Okay to be gay in California

[Yar]

I disagree. But you're entitled to jump to that conclusion, I guess.

It just doesn't make sense for someone who is indifferent toward an issue to protest publicly.

I don't think they're protesting for "the benefit of homosexuals." They aren't going to see those signs and go "OMG, God hates me. I better change ASAP or I'm going to hell." I'm going to guess that they are already aware that the Bible disagrees with what they are doing.

[Giga Guess]

I can never even pretend to understand people like this...the Phelpses are prime example of these guys. There's no attempt at anything other than making a scene, ensuring the world knows just who is going to hell today, and making sure to inflict as much pain, suffering and humiliation on the family they choose to picket this week.

[DMKA]

I disagree. But you're entitled to jump to that conclusion, I guess.

It just doesn't make sense for someone who is indifferent toward an issue to protest publicly.

I don't think they're protesting for "the benefit of homosexuals." They aren't going to see those signs and go "OMG, God hates me. I better change ASAP or I'm going to hell." I'm going to guess that they are already aware that the Bible disagrees with what they are doing.

Actually, it seems to be effective. Google the "ex-gay" movement.

[Momiji]

Can't get much more hating than this either:

How is that hate? They're saying their God hates fags, not them. Also, everything on those signs are a matter of personal feeling, or fact. I don't see the problem if gay people can wave their rainbow flags and their "i love buttsex" signs around with these people flaunting their opinions and beliefs as well.

I dunno, that "Thank God for AIDS" sign seems pretty hateful.

And last I checked, heterosexuals aren't immune to AIDS...

Exactly. It doesn't say "Thank God for AIDS for killing FAGS". It just says "Thank God for AIDS".

Yeah, and um...how do you justify the FAG = (was that supposed to be a + though?) ANAL SEX = DEATH thing?

[DMKA]

Can't get much more hating than this either:

How is that hate? They're saying their God hates fags, not them. Also, everything on those signs are a matter of personal feeling, or fact. I don't see the problem if gay people can wave their rainbow flags and their "i love buttsex" signs around with these people flaunting their opinions and beliefs as well.

I dunno, that "Thank God for AIDS" sign seems pretty hateful.

And last I checked, heterosexuals aren't immune to AIDS...

Exactly. It doesn't say "Thank God for AIDS for killing FAGS". It just says "Thank God for AIDS".

Yeah, and um...how do you justify the FAG = (was that supposed to be a + though?) ANAL SEX = DEATH thing?

Though it may be politically incorrect to point out nowadays, AIDS is quite rampant among homosexual males, far more commonly does it spread from men having anal sex with men than any other way. And AIDS leads to death.

[Avarice-ness]

What I'm more confused about is how they got "God hates fags" out of Rom 9:13.

13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Ironically, Esau's not gay. He was hated because he sold his birthright to his brother for food because instead of becoming a shepard he became a hunter. He was the first born, and his inability to do what he was suppose to led him to cowardice, that cowardice 'caused him to give up and give Jacob the whole first-born rights. Also, it's not god that hated him, the words are spoken by Rebekha his mother. She was speaking about Esau's cowardice and the dishonor towards the family.

Not to mention he had three wives.

Then again, they could be looking at an entirely different Rom. 9:13.

[Yar]

Actually, it seems to be effective. Google the "ex-gay" movement.

People can't just become "straight." They can become celibate. Which even heterosexual couples should be before marriage according to Bible doctrines. But instantly from gay to straight? No, won't happen. Despite what Ted Haggard may make it seem.

What I'm more confused about is how they got "God hates fags" out of Rom 9:13.

13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Ironically, Esau's not gay. He was hated because he sold his birthright to his brother for food because instead of becoming a shepard he became a hunter. He was the first born, and his inability to do what he was suppose to led him to cowardice, that cowardice 'caused him to give up and give Jacob the whole first-born rights. Also, it's not god that hated him, the words are spoken by Rebekha his mother. She was speaking about Esau's cowardice and the dishonor towards the family.

Not to mention he had three wives.

Then again, they could be looking at an entirely different Rom. 9:13.

