Republican Oklahoma County Commissioner makes Homophobic Comic Book ad

[Aizen]

why are you guys trying to argue seriously with ghostmonkey

[Thomas Jackson]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I am not. Did you not say: "Then again, you think anyone who is not a fundie is a homosexualist, rather than just tolerant of people that are different."

This was right after you claimed not to be telepathic, yet you insisted that you knew what I think.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually there are numerous peer reviewed studies which show that homosexuals can change. In fact, some studies showed SPONTANEOUS change. If you like, I could repost dozens of these studies here. Would you like that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I doubt it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yep, So have you heard about the Elane Photography Case?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bigotry? Recognizing that a higher law would demand that I take such an action is Bigotry? Really? OK. That's fine by me.

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bigotry? Recognizing that a higher law would demand that I take such an action is Bigotry? Really? OK. That's fine by me.[/quote]

     So you admit that you are getting your bigotry from the Bible. However, I don't care what your higher law says; I follow a different higher law. THIS is what my higher law says about the issue:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     Read the bolded part, & see that your regressivist "higher law" (I use it in quotations because I know many sane people who reject your interpretation of the Bible & should not be lumped in with you) is not welcome in the laws of my country. Go to Iran; I'm sure that the people there will support your beliefs (if they don't, then you're in trouble). Just leave us freedom-loving people alone. We do not need to punish homosexuals just because they are different.

     In fact, here's another quote from my higher law:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     If you read the bolded part, you can see that by supporting the Gay Rights Movement, I'm just satisfying the directive of my higher law, like you are yours.

[Thomas Jackson]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL! So in your world the Constitution is the highest law? If so, what do you do when the people amend the Constitution. Does your higher law change? In reality, the Constitution doesn't even grant substantive rights. It only recognizes preexisting rights that flow from natural law.

FYI: Appealing to the Constitution to justify homosexuality is misplaced, as the very people who wrote the Constitution also believed it OK to institute sodomy laws.

And If you want to then appeal to the Supreme Court, then you are necessarily stuck with the Supreme Court's precedent on the issue of same-sex "marriage". (Baker v. Nelson 409 U.S. 810 (1972)) as this decision is the established law as it relates to the Federal Constitution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Your" Country? Just try to make me leave bud. Because that same Constitution that you refer to also contains provisions that authorize my veto of your unlawful force against me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I'll stay right here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you think that I'll sit around and welcome perversion with open arms you have another thing coming.

As for "Freedom Loving", is that what you call attempting to FORCE a Christian Photographer to photograph a same-sex "wedding"? Is that what you call filing litigation against Bible Publishers because they include passages which condemn homosexuality? Is that what you call lesbians filing suit against a private business to FORCE them to offer same-sex dating services? Is that what you call filing litigation to FORCE a religious organization to rent out its property to same-sex couples?

Freedom? Sounds like tyranny to me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nice strawman.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you knew anything about Constitutional law you wouldn't be appealing to a preamble to justify anything. Thanks for proving your ignorance.

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL! So in your world the Constitution is the highest law? If so, what do you do when the people amend the Constitution. Does your higher law change? In reality, the Constitution doesn't even grant substantive rights. It only recognizes preexisting rights that flow from natural law. [/quote]

     Yes, it does change. In fact, that is its greatest strength. Besides, it doesn't have to grant substantive rights; it is the basis of the laws of this country. As an American, it is the highest law that I can know (besides natural laws, of course).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     I'm not a metaphysician; different people can have different interpretations of the Constitution. I appealed to the 1st Amendment because it offers legal protection against religious fanatics. In these times, this protection is more necessary than ever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     The Supreme Court has messed things up before. Or do you mean to say that you support the Dred Scott Decision (14th Amendment aside of course).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Your" Country? Just try to make me leave bud. Because that same Constitution that you refer to also contains provisions that authorize my veto of your unlawful force against me. [/quote]

     I was talking about your hateful use of the Bible to attack homosexuality. No sane person wants the laws & officials of this country to discriminate against homosexuals because of the words of a book.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I'll stay right here.
[/quote]

     I just figured that you'd like it there. I mean, I'm sure that they would let you stone homosexuals.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you think that I'll sit around and welcome perversion with open arms you have another thing coming.

As for "Freedom Loving", is that what you call attempting to FORCE a Christian Photographer to photograph a same-sex "wedding"? Is that what you call filing litigation against Bible Publishers because they include passages which condemn homosexuality? Is that what you call lesbians filing suit against a private business to FORCE them to offer same-sex dating services? Is that what you call filing litigation to FORCE a religious organization to rent out its property to same-sex couples?

Freedom? Sounds like tyranny to me.[/quote]

     We're not perfect. But still, we're a lot better than gay-bashers. We don't invoke religion to justify bigotry. We didn't viciously attack 56 people last year in Tennessee alone based on their sexual orientation (http://outandaboutnewspaper.com/article.php?id=2602).

