Top Anti-Gay Group Attempts Public Meeting Over LGBT Rights

[Resora]

i think homosexuality being genetic would have been big news. i was always under the impression that it was choice, you know since i have yet to read an artical about it being genetic

Why would it be a choice?

Because he's never read an "artical" saying otherwise, silly.

[Flaxxony]

why am i supposed to be tolorant of you but not you of me. hipocracy at its finest.

To quote Karl Popper;

"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

Quite the pretentious prick, I see

[Ifreann]

Happily it's not up to you, and most likely never will be.

Good for you. Enjoy that.

I do.

---

i have always wondered something........ why is it ok for people who like the LGBT to protest and try to further their agenda, while it is the worst possiable event for someone to oppose them and further theirs.
why am i supposed to be tolorant of you but not you of me. hipocracy at its finest.

Have you not been reading the thread?

---

Because the people who oppose them are harming members of society for no logical reason.

Granted, they can spread hate all they want. They're in their full right to do so.

But they shouldn't act suprised when they get shit for it.

how is it harm? i see no harm in being against something i find moraly wrong.
prove that they spread hate. i believe that homosexuality is wrong, that dosen't mean i hate homosexuals.

If wanting to deny them equal rights isn't hate then I don't know what is.

---

I'm sure you're well aware of the violence that LGBT members have experienced, nevermind that attitudes expressed by groups mentioned in the OP only help to perpetuate that violence.

and the LGBT dosen't have a violant side? where i live its the other way around. in my high school a group of homosexual kids tried to beat me for disaggreeing with them and their life style choices.

Bet they didn't.

[Blasveck]

Accurate or not, it is quite the shift from the earlier passion for "hang, disembowel and burn the sodomites", which is still pretty much the norm for certain Christians, such as the always delightful Scott Lively. Taking into account just how vitriolic anti-LGBT sentiments used to be, and how sugar-coatedly dehumanizing they are now, it's quite clear that there's an element of fear of criticism in most anti-LGBT christians.

Those who call for hanging, disemboweling and burning sodomites are acting outside the teachings of Christianity. They themselves might be Christians, but insofar as they call for such actions, they are not doing so as Christians, even if they claim otherwise.
Sexual orientation is largely outside of our control, and thus cannot result in moral culpability.
Our actions are within our control, and thus can result in moral culpability.
Those with a tendency toward sinful actions, such as those born with a homosexual orientation, are never morally culpable for this tendency, but are morally culpable for actually engaging in these actions. One with a homosexual orientation who did not ever engage in homosexual sexual activity would be completely blameless as regards this particular sin.

See, stances like this I can at least understand.

Shame most (in my experience), dont adopt it.

[The Tovian Way]

Not so at all, it is rather an accurate expression of Christian teaching as regards to those who commit sin (i.e. everyone, with only a couple exceptions).

Everyone is 'in sin' so it really doesn't matter if they 'commit' sin.

It does indeed matter if they commit sin!
Everyone (except for Our Lady and Our Lord) was born in a state of original sin, the fallen nature of man which leads us toward sin.
Beyond original sin, there is also actual sin, the commission of sinful acts, which cause grave damage to a person's soul.

[Ragnarum]

Good for you. Enjoy that.

I do.

Great.

[Jormengand]

Uh, kind of. Also to do with conditions in the womb and such, but we think it's fixed at birth - in any case, no attempt at changing people's sexuality has ever succeeded.

Ever.

i think homosexuality being genetic would have been big news. i was always under the impression that it was choice, you know since i have yet to read an artical about it being genetic

That's because it's not genetics, it's epigenetics.

Again, no attempt to change someone's sexuality has ever succeeded - if it were a choice, then it would be easy, not impossible.

[Liriena]

That's a very poor logical structure right there.

as i am not an expert in the feild of human psychology nor genetics i can only go off of what Experts in those feilds have written on the subject, and all of the articals i had read suggested that it was a choice as there is no data supporting it as genetic and few if any genetisists have wanted to take up the manttle of such a task.

Cite those articles.

