Nelson Mandela had no kids (He might, he might not, I honestly don't know). Would he be a dysfunctional human because he didn't reproduce? Nevermind the fact that he brought South Africa out of apartheid, guided the country through the ensuing rough patch, and lead the fight against AIDS. Hey, he had no kids, so he's dysfunctional anyway! :rolleyes:
If we're a plague, then why wouldn't homosexuality be a good thing? Logically, it would help contain population growth - which is always a good thing. We can't feed everyone on earth at the moment, so we certainly don't want too many more mouths.
You're argument is utterly nonsensical, not to mention illogical. Many people don't have kids - are they dysfunctional as well. What about people who dedicate their lives to working for charity but don't have kids - are they failures as humans as well?
By the way - gay people can (and do) adopt, so there's another fundamental flaw in your argument. You'll also need to oppose IVF, as that (like adoption) isn't a natural method of reproduction either. |
GOING BACK TO MY REAL POINT.
Do infertile couples, or couples without children dysfunctional? No. Infertile couples didn't choose to have kids, couples that don't want children, might as well not have them since they believe they can't handle it.
I don't have a problem with ANY hetereosexual couples? DO I? NO? DID I SAY I DID? NO.
I don't have a problem with anything HETEROSEXUAL. it's the HOMO part I don't LIKE. My argument isn't anything against humans choices of 'normality', if they can't handle children, or don't want them then it's fine. They are content with it, and so be it.
The whole point is, gay couples? are wrong. Gay couples with children? wrong is well. Why? the majority of kids that belong to gay couples fear their parent's image as a flaw. I knew a girl when I was in grade school with gay parents. She feared anyone and everyone knowing that they were gay, she accepted it but never wanted it to get to immature kids making fun at gay people.
That's the point right? Society as a whole doesn't like the homosexual image. It's wrong, and as parents no parents really wish their children we're gay. I'm sorry but I believe thats the truth.
Whats your real argument here? Lets stick to this whole anti-homosexual vs defending homosexuality argument. Your points are acceptable but in my mind and alot of others, it's irrational for us to accept it. I don't hate a person if their gay, But I'd dislike the fact they are gay. I wouldn't have a problem with their choice, but I'd be against any progress in gay movement. |
|
|
| SpecialEd |
| quote: | | And what on earth do you mean by 'in the sense of yourself contrary to being human'. What does that even mean? Methinks someone might need to look up the definition of the word 'human' in the dictionary |
Meaning, it's quite illogical opposed to being human.
Like I've said before, I believe humans are on this earth to evolve. I believe being homosexual is a negative factor in our evolution.
Of course, there will be infertile couples and people who don't want children. But in any case, they represent a "normal human couple" and a good example for future heterosexuals. opposed to homosexuals who represent practically the opposite. How will homosexuals ever be accepted as anything right in our world?
As a man, I don't mind lesbians, but gay men bug the out of me. My opinion is very biased, but I've always hated homosexuals ever since high school. Had problems with them then, now, and future. It's not them as persons, but for what they represent. Ever see two gay men making out in people? Half the people I know would be disgusted, even though women would find it intriguing, but as a male I don't. |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by SpecialEd
GOING BACK TO MY REAL POINT. |
Which was what? Oh yeah, that you hated gays for no rational reason.
| quote: | | Do infertile couples, or couples without children dysfunctional? No. |
No, but neither are gays. You're making the accusation - prove that they're dysfunctional please.
| quote: | | Infertile couples didn't choose to have kids, couples that don't want children, might as well not have them since they believe they can't handle it. |
Actually, some infertile couples adopt or manage to use IVF related procedures to conceive - so yes some do choose to 'have' kids. And couples who don;t have kids might believe that they can handle it - but they'd rather not have them due to lifestyle reasons. There are varied reasons for not wanting kids, 'believing they can't handle it' is but one.
| quote: | | I don't have a problem with ANY hetereosexual couples? DO I? NO? DID I SAY I DID? NO. |
If you're going to apply the reasoning you're employing to deionize gays - you damn well should have a problem with them. your position is inherently illogical.
| quote: | | I don't have a problem with anything HETEROSEXUAL. it's the HOMO part I don't LIKE. My argument isn't anything against humans choices of 'normality', if they can't handle children, or don't want them then it's fine. They are content with it, and so be it. |
Right, we've established that you're discriminating against gays without any coherent rationale. It's good that you don't hate heterosexuals without kids. So why do you hate gays? Be consistent.
| quote: | | The whole point is, gay couples? are wrong. |
Why? And according to whom, god? :rolleyes:
Are you a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim? That's the only reason I can think of to explain why you'd hate all gays.
| quote: | | Gay couples with children? wrong is well. Why? the majority of kids that belong to gay couples fear their parent's image as a flaw. |
Finally, an argument. Running with that line of thought, you're going to have to stop any parents who aren't normal from conceiving. After all - extremely obese people shouldn't have kids, because their children will just get the crap bagged out of them. Same with parents who've sustained burns to their face - people will think they are freaks, and as such bully their children. Sound fair to you?
| quote: | | I knew a girl when I was in grade school with gay parents. She feared anyone and everyone knowing that they were gay, she accepted it but never wanted it to get to immature kids making fun at gay people. |
That sounds about right - because of people like you. You are the reason kids are afraid to let on that their parents are gays or lesbians. Kids get bullied. I have been bullied, and my parents aren't gay. People with gay parents aren't the only ones who get crap from people.
| quote: | | That's the point right? Society as a whole doesn't like the homosexual image. |
That;s debatable, public opinion is shifting significantly. Reality shows down here commonly have a gay couple involved in them. There's a show called the hot house showing in Australia at the moment, and a gay couple look like they're going to win it. People are far more accepting than they once were. When the ban against interracial marriages in the US was declared unconstitutional in 67, public opinion was something like 90% opposed, 10% in favour. At the moment with gays, it's about 50/50 in many places. A lot of people are cool with it.
