You guys are always so quick to try and say a weenie-in-the-buns is normal that sometimes you forget to see the big picture.
Here are some things that are "dark and repulsive", regardless of were you fall on the topic of homosexuality:
Lying, Deception, Unhealthly sexual addiction, Cheating on your spouse, Having regular sex with a prostitue, Drugs... yeah, I'd say pretty dark and repulsive if you asked me.
I think people are syaing sex is normla, not necessarily gay sex.
BTW, does anyone else think it is funny that "Leatherman" is a gay disliking conservative ?? I, BTW, am hetero wihtout strong views on gay anything.
You remind me of that guy in the Green Mile, spewing out your cancer. Dude, you are always looking to hammer, spit, and swear. What is that? Are you angry? I almost never get passed your first sentence, just so you know.
Oh, and how come everyone who is condeming this guy for his false life and actions then wants to condemn him for his for admitting it and coming clean?? Makes no Effin sense to me, the guy is down as you wanted.
becos he lead a crusade to marginalize and condemn people for doing exactly what he was doing all along. then he was exposed. he lied and denied it. then he was fired and once he could not longer pull the wool over the world's eyes, he "apologized" in a way that made it clear that his views had not changed and he would continue to spout his oppressive rhetoric for the sake of politics. he learned nothing. he apologized, but will not change.
becos he lead a crusade to marginalize and condemn people for doing exactly what he was doing all along. then he was exposed. he lied and denied it. then he was fired and once he could not longer pull the wool over the world's eyes, he "apologized" in a way that made it clear that his views had not changed and he would continue to spout his oppressive rhetoric for the sake of politics. he learned nothing. he apologized, but will not change.
Why does he need to change?? He is a gay man and now can be free to live how he chooses, but you are still acting shocked and appalled. I don't even care what he does with the rest of his life, he is done. But golly you libs are really just excited and outraged in the same breath.
Just in case you aren't aware of this, this is not the first public figure to go down in my lifetime, in hypocrisy. Lots of democrats have gone down in my day.
Hypocrisy is sneaking up on us all every day, it is just a matter of getting caught or being in the public eye. I am guessing that when you are in power you can get pretty worked up with the idea that you can affect change and sometimes it might be to fight the good fight against something you yourself have difficulty with. A good example might be MJ Fox, or someone who's sister was killed by tobacco, or maybe a victim of a drunk driver accident's relative. Or an alcoholic, a thief, a child molestor, a rapist. Ted Bundi talked about how bad pornography was because of the affects that it had on him. So, maybe this guy had honest intent but also had his demons. Doesn't excuse him, but that is humanity.
It isn't like the argument that men and men or women and women should not be allowed under civil law to be married is actually lessened by this. That would be like saying because MJ Fox is for stem cell research and Rush L insulted him, then we should conclude the argument based on those factors. There is no relevancy.
Anyway, I never even heard of this guy before last week and I am not out of the loop of Christian conservatives, right wing conspiracies, or evanagelicals.
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
Why does he need to change?? He is a gay man and now can be free to live how he chooses, but you are still acting shocked and appalled. I don't even care what he does with the rest of his life, he is done. But golly you libs are really just excited and outraged in the same breath.
Just in case you aren't aware of this, this is not the first public figure to go down in my lifetime, in hypocrisy. Lots of democrats have gone down in my day.
Hypocrisy is sneaking up on us all every day, it is just a matter of getting caught or being in the public eye. I am guessing that when you are in power you can get pretty worked up with the idea that you can affect change and sometimes it might be to fight the good fight against something you yourself have difficulty with. A good example might be MJ Fox, or someone who's sister was killed by tobacco, or maybe a victim of a drunk driver accident's relative. Or an alcoholic, a thief, a child molestor, a rapist. Ted Bundi talked about how bad pornography was because of the affects that it had on him. So, maybe this guy had honest intent but also had his demons. Doesn't excuse him, but that is humanity.
