Anti-Prop. 8 mob: It’s over. You lost. Move on.
I think it’s time for Democrat leaders to counsel the anti-Prop. 8 mob to stop the protests and accept the will of the people of California.
Tell them to leave the churches alone. Tell them to stop blocking traffic and impeding businesses and harassing elderly couples and targeting donors.
It’s over. You lost. Move on.
With almost 11 million ballots tallied, Prop. 8 had 52.3% of the vote, with 47.7% against. Although many ballots remain to be counted, the 500,000-vote spread is viewed as insurmountable.
You know how those Obama supporters have launched their treacly “healing” website, “from 52 to 48 | 48 to 52 with love?”
Maybe Prop. 8 supporters should do the same thing.
If you are a Californian who voted for Prop. 8 and want to send a healing message to a sore loser who voted against it, feel free to send me a photo, e-mail, or comment and I’ll create a separate “from 52 to 48″ post.
***
Previous:
Schwarzenegger pours fuel on anti-Prop. 8 fire
Unhinged losers: Prop. 8 opponents threaten Mormons and Catholics
Who supported Prop. 8?
First graders take school field trip…to teacher’s gay wedding
Public school politicking and Proposition 8
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Baptist Church to picket burial of Obama’s grandmother » A Couple Things » A couple things about politics, sports, travel, and other stuff.
- Left Of Center
- Radical gay group terroizes Mount Hope Church, Lansing, MI | blogs4God
- Dan Cleary
- Traditional Values Still Fighting On Even Under an Obama Presidency « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT
- Ignorantia Juris » Archive » Hmmm
- California Communist Party aka Democrats (plus Arnold) « Bob’s Bites
- Obama and his followers make McCain and Palin still look good! « Riggword Weblog
- Legislators throw the democracy baby out with the Proposition 8 bath water | Neolibertarian at large
- Prop 8, YES - NO | BigMouthFrog
- Stocks drop, Bum Ninjas “rock,” Big 3 don’t see the clock « Mark Epstein
- Memo to Michelle Malkin- Move on, please…. | Political Byline
- Michelle Malkin » Who will quell the anti-Prop. 8 rage?
- Proposition 8 Protestors Getting Out of Control « Trust, But Verify
- The Daily Conservative
- The Strident Conservative
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Proposition 8
How is gay incest dangerous? There will be no children from it.
But there would be a definition of marriage – it’s a union of two people who are of the required age. We’re not even changing a whole lot if we allowing gay people to get married.
Omu – if you hate Christians so much, why do you want to be recognized under their laws?
There are legal means to provide ANY couple with the same benefits and rights as married couples.
What do you think hetro-sexual couples who DONT want to be recognized by religious institutions or who DONT marry do?
Why only 2? Isn’t that based on the same narrow religous concept that restricts gay marriage? Why of age? Historicaly children were routinely married to adults.
Is it the “ick” factor? The same one you condem conservatives for? That same defintion you just cited allows for incestual marriage.
This is simply a red herring, but let’s suppose you’re right. Should we continue to oppress a minority for the singular reason that if we stop denying rights to this group, people who oppose them would have to stop preaching their opposition. Is that really a good argument for anything?
When will Christians ever tired of comparing gay people’s relationships to incest, bestiality, pedophilia, etc.? Not only is this argument desperate and flimsy (at best), it’s outrageously insulting. Grow up, for once.
I’m sorry, you have to be living under a rock in this day and age to believe that one controls his or her sexual orientation. As a straight man, I can’t imagine ANY circumstances in which I would have sex with a man. That makes it “beyond my control.”
I am trying to understand the morality behind not extending it further. Try to actualy answer the question for once instead of avoiding it.
This is simply a red herring, but let’s suppose you’re right. Should we continue to oppress a minority for the singular reason that if we stop denying rights to this group, people who oppose them would have to stop preaching their opposition. Is that really a good argument for anything?