[Flaxxony]

Those who call for hanging, disemboweling and burning sodomites are acting outside the teachings of Christianity. They themselves might be Christians, but insofar as they call for such actions, they are not doing so as Christians, even if they claim otherwise.
Sexual orientation is largely outside of our control, and thus cannot result in moral culpability.
Our actions are within our control, and thus can result in moral culpability.
Those with a tendency toward sinful actions, such as those born with a homosexual orientation, are never morally culpable for this tendency, but are morally culpable for actually engaging in these actions. One with a homosexual orientation who did not ever engage in homosexual sexual activity would be completely blameless as regards this particular sin.

See, stances like this I can at least understand.

Shame most (in my experience), dont adopt it.

Theoretically you can just say everything is outside your control aka determinism, which is the bigger argument

[The Tovian Way]

Those who call for hanging, disemboweling and burning sodomites are acting outside the teachings of Christianity. They themselves might be Christians, but insofar as they call for such actions, they are not doing so as Christians, even if they claim otherwise.
Sexual orientation is largely outside of our control, and thus cannot result in moral culpability.
Our actions are within our control, and thus can result in moral culpability.
Those with a tendency toward sinful actions, such as those born with a homosexual orientation, are never morally culpable for this tendency, but are morally culpable for actually engaging in these actions. One with a homosexual orientation who did not ever engage in homosexual sexual activity would be completely blameless as regards this particular sin.

See, stances like this I can at least understand.

Shame most (in my experience), dont adopt it.

It does takes a dispassionate intellect to examine the matter carefully. I don't claim to have come up with this myself, this is merely the teaching received from the Church, but all too often Christians falsely equate "homosexual activity" with "homosexual orientation" and mark both as sinful. There really is no excuse for such sloppy theology, but unfortunately, the state of theological education nowadays is pretty dismal.

[New Frenco Empire]

I'm sure you're well aware of the violence that LGBT members have experienced, nevermind that attitudes expressed by groups mentioned in the OP only help to perpetuate that violence.

and the LGBT dosen't have a violant side? where i live its the other way around. in my high school a group of homosexual kids tried to beat me for disaggreeing with them and their life style choices.

Frankly, I don't blame them. I tend to get pretty violent urges whenever someone attempts to judge and criticize me over something I can't help.

As for the OP, this is why free speech is overrated.

[Arcadonisia]

I'm sure you're well aware of the violence that LGBT members have experienced, nevermind that attitudes expressed by groups mentioned in the OP only help to perpetuate that violence.

and the LGBT dosen't have a violant side? where i live its the other way around. in my high school a group of homosexual kids tried to beat me for disaggreeing with them and their life style choices.

Bet they didn't.[/quote]

Hell, Where I live, everyone who is gay is too afraid to come out. I was outed by a bully in my sophmore year. Every one in my town who is a devout "christian" gives me dirty looks and spread rumors about me because of who I am.

[Resora]

Accurate or not, it is quite the shift from the earlier passion for "hang, disembowel and burn the sodomites", which is still pretty much the norm for certain Christians, such as the always delightful Scott Lively. Taking into account just how vitriolic anti-LGBT sentiments used to be, and how sugar-coatedly dehumanizing they are now, it's quite clear that there's an element of fear of criticism in most anti-LGBT christians.

Those who call for hanging, disemboweling and burning sodomites are acting outside the teachings of Christianity. They themselves might be Christians, but insofar as they call for such actions, they are not doing so as Christians, even if they claim otherwise.
Sexual orientation is largely outside of our control, and thus cannot result in moral culpability.
Our actions are within our control, and thus can result in moral culpability.
Those with a tendency toward sinful actions, such as those born with a homosexual orientation, are never morally culpable for this tendency, but are morally culpable for actually engaging in these actions. One with a homosexual orientation who did not ever engage in homosexual sexual activity would be completely blameless as regards this particular sin.

I fail to see how disemboweling a practicing "sodomite" is any worse or less biblically supported than, say, stoning a woman who happens not to be a virgin/lacks a hymen when she gets married, as it commands in Deuteronomy 22:13-22.

