PDA

View Full Version : 'Burn their F---ing Churches, Then Tax The Charred Timbers'



megimoo
11-06-2008, 05:11 PM
QUEERLY BELOVED

'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban

'Burn their f---ing churches, then tax charred timbers'


Decisions by voters in Florida, Arizona and California to join residents of 27 other states with constitutional protections for traditional marriage have prompted threats of violence against Christians and their churches.

"Burn their f---ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers," wrote "World O Jeff" on the JoeMyGod blogspot today within hours of California officials declaring Proposition 8 had been approved by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent. Confirmation on voter approval of amendments in Florida and Arizona came earlier.

The amendments in all three states essentially limit marriage to one man and one woman. In California, the measure states the only marriages "valid and recognized" in the state are those between one man and one woman.

Thirty states now have adopted marriage amendments. However, in California, the vitriol appeared especially high since the state Supreme Court in May created same-sex marriage for homosexuals. Proposition 8 overruled the court decision, readopting the marriage definition California votersadopted in 2000.snip
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80220

Sonnabend
11-06-2008, 05:19 PM
They held a referendum., people voted. That the vote didnt go the way they wanted is tough shit.

Vox populi vox dei.

LogansPapa
11-06-2008, 06:34 PM
And His voice certainly came through loud and clear in my state. ;)

Zeus
11-06-2008, 06:42 PM
And His voice certainly came through loud and clear in my state. ;)

Actually the vote in Cal was a lot tighter than it has been in any other state. last go round the states that banned gay marriage did so by a 2 - 1 margin or better. what was the spread in Cal 5 or 6 pts.

LogansPapa
11-06-2008, 06:44 PM
Actually the vote in Cal was a lot tighter than it has been in any other state. last go round the states that banned gay marriage did so by a 2 - 1 margin or better. what was the spread in Cal 5 or 6 pts.

Actually, if it were not for Mormon money - it would have been a homo-landslide. But i just live here - what do I know.:cool:

Lager
11-06-2008, 06:50 PM
Do gays have the right to civil unions in California, already LP?

LogansPapa
11-06-2008, 07:04 PM
Do gays have the right to civil unions in California, already LP?

Of course - but that's not enough for them. They want to be equally recognized in everything - everywhere - every time. :rolleyes:

Goldwater
11-06-2008, 07:27 PM
Of course - but that's not enough for them. They want to be equally recognized in everything - everywhere - every time. :rolleyes:

Is it me or did you take a dive in certain directions on some issues lately?

Anyway, civil unions = good, gay marriage = impossible, marriage is a religious term defined between a man and a woman.

Although government shouldn't be in marriage at all.

MrsSmith
11-06-2008, 08:27 PM
Actually the vote in Cal was a lot tighter than it has been in any other state. last go round the states that banned gay marriage did so by a 2 - 1 margin or better. what was the spread in Cal 5 or 6 pts.

Yeah, but this was a vote to overturn a "court-written" law...and one that had allowed thousands of people to get a little piece of paper "proving" they were something that they could not be...so I'm sure some people balked at voting for it even though they believe in marriage.

AlmostThere
11-07-2008, 02:33 AM
I have great respect for Megyn Kelly's "mind". No seriously, she is one sharp lady. She was on O'Reilly tonight and according to her, the CA Supreme Court could rule that the referendum was gutting the Constitution and they could just say,"Tough, gay marriage is legal". If it's modifying the Constitution that's OK, but if it's a complete gut and rewrite they can tell voters, "Screw you". Anybody want to guess?

Sonnabend
11-07-2008, 07:43 AM
If we think of LP as a blue-dog Democrat (LP..you know what I mean, don't you?) his approach makes sense.

Joe Lieberman is a Democrat..yet he commands a lot of respect. I've had the time to give LP the benefit of a few doubts..Eyelids he is not.

noonwitch
11-07-2008, 08:59 AM
What is really the difference between a civil union and a marriage, other than the whole opposite gender thing, if the government licenses one for gays and the other for straights? Do both have IRS status? Legal standing in medical decisions, ability to buy into a partner's health care plan at a lower, family rate? Adoption of kids as a couple and not as separate single adults?

It's just words. People would call the ceremony a marriage if civil unions were to be made legal in Michigan, although that's highly unlikely in light of the proposition that passed in 2004.


The only difference I can see is that children are physically born into many straight relationships. Biological fathers/mothers have custody issues if the other parent discovers he or she is gay and living with a same-sex partner.


Aside from that, anyone who is making statements like "Burn their churches" is not really helping his cause out very much.

LogansPapa
11-07-2008, 10:27 AM
Is it me or did you take a dive in certain directions on some issues lately?

I donít know about Ďtaking a diveí ( a boxing related metaphor for throwing a fight ), but Iím torn. I guess I want a related issue two ways and I donít know where the compromise is located.

I want gays to be as happy/miserable as any other couples - allowed to raise orphan kids and such, but - I donít want the beautiful traditions of various religions from around the world and brought up through history to be pissed on from a great height.