PA-LEEZE tell me you are not equating a lifestyle choice under the same blanket as people of color…
Guess, what…they can’t hide their skin color. Period.
You can get the same legal rights as anyone else. You can choose to disclose or not disclose your sexual preferences.
THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING AS BEING A MINORITY IN AMERICA BASED ON THE COLOR OF YOUR SKIN.
Absurd AND Insulting.
Haha, this is pathetic. You’re trying so desperately and in vain to turn around the logic of gay marriage and bend and warp it so that it gives the thin facade of being contradictory.
Polygamy is not what is being sought by gay people, is it? Polygamists have been trying to gain access to marriage for years and years and they’re not going to stop any time soon. This is no reason to stop gay people getting married. Children are not deemed fit to decide for themselves if they want marriage or not, are they? Seriously, the homophobic, delusional bigots out there need new talking points.
I think this is the part where I say “oh, but homosexuality is not a lifestyle, it’s quite possibly beyond one’s control” and then you say “no it’s not” and then I say “uh huh” and you say “nuh uh” and then we agree to disagree.
Ah, so people who are gay and deemed “unpleasant” should be forced to hide their sexual orientating. Is this not fascist?
OMU, If you can’t answer these simple questions without using the “bigot” excuse, then clearly you have no answer. You probably haven’t even thought in through.
Like polgymist and incestual couples are?
Seriously, You need to address these issues because they are ALREADY coming up.
This is a joke, right? How does one not disclose their sexual preferences during a wedding ceremony?
“Not changing a whole lot” is based on your opinion.
Personally, I don’t know where I stand on this outside of being intrigued by the legal issues, but it might be disingenuous to suggest that this is not a significant change to how people view marriage. As many have indicated here, changing the above to be “union of multiple people” might be considered just as acceptable to certain groups of Mormons and Muslims.
Another thought: if all the same privileges were offered to same-sex unions, but called something other than “marriage” would this still be a huge issue? Is it about legal rights? Or is it about forcing a population (a majority in this case) to recognize a relationship that goes against their beliefs? I can understand the former, but there are more than enough of the latter type that are making this more difficult.
Another side question, if a group seeks to injure people from another group based on their religious beliefs, isn’t that what liberals would call a hate crime?
.
To Longhorn and Red State:
Can Minorities hide the color of their skin?
Can Women change their birth sex (don’t talk to me about operations)?
No, they cant.
If you choose a lifestyle – congrats…good for you. But you can choose whether to disclose or not disclose this to anyone around you. Its not a moral issue so much as it is a FACT.
If you choose a lifestyle, you have several legal options available to you to provide you the SAME legal rights and privilages as anyone else.
People CANNOT look at you and determine your sexual preference within seconds like they can pre determine someone who is African American or a woman.
Its a crappy argument.
Im a woman, I dont choose to be a victim (look at Sarah Palin) regarding my sex…
But if someone wants to sit there and try to use the Women’s Rights or Civil Rights movement as a method for advancing a lifestyle I find it INSULTING.
First of all, I am in actuality not gay myself. And I am married and I enjoy this marriage very much – in fact, I find it life affirming and incredibly important. I cannot understand why anyone would seek to deny this to anyone else.
Secondly, marriage is not a religious thing. It pre-dates religion, and it recognised under civil law. The constitution of the US makes clear the importance of the separation of church and state. The legalities of marriage were not, and should not, be decided with Biblical perspective taken into account.
As for the comment pertaining to my apparent hatred of Christians, I would like to respond using this quote:
“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
MARRIAGE is under religious law. Why do gays want affirmation and recognition under the very same institution they despise?
Makes no sense.
GREAT. So why are you laboring a prop that will allow the STATE to tell RELIGION what to do? And if they don’t …they can be sued?
Great. I like your gays. I dont like your Prop.
The swishers better stay outa my face , oh snap! lol
The institution could be more accurately stated as pre-dating reliable recorded history.