[Liriena]

Accurate or not, it is quite the shift from the earlier passion for "hang, disembowel and burn the sodomites", which is still pretty much the norm for certain Christians, such as the always delightful Scott Lively. Taking into account just how vitriolic anti-LGBT sentiments used to be, and how sugar-coatedly dehumanizing they are now, it's quite clear that there's an element of fear of criticism in most anti-LGBT christians.

Those who call for hanging, disemboweling and burning sodomites are acting outside the teachings of Christianity. They themselves might be Christians, but insofar as they call for such actions, they are not doing so as Christians, even if they claim otherwise.

Yet denying LGBT people other human rights, other than their lives, is not in any way unchristian?

Sexual orientation is largely outside of our control, and thus cannot result in moral culpability.
Our actions are within our control, and thus can result in moral culpability.
Those with a tendency toward sinful actions, such as those born with a homosexual orientation, are never morally culpable for this tendency, but are morally culpable for actually engaging in these actions. One with a homosexual orientation who did not ever engage in homosexual sexual activity would be completely blameless as regards this particular sin.

In other words, forcible celibacy under threat of eternal damnation? Unnatural lifestyle in the name of an unnatural fear?

[Natair]

It has been reported that top anti-gay activists are attempted to hold a public meeting with U.S. Senators in the Dirksen Senate Office Building in D.C. today to discuss the only thing that they can obsess over, their extreme hate for marriage equality in America. The organization holding this event is known as the World Congress of Families, which is infamous for spreading intolerance and hate against the LGBT across the globe.

The leaders of this group have come to seek the aid of U.S. Senators to help repeal laws that legalize gay marriages and civil unions across the states. Further information details that members of this group are indeed responsible for spreading false and misleading propaganda that has lead to widespread accounts of LGBT Hate crimes in Africa and Eastern Europe. Not only do these anti-gay activists seek the repeal of equality, but also demand that the U.S. support and embrace laws similar to the infamous Russian laws that prohibit propaganda supporting "nontraditional sexual relations".

So, yet again the crazies are attempting to hold back the waves of progress being seen here in the U.S. and across the globe. I personally think that they shouldn't even be allowed to hold any meetings or share their ideas at all, as they threaten the civil rights of countless LBGT citizens and their allies. The real question here is how far will they go to push their radical agenda into the legal system, and what can be done (legally) to stop them? What are some of your thoughts on their plans and their attempt of a meeting?

Source

Unfortunately, even hate speech is protected under "freedom of speech" as long as it isn't used for threats of violence or to start a sort of riot.

That's paraphrasing of the "as long as it's not inflammatory."

Nothing can be legally done to stop them unless they cross the above two lines, unless the senator refuses to meet with them.

[Condunum]

It has been reported that top anti-gay activists are attempted to hold a public meeting with U.S. Senators in the Dirksen Senate Office Building in D.C. today to discuss the only thing that they can obsess over, their extreme hate for marriage equality in America. The organization holding this event is known as the World Congress of Families, which is infamous for spreading intolerance and hate against the LGBT across the globe.

The leaders of this group have come to seek the aid of U.S. Senators to help repeal laws that legalize gay marriages and civil unions across the states. Further information details that members of this group are indeed responsible for spreading false and misleading propaganda that has lead to widespread accounts of LGBT Hate crimes in Africa and Eastern Europe. Not only do these anti-gay activists seek the repeal of equality, but also demand that the U.S. support and embrace laws similar to the infamous Russian laws that prohibit propaganda supporting "nontraditional sexual relations".

So, yet again the crazies are attempting to hold back the waves of progress being seen here in the U.S. and across the globe. I personally think that they shouldn't even be allowed to hold any meetings or share their ideas at all, as they threaten the civil rights of countless LBGT citizens and their allies. The real question here is how far will they go to push their radical agenda into the legal system, and what can be done (legally) to stop them? What are some of your thoughts on their plans and their attempt of a meeting?

Source

Let it happen most people wouldn't believe them *Watches with a jar of chicken fingers* this is going to be hilarious.