This should be a religious issue - done within the confines of a church, temple, synagogue, etc. and taken out of the hand of the state. I also believe the federal government should give exactly equal recognition of individuals regarding taxes - whether they be single or married.

wilbur
11-07-2008, 01:47 PM
I don’t know about ‘taking a dive’ ( a boxing related metaphor for throwing a fight ), but I’m torn. I guess I want a related issue two ways and I don’t know where the compromise is located.

I want gays to be as happy/miserable as any other couples - allowed to raise orphan kids and such, but - I don’t want the beautiful traditions of various religions from around the world and brought up through history to be pissed on from a great height.

This should be a religious issue - done within the confines of a church, temple, synagogue, etc. and taken out of the hand of the state. I also believe the federal government should give exactly equal recognition of individuals regarding taxes - whether they be single or married.

Personally, I think the whole hang up over the term marriage is a red herring. The religious objection to gay marriage has less to do with the term and much more to do with the idea that their government recognizes homosexual relationships as legitimate. Whether the term "marriage" is used to denote the relationships, it doesn't really change the fact that those types of relationships would be officially condoned... and all the social and spiritual ills that they imagine befalling society if such relationships are condoned and recognized by government, will still, in fact, befall society. In other words, God will still be displeased with us.... and as long as that is true, it will be their mission to fix it. Compromise on the term is fine with me, but I don't think tensions or the conflict will be resolved in any way by doing so.

Lager
11-07-2008, 02:15 PM
So, if civil unions or other euphemisms already confer the same rights, what are they fighting for? What lack of rights are gay citizens protesting in LA?

aerojarod
11-07-2008, 02:32 PM
So, if civil unions or other euphemisms already confer the same rights, what are they fighting for? What lack of rights are gay citizens protesting in LA?


Exactly.

They can essentially guarantee themselves all the same rights given to Married hetersexuals thru existing legal channels: Power of Attourney, Revokable Living Trusts, etc. This isn't about equal rights. It's about getting public validation of their personal behavior.

Lager
11-07-2008, 02:34 PM
Exactly.

They can essentially guarantee themselves all the same rights given to Married hetersexuals thru existing legal channels: Power of Attourney, Revokable Living Trusts, etc. This isn't about equal rights. It's about getting public validation of their personal behavior.

I have to agree with you. I don't know any other way to see it.

wilbur
11-07-2008, 02:37 PM
Exactly.

They can essentially guarantee themselves all the same rights given to Married hetersexuals thru existing legal channels: Power of Attourney, Revokable Living Trusts, etc. This isn't about equal rights. It's about getting public validation of their personal behavior.

The fight is about national change, not statewide change. States are just the current path for which they are trying to bring about change at the national level. Its a problem when all those rights go away when you cross the border into a neighboring state.

biccat
11-07-2008, 02:38 PM
Why am I not at all surprised to see wilbur in here agreeing with the pudding stuffers?

wilbur
11-07-2008, 02:49 PM
Why am I not at all surprised to see wilbur in here agreeing with the pudding stuffers?

Hey, at least your not pretending to be anything but a bigot anymore;) I guess thats progress.

aerojarod
11-07-2008, 03:39 PM
The fight is about national change, not statewide change. States are just the current path for which they are trying to bring about change at the national level. Its a problem when all those rights go away when you cross the border into a neighboring state.

Well if you're going to toss out the Federalist argument for States Rights and de-centralized governance, then we need to have a discussion of what "new" civil rights we're talking about here. I'm no legal expert, so I can't speak one way or the other on the issue of whether or not Power of Attourney extends across State lines.

And I'm not so sure the government should get into the process of defining and validating the "rights" of couples, or groups. It seems to me the Rights to which we are all afforded are Individual rights. It's a slippery slope if we get in the business of defining rights for anything but individual persons. We'll have to start defining every conceivable couples-rights out there: Hetersexual, Homosexual, Bisexual, Polygamist, etc...

And I don't see Marriage as a "right', per-say.

It's essentially the evolution of a Religious Sacrament that has been adopted by Government as contractual priveledge. It is specifically and exclusively extended to a heterosexual couples based on thousands of years of sociological, historical, cultural, and biological proof that such an arrangement, at large, is beneficial to the advancement of civilization due to the unique capabilities of a heterosexual couple to reproduce and provide a stable environment for the raising of children.

biccat
11-07-2008, 05:13 PM
Hey, at least your not pretending to be anything but a bigot anymore;) I guess thats progress.
That would be "you're"

I'm a bigot because I think burning down churches is a bad thing? :rolleyes:

MrsSmith
11-07-2008, 08:18 PM
That would be "you're"

I'm a bigot because I think burning down churches is a bad thing? :rolleyes:

Sure, that's the leftist way to protest...destroy private property and then tax the remains. wilbur would totally agree with that...just so long as it isn't HIS property. If it belongs to those nasty Christians (you knw the ones, those that open their churches for shelters and provide food pantries and disaster kitchens), then he would love to see them burn.

Straightforward
11-07-2008, 10:34 PM
Of course - but that's not enough for them. They want to be equally recognized in everything - everywhere - every time. :rolleyes:

No, they want to put thier sick perversions in our church's, and rub our rightious noses in it!