In the wake of the defeat of homosexual activism in California last week, we are seeing the true colors of the homosexual agenda come out.
According to OneNewsNow, homosexual activists are planning a day of intolerance tomorrow where they will express their intolerance for the political opinion of 52% of Californians who voted against Proposition 8 to protect marriage from being counterfeited in that state.
They are using catchy phrases for their festival of intolerance such as "Fight the Hate" (using a cute "Fight the H8" logo).
I suppose if they want to "fight the hate," they'll all be staying home tomorrow. I think the many examples homosexual activists keep showing Americans of their vociferous lack of "tolerance" for sexual normality, morality, representative democracy, the rule of law, and anyone elses opinion have shown far more real hate than the voters have shown in stating with their vote that marriage should not be hijacked.
Homosexual activists throw around words like "intolerance" and "hate" in an attempt to intimidate people of morality. Like the schoolyard bully, their plan is to quash dissent with name calling so they can do what they want with impunity. It has worked quite well for the past 15 years or more.
However, the situation in California has caused them to tip their hand. They got all happy when their judicial activist buddies in the California Supreme Court decided to manufacture a "right" for homosexuals to call their unions "marriage" and usurped the role of the legislature and the people.
When the people stood up against this judicial activism and took the issue to a vote of the people...and the people had the audacity to tell these selfish people, "No, you can't counterfeit our most important institution in order to make yourself feel better," they responded like spoiled brats and the self-centered malcontents they are.
They called for violence and murder against the people who voted to protect marriage. They ripped a cross out of an old lady's hand, stomped on it and shouted her down as a reporter attempted to interview her. They've stolen and vandalized private property. They have disrupted church services with yelling profanities, blasphemies and throwing condoms. They've burned a holy text on the doorstep of a church. And since blacks voted to protect marriage by a 70-30% margin, they've resorted to calling black people "niggers" and such.
Pretty tolerant, huh?
Why such hostility toward sexual normality? Why such hostility toward marriage that they want to hijack and counterfeit it? Why such hostility toward the family? Why such hostility toward society, which depends on the stability provided by marriage and family?
So yes, if they really want to "fight the hate," homosexual activists should stay home and let decent people live in peace. Maybe they should meditate on the morality of their actions, both in the bedroom and in the streets. They might find some serious changes of the heart are needed, and if they have the courage to make them, the world could very quickly become a better place.
I'd love to be surprised, but I won't be holding my breath.
Featured Article
Friday, November 14, 2008
Homosexual Activists Plan Hate Rally to Stop the Hate
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
#######
#######
Leftism is driven by EMOTION, Rightism by REASON—to explain why the former resorts to savage brutality to achieve its “fairness” goals (leftists Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Chairman Mao and Pol Pot come to mind), and the latter to citing historical lessons and current events, and, then, applying the soundly logical explanations why the former may be badly mistaken.
#######
#######
Sorry to disappoint you, but not all heterosexuals are decent, nor all homosexuals radical militants. I know people who happen to be homosexual, who are decent people and who want to "live in peace." But they also want the "stability provided by marriage and family," and I don't mind letting them have it. It doesn't tarnish my marriage nor destroy my family to allow two people of the same sex marry. Unfortunately, there are some who feel very strongly that this type of union is "counterfeit" and that proponents are seeking to "hijack" traditional marriage. Unfortunately, that kind of language makes everyone act a little militant, and it's not unusual to find a few radicals among an otherwise decent group of individuals.
TJ, I never said all heterosexuals are decent, nor did I say that all homosexuals were radical militants; if you look again, you'll notice that I said "homosexual activists."
The fact that homosexual activists are attempting to counterfeit and hijack marriage is just that: a fact.
A fact, you say? When did gay activists explicitly say that their goal is to counterfeit and hijack marriage?
Having lots of like-minded people agree with you isn't enough to make something a fact, sorry.
Come on, Anonymous 1:54. Surely you're capable of deductive reasoning.
If you see a dog running at you, barking and gnashing his teeth, it's pretty reasonable to conclude that its a "fact" that he's going to bite you.
If you see a bunch of guys with guns or knives suddenly stand up on an airplane, tell everyone not to move and that you'll be going to Cuba instead of Spain today, it's pretty reasonable to conclude that its a "fact" that they're hijacking your plane.
If someone is making $20 bills in their basement, it's pretty reasonable to conclude that its a "fact" that they're counterfeiting $20 bills.
If someone is attempting to call a relationship which is bereft of one of the sexes necessary to create a marriage, it's pretty reasonable to conclude that it's a "fact" they're trying to counterfeit and/or hijack marriage.
Aw how nice of you to compare gay activists to dogs, armed airplane hijackers, and petty criminals. I'm sure Jerry Falwell is looking up at you from hell with a proud smile on his face.
One problem though. Someone who hijacks a plane takes it away from its rightful owner. Gay people aren't trying to take anything away from anyone, nor have they - as demonstrated by the fact that men can still marry women and vice versa.
Did I...or did I try to provide an example, a word picture to facilitate understanding? Obviously it was wasted on you, Anonymous. Or perhaps "resisted" would be a more appropriate description; I think you're smart enough to get it...you just didn't like where the truth led, did you?
Try thinking a little deeper, Anonymous; you might actually stumble upon some truth. Someone who hijacks something wrongfully takes it to an improper destination.
Just an example? It's interesting that your mind went straight for those particular "word pictures" as opposed to others. It tells me what your automatic opinion of gay people really is.
Seems you've gotten "fact" confused with "opinion." A fact is...well, nevermind, you can look it up in Wikipedia. But while you're at it, you might want to browse the definitions of "belief", "truth", and "reality" to understand how the three are indeed different.
I think it's quite obvious, TJ, that you need the education, so I'll be ready to continue the conversation when you're intellectually prepared.
Bob, I don't think your examples are "just" examples. Your particular choice of words tells me what your automatic reaction about homosexuals really is. After all, how can you effectively demonize someone if you compare him to a cuddly kitten instead of a rabid attack dog?
Think about it a second. I'm illustrating deductive reasoning, and the ability to analyze a situation and determine a goal or end result. Hopefully you are familiar with that term, if not the exercise.
Yeah I get it. I'm talking about the fact that your mind went straight for criminals, dogs, and armed hijackers. Was the "guns and knives" part really necessary to illustrate your reasoning?
I think it was useful and illustrative.
Perhaps you're overly sensitive because your conscience is a little too guilty...
Hahaha you Christians and your fetishistic obsession with guilt! Nice try. Forgive me for being offended when someone compares me to a knife-wielding airplane hijacker and calls my sex life a cancer on decent society.
Thanks for the offer to explain your reasoning, but I think I understand where you're coming from:
1. You're losing this argument.
2. Personal attacks win arguments.
3. You want to win this argument.
4. Therefore you resort to personal attacks in order to win.
I've seen this line of reasoning before. However, one of those statements is a fallacy. The Republicans couldn't find it. Let's see if you can. (I'll give you a hint: they didn't make it to #4, and neither will you).
Good example of liberal logic, TJ: I want it to be, therefore it is. No proof required.
Post a Comment