I doubt you really meant to say that it pre-dates religion, as that would be a very difficult case to prove, unless you meant specifically Judeo-Christian religions.
So whether or not homosexuality is a choice, your answer to oppressed human rights is for the victim to change who they are? If I go to Yankee Stadium as a Red Sox fan, and wear a Red Sox jersey, and someone beats me up, that person is in the right because I chose to wear the jersey? From under what rock did you crawl out?
People shouldn’t have to change or hide who they are to be guaranteed rights.
but it might be disingenuous to suggest that this is not a significant change to how people view marriage.
Not really. The traditional gender roles in marriage (i.e. woman bears children, stays at home and raises them; man is sole breadwinner) are completely gone. Both roles are now entirely interchangeable or (as is the usual case) are filled by both the man and woman. People marry for love now, whereas not so long ago, marriage was entirely about convenience.
So, considering traditional gender roles are gone, there’s no reason whatsoever to deny two people of the same sex (who love one another and perhaps would even like to raise children) access to marriage.
What a freakin EGO! Pick and choose, at it serves your purpose.
Incest is legal in some states. Example, rhode island. Look it up. Why wouldn’t these people look to expand it? Omu will not answer.
These protest just prove that some who live here do not believe in American ideals.
Sore losers. Anti-American.
EXCUSE ME? Gender roles are GONE? That is flat out ignorant. They are not gone. I am a women, and I can tell you I have to live as one every single day.
As far as the Mom not staying home with the children (BECAUSE ITS ECONOMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE THESE DAYS WITH ALL THE LIBERAL CRAPPOLA AND CRAP TAXES WE HAVE TO PAY FOR) – how is that working out for the U.S.?
Just because its happening…doesnt mean its a good thing.
Where the HECK are all the feminists that believe there is NOTHING more feminine than RAISING children????
Omu – you are ridiculous!
Omu, there are already movements to legitimize incestual and polgyamist marriages. They are at about the stage the gay marriage issue was 20 years ago. You did know this right?
Show me where Prop 8 mandates the law that allows the state to impose on the right of the church to do whatever it wants to do?
Once upon a time a people gathered together and on a plot of land and built a tower of gold. A moat was dug around the tower and a stream diverted therein to water a flourishing and beautiful garden. “This, said the king, is for all of us to admire and cherish, a symbol of unity and stability for our people.”
As the years went by the tower ceased to be a novelty. Although its beauty was indisputable, and its ability to unify and strengthen the people without question, some began to grow discontent and envious. These people were not content with a tower of gold, they wanted a tower built of turds built next to the golden tower so that contrast and diversity could be celebrated. As the people could not understand why anyone would not want a tower of gold the people remained silent, thinking the Turd People would see the ridiculousness of their claim and be content with the fact they need not enter the golden tower if they so wished.
The Turd People did not go away. In fact, they began year after year to demand that land be set aside because it was not fair people could have a golden tower but could not have a tower of turds too.
Delegates of the king informed the malcontents that they had every right to enter the golden tower but could not smear turds on it, erect a tower of turds next to it, nor allow portions of the foundation to be replaced by turds. The malcontents argued they were born different and it would be denying them their rights to not allow them to have their own turd tower or to deny them the right to have turds in the golden tower’s foundation.
The king, a weak and timid man, fearful of offending and willing to placate the Turd People, set aside land so that a tower of turds could be built next to the golden tower. Despite protests from the people the turd tower was built. The golden tower was still beautiful but standing next to the turd tower its beauty was tarnished. Worse, disease began to spread from the turd tower afflicting those entering the golden tower.
To further appease the Turd People, the king finally relented and allowed turds to be inserted into the golden tower’s foundation. The king sent his army and police force to silence anyone who protested for being hateful and bigoted against those who wanted turds in the golden tower foundation.
For awhile the tower stood but as the rains came and the worms broke into the turds the golden tower weakened. The people tried to have the turds in the foundation replaced with gold but to no avail.
