Right wing hate mongers - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-18-2005, 11:10 AM   #61
War Child
 
Do Miss America's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Ryan's Pocket
Posts: 738
Local Time: 03:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
Well put, Nathan. Watching it happen and doing nothing about it isn't going to silence what you feel is wrong. The system of democracy is governed by the people.
So are you going to stop everything you think is wrong by legislation? What about divorce, infedelity, you probably think certain religions are wrong you better go after them too.
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe

There are extremists on both sides, and they should be exposed as extremists before their agenda hits the mainstream.
So according to your statement I'm nothing but an extremist that needs to be stopped before I turn everyone gay? Dude you need to be locked up.
__________________

__________________
Do Miss America is offline  
Old 01-18-2005, 11:18 AM   #62
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 05:30 PM
I agree with BVS's post, although I often disagree with his politics. But this will lead back to the whole gay marriage debate. Just a forewarning, and all I've seen cited so far is extreme radicals on both sides who use either violence or abusive speech to push their agendas.

What I want to get at is this:

What makes a right wing hate monger?
Are most conservative Christians hate mongers, or not?

I would have to answer in my own personal opinion, that if you use abusive speech that viciously attacks those whom you do not agree with, or if you use violence to push your agenda, you are a hate monger. I don't believe that if you passively disagree with a lifestyle, it makes you one.

I don't believe that most conservative Christians are hate mongers, although there are some so-called "Christians" who viciously attack individuals either in an assembled, verbal, or physical fashion.
__________________

__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 01-18-2005, 11:25 AM   #63
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 05:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Do Miss America
So are you going to stop everything you think is wrong by legislation? What about divorce, infedelity, you probably think certain religions are wrong you better go after them too.
Divorce is often an example that contradicts itself. I don't think the government can force two people to love each other forever. There are no pro-divorce groups, nor are there anti-divorce groups. Without opposition, how can divorce be a political issue? Infidelity is morally wrong, without question. I would not exactly oppose a penalty on those who commit it. I'm not after other religions, they have a constitutional right to practice what they believe. If they believe in something wacky, like spray-painting their symbols on a public building, it is a crime. Cults are a rattled up issue as well. If they can practice their mysticism or whatever in a way that isn't destructive, they are protected by freedom of religion.

Quote:
Originally posted by Do Miss America
So according to your statement I'm nothing but an extremist that needs to be stopped before I turn everyone gay? Dude you need to be locked up.
I didn't say that, nor do I believe that. You're blowing almost every word I say out of proportion.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 01-18-2005, 11:40 AM   #64
War Child
 
Do Miss America's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Ryan's Pocket
Posts: 738
Local Time: 03:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
I don't believe that if you passively disagree with a lifestyle, it makes you one.
But banning gay marriage by legislation isn't passively disagreeing, therefore I think a lot of conservative Christians have the approach wrong and their leading by hate rather than by Christ's teaching.
__________________
Do Miss America is offline  
Old 01-18-2005, 11:44 AM   #65
War Child
 
Do Miss America's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Ryan's Pocket
Posts: 738
Local Time: 03:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
Divorce is often an example that contradicts itself. I don't think the government can force two people to love each other forever. There are no pro-divorce groups, nor are there anti-divorce groups. Without opposition, how can divorce be a political issue? Infidelity is morally wrong, without question. I would not exactly oppose a penalty on those who commit it. I'm not after other religions, they have a constitutional right to practice what they believe. If they believe in something wacky, like spray-painting their symbols on a public building, it is a crime. Cults are a rattled up issue as well. If they can practice their mysticism or whatever in a way that isn't destructive, they are protected by freedom of religion.
Well if you are going to allow other religions and you don't feel they are a threat to your religion, then you should allow others to get married and it shouldn't be a threat to your sexuality.



Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe

I didn't say that, nor do I believe that. You're blowing almost every word I say out of proportion.
No you didn't say that. But you've said too many are pushing a homosexual agenda, and then in the same context you spoke about how extremist need to be stopped before their agenda becomes mainstream. So what am I supposed to think?
__________________
Do Miss America is offline  
Old 01-18-2005, 11:50 AM   #66
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 05:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Do Miss America
But banning gay marriage by legislation isn't passively disagreeing, therefore I think a lot of conservative Christians have the approach wrong and their leading by hate rather than by Christ's teaching.
Many of us take the traditional institution of man and wife very seriously. It doesn't mean we are hateful, it just means that we want to uphold the monogamy between man and wife under law.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage

