« Mexican Leftists Imitate Sore Loser Dems | Main | Even Moonbats Celebrated the Fourth »

Why was I surprised that you are a homophobic?

You guys keep surprising me. I don't get the caption with the picture, are you jealous of them or something?

Has your wife experienced anything but the Missionary position while in bed with you?

Loosen up, will'ya. Why is anything that is not Christian and right (right as in both meanings) bothering you?

OT: Moonbat Science: D.U.M.B. Experiment to Prove WTC Not Destroyed by Hijacked Aircraft

Next, Moonbat uses bathtub and rubber ducky to prove levees were torpedoed after Katrina.

D.J.... maybe it's never occurred to you, but there's a difference between free speech and hot man-on-man action. One belongs in public, the other does not.

The right and left do tend to disagree on which is which. The left believes (or acts as if they believe) that rest areas and public bathrooms are perfectly acceptable places for people to have it off, but Christians should never make any expression of their faith outside the walls of a church and furthermore, conservative opinions should be censored by the government as "hate speech." For example, Canada and Sweden have made it a hate crime to be in any way critical of gay lifestyles.

V.K., problem I have with your argument is the fact that practicing intercourse in an engagement of two or more directly involved people. Expression of faith, on the other hand is one-on-one, where one (not sure which one, the first or the second) is a ghost.

One a more serious note, I am not sure you are correct when you say "but Christians should never make any expression of their faith outside the walls of a church". Football players can pray before and after the game, they can cross themselves, and it is ok as long as we don't make the whole team pray on queue.

You see, in my opinion, religion is not something that needs a public display, hence approval. It's between the One and a person. It does not need a blessing from the government.

Christian evangelicals believe that a tenet of their faith is to live openly and testify to that faith. Telling them they can't do that is like telling orthodox Jews they have to lose the beards and eat bacon cheeseburgers. But that is beside the point, really.

From your response, I take it you think it's okay for people to have sex in public, but speech and expressions of faith can and should be censored if someone finds it offensive. I find that a highly perverse attitude.

The controversy over the reggae lyrics actually surprises me. Because DVGs (designsted victim groups) are generally allowed to say whatever they like. I guess we now know that the Gay lobby is stronger than the Black lobby

V.K., first paragraph was not really expressing my real feelings, hence "On a more serious note" in the next paragraph.

You see there is a line between an intercourse and what is on the picture above. Would you be offended the same way if it were a heterosexual couple? I am not going to assume your response. I do think that sex-in-public is quite offensive to a lot of people and thus should not be allowed.

I do not think expressions of faith should be censored either. If a Mormon knocks on my doors, I will politely tell them that I am not interested. And, I have done that before. I am not going to beat them up, or tell them how-dare-they-show-up-at-my-doorsteps. There still is a difference between personal freedom of expression and forced actions, e.g. prayers at school, unless it is a private school.

DJ,

It seems to me that you think its ok to silence someone because you don't like their point of view. That's the whole point of the article. One group intimidating another into silence. Sounds like quashing of free speech to me. Something I'm sure you spout whenever you're defending your point of view. Pretty damn hypocritical.

Would you be offended the same way if it were a heterosexual couple?

Yes. Absolutely.

And as for the rest of it, I don't buy it. Lefties say, "Oh, we just don't want to give appearance that the government likes one religion more than another." But that's total BS. I have yet to see the ACLU go after any accommodation the government makes for Muslims (e.g. taxpayer-provided Korans for the jihadis at Club GITMO), but Christians are sued when they want to meet in public schools, and there is a literal ACLU jihad against Christian symbols even on private land. By targeting high-profile cases with costly litigation the effect is to intimidate people fro expressing faith, and also to send a message that something is wrong with Christianity and it is so terrible we can't even allow the public to see its symbols or hear its message. I think that message is a deliberate goal of the ACLU, and, of course, the ranks of the left are swollen with Christian-bashers as any perusal of any left-wing weblog will show. The ACLU may couch their jihad in sophistry, but their motivation is pure hate.

Incidentally, the ABA allows lawyers to refuse service to gay and lesbian people (under rule 6.2 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct), but their lawyers eagerly sue the Boy Scouts and any for wanting the same right and print shops who don't want to print gay and lesbian materials and pharmacies who don't want to give out abortion pills.

Non-lefties are as much to be blamed for creating a very effective sue-me-and-i-will-sue-you society. Not all judges are lefties that go along with those BS cases.

They did not ask to be placed in GITMO club. If you want to keep them there give them Korans. If a Christian asks for a Bible in jail they get it as well. That is your and my tax money paying for it as well.

So, me wanting the government not to use my tax money to endorce Christianity is a problem? I don't want the money to be used for any religous endorsement, to be precise.

If a Christian asks for a Bible in jail they get it as well.

Didn't the ACLU just sue to get a Christian prison ministry banned from prisons in I think it was Iowa? Why, yes they did.

Also, the Government is only Constitutionally prohibited from establishing a state religion and making everybody join it. It's the "progressive" left that's judicially altered the establishment clause to mean the government has to be legally atheistic.

Come now, V the K, stop bringing the constitution into all of this. Why, it's a living document that changes over time. One man's establishment of religion is another mans acknowledgement of religion.

I wouldn't be surprised if Bibles in jails were provided by the Gideons. If some form of government was using tax money to buy Bibles, you can bet the ACLU would be there to stop it. Korans are allowed though, because as we all know, Islam is a religion of peace.

The ACLU also thinks that prisoners should be allowed access to pornography. Oh, and also that it's okay to distribute literature that tells you how to pick up little boys.

As for the subject of this post, if a homosexual band sung lyrics that were insulting to heterosexuals and they complained, what are the chances that the band would not be allowed to perform?

That fact is that radical homosexuals want any criticism of homosexuality to be banned as hate speech. That is not opinion, that is fact.

DJ loves man gravy.

That's a fact.

There you go Doug, you cought me off guard and now I am shattered, swimming in a pool of tears.

As a heterosexual man, I would be out there protesting homosexuals singing something offensive. I do not think I would agree with your definition of offensive though. Lynch-the-fucking-heteros is offensive, let-us-kiss-in-public is not. Get the picture? Go get on with your gravy...

I am actually surprised that we are discussing GITMO issues. As I remember, the reason it was put in Cuba was to avoid American ligislation and do whatever they want.

After holding most of them for a couple of years they just let them go. Does not that strike you as they-were-not-supposed-to-be-there-in-the-first-place case?

There is no Gideon to provide GITMO people with Korans, is there?

Here's a little piece of news for you to build your hatred around:

Sony under fire for "racist" adertisement.

Excuse me, Mr. Templeton,

The Constitution is NOT a "living document," nor does it "change over time." That is, at best, a horseshit liberal talking point designed to sugar coat the actions of those who would see it altered at will.

It IS, however, a rather unassuming piece of paper that says what it means, and means what it says.

As for Gitmo, my unenlightened friend, you would do well to do some research of your own, as opposed to parroting Kos or the usual band of idiots. The Red Cross, as well as a host of other human rights organizations & public officials, have found that the treatment and living conditions there are much better than even those of our own prisons here at home.

Wake up, DJ. Your meme is about six months out of date.

Eric in Hollywoos

Eric says

The Constitution is NOT a "living document," nor does it "change over time."

Umm. ch ch ch changes.

Amendment I [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition (1791)]

Amendment II [Right to Bear Arms (1791)]

Amendment III [Quartering of Troops (1791)]

Amendment IV [Search and Seizure (1791)]

Amendment V [Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process (1