Again, according to whom, and why?
| quote: | | and as parents no parents really wish their children we're gay. I'm sorry but I believe thats the truth. |
Many parents are fine when their kids come out - if anything it often brings parents and their kids closer together.
| quote: | | Whats your real argument here? Lets stick to this whole anti-homosexual vs defending homosexuality argument. |
This is the state of play at the moment: You have provided absolutely no evidence or logical arguments to show that homosexuality is in any way immoral, wrong or detrimental to society. Until you do so, you haven't proved your point.
| quote: | | Your points are acceptable but in my mind and alot of others, it's irrational for us to accept it. I don't hate a person if their gay, But I'd dislike the fact they are gay. I wouldn't have a problem with their choice, but I'd be against any progress in gay movement. |
How is it irrational? Do you even know what the word irrational means?
You claim that you don't hate a person if they're gay. If so, then why did you post the following:
"their still dysfunctional humans"
"contrary to being a human."
Sounds a lot like hate to me. You've launched an unfounded character assassination on gay people as a whole claiming that they're contrary to being human (I still don't know what that means), and that they're dysfunctional humans.
As for you not liking any progress in the gay movement - oh well, tough. Gay marriages will get legalized whether you like it or not, just as interracial marriages did. |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by SpecialEd
Meaning, it's quite illogical opposed to being human. |
Err, last time I checked gays were humans. What do you define a human as? perhaps you have a different kind of dictionary to me.
| quote: | | Like I've said before, I believe humans are on this earth to evolve. I believe being homosexual is a negative factor in our evolution. |
That's interesting, because it would appear that homo sapiens as a species have in fact ceased to evolve, primarily because of the sudden technological advances in the last few centuries. If it hasn't stopped already, then Transhumanism and nanotechnology will eventually kill off evolution (for humans at least) - we'll evolve ourself however we see fit. FYI, there's a theory going around that homosexuality evolved to control over-population.
| quote: | | Of course, there will be infertile couples and people who don't want children. |
Just like gays, right? (actually, scrap that, as some gays adopt, and selectivity applying your logic are in some way superior to infertile couples)
| quote: | | But in any case, they represent a "normal human couple" and a good example for future heterosexuals. |
What the? I'm sure that heterosexuals can work out how to be 'regular' couples. The existence or non existence of a small minority of infertile couples isn't going to change anything.
| quote: | | opposed to homosexuals who represent practically the opposite. How will homosexuals ever be accepted as anything right in our world? |
When people like you strop demonizing them. Furthermore, they are being accepted right now, in case you hadn't noticed. The opinion polls are slowly moving towards their favour. The bigotry and discrimination is lessening.
| quote: | | As a man, I don't mind lesbians, but gay men bug the out of me. |
So you're an unashamed hypocrite? Thanks for the clarification!
| quote: | | My opinion is very biased |
Hmm. Aren't everyone's opinions biased, by definition?
| quote: | | but I've always hated homosexuals ever since high school. |
Didn't you just say that you didn't hate homosexuals? Sheesh - your coherence is lessening.
| quote: | | Had problems with them then, now, and future. It's not them as persons, but for what they represent. Ever see two gay men making out in people? Half the people I know would be disgusted, even though women would find it intriguing, but as a male I don't. |
Thanks for the frank admission. You're free to believe that they're wrong, immoral - whatever. The problem I have is when you try to pretend that your beliefs can be rationally defended - or are backed up by facts. And when people try to discriminate against them due to their illogical homophobia.
And no, I haven't seen two gay men making out in people. ;) I'm going to assume that you mean public. I'm not surprised that the people you know would be disgusted, as people who hate gays are less likely to befriend people sympathetic to their cause(s), or gays themselves. Regardless, people are only disgusted because society has conditioned them that way - they haven't been desensitized to it. If they saw it happening more often, they wouldn't be as disgusted. And you don't need to find it intriguing - ideally one should be apathetic, or pleased that they're able to freely practice homosexuality without people discriminating against them or abusing them.
I honestly can't comprehend what motivates someone to hate homosexuals. What have they ever done to you? Do their practices affect you in any way? What's the big deal? |
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
| Where did the original post go? :conf: |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sand Leaper
Where did the original post go? :conf: |
Err, it looks like it's still there to me. Unless Dave had the first two posts in the thread. :conf: |
|
|
| Sand Leaper |
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
Err, it looks like it's still there to me. Unless Dave had the first two posts in the thread. :conf: |
Ahhh, there it is. :) Just got confused since Nou got a post in before you addressed his second post. Never mind. |
|
|
| brian |
| quote: | Originally posted by SpecialEd
Homosexuals choose to be gay |
Incorrect. |
|
|
| Electronicmaji |
homosexauls do choose to be gay...
now for the part of couples who can not have children...they are not choosing to be unsterile...
heres the evidence when a person does something it is because of a choice you choose to have gay sex you do not choose to be atracted but you do choose to do that thing....basic simple primary ultimate truth same with 1+1=2 it can never be changed it is ultimate... |
|
|
|
|