marriage

was instituted in Paradise when man was in innocence (Gen. 2:18-24). Here we
have its original charter, which was confirmed by our Lord, as the basis on
which all regulations are to be framed (Matt. 19:4, 5). It is evident that
monogamy was the original law of marriage (Matt. 19:5; 1 Cor. 6:16). This law
was violated in after times, when corrupt usages began to be introduced (Gen.
4:19; 6:2). We meet with the prevalence of polygamy and concubinage in the
patriarchal age (Gen. 16:1-4; 22:21-24; 28:8, 9; 29:23-30, etc.). Polygamy was
acknowledged in the Mosaic law and made the basis of legislation, and continued
to be practised all down through the period of Jewish histroy to the Captivity,
after which there is no instance of it on record. It seems to have been the
practice from the beginning for fathers to select wives for their sons (Gen.
24:3; 38:6). Sometimes also proposals were initiated by the father of the
maiden (Ex. 2:21). The brothers of the maiden were also sometimes consulted
(Gen. 24:51; 34:11), but her own consent was not required. The young man was
bound to give a price to the father of the maiden (31:15; 34:12; Ex. 22:16, 17;
1 Sam. 18:23, 25; Ruth 4:10; Hos. 3:2) On these patriarchal customs the Mosaic
law made no change. In the pre-Mosaic times, when the proposals were accepted
and the marriage price given, the bridegroom could come at once and take away
his bride to his own house (Gen. 24:63-67). But in general the marriage was
celebrated by a feast in the house of the bride's parents, to which all friends
were invited (29:22, 27); and on the day of the marriage the bride, concealed
under a thick veil, was conducted to her future husband's home. Our Lord
corrected many false notions then existing on the subject of marriage (Matt.
22:23-30), and placed it as a divine institution on the highest grounds. The
apostles state clearly and enforce the nuptial duties of husband and wife (Eph.
5:22-33; Col. 3:18, 19; 1 Pet. 3:1-7). Marriage is said to be "honourable" (Heb.
13:4), and the prohibition of it is noted as one of the marks of degenerate
times (1 Tim. 4:3). The marriage relation is used to represent the union
between God and his people (Isa. 54:5; Jer. 3:1-14; Hos. 2:9, 20). In the New
Testament the same figure is employed in representing the love of Christ to his
saints (Eph. 5:25-27). The Church of the redeemed is the "Bride, the Lamb's
wife" (Rev. 19:7-9).
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 01-18-2005, 12:05 PM   #67
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
mar·riage Audio pronunciation of "marriage" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-18-2005, 12:06 PM   #68
genius of compression
Forum Moderator
 
neutral's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: forty miles from atlanta, this is nowhere
Posts: 13,030
Local Time: 05:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Do Miss America

No you didn't say that. But you've said too many are pushing a homosexual agenda, and then in the same context you spoke about how extremist need to be stopped before their agenda becomes mainstream. So what am I supposed to think?

I'm still trying to figure out what this homosexual "agenda" (talk about tired rhetoric) is, exactly.
__________________

neutral @ interference.com
neutral is offline  
Old 01-18-2005, 12:10 PM   #69
War Child
 
Do Miss America's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Ryan's Pocket
Posts: 738
Local Time: 03:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
Many of us take the traditional institution of man and wife very seriously. It doesn't mean we are hateful, it just means that we want to uphold the monogamy between man and wife under law.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage

marriage

was instituted in Paradise when man was in innocence (Gen. 2:18-24). Here we
have its original charter, which was confirmed by our Lord, as the basis on
which all regulations are to be framed (Matt. 19:4, 5). It is evident that
monogamy was the original law of marriage (Matt. 19:5; 1 Cor. 6:16). This law
was violated in after times, when corrupt usages began to be introduced (Gen.
4:19; 6:2). We meet with the prevalence of polygamy and concubinage in the
patriarchal age (Gen. 16:1-4; 22:21-24; 28:8, 9; 29:23-30, etc.). Polygamy was
acknowledged in the Mosaic law and made the basis of legislation, and continued
to be practised all down through the period of Jewish histroy to the Captivity,
after which there is no instance of it on record. It seems to have been the
practice from the beginning for fathers to select wives for their sons (Gen.
24:3; 38:6). Sometimes also proposals were initiated by the father of the
maiden (Ex. 2:21). The brothers of the maiden were also sometimes consulted
(Gen. 24:51; 34:11), but her own consent was not required. The young man was
bound to give a price to the father of the maiden (31:15; 34:12; Ex. 22:16, 17;
1 Sam. 18:23, 25; Ruth 4:10; Hos. 3:2) On these patriarchal customs the Mosaic
law made no change. In the pre-Mosaic times, when the proposals were accepted
and the marriage price given, the bridegroom could come at once and take away
his bride to his own house (Gen. 24:63-67). But in general the marriage was
celebrated by a feast in the house of the bride's parents, to which all friends
were invited (29:22, 27); and on the day of the marriage the bride, concealed
under a thick veil, was conducted to her future husband's home. Our Lord
corrected many false notions then existing on the subject of marriage (Matt.
22:23-30), and placed it as a divine institution on the highest grounds. The
apostles state clearly and enforce the nuptial duties of husband and wife (Eph.
5:22-33; Col. 3:18, 19; 1 Pet. 3:1-7). Marriage is said to be "honourable" (Heb.
13:4), and the prohibition of it is noted as one of the marks of degenerate
times (1 Tim. 4:3). The marriage relation is used to represent the union
between God and his people (Isa. 54:5; Jer. 3:1-14; Hos. 2:9, 20). In the New
Testament the same figure is employed in representing the love of Christ to his
saints (Eph. 5:25-27). The Church of the redeemed is the "Bride, the Lamb's
wife" (Rev. 19:7-9).
So that's you whole argument, tradition. That's how it's always been so that's how we're going to keep it?