Years later there was no surprise, only deep sadness when the tower fell. Scavengers ran off with what gold they could find and eventually all that was left was a pile of turds.
The Turd People, still not content, hacked and burned the gardens as well
The End.
I’ll grant you #2 and 3, but challenge you to break the role of #1.
People have been marrying for many different reasons for quite a while (and much longer than I believe you suggest). Arguing anything about emotions for a legal case or status, however, is a strawman. Love doesn’t change a legal privilege into a right.
What’s traditional? According to which culture? Who gets to determine this? There are many things which could be argued to be “breaking tradition” but that does not mean that they should be then considered acceptable.
None of this really matters to a court, unless you’re arguing to the court of public opinion (which has just voted 52% against this).
There are public policy arguments against both of those that do not apply to gay marriage. If you do not recognize the differences, I would be happy to enumerate some.
Your assesment is grotesquely inaccurate (gays weren’t seeking marriage 20 years ago – in fact, I’m pretty certain they were too busy dealing with a devastating plauge – one they had to deal with all alone because their president, Mr. Reagan, hated them so much). And polygamists have ALWAYS been trying to gain access to marriage.
But even beyond that, we should not deny rights to anyone on the sole basis that it might possibly, maybe, perhaps lead to a distortion of the law. That’s just not how this should work.
Omu said (#198)
Very good, the retreat into meaningless abstraction. But I think the idea you’re trying to camouflage is that the since homosexuals are a persecuted minority, their rights to get married take priority over the rights of religious believers (or anyone else, for that matter) to preach that what they are doing is wrong.
No, this isn’t a red herring. At least, not to the Mormons, who have heard this kind of thing before.
Ummm, can you rephrase. That made no sense.
Do you HAVE to belong to a religious institution? Is it a requirement for survival? By belonging to a religion, does that afford you more privilages and benefits (monetarily) then any other human? NO.
If marriage is a religious law, then how can the State dictate to parishes what will be taught, accepted and how?
Unless of course, we are looking at Islam. (And we know how incredibly more tolerant they are to gays than Christians).
Don’t play word games. You know very well that we are discussing “tradition” in terms of American culture.
You’ll notice that the margin of people supporting a ban on gay marriage has dropped 10% since 2000 in California. Gay marriage is, by this stage, an inevitability. Delaying it is just causing undue harm.
Hmm, Michelle Malkin has made this point in the past, too. Christians, for the most part, absolutely despise gay people, but because they don’t want to execute them, they are somehow better than those who do?
Appologies. My point was that no where in the court ruling that legalised gay marriage does it state that religious institutions would have their rights infringed upon.
Ya, probably because they dont want to be burned alive at the stake. Be the victim of vandalism or (GAAASP) be ridiculed and called ignorant and HOMOPHOBIC or EVIL RIGHT WING HATING CHRISTIANS.
Give me a break.
You want the state involved in Religion… That is pretty darned close to Islam. Islam is an incorporation or LAWS, POLITICS, SOCIOECONOMIC and RELIGION.
How does Islam look to you?
It is accurate, even if you don’t agree with it. Perhaps stating that it was not effective would be more accurate on your part.
Evidence:
Then you said…
Do you have evidence that Pres. Reagan hated gay people? Or is this is just a comfortable and emotional argument for you to make because you disagreed with his policies?
And Omu wins the most foolish post of the day award. It’s almost like he missed the other 29 states that passed the exact same state constitutional amendment. No surprise though coming from our resident sin-peddler and religous bigot. I’m sure he couldn’t be happier to see priests thrown in jail for refusing to perform a gay “marriage” or for speaking out against homosexual behavior for the sin that it is.
Oh, and you really should drop the Ghandi quotes and go read and listen to a man from India with a lot more wisdom… Ravi Zacharias
You can thank the Hopey Changey crowd for not getting your way. First on the list of major disappointments for you from “the one”.
