Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 79747

Again I say - the scheme here is to use the gay issue as pretense for destorying freedom of religion.

If the gay community get some kind of constitutional amendment, like 'It is now illegal to discriminate against gays in any way', then gays would take copies of that amendment and barge into temples and synagogues all over the country saying 'You HAVE to change your doctrine!'

Never mind that fact that most gays are atheists. They have to disbelieve in God or they'd never be able to rationalize their fornications and whoredoms. But for some reason, a lot of them still want to be 'married' by churches that told them gay is a sin. Why? Sour grapes. It's not enough for them to live in sin. They want to force every church in the country to embrace homosexuality, and force churches to change their doctrine at the point of a government bayonet.

On the plus side - when a conservative becomes President, he can just take that Gay amendment and say, "I'm not going to enforce this!" Thank you for showing that we can just refuse to obey laws we don't like - Barry-boy.

Slyrr, newsbusters.org 69 Comments [2/28/2011 4:30:17 AM]
Fundie Index: 62
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
Sherlockian

Destorying?

Does that involve dismantling your ridiculous fairy tales about how the boogyman libruls are going to make you start praying to Mecca or Boy George or something?

2/28/2011 4:31:24 AM

The Jamo

They want to force every church in the country to embrace homosexuality, and force churches to change their doctrine at the point of a government bayonet.

"Force"? No, this can't be fundie. A fundie would say: "They want to ram their homosexuality down our throats." Obviously this guy missed the memo.

2/28/2011 4:37:32 AM

Kefkaownsall

Thank you for showing that we can just refuse to obey laws we don't like - Barry-boy.
Actually I thought Obama was just not going to appeal it. and an amendment is stronger than a law.

2/28/2011 4:45:24 AM

Argle Bargle

I see fundies still interpret "freedom of religion" as "freedom for religion, but not freedom from religion".

2/28/2011 4:46:54 AM

Doctor Whom

If the gay community get some kind of constitutional amendment, like 'It is now illegal to discriminate against gays in any way', then gays would take copies of that amendment and barge into temples and synagogues all over the country saying 'You HAVE to change your doctrine!'

Yeah, 'cause that's exactly what happened after the 14th Amendment and the equal-protection clauses of various state constitutions.

Thank you for showing that we can just refuse to obey laws we don't like - Barry-boy.

What's that about repeating a lie often enough?

2/28/2011 4:50:57 AM

grimsoncrow

Oh, you Americans and your problems.
You are adorable.Easy to see what's the most burning issue in your country right now...

2/28/2011 5:12:31 AM

Raised by Horses

"Thank you for showing that we can just refuse to obey laws we don't like."

You mean like the Bill of Rights? Might want to take that issue up with the last administration or three.

But I'm guessing that doesn't really bother you all that much.

2/28/2011 5:16:13 AM



Conservatives hate big government, but they want government to legislate their prejudice into law. Or at least not legislate it out of law. Because they are dicks. Stop being dicks, Jesus hates that.

2/28/2011 5:42:00 AM

Swede

As many gays have been told day in and day out by religious people that they are an abomination, evil, disgusting etc, they probably don't feel welcome into religions. If the majority of gays really are atheists, it might not be their own choice.

Not all churces say homosexuality is a sin, some churches would rather include people, than ostracize them.
They manages to see the gay person as a victim of his/her nature and not intentionally sinful.

Maybe the gay people want to be married (no quotation marks needed) in order to not be fornicating and whoring any longer, but to have good, faitful, married sex instead.

Constitutional amendments are not done in a jiffy, are they?

In Sweden it is already illegal to discriminate people on the basis of gender, transgender identity, ethnicity, religion/faith, sexual orientation, functional disorders or age. Our churches, mosques and synagogues manage to function well regardless. (Most of them at least, we have a few fundie idiots here as well.)

2/28/2011 5:48:20 AM

Mister Spak

"Again I say - the scheme here is to use the gay issue as pretense for destorying freedom of religion."

Again I say - as in gays can't have rights because it's against my religion?


" when a conservative becomes President, he can just take that Gay amendment and say, "I'm not going to enforce this!" Thank you for showing that we can just refuse to obey laws we don't like - Barry-boy."

Too late, your precious Dumbya is already there.

http://www.coherentbabble.com/listGWBall.htm


2/28/2011 6:13:17 AM

pete

Well, the government can't, and never will, be allowed to force any particular church to marry anyone. 1st Amendment.

The part of the DOMA that the DOJ is not going to defend is the bit that says a given state doesn't have to recognize a marriage from another jurisdiction. So, if a hospital in Texas refuses visitation rights to a spouse married in Iowa, the DOJ will not defend said hospital.

If you want to look for a precedent of an administration refusing to obey laws one would be better served by looking at Bushco. Between shitting all over the Geneva Conventions, to treating the Constitution like a "God-damned piece of paper", to simply ignoring subpoenas? it will be hard for any Administration to outdo Bushco.

2/28/2011 6:13:22 AM

D Laurier

Translation:
Persecute me fapfapfapfap, oh yes... persecute me fapfapfapfap....

2/28/2011 6:20:44 AM

Angua

If your church doesn't want to perform marriages for same-sex couples, guess what, it doesn't have to! No one is forcing any religious institution to perform any marriage ceremony. Besides, same-sex couples who want a religious wedding can simply find a less bigoted church. There. Simple. End of problem, the government has not interfered with your church and your church is no longer interfering with our government.