It isn't like the argument that men and men or women and women should not be allowed under civil law to be married is actually lessened by this. That would be like saying because MJ Fox is for stem cell research and Rush L insulted him, then we should conclude the argument based on those factors. There is no relevancy.
Anyway, I never even heard of this guy before last week and I am not out of the loop of Christian conservatives, right wing conspiracies, or evanagelicals.
becos he's a gay man and if he continues to presume that he can order other people not to do things he wants to do himself, then someone ought to give him a swift kick in the ass. my only joy in this is one less hot-air blowing evangelical douchebag gone. here's hoping there's a whole slew of them who go down so people stop listening to those jackasses.
i loathe hypocrisy, and i dont care what side it's on. if you are going to rant in the public eye about something, then do the opposite in private, im going to laugh and gloat all the way to the voting booth when you get caught.
also, comparing MJ Fox to this guy is fucking ridiculous. MJ Fox has a serious, life-threatening disease that begs for financial support for research and a cure. being gay is not a disease, not life-threatening, and begs for simple equality, not humanitarian intervention or a cure.
becos he's a gay man and if he continues to presume that he can order other people not to do things he wants to do himself, then someone ought to give him a swift kick in the ass. my only joy in this is one less hot-air blowing evangelical douchebag gone. here's hoping there's a whole slew of them who go down so people stop listening to those jackasses.
i loathe hypocrisy, and i dont care what side it's on. if you are going to rant in the public eye about something, then do the opposite in private, im going to laugh and gloat all the way to the voting booth when you get caught.
Really, I wonder how infuriated you have been at the indescretions laid at the feet of Democrats in the past 20 years?? Sorry, don't get your sudden pious revelation that places you in the seat of the scoffer. It is so irrelevant how good this makes you feel.
Like I said, I don't even care about this, glad the guy got busted but saddened that it is affecting lots of people who are probably just fine folk despite your distate for people of faith.
And you skipped right over the part that his lifestyle has nothing to do with the gay marriage issue. WOW, I am amazed at how much energy we waste in this country on legislation of morality, from both sides.
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
Really, I wonder how infuriated you have been at the indescretions laid at the feet of Democrats in the past 20 years?? Sorry, don't get your sudden pious revelation that places you in the seat of the scoffer. It is so irrelevant how good this makes you feel.
Like I said, I don't even care about this, glad the guy got busted but saddened that it is affecting lots of people who are probably just fine folk despite your distate for people of faith.
And you skipped right over the part that his lifestyle has nothing to do with the gay marriage issue. WOW, I am amazed at how much energy we waste in this country on legislation of morality, from both sides.
being 24, probably not too infuriated. by comparison, the dems have been pretty clean since i came of an age to follow politics. which is pretty fucked up considering they were lead by clinton. but he's got nothing on asshole like this guy, falwell, robertson, limbaugh, and so on.
im not saddened it's affecting fne folk. i hope it does. i hope it shakes them to the core and makes them wonder if they can trust schmucks like haggard. i hope it makes them rethink mindlessly backing anybody who waves a bible for them without thinking seriously about whether the guy's positions square with our american notion of freedom.
im also opposed to legislating morality. but i see that coming almost entirely from the right. i say almost, there are cases on the left, but nothing even holding a candle to the breadth and depth of the right's dream of a united (christian) states of america.
being 24, probably not too infuriated. by comparison, the dems have been pretty clean since i came of an age to follow politics. which is pretty fucked up considering they were lead by clinton. but he's got nothing on asshole like this guy, falwell, robertson, limbaugh, and so on.
im not saddened it's affecting fne folk. i hope it does. i hope it shakes them to the core and makes them wonder if they can trust schmucks like haggard. i hope it makes them rethink mindlessly backing anybody who waves a bible for them without thinking seriously about whether the guy's positions square with our american notion of freedom.
im also opposed to legislating morality. but i see that coming almost entirely from the right. i say almost, there are cases on the left, but nothing even holding a candle to the breadth and depth of the right's dream of a united (christian) states of america.