IIGGGNOORRANNNTT. They dont DISPISE GAYS. They dont like the gay movement on account of it encroaching on their personal belief system, but many feel more along the lines of “you practice what you believe, just allow me to practice mine”. That is a broad reaching overstatement similar to “All Blacks ________” or “ALL Jews __________”.
Tsk tsk. And now who is the bigot?
Really? So churches get tax benefits for being non-profit religious institutions, correct? So if they do, one may see where this could get a little sticky if they were to NOT recognize a legal union they do not agree with.
How do you KNOW – do you have a crystal ball?
Omu said:
“GREAT. So why are you laboring a prop that will allow the STATE to tell RELIGION what to do? And if they don’t …they can be sued?
Show me where Prop 8 mandates the law that allows the state to impose on the right of the church to do whatever it wants to do?”
So what makes you think they will stop at just getting the marriage part? As a California who voted Yes on 8, I feel they will not stop there and they will go after the Churches who refuse to marry them or who won’t let them use their Parish facilities for their receptions.
I am a Muslim, so Islam looks great to me. Thanks for asking!
It isn’t. That’s the point.
ROFL – you gotta be chitting me? It was REAGANS fault that people didnt use condoms? It was Reagans fault Bath-houses werent closed down (ummm Jerry Brown and Feinstein didnt do that either).
Where is your proof he hated gays and caused a PLAGUE. Complete and total abdication of personal responsibility.
Omu – Then why do heterosexual NON RELIGIOUS couples choose civil union over marriage?
I’m not playing word games.
I have to presume that your theory on breaking traditional norms is based on a populist mentality that this is simply what the majority of people now believe, therefore the tradition has changed.
Yet, the popular majority of the vote on this bill expressed a desire to keep marriage between a man and a woman.
My point is that just because you believe that it is the popular opinion, doesn’t make it so. We used one of few ways we have to gauge the sentiment of a population and they spoke counter to what you suggest. Now, because the media has stated that religious belief was the cause of this, people that follow those faiths are being targeted for exercising their legal right to vote.
For the record, I’m not really arguing pro or con gay marriage specifically, I just believe it should be acquired through legal means and that the intimidation and badgering of people that have a different opinion is reprehensible. As Michelle said:
Good for you. How does Islam tolerate homosexuals?
Actually, a license to marry is a privilege, not a right, Omu.
Certainly, a lot of work needs to be done on reaching out to African Americans. Christians, it seems, are so consumed with their hatred that no amount of proof will sway them. We can, at least, work to change the minds of African Americans.
And, for the record, the Catholic and Mormon churches (who steam rolled this POLITICAL operation) absolutely should have their tax exemption rescinded.
Nope, sorry. It is a right. It’s granted to every single person in the United States with the sole exception of gay people. Is that fair?
Lack of personal responsibility is why the gay community still leads by leaps and bounds in the % of people infected with HIV/AIDS category according to the CDC (50 % of all cases were from gay men). This despite two decades of viral research and more pushing of the use of condoms and public school education on the virus.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm
How does Christianity tolerate homosexuals?
There goes that religious bigotry again
Free speech for me but not for thee. I guess next time they need to make a change to the Constitution they should set up a 501c that has no religious overtone in its name to push the proposition through. They can call it “Secular Humanists for the Preservation of the Traditional Nuclear Family Model” 
So Catholic and Mormon churches “should have their tax exemption rescinded” for opposing a political operation that would have ended with the choice of either performing marriages against their religious beliefs or having their tax exemption rescinded. Ingenious.
Not in this case. Not if it would tear down their very existence financially.
BUT, The Catholic Church HEAVILY supported Obama. THAT should be grounds for revocation of tax exemption status.
Anyone want to start talking about the ACLU’s tax exemption status now?
What kind of point are you trying to make here? We should deny gay men the right to get married because they are more susceptible to AIDS? It has nothing to do with a lack of personal responsibility, by the way.