I brought that up, but Momiji asked me to remove my comment.

[Roto13]

Ignore DMKA. He's one o' them self hating types.

[DMKA]

Actually, it seems to be effective. Google the "ex-gay" movement.

People can't just become "straight." They can become celibate. Which even heterosexual couples should be before marriage according to Bible doctrines. But instantly from gay to straight? No, won't happen. Despite what Ted Haggard may make it seem.

Never said they could. I was just merely pointing out that there are in fact plenty of gay people who acknowledge and heed their religious message.

[Big D]

I'm pretty sure DMKA is either being facetious, or playing devil's advocate. Heh, quite a fitting use for the term devil's advocate...

Anyway, here's a thought: How, exactly, does legalised gay marriage undermine the sanctity of Christian marriage? As far as I can see, a Christian marriage should remain just as blessed and meaningful as it was before, in the eyes of Christians. Allowing homosexuals to have legally-recognised marriage is about as 'harmful' to the Christian marriage tradition as giving legal status to Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu weddings. And I'd just love to see a fundamentalist try to argue why the US should legislate to ban all non-Christian marriage...

[Roto13]

Anyway, here's a thought: How, exactly, does legalised gay marriage undermine the sanctity of Christian marriage? As far as I can see, a Christian marriage should remain just as blessed and meaningful as it was before, in the eyes of Christians. Allowing homosexuals to have legally-recognised marriage is about as 'harmful' to the Christian marriage tradition as giving legal status to Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu weddings. And I'd just love to see a fundamentalist try to argue why the US should legislate to ban all non-Christian marriage...

Yeah, that's something I've never understood. If someone believes that marriage is a Christian institution, doesn't that mean the state can't possibly legalize 'real' gay marriage?

[Momiji]

Can't get much more hating than this either:
PICTURE

How is that hate? They're saying their God hates fags, not them. Also, everything on those signs are a matter of personal feeling, or fact. I don't see the problem if gay people can wave their rainbow flags and their "i love buttsex" signs around with these people flaunting their opinions and beliefs as well.

I dunno, that "Thank God for AIDS" sign seems pretty hateful.

And last I checked, heterosexuals aren't immune to AIDS...

Exactly. It doesn't say "Thank God for AIDS for killing FAGS". It just says "Thank God for AIDS".

Yeah, and um...how do you justify the FAG = (was that supposed to be a + though?) ANAL SEX = DEATH thing?

Though it may be politically incorrect to point out nowadays, AIDS is quite rampant among homosexual males, far more commonly does it spread from men having anal sex with men than any other way. And AIDS leads to death.

Okay, now think logically. What are the odds that they are innocently just standing there holding clearly anti-homosexual signs with the best intentions of trying to 'save' said homosexuals, when they could just as easily not make it sound like they're absolute bigots?

[Yar]

Never said they could. I was just merely pointing out that there are in fact plenty of gay people who acknowledge and heed their religious message.

Well then why did you refer to it as an "ex-gay" movement? That implies that they are no longer gay. They're still gay, they just don't act upon their impulses because of their religious views.

You can't become "ex-straight" if you don't have sex, but you're straight.

Maybe calling it something else like a "pro-celibacy" movement would be more appropriate.

[Giga Guess]

Though it may be politically incorrect to point out nowadays, AIDS is quite rampant among homosexual males, far more commonly does it spread from men having anal sex with men than any other way. And AIDS leads to death.

It's rampant PERIOD. They're calling it a pandemic for a reason.

[DMKA]

Never said they could. I was just merely pointing out that there are in fact plenty of gay people who acknowledge and heed their religious message.

Well then why did you refer to it as an "ex-gay" movement? That implies that they are no longer gay. They're still gay, they just don't act upon their impulses because of their religious views.

You can't become "ex-straight" if you don't have sex, but you're straight.

Maybe calling it something else like a "pro-celibacy" movement would be more appropriate.

Did you completely miss that I put "ex-gay" in quotations? Jesus.

It's rampant PERIOD. They're calling it a pandemic for a reason.

Doesn't change the statistical facts.