Your mindset is familiar, the concept that there one side is clearly more correct or truthful than the other....and a lot of chest beating about how you are on the right side. I say walk careful, judge slowly, cause it is easy to get fooled and as soon as it becomes 'clear' that there is one side that is right, they can fail you.
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
Your mindset is familiar, the concept that there one side is clearly more correct or truthful than the other....and a lot of chest beating about how you are on the right side. I say walk careful, judge slowly, cause it is easy to get fooled and as soon as it becomes 'clear' that there is one side that is right, they can fail you.
in this case, one side is more correct, becos it allows for any side to exist. the other side is wrong, becos it only allows its own side to exist. you dont like gays, dont be gay. ive yet to find a single gay person who suggested that somebody else ought to be gay. the side that tries to force people to live its way and deny the validity of that person's choices is wrong. plain and simple.
in the end, however, i dont claim to be right. it's possible haggard is right and all the fags will burn in hell. but know what? that's their decision and neither haggard nor anyone else has the right to take that decision away from them. i walk plenty carefully and judge plenty slowly. im in law school, i can see both sides of any issue and sometimes make up a few of my own i can argue both sides. but at a certain point, you realize one side's arguments and reasons stand on ground that is much less solid than the other's. the republicans have chosen this ground on this particular issue. any many others lately.
in this case, one side is more correct, becos it allows for any side to exist. the other side is wrong, becos it only allows its own side to exist. you dont like gays, dont be gay. ive yet to find a single gay person who suggested that somebody else ought to be gay. the side that tries to force people to live its way and deny the validity of that person's choices is wrong. plain and simple.
in the end, however, i dont claim to be right. it's possible haggard is right and all the fags will burn in hell. but know what? that's their decision and neither haggard nor anyone else has the right to take that decision away from them. i walk plenty carefully and judge plenty slowly. im in law school, i can see both sides of any issue and sometimes make up a few of my own i can argue both sides. but at a certain point, you realize one side's arguments and reasons stand on ground that is much less solid than the other's. the republicans have chosen this ground on this particular issue. any many others lately.
I can make the same argument, and have. Democrats are tolerant of everthing except Christians. They have no idea what to do with Radical Muslims but to say it must be our fault. But for Christians and Catholics, they have NO tolerance. You have to be able to see that.
Now, if the church decides that they are against abortion, or homosexuality, or slavery based on Biblical values (and that is historically what has happened), then those are moral judgements rooted in faith. They should be allowed to pursue this and promote it in society. That doesn't mean they should kill doctors, blow up buildings, kill gays, etc. It does mean that can have a judgement whether the activity is acceptable. No one has said gays are not allowed to exist, just they shouldn't have legal protection to be married like hetros. I don't see that as hate, but it could be misused I agree.
If the church is the last place on earth that thinks having sex with 10 year old children is not acceptable, and yet civil law says it is just fine, where do we as citizens go?
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
...
Because they were lied to by someone they believed in... I feel bad for the people who freely gave their faith and believed his lies. Is that a bad thing in your eyes?
I wasn't in that position (as part of his church)... because I have seen the same type of bullshit in church... by its leaders and its followers. Which is why I don't belong to a church or religion.
Maybe, i'm just better at spotting bullshit when I hear it... that ain't my fault.
What lies did he tell them? Do you think he stood up in front of the congregation and claimed to be perfect? I don't think he lied to them about religion. He just covered up his own sins.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
apparently you weren't reading carefully. i specifically said he was not advocating violence, but that advocating violence is not a prerequisite for encouraging hatred. if you feel the only thing that shows hate is violence, then you have some issues. he does not have to say "go kill some fags" to be preaching hate.
i dont see what you're asking from me. again, what would you consider proof of hate? me, the fact that he attempts to make his disciples believe there is something wrong with gay people, that they are "other," that they are responsible for the decay and destruction of our society (all rhetoric hitler used to justify his discrimination against jews, gays, and gypsies) is enough to qualify his preaching as fostering and encouraging hatred of homosexuals.