Nope, sorry, a license of ANY kind is NEVER a right… that would defeat the purpose of licensing.
Islam tolerates homosexuals in the same way that Christianity tolerates homosexuals. It is a “punishable act”. What’s your point?
Sure it does. But you don’t believe what the Bible teaches anyhow so I won’t bore you with the details.
Unless you want a constitutional amendment to change the definition of the word “license”?
a lot better than those brown-shirted fascist gays tolerate christians.
Well said, gippergirl (#50)! The government should not be involved in marriages. This is another prime example of why we need limited government.
Tolerate – “to allow to be or to be done without prohibition”.
Omu – Thanks for the NON RESPONSIVE ANSWER. But, Christians do not HANG homosexuals. Some don’t mind them, some don’t like them. Some TOLERATE THEM.
In ISLAM, they DONT. And any Moslem who condons them is not looked upon as too favoribly by their practicing peers and teachers.
Go get a life, seriously. There is ZERO basis to this argument.
Having a different opinion or belief is not the same as hatred, Omu. It’s a shame that you can put the word “proof” in a sentence right after an opinionated attack on a very broad and varied group of people.
How did they steamroll it? Care to provide any evidence? All I have seen are reports of exit polls and would happy to read any proof you have that the churches organized for this bill.
BWAAHHAHAHAHAHHA.
For real? Where do you see Christians “Punishing” homosexuals by HANGING them?
This is what is so pernicious about the culture of victimhood. It is perpetual, constantly in a state of dissatisfaction, seeing the glass as half empty. The culture of victimhood is only satisfied when it drives others to a state of misery with its’ misery. Michelle Malkin offered some very sage advice at the top of this thread:
You lost. It’s over. Move on.
in another thread OMU has admitted to be filled with hatred for anyone who dare opppose the gay agenda.
he’s just an example of how wacko, and hate-filled these people are.
Didn’t you say that homosexuals had a choice to not show their homosexuality? Isn’t expecting that from gays a form of prohibition? I believe by your own definition, you’re intolerant.
Perhaps you should pay a visit to a Muslim country before assuming that what you see on Fox News is representative of a whole religion. I’m Muslim and I have gay friends. I have many Muslim friends who also have gay friends. I can promise you that not one of my Muslim friends or family has ever hanged a homosexual, despite your sad attempts to portray us as such.
Perhaps you should follow your own advice.
brother and sister can’t marry,
they have to be of age.
There are a number of qualifications for a state approved marriage. One of them, is they have to be opposite gender. So no, not ‘everyone except the gays’ can do it.
In fact, they can marry any one person of the opposie sex they choose as long as the other qualifications are met. Just like every one else.
If it’s a right, everyone can do it.
Thank you for playing Omu. Here’s a year’s supply of Rice-a-roni.
oh PLEASE…this is the biggest bunch of BS…I’ve worked at a place where lesbians would make out in the elevator…if I did that with my wife, or girlfriend…I’d have been fired.
some pigs are more tolerant than others…and tolerance is a one-way street with all of it expected of christians, and none given by gays.
It seems you don’t believe what the Bible says, either. Or do you really think all women who have sex during their period should be put to death? Or that the same punishment be inflicted upon eaters of shellfish and those who plant more than one crop in the same field?
this is SO lame…but its the best you can do…*smirk*
No, they have a choice. Just as I have a choice to say if Im a Conservative in a crowded room of intolerant Liberals. At my place of employment I am the only conservative in the group. There is NO QUESTION in my mind if others knew my beliefs I would be treated that way. So I choose to not say anything at all. Do you hear me crying about intolerance.
Which is why I was speaking to ISLAM not Muslims. What do you say to some of Iran’s leaders? Does Islam hang homosexuals or not? You and your friends are entitled to your opinions…but that does not make ISLAM tolerant of Homosexuals.