     Also, if you think that two loving adults engaging in a consensual relationship is perverse, then you must think heterosexual marriage is perverse. Unless it's because they can't have children, in which case, people who are sterile should not be able to engage in heterosexual marriage, right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nice strawman.
[/quote]

     You're right. The real reason for the biblical injunction against homosexuality is because it's not good for increasing the population.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you knew anything about Constitutional law you wouldn't be appealing to a preamble to justify anything. Thanks for proving your ignorance.
[/quote]

     If you want to literally believe the Bible, I have just as much reason to literally believe the Constitution. Nevermind that the Constitution is actually relevant today, while the Bible is not. Nevertheless, when Nietzsche decreed that the Judeo-Christian God is no longer believable, he didn't say that people would stop trying to believe.

     Before you go off on more of your metaphysical ramblings, my point is this: I don't care about you or any of your beliefs. You can't force your religious bigotry into the law because of the Constitution (which is far more real than your beliefs could ever hope to be). So you have to pretend that homosexuals are somehow dangerous to you.

     You either have to accept that the Bible is wrong here or go rant to someone else, because I don't care about the stream of close-minded bigotry that you're spewing. If you don't understand that not everyone wants the Bible's bigoted opinion of homosexuality to dictate public policy, then I'm telling you right now. If you don't care about what we think, the feeling is mutual.

[Thomas Jackson]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In order for you to appeal to the Constitution as the highest law, you would have to hold the position that it grants substantive rights.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You don't have to be a "metaphysician" to undestand that the very men who wrote the Constitution also allowed for the establishment of sodomy laws. It's historical fact.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Baker v. Nelson is the law. While only a summary decision it represents the current State of Constitutional Law in this country. The decision is nothing close to Dredd Scott, comparing it to such is laughable and reveals you to be a fanatic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read Anderson v. King County and Hernandez v. Robles for reasons apart from the Bible for upholding traditional laws in this Country.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You apparently can't read. I said "No, I'll stay right here." I'll not be going to Iran.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We? I knew I had you pegged.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did you that forget some of the worse serial killers in the history of our nation were homosexual perverts?

How about these "peaceful statements" by homosexual activists?

"It's hard to refrain from taking this man [Pat Buchanan] by the throat and squeezing as hard as you can while you look into his ugly, disgusting face and watch the eyeballs burst and pop out of their sockets. Or maybe you feel like stepping on his face and squishing his demented brain until the rot oozes out of it and onto the pavement. I have no problem with imagining violence against this wacko..." — Michelangelo Signorile

"I think the time for violence has now arrived. I don't personally think I'm the guy with the guts to do it, but I'd like to see an AIDS terrorist army, like the Irgun which led to the state of Israel." — Larry Kramer

"We should have shut down the subway and burned down city hall. I think rioting is a valid tactic and should be tried ... If someone took out Jesse Helms or William Dannemeyer of California, I would be the first to stand up and applaud." — Michael Petrelis.

How about the Homosexuals who firebombed the home of Pastor Chuck Mcllhenny?

Oh, BTW: The FBI stats show that "hate crimes" committed because of "sexual orientation" rank a distant third behind "hate crimes" committed because of race and Religion.

To put this in another perspective, there were 11,401,313 crimes committed in the United States in 2006. Of these only 1,472 were "hate crimes" targeting vicims because of their "sexual orientation". And this includes the victims who were targeted because of their HETEROSEXUAL "orientation" as well.

1,472 out of 11,401,313. This translates to a victimization rate of 0.000129107937% WOW! That's a MASSIVE PROBLEM!!!
 

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You people really need to get some new talking points. Read Hernandez v Robles and Anderson v King County for a debunking of the "sterile couples" line. It's so absurd that it's not worthy of my time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL! Yeah, OK. And I'm the queen of England.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you didn't care, you wouldn't be spending so much time talking with me. You obviously do care what I believe and you desperately want to stop me from holding these beliefs. Just like the other homosexuals in the cases that I mentioned. In fact, if you were sincere in your supposed "tolerance" you would accept my "intolerance". The fact that you can't even hold your own position is quite telling.

[Хahar 🤔]

PiT, why are you arguing with a joke poster?

[Smash255]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You only wish it were so.

Your right  Anyone who would disown their own kids because they happen to be gay is worse than a joke....

[Ban my account ffs!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You only wish it were so.

Are you 12? 

[Associate Justice PiT]

     You see, I care about what you think in the sense that I would like to persuade you otherwise. I don't care that your beliefs come from the Bible. Sorry if I phrased it in a way that implied otherwise.

     However, the problem is that you see homosexuality as a perversion & I do not. As such, there is a really fundamental disconnect here. The fact that I'm an Atheist & you're a Fundamentalist Christian only makes it worse.

     Since we're wasting each other's time (I'm sure we both have other business that we'd love to attend to rather than flame each other out), I suggest that we quit responding to each other & declare a truce. As you pointed out, it would only be the tolerant thing for me to do.

[Flying Dog]

I just read through this whole thread for the first time.

My response: God help Ghostmonkey because he sure has a perverted view of what the bible says.

[TeePee4Prez]

Wow and I thought Strom Thurmond was bad.  It's kinda humourous actually that someone would stoop to this level.

[Brittain33]

Does anyone else think this may be the work of a (realistic) joke poster?

No, this one looks sincere, unfortunately.

[Citizen James]

Someone's actually going after the Jack Chick demographic?  Interesting.