So, What Is It That The Anti-Gay Groups Actually Fear?

Aug 17, 2012 | Posted by: Sei | Full story: lezgetreal.com

What makes hate, well, hate? Given that today is something of a quiet news day, it may be nice to give ourselves a breather and think about some things.

Comments
6,261 - 6,280 of 18,016 Comments Last updated Feb 24, 2013

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6715
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

doug wrote:
<quoted text> i appose it for it is immoral and i think it stinks
You oppose homophobia?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6716
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

doug wrote:
<quoted text> i appose it for it is immoral and i think it stinks
Good thing you're not in charge, then, innit?

“Psalms 27:14 HOPE! ”

Since: Dec 11

Cincinnati, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6717
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

RatherBeInMissouri wrote:
The only person that has answered my questions is an athiest... They rest of you haters afraid of having your polarity of your moral compass corrected?
God's "disapproval" aside,
what makes murder immoral?
Or rape?
Or stealing?
Or adultery?
Or homosexuality?
Just testing your moral compass...
want to see if you really understand what that is.
this was answered most sufficently, YOU just didn't like the answer.
those things are wrong because YOUR MAKER, YOUR CREATOR GOD says they are immoral and wrong.

and that dear poster IS SUFFICENT.
if GOD says it, it has been settled.

“Psalms 27:14 HOPE! ”

Since: Dec 11

Cincinnati, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6718
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Earth Child 1 wrote:
<quoted text>There's the library and college courses in world religion you should take, that's if you can even make it into college, to learn about the evolution of religions, especially Christianity and when and how the bible was put together. You can pretend all you want, but you don't know jack sh!t about history.
I never posted that Constantine or Catholics were around during Jesus. I also didn't post that the Catholics wrote the scriptures, but I did post that they edited and compiled, moron. It's obvious you can't comprehend either. Why don't you show us all proof where any of the apostles signed any of the gospels. There is none because scriptures were written 100 years after Jesus and the apostles were dead by unknown writers called "ghost writers" in today's terms.
well now mr. rudeness, I HAVE TAKEN MANY bible courses over the course of my life time.
and when you IMPLY the catholics EDITED scritpures, meaning they changed the word of GOD, i would not only protest such error on your part i would CAUTION you about giving man more credit and power than GOD.

THE bible was put in order according to the timeline each book was written.
THE GOSPELS, are the eye wittness testimonys of the DISCIPLES one on one life experiences with the Messiah.
THE apistles and apostles are letters written to the churches, and teachings of the LATTER apostles based upon the OT hebrew scriptures.

what does JOHN tell you about the reason not every writting concerning Christ could be compiled into one book?

John 21:25

"and there are also many OTHER things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could NOT contain the books that would be written. Amen."

and what DOES GOD HIMSELF say about HIS word that HE gave to HIS chosen prophets?

Isaiah 55:11
"So shall MY word be that goes forth from MY mouth; It shall NOT return to Me void, but it SHALL accomplish what I please, and it SHALL prosper in the thing for which I sent it."

adding to or taking away from any part of the bible WILL be a fatal error to the one who does it.

you either TRUST the self fulfilling word of GOD, or you don't.
its that simple.

you don't mix mans words with GOD'S words.
that never washes out clean.

“Psalms 27:14 HOPE! ”

Since: Dec 11

Cincinnati, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6719
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

RatherBeInMissouri wrote:
RatherBeInMissouri wrote:
The only person that has answered my questions is an athiest... They rest of you haters afraid of having your polarity of your moral compass corrected?
God's "disapproval" aside,
what makes murder immoral?
Or rape?
Or stealing?
Or adultery?
Or homosexuality?
Just testing your moral compass...
want to see if you really understand what that is.
<quoted text>
So... the answers these questions have gotten so far lead me to beleive:
1. Morality is common sense. it does not require any kind of religious affiliation or background
2. The only reason given by the other side of what makes homosexuality immoral, is that "The Bible says so."
Therefore, homosexuality can't be immoral because it does not fit the definition of non religious affiliated immorality, and religious morality cannot demonstrate an explanation of how homosexuality fits into a category with other immoralities.
"The Bible says so" is not good enough because it is not reliable, outdated, edited, and homosexuality does not even fit the definition of religious or secular "morality."
That being said.....
Why are there an isolated few adamantly anti gay people so freaked out/ stressed out and offended by a few gay people??
how WRONG you are.

morality is not subjective.
anotherwords if something is moral TO YOU
and to someone else it is IMMORAL, then in reality
what you are implying is that there is no such thing as morality at all.....because something can not be BOTH right and wrong at the same time.

thats why thre is a ULTIMATE MORAL CODE implanted by the Creator for HIS creation.

you run into trouble because you don't acknowledge GOD.
so you think morality is up to the individual, making it nothing more than free will choice to do what you want to do.
not subscribe to a MORAL CODE by your creator.