Saying that homosexual sex is a sin is not hatred. Heck, he probably said pre-marital sex is a sin too, so I guess he was encouraging hate against everyone who couldn't wait, too.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I can make the same argument, and have. Democrats are tolerant of everthing except Christians. They have no idea what to do with Radical Muslims but to say it must be our fault. But for Christians and Catholics, they have NO tolerance. You have to be able to see that.
no, i dont. show me one instance where any democrat in this country has ever proposed prohibiting christians from practicing their faith, reading the bible in the privacy of their own homes, having a catholic wedding, believing in jesus, etc. for that matter, show me any democrat who said radical islam is the fault of christianity. the closest thing im aware of is some (including me) who feel that the people like haggard and rbertson and falwell are pretty much the same as radical islamic regimes like the taliban. they both dream of a society dominated and ruled by a religious standard as decided by their particular holy book.
if you think the rhetoric of people who oppose gay unions (unions, not just marriage, these people oppose ANY sort of equality for homosexuals) is a simple, harmless "we oppose this" social policy, you're deluded. it's couched in descriptions of them as sinful, evil, decadent, and responsible for the decay of american society. it's not a direct declaration of hatred, but the effect it produces is the same: discrimination, distrust, and marginalization.
Saying that homosexual sex is a sin is not hatred. Heck, he probably said pre-marital sex is a sin too, so I guess he was encouraging hate against everyone who couldn't wait, too.
yes, but they do not advocate sanctions against cheaters, stripping them of equality, or laws banning divorce or making infidelity a crime. they DO, however, support sodomy laws and preventing gays from getting ANY legal recognition... including civil unions. if you cannot see the difference there, i don't know how better to explain it.
his apology was weak at best he admited to a massage and buying but not taking drugs.
Exactly. Unless he thinks that getting a massage and holding drugs in your hand but not taking them is "dark and repulsive," he hasn't exactly been forthcoming.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Exactly. Unless he thinks that getting a massage and holding drugs in your hand but not taking them is "dark and repulsive," he hasn't exactly been forthcoming.
i'm fairly sure that since he's a married man and he contacted a male prostitute for a massage that he's not exactly proud of that. And again, i'm sure we can assume he's against illegal drug use / possession so yes, by his and his churches standards it is dark and repulsive...even if it seems not THAT big a deal to others.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
yes, but they do not advocate sanctions against cheaters, stripping them of equality, or laws banning divorce or making infidelity a crime. they DO, however, support sodomy laws and preventing gays from getting ANY legal recognition... including civil unions. if you cannot see the difference there, i don't know how better to explain it.
I can kind of see your point, but the logic isn't overly solid. Even if I accept what you're saying, I do not think passing laws is equal to hatred.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
You remind me of that guy in the Green Mile, spewing out your cancer. Dude, you are always looking to hammer, spit, and swear. What is that? Are you angry? I almost never get passed your first sentence, just so you know.
Oh, and how come everyone who is condeming this guy for his false life and actions then wants to condemn him for his for admitting it and coming clean?? Makes no Effin sense to me, the guy is down as you wanted.
what are you even talking about?????????? all i did was note that he was not self loathing, like everyone else is stating, and instead his whole preacher man gay hating persona is an act. an act to pilfer money from his bigoted congregation. it could not be more obvious. i am shocked that everyone else seems to believe that he is a gay man who hates that part of himself so much that he rebeled against it by taking the staces he took against homosexuals. for this guy it is about money and nothing else. my post clearly stated that..... he would have spoken hatred about any group that he got paid to hate.... it just so happens he found a congregation that would pay him to hate gays, so its gays he pretends to hate. yes, i am a little angry that this creep would push to include bigotry into my nations constitution for nothing but financial gain..... its not even idealism that drives him. he does not hate gays...HE IS GAY...... that would be like me taking millions of dollars to write bigotry against people over 6 feet tall into the constitution. im 6'3 i dont hate tall people, but if there were 30 million fools who did hate tall people and they made me rich and gave me weekly meetings with the president of the united states, and i spent my life spitting hatred against the tall from a pulpit..... and my greed effected the lives of people whos only crime was being tall, and i shat all over the CONSTITUTION for that greed............ welll that would be pretty shameful. where do you get off acting like being angry at such important issues is unjustified?