Where here have I said i was intolerant, hated gays or anything of the sort. I havent. So what is your point?
You have absolutely no argument and you are tossing turds at someone who could care less who someone sleeps with (yes, I have gay friends too) but sees something inherently wrong with forcing a religion to acknowledge a practice which goes against their beliefs – otherwise, they will be punished.
Live and let live.
(I do not belong to an organized religion by the way) I DO however, understand what American was founded on religious principals and freedom to practice those without fearing persecution…and I cant get behind any movement that wants to tear that apart while at the same time saying how much they HATE Christians and they are all bigots. OR one that is USING and Demogoguing Womens Rights or Civil rights along with theirs in the same breath.
This goes to show you just how ignorant your position is.
You’re a little behind, boy. No one was talking about PDA, the context of the line was in regards to disclosing one’s sexual preference at all. I’m not disagreeing with you that no one should be making out in an elevator (unless she’s hot, and it’s with me).
Yawn, you severely lack context (as do most atheists who poorly attempt to use the Bible). Old Covenant and New Covenant. Read it sometime and understand that Jesus was the Word made flesh that fufilled the Old Covenant.
Omu (sigh) where does the bible say this? And if it does, SO WHAT. Its their belief. How does that affect YOU? It doesnt. Don’t join.
(
huh, really. Don’t you find this the slightest bit sexist?
Unless she is HOT. AND its with you?
Un-believable.
bet you like using the words ‘behind’ and ‘boy’ a lot…
“Boy” could also be considered pejoritive to African Americans.
Geee, keep talking Longhorn.
That’s exactly my point. The religion isn’t hanging anyone. Everyone interprets religion in their own way. The problems in the Middle East are with a long history of corrupt leaders, not with a peaceful religion. The religion views homosexuals in the same way that Christians view homosexuals. Unfortunately, corrupt government in Iran does not.
Christians kill gays too. Hate crime doesn’t know religious boundaries, and it’s rampant.
This comment was at your insinuation that all followers of Islam are intolerant of gays. They are not.
post your proof.
Because why? The leaders use religion as a vehicle to hang people? Who in their right mind allowed political leaders to tell a religion what to do?
Oh, Im sorry…i forgot.
but of course gays can NEVER be guilty of ‘hate crimes’ oh no…thats ONLY christians, or people of faith
I said Islam. Not muslims.
Maybe you should actually refute what I said? Why do Christians ignore the stuff about shellfish, sex during menstruation, crops and fabrics (all outlined in Leviticus) but are so consumed by a few words in the same chapter that they seek to harm gay people in every possible way?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
How does this affect you Omu? how are they HARMING gay people. This is absurd.
What are you, 12?
It COULD, I suppose…I think it’s just generally pejorative though. On the off chance I insulted any African Americans, I apologize.
because Jesus did away with the ceremonial law.
what are you, a piece of trash? obviously…oh I’m part AA…dumba**
I know right4life, he totally glossed over the fact that I answered his question too. Oh well, his loss that he doesn’t have a clue and is a sin-peddler.
Oh, I see. And where does Jesus condemn homosexuals, or where does he even mention the subject?
WHAT?!
If you don’t like Christians, WHY ON EARTH are you trying to make arguments using specific passages against it? Use your own.
This is painful to watch.
This is what the argument against homosexuals looks like.
It’s not going to last – after a while, people are going to get fed of the maltreatment of their gay friends and then your petty denial of rights for them will finally end.
That’s one down.
And then there’s this.
you don’t understand OMU, Jesus is behind every word written in the bible…from Mose’s writing of genesis, to John’s revelation…He is the inspiration. When Paul condemned homosexuality, Jesus was inspiring him to do so…same with Moses in the law.
What are you talking about? I, of course, believe that Christianity has no place dictating whether gay people are deserving of any rights. YOU are the people using Christianity as an excuse for your bigotry, so I am simply turning that around.
For the record, I do not hate Christians. That’s simple absurd.