“Psalms 27:14 HOPE! ”

Since: Dec 11

Cincinnati, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6720
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

clbraz78 wrote:
As an atheist who doesn't care what people do in their own lives- I'm all for gay marriage. But having religious family members- it's a god thing. To them it's wrong in gods eyes. Or something. But even my family- as religious as they are- respect others. These fuck nutts need something better to do. Maybe get laid or something. IMO
As an atheists you express your delusions with a TYPICAL mindset that reflects a person with no moral compass, no hope, no direction and no care of his or her own soul.

There is nothing more productive and profitable of ones time than to always do that which is RIGHT.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6721
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
All the silly insults in the world will not change the simple facts.
Married couples are never required to be fertile with each-other. Marriage is not required to procreation.
And procreation is not required for marriage.
You can whip up pages and pages of rebuttal, but you can't turn one gay person straight.
You can type for an hour, but you aren't going to show that having a separate procreation standard for gay and straight couple is sensible, logical, or even Constitutional.
So why try? What's in it for you?
Who is making that argument?

Try responding to what is argued.

Oh wait, you can't...

Bazinga!

“Psalms 27:14 HOPE! ”

Since: Dec 11

Cincinnati, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6722
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
You are quite obviously a troll...or you're just crazy.
What you're saying is kind of like saying that a murderer is like a doctor. It is literally impossible for you to have any credibility behind your statements.
that is not what curtis was saying at all
he was telling you that if people were born with a TENDENCY to steal why isn't that TENDENCY or DESIRE to do that accepted, like your TENDENCY or DESIRE to be gay is accepted?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6723
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

KiMare wrote:
Law distinguishes handicapped, minorities, gender, to name a few.
SCOTUS has already distinguished marriage from other human relationships;
"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."- Skinner v Oklahoma
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."- Loving v Virginia
"Our Court has not recognized a fundamental right to marry that departs in any respect from the right defined by the US Supreme Court in cases like Skinner which acknowledged that marriage is "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race" because it is the primary institution supporting procreation and child-rearing (316 US at 541; see also Zablocki, 434 US 374; Griswold, 381 US 479). The binary nature of marriage—its inclusion of one woman and one man—reflects the biological fact that human procreation cannot be accomplished without the genetic contribution of both a male and a female. Marriage creates a supportive environment for procreation to occur and the resulting offspring to be nurtured. Although plaintiffs suggest that the connection between procreation and marriage has become anachronistic because of scientific advances in assisted reproduction technology, the fact remains that the vast majority of children are conceived naturally through sexual contact between a woman and a man."- Hernandez v Robels
"It is an institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress. "- Maynard v Hill
YOU already acknowledge a difference this distinction makes by not just pursuing identity with marriage, but also with family. The irony is, you have to remove children from marriage to gain access to children through marriage.
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
A wall of text that does not address the comment or what your comment implied.
It's amazing that you're so horrible and backing up what you say.
The above response is a perfect example of your gay twirling aside, over and over, black and white evidence.

You once again expose your immature idiocy. You waste my time.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6724
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ron Myers wrote:
I don't hate anyone...at all. However as a member of the catholic church I am labeled as . Simply because I do not agree with homosexuality. It seems the people who march for tolerance and generally the first to be intolerant of anyone who doesn't agree with them.
You are the things in those labels, because you "don't agree' with a natural trait, and would like to legally discriminate against other folks based on that trait alone. Harming them. Harming their families.

What ELSE would you call yourself.

It's no different than if you were "against" people with very large feet.
Would you expect them to remove a few toes, or bind a child's feet, just to please you?

Not "agreeing" with some natural and harmless God-given trait that another person was gifted with, and using your vote, or your influence to harm them does make you irrational, intolerant, ignorant, and oppressive.

Period.

It may not be your intent, but your words and deeds will tell the tale.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6725
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

KiMare wrote:
.....
The above response is a perfect example of your gay twirling aside, over and over, black and white evidence.
You once again expose your immature idiocy. You waste my time.
You aren't here to learn anything. You know you aren't going to convince a single gay person that your way is the right one.

So, what's the point?

There are only so many times you can complain and insult others. Doesn't it bore you?

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6726
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is making that argument?
Try responding to what is argued.
Oh wait, you can't...
Bazinga!
Those are the ONLY arguments.

Everything else you say is simple Pony Twirl.

It must be boring even you at this point.

“Psalms 27:14 HOPE! ”

Since: Dec 11

Cincinnati, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6727
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
100% bull pulled from your arse.
<quoted text>
Because we are not the ones obsessed with anal sex.
<quoted text>
The 90% that the article speaks of already discredits the entire article. We've already proven to you that only a third of gay men participate in anal sex. If you can't remember, or ignored it, that's not our fault.
Second of all, there are much riskier sexual acts that one can perform such as sounding. So again, the article discredits itself.
The only way to completely avoid vaginal sex risks is to abstain from vaginal sex.
<quoted text>
And I say it again, yes we have gone over it and yes we have proven you wrong. Do you have Alzheimer's?
if ONLY 30% of gay men engage in anal sex, then what is left for them? PETTING? HAHAHAHAHAHAA

who do you think you are trying to kid here?

statics show that gay men have about a 10 yr shorter life span than heterosexual men do.

you people are in such denial.