Well you should have kept interracial marriage illegal, women from voting, or slaves those were all traditional too.
And you know what people used Bible quotes for those too.

But your still not getting it!!! Why are you basing some laws on the Bible and not all? You are picking and choosing. This society is not about to make infedelity against the law, so why the hell gay marriage?

You are singling us out and that's what makes it hateful. If you tried and make your whole interpretaion of the Bible law then I would say OK, you're crazy but your not hateful. But you choose to pick on us because if honour thy mother and father were law or infedelity it would affect yourselves.
__________________
Do Miss America is offline  
Old 01-18-2005, 12:11 PM   #70
War Child
 
Do Miss America's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Ryan's Pocket
Posts: 738
Local Time: 03:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by neutral



I'm still trying to figure out what this homosexual "agenda" (talk about tired rhetoric) is, exactly.
Me too. I didn't know I had an agenda.
__________________
Do Miss America is offline  
Old 01-18-2005, 12:36 PM   #71
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 09:30 PM
I find it interesting that a topic that started out fairly neutral in terms of socio-political biases has quickly become so...

How quickly do (certain) post-ers turn into the haters they decry...
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 01-18-2005, 12:40 PM   #72
War Child
 
Do Miss America's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Ryan's Pocket
Posts: 738
Local Time: 03:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977
I find it interesting that a topic that started out fairly neutral in terms of socio-political biases has quickly become so...

How quickly do (certain) post-ers turn into the haters they decry...
Can you explain?
__________________
Do Miss America is offline  
Old 01-18-2005, 01:04 PM   #73
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by neutral



I'm still trying to figure out what this homosexual "agenda" (talk about tired rhetoric) is, exactly.

since you seem nice, i can invite you to the monthly meetings. i'll send you the super-secret email that all professed homosexuals get detailing the time and meeting place -- it usually takes place in NYC, LA or SF, since homosexuals don't exist anywhere else other than these coastal urban centers.

the meetings are fun. we open with some show tunes, usually a drag queen will start with some standards from "Oklahoma" or "Mame" until some of the more lithe gayboys wearing silver haltertops and tight jeans bring us into the modern day with "Les Mis" and then we all clasp hands and sing that "5,2100600 minutes" song from Rent. by that time, the bartender has made all the Cosmos, and we can get drunk and down to business.

usually first on the agenda is the "homosexual recruitment" drive -- our goals for the month. i usually volunteer to set up a table at the local jr. high and ask people if they've ever thought about becoming a homosexual. after that, we agree upon the year's "big issue," which in 2004 has been the systematic destruction of any and all heterosexual marriages. it's amazing how the image of two men holding hands, kissing, or even relating to each other in a forum that doesn't involve football or bowling will cause two married heterosexuals to view each other in a different light. sometimes, they stop in their tracks, look at each other, realize their union isn't quite so special, and hurl their rings to the ground, shaking their heads in confusion. what fun!

we then curse the name of Jesus and God, rip pages out of the bible and use them as rolling paper for marijuana cigarettes, and that's usually the cue for Satan to video conference in. he gives us many pointers and helpful hints to help us seduce as many heterosexuals as possible. who knew that heterosexuals were so easy to convert? all it takes is a single night of passion, followed by breakfast-in-bed of seasonal fruit and european cheeses and a ldiscussion on current men's fashions. and poof! a newly minted homosexual you have.

after Satan, the orgy begins.

so, if you're interested, and want to know more about the "agenda," let me know.


__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-18-2005, 01:15 PM   #74
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 02:30 PM


You're in good form today, Irvine.

But don't you also discuss the memo about which celebrities are gay?
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 01-18-2005, 01:20 PM   #75
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 04:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by joyfulgirl
:
But don't you also discuss the memo about which celebrities are gay?

honey, they're already AT the meeting! we all know who they are.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com