2/28/2011 6:28:06 AM

Reverend Jeremiah

A Federal judge has ruled it unconstitutional..he didnt just say "Im going to ignore it"

2/28/2011 6:49:18 AM

TGRwulf

That is one fucking hell of a slippery slope Slyrr. Oh and we already had a conservative president who refused to enforce the laws and even broke them. Or have you forgotten 8 years of Dubya already?

2/28/2011 6:50:44 AM

Doubting Thomas

If the gay community get some kind of constitutional amendment, like 'It is now illegal to discriminate against gays in any way'

They don't need any such amendment, since it should be illegal to discriminate against them now.

gays would take copies of that amendment and barge into temples and synagogues all over the country saying 'You HAVE to change your doctrine!'

You don't understand the First Amendment, do you?

Never mind that fact that most gays are atheists.

Cite? Most gays I've known were/are Christians.

They have to disbelieve in God or they'd never be able to rationalize their fornications and whoredoms.

Or, they could rationalize God not having a problem with homosexuality.

They want to force every church in the country to embrace homosexuality

You mean like how churches want to force everyone in the country to embrace heterosexuality? Shiny, shiny mirror.

On the plus side - when a conservative becomes President, he can just take that Gay amendment and say, "I'm not going to enforce this!"

That's not how our government works, except unless it's a conservative (read Republican) president.

2/28/2011 6:55:10 AM

dionysus

Aside from it being completely unconstitutional (and thus illegal) to force you to change your doctrine or force you to marry them, why is that particular piece of it so damn important to you? Do you really have nothing better to do with your life than to butt into other people's private affairs? And even if you can't help but being the self-appointed, self-righteous moral police there are plenty of other sins and abominations to go after. Why don't you protest people wearing underwear (since it's almost always made with more than one material) or go persecute McDonald's for having people work on Sundays? Oh, right, because that would mean you can't make a misunderstood group into an easy scapegoat and you wouldn't be able to rationalize your irrational hatred of them.

2/28/2011 7:05:55 AM

Xotan

"the scheme here is to use the gay issue as pretense for destorying freedom of religion."

===Caca de toro!

"'You HAVE to change your doctrine!' "

===What is the second of the two great commandments according to your Jesus? Is it not 'Thou shallt love thy neighbour as thyself'? And are not all the Law and the Prophets contained in these two commandments? So when are you going to start loving your homosexual neighbour?

" They have to disbelieve in God or they'd never be able to rationalize their fornications and whoredoms. "

===citation for first clause in this sentence.

===And then some penance for the sinful judgement in the second clause. What was that injuction of Jesus about motes and beams?

===Re marriage, it is a civil contract. Churches or registrars are only witnesses. The contract is between two individuals. Marriage before a priest or a minister/pastor means nothing legally. The legal act of marriage is the record in the register. Even the RC Church uses the expressetion "...this sacrament, of which you, yourselves are the ministers..." when the priest addresses the couple who are wedding each other. So get that big twist out of your knickers. Atheists don't want to cross the threshold of any church, especially the looney-right Baptists fringe.

"What a maroon!", as dear Bugs would say.




2/28/2011 7:31:06 AM

Dr. Shrinker

If history is any indication Slyrr, you are dead wrong. Eventually, gay marriage will become the law of the land. When it does, there will be a huge outcry from the conservative right, probably some calls of secession and maybe a threat of an assassination or two. 20 years after that, most of America will consider the issue old news. 20 years after that, conservatives will be insisting that they were always in favor of gay rights, but that it was the progressives in the country who kept them from making gay marriage legal.

That's what the conservatives have done with every other civil rights movement so far.

2/28/2011 7:32:33 AM

Amanda

A lot of gay people are Christians. They probably believe in a God that loves them and wouldn't curse them to burn for eternity for simply loving someone of the same gender.

2/28/2011 7:43:44 AM

Anon-e-moose

"Again I say - the scheme here is to use the gay issue as pretense for destorying freedom of religion." tl;dr...

Again, speaking as a straight, Atheist, pro-LGBT man, even if 'twere the case (and if you think so, that tinfoil hat's just not cutting it, eh?), that's a bad thing... how?

And if 'twere the case, then call it justifiable payback for all the centuries of Christianity's unjustifiable persecution of LGBT people.

[/Sauce for the Goose]

2/28/2011 7:50:59 AM

John_in_Oz

I presume your name is pronounced 'slur'.

2/28/2011 7:57:02 AM

Wandering Mind

I'm not American, and perhaps my American colleagues here can correct me if I'm wrong. Wouldn't that same 1st Amendment, that the fundies misuse so much, prevent any law being enacted that would force a church (or temple or synagogue) to amend its doctrine?

2/28/2011 8:12:41 AM

Brendan Rizzo

Actually, there are many Gay Christian movements. The reason they want to get married in churches is because they think they are supposed to get married in churches!

And as for gays marching on religious buildings en masse forcing them to change their doctrine, well... didn't racist churches voluntarily change their doctrines forty years ago in response to the Civil Rights Movement?

And yeah... ignoring a Constitutional amendment is probably the Number 1 way for a president to lose approval, and fast. You know what happened when Bush tried it...

2/28/2011 8:12:49 AM

aaa

I have a question to you. Does the name "George bush" ring a bell in your tiny brain?

2/28/2011 8:20:40 AM
1 2 3