You tell me where the fuck you can get a jar of chicken fingers right now or so help me god I will make breathing illegal.

[Grantica]

So, yet again the crazies are attempting to hold back the waves of progress being seen here in the U.S. and across the globe. I personally think that they shouldn't even be allowed to hold any meetings or share their ideas at all, as they threaten the civil rights of countless LBGT citizens and their allies.

Nothing says support for equal rights for all people like wanting to deny equal rights to some people.

That's what I was about to say...

Freedom means having to put up with stuff you don't like and being able to dislike it all you want.

[Wisconsin9]

Good thing the Supreme Court can keep them from going overboard.

[Menassa]

Everyone is 'in sin' so it really doesn't matter if they 'commit' sin.

It does indeed matter if they commit sin!
Everyone (except for Our Lady and Our Lord) was born in a state of original sin, the fallen nature of man which leads us toward sin.
Beyond original sin, there is also actual sin, the commission of sinful acts, which cause grave damage to a person's soul.

How can it? Regardless of how many sins a person commits, if they are not saved it does not matter, and if they are saved... they are saved!

[The Tovian Way]

Those who call for hanging, disemboweling and burning sodomites are acting outside the teachings of Christianity. They themselves might be Christians, but insofar as they call for such actions, they are not doing so as Christians, even if they claim otherwise.
Sexual orientation is largely outside of our control, and thus cannot result in moral culpability.
Our actions are within our control, and thus can result in moral culpability.
Those with a tendency toward sinful actions, such as those born with a homosexual orientation, are never morally culpable for this tendency, but are morally culpable for actually engaging in these actions. One with a homosexual orientation who did not ever engage in homosexual sexual activity would be completely blameless as regards this particular sin.

I fail to see how disemboweling a practicing "sodomite" is any worse or less biblically supported than, say, stoning a woman who happens not to be a virgin/lacks a hymen when she gets married, as it commands in Deuteronomy 22:13-22.

Neither disemboweling a practicing sodomite nor stoning a non-virgin bride are teachings of Christianity. Indeed, both would be sinful.

[Blasveck]

See, stances like this I can at least understand.

Shame most (in my experience), dont adopt it.

It does takes a dispassionate intellect to examine the matter carefully. I don't claim to have come up with this myself, this is merely the teaching received from the Church, but all too often Christians falsely equate "homosexual activity" with "homosexual orientation" and mark both as sinful. There really is no excuse for such sloppy theology, but unfortunately, the state of theological education nowadays is pretty dismal.

Indeed. Though the false equivocation probably comes from many Protestant denominations, I assume.

[Avenio]

To quote Karl Popper;

"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

Quite the pretentious prick, I see

Coming from one who wandered into a thread only to sneer at a comment that uses too many big words for their taste?

Physician, heal thyself.

[Uiiop]

Let it happen most people wouldn't believe them *Watches with a jar of chicken fingers* this is going to be hilarious.

You tell me where the fuck you can get a jar of chicken fingers right now or so help me god I will make breathing illegal.

In the same place I got the discs of popcorn. The place in the imagination when the normal bag of popcorn gets boring.

[Menassa]

I fail to see how disemboweling a practicing "sodomite" is any worse or less biblically supported than, say, stoning a woman who happens not to be a virgin/lacks a hymen when she gets married, as it commands in Deuteronomy 22:13-22.

Neither disemboweling a practicing sodomite nor stoning a non-virgin bride are teachings of Christianity. Indeed, both would be sinful.

However, they are commanded in The Law! So not doing so would be a sin, right?

[Resora]

I fail to see how disemboweling a practicing "sodomite" is any worse or less biblically supported than, say, stoning a woman who happens not to be a virgin/lacks a hymen when she gets married, as it commands in Deuteronomy 22:13-22.

Neither disemboweling a practicing sodomite nor stoning a non-virgin bride are teachings of Christianity. Indeed, both would be sinful.

You might want to tell that to ol' Moses.

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young [bride]’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

Though yes, you technically are correct. Stoning, not disembowelment, is the proscribed sanction for having gay sex.