what are you even talking about?????????? all i did was note that he was not self loathing, like everyone else is stating, and instead his whole preacher man gay hating persona is an act. an act to pilfer money from his bigoted congregation. it could not be more obvious. i am shocked that everyone else seems to believe that he is a gay man who hates that part of himself so much that he rebeled against it by taking the staces he took against homosexuals. for this guy it is about money and nothing else. my post clearly stated that..... he would have spoken hatred about any group that he got paid to hate.... it just so happens he found a congregation that would pay him to hate gays, so its gays he pretends to hate. yes, i am a little angry that this creep would push to include bigotry into my nations constitution for nothing but financial gain..... its not even idealism that drives him. he does not hate gays...HE IS GAY...... that would be like me taking millions of dollars to write bigotry against people over 6 feet tall into the constitution. im 6'3 i dont hate tall people, but if there were 30 million fools who did hate tall people and they made me rich and gave me weekly meetings with the president of the united states, and i spent my life spitting hatred against the tall from a pulpit..... and my greed effected the lives of people whos only crime was being tall, and i shat all over the CONSTITUTION for that greed............ welll that would be pretty shameful. where do you get off acting like being angry at such important issues is unjustified?
You have the passion and honesty people can't stomach..hence some can't read past your first couple sentences....I always smile and think of myself several years ago when I read your posts..and I'm not being condesending...just wish I still had your fire..keep it up. Really really good stuff......
I can kind of see your point, but the logic isn't overly solid. Even if I accept what you're saying, I do not think passing laws is equal to hatred.
nor do i. but im actually less concerned about the laws than the attitudes encouraging the laws. the laws are just a symptom of the underlying bigotry behind those proposing them. it's not just "i think it's immoral." it's taking it a step further and saying "and furthermore, it's disgusting to me and i will take steps to make sure YOU don't do it either cos it grosses me out."
nor do i. but im actually less concerned about the laws than the attitudes encouraging the laws. the laws are just a symptom of the underlying bigotry behind those proposing them. it's not just "i think it's immoral." it's taking it a step further and saying "and furthermore, it's disgusting to me and i will take steps to make sure YOU don't do it either cos it grosses me out."
That's not hatred or violence as you originally asserted.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Comments
I think people are syaing sex is normla, not necessarily gay sex.
BTW, does anyone else think it is funny that "Leatherman" is a gay disliking conservative ?? I, BTW, am hetero wihtout strong views on gay anything.
becos he lead a crusade to marginalize and condemn people for doing exactly what he was doing all along. then he was exposed. he lied and denied it. then he was fired and once he could not longer pull the wool over the world's eyes, he "apologized" in a way that made it clear that his views had not changed and he would continue to spout his oppressive rhetoric for the sake of politics. he learned nothing. he apologized, but will not change.
Why does he need to change?? He is a gay man and now can be free to live how he chooses, but you are still acting shocked and appalled. I don't even care what he does with the rest of his life, he is done. But golly you libs are really just excited and outraged in the same breath.
Just in case you aren't aware of this, this is not the first public figure to go down in my lifetime, in hypocrisy. Lots of democrats have gone down in my day.
Hypocrisy is sneaking up on us all every day, it is just a matter of getting caught or being in the public eye. I am guessing that when you are in power you can get pretty worked up with the idea that you can affect change and sometimes it might be to fight the good fight against something you yourself have difficulty with. A good example might be MJ Fox, or someone who's sister was killed by tobacco, or maybe a victim of a drunk driver accident's relative. Or an alcoholic, a thief, a child molestor, a rapist. Ted Bundi talked about how bad pornography was because of the affects that it had on him. So, maybe this guy had honest intent but also had his demons. Doesn't excuse him, but that is humanity.