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6728
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
Law distinguishes handicapped, minorities, gender, to name a few.
SCOTUS has already distinguished marriage from other human relationships;
"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."- Skinner v Oklahoma
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."- Loving v Virginia
"Our Court has not recognized a fundamental right to marry that departs in any respect from the right defined by the US Supreme Court in cases like Skinner which acknowledged that marriage is "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race" because it is the primary institution supporting procreation and child-rearing (316 US at 541; see also Zablocki, 434 US 374; Griswold, 381 US 479). The binary nature of marriage—its inclusion of one woman and one man—reflects the biological fact that human procreation cannot be accomplished without the genetic contribution of both a male and a female. Marriage creates a supportive environment for procreation to occur and the resulting offspring to be nurtured. Although plaintiffs suggest that the connection between procreation and marriage has become anachronistic because of scientific advances in assisted reproduction technology, the fact remains that the vast majority of children are conceived naturally through sexual contact between a woman and a man."- Hernandez v Robels
"It is an institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress. "- Maynard v Hill
..........
The above response is a perfect example of your gay twirling aside, over and over, black and white evidence.
You once again expose your immature idiocy. You waste my time.
You waste everyone's time.

You have yet to prove that marriage is bad for society, but only if engaged in by a gay couple. You have yet to prove that the children of gay parents will do better if their parents cannot legally marry.
You have not yet shown that elderly gay couples will not be better protected through marriage law.

"
"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."- Skinner v Oklahoma
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."- Loving v Virginia"

Even the posts from court cases above prove OUR point and not yours, no matter how you twirl and twist.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6729
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the things in those labels, because you "don't agree' with a natural trait, and would like to legally discriminate against other folks based on that trait alone. Harming them. Harming their families.
What ELSE would you call yourself.
It's no different than if you were "against" people with very large feet.
Would you expect them to remove a few toes, or bind a child's feet, just to please you?
Not "agreeing" with some natural and harmless God-given trait that another person was gifted with, and using your vote, or your influence to harm them does make you irrational, intolerant, ignorant, and oppressive.
Period.
It may not be your intent, but your words and deeds will tell the tale.
Are you really comparing homosexuality to large feet? That is the best you can do?

Here, let me help you.

Marriage is a size 10. Gay unions are a size 16EEE. They don't fit. It is not hate to say so.

Or this.

Putting your feet in someone's anus shoes is inherently harmful. They were not made for your feet. It is not "irrational, intolerant, ignorant, and oppressive" to say so.

Like you said, your words and deeds tell a tale, and it is not pretty or normal.
Who Tee Who

Rio, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6730
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian wrote:
I think it's because other people are living their lives to the fullest but their own repressive religons are keeping them down. I think it's more resentment than fear.
They are f@&ked up on the lies of religion. I pity them.
Well if you are at a nice park somewhere and a homy is chasing you, then Run! Sure he might have a bag of candy but run kids run!

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6731
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
That little mantram is the most useful thing from that book.
To be honest I liked how the series explored the relationships between religion, business and politics and how each manipulates the others in order to maintain control over the populace.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6732
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not your secretary. Find the questions and the article yourself.
so even you don't remember what you asked and you don't have the link.

Got it.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6733
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not your secretary. Find the questions and the article yourself.
one of the oldest ploys on Topix.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6734
Oct 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage
Lacez wrote; We're talking about same-sex marriage. If any other issues come up, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. This is not about "any committed relationship" getting marriage rights, this is about consensual same-sex adult couples getting married.
If the law dumbs down marriage to 'two people in a committed relationship' as the basis for marriage, the door is opened for numerous alternatives. You know that. Already in Brazil there are legal attempts to outlaw the restriction of 'two people' in marriage.
Closing the door after it is opened is highly unlikely, and the damage will already have been done to the most essential relationship in human culture.
Words describe reality.'If You' lists numerous distinctions between marriage and gay couples. To deny those and distort reality is stupid and dangerous.
You are the one denying reality. SSM has been in effect in many areas for a long enough time for people to see that all your doom and gloom predictions and what if's are simply paranoia.

None of the things you say will happen once that door is opened have happened.

Face it. All you have left in your quiver is fear.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972... 15 min DNF 409
Tulsa Couple Asks U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Ga... 17 min DNF 2
Judges chide state lawyers over gay marriage bans 20 min WeTheSheeple 5
Judge critical of states defending gay marriage... 22 min Fa-Foxy 43
Residents see Europe best for gays and lesbians... 30 min Imprtnrd 24
Gay Marriage Vs. the First Amendment 36 min The_Box 311
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 41 min lides 2,944
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 3 hr Pietro Armando 54,813
Becker & Poliakoff Lawyer Sends Anti-Gay Email ... 3 hr Wondering 22
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••