It isn't like the argument that men and men or women and women should not be allowed under civil law to be married is actually lessened by this. That would be like saying because MJ Fox is for stem cell research and Rush L insulted him, then we should conclude the argument based on those factors. There is no relevancy.
Anyway, I never even heard of this guy before last week and I am not out of the loop of Christian conservatives, right wing conspiracies, or evanagelicals.
becos he's a gay man and if he continues to presume that he can order other people not to do things he wants to do himself, then someone ought to give him a swift kick in the ass. my only joy in this is one less hot-air blowing evangelical douchebag gone. here's hoping there's a whole slew of them who go down so people stop listening to those jackasses.
i loathe hypocrisy, and i dont care what side it's on. if you are going to rant in the public eye about something, then do the opposite in private, im going to laugh and gloat all the way to the voting booth when you get caught.
also, comparing MJ Fox to this guy is fucking ridiculous. MJ Fox has a serious, life-threatening disease that begs for financial support for research and a cure. being gay is not a disease, not life-threatening, and begs for simple equality, not humanitarian intervention or a cure.
Really, I wonder how infuriated you have been at the indescretions laid at the feet of Democrats in the past 20 years?? Sorry, don't get your sudden pious revelation that places you in the seat of the scoffer. It is so irrelevant how good this makes you feel.
Like I said, I don't even care about this, glad the guy got busted but saddened that it is affecting lots of people who are probably just fine folk despite your distate for people of faith.
And you skipped right over the part that his lifestyle has nothing to do with the gay marriage issue. WOW, I am amazed at how much energy we waste in this country on legislation of morality, from both sides.
being 24, probably not too infuriated. by comparison, the dems have been pretty clean since i came of an age to follow politics. which is pretty fucked up considering they were lead by clinton. but he's got nothing on asshole like this guy, falwell, robertson, limbaugh, and so on.
im not saddened it's affecting fne folk. i hope it does. i hope it shakes them to the core and makes them wonder if they can trust schmucks like haggard. i hope it makes them rethink mindlessly backing anybody who waves a bible for them without thinking seriously about whether the guy's positions square with our american notion of freedom.
im also opposed to legislating morality. but i see that coming almost entirely from the right. i say almost, there are cases on the left, but nothing even holding a candle to the breadth and depth of the right's dream of a united (christian) states of america.
Your mindset is familiar, the concept that there one side is clearly more correct or truthful than the other....and a lot of chest beating about how you are on the right side. I say walk careful, judge slowly, cause it is easy to get fooled and as soon as it becomes 'clear' that there is one side that is right, they can fail you.
in this case, one side is more correct, becos it allows for any side to exist. the other side is wrong, becos it only allows its own side to exist. you dont like gays, dont be gay. ive yet to find a single gay person who suggested that somebody else ought to be gay. the side that tries to force people to live its way and deny the validity of that person's choices is wrong. plain and simple.
in the end, however, i dont claim to be right. it's possible haggard is right and all the fags will burn in hell. but know what? that's their decision and neither haggard nor anyone else has the right to take that decision away from them. i walk plenty carefully and judge plenty slowly. im in law school, i can see both sides of any issue and sometimes make up a few of my own
I can make the same argument, and have. Democrats are tolerant of everthing except Christians. They have no idea what to do with Radical Muslims but to say it must be our fault. But for Christians and Catholics, they have NO tolerance. You have to be able to see that.
Now, if the church decides that they are against abortion, or homosexuality, or slavery based on Biblical values (and that is historically what has happened), then those are moral judgements rooted in faith. They should be allowed to pursue this and promote it in society. That doesn't mean they should kill doctors, blow up buildings, kill gays, etc. It does mean that can have a judgement whether the activity is acceptable. No one has said gays are not allowed to exist, just they shouldn't have legal protection to be married like hetros. I don't see that as hate, but it could be misused I agree.
If the church is the last place on earth that thinks having sex with 10 year old children is not acceptable, and yet civil law says it is just fine, where do we as citizens go?
What lies did he tell them? Do you think he stood up in front of the congregation and claimed to be perfect? I don't think he lied to them about religion. He just covered up his own sins.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Saying that homosexual sex is a sin is not hatred. Heck, he probably said pre-marital sex is a sin too, so I guess he was encouraging hate against everyone who couldn't wait, too.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
no, i dont. show me one instance where any democrat in this country has ever proposed prohibiting christians from practicing their faith, reading the bible in the privacy of their own homes, having a catholic wedding, believing in jesus, etc. for that matter, show me any democrat who said radical islam is the fault of christianity. the closest thing im aware of is some (including me) who feel that the people like haggard and rbertson and falwell are pretty much the same as radical islamic regimes like the taliban. they both dream of a society dominated and ruled by a religious standard as decided by their particular holy book.
if you think the rhetoric of people who oppose gay unions (unions, not just marriage, these people oppose ANY sort of equality for homosexuals) is a simple, harmless "we oppose this" social policy, you're deluded. it's couched in descriptions of them as sinful, evil, decadent, and responsible for the decay of american society. it's not a direct declaration of hatred, but the effect it produces is the same: discrimination, distrust, and marginalization.
yes, but they do not advocate sanctions against cheaters, stripping them of equality, or laws banning divorce or making infidelity a crime. they DO, however, support sodomy laws and preventing gays from getting ANY legal recognition... including civil unions. if you cannot see the difference there, i don't know how better to explain it.
i'm fairly sure that since he's a married man and he contacted a male prostitute for a massage that he's not exactly proud of that. And again, i'm sure we can assume he's against illegal drug use / possession so yes, by his and his churches standards it is dark and repulsive...even if it seems not THAT big a deal to others.
I can kind of see your point, but the logic isn't overly solid. Even if I accept what you're saying, I do not think passing laws is equal to hatred.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
what are you even talking about?????????? all i did was note that he was not self loathing, like everyone else is stating, and instead his whole preacher man gay hating persona is an act. an act to pilfer money from his bigoted congregation. it could not be more obvious. i am shocked that everyone else seems to believe that he is a gay man who hates that part of himself so much that he rebeled against it by taking the staces he took against homosexuals. for this guy it is about money and nothing else. my post clearly stated that..... he would have spoken hatred about any group that he got paid to hate.... it just so happens he found a congregation that would pay him to hate gays, so its gays he pretends to hate. yes, i am a little angry that this creep would push to include bigotry into my nations constitution for nothing but financial gain..... its not even idealism that drives him. he does not hate gays...HE IS GAY...... that would be like me taking millions of dollars to write bigotry against people over 6 feet tall into the constitution. im 6'3 i dont hate tall people, but if there were 30 million fools who did hate tall people and they made me rich and gave me weekly meetings with the president of the united states, and i spent my life spitting hatred against the tall from a pulpit..... and my greed effected the lives of people whos only crime was being tall, and i shat all over the CONSTITUTION for that greed............ welll that would be pretty shameful. where do you get off acting like being angry at such important issues is unjustified?
You have the passion and honesty people can't stomach..hence some can't read past your first couple sentences....I always smile and think of myself several years ago when I read your posts..and I'm not being condesending...just wish I still had your fire..keep it up. Really really good stuff......
nor do i. but im actually less concerned about the laws than the attitudes encouraging the laws. the laws are just a symptom of the underlying bigotry behind those proposing them. it's not just "i think it's immoral." it's taking it a step further and saying "and furthermore, it's disgusting to me and i will take steps to make sure YOU don't do it either cos it grosses me out."
That's not hatred or violence as you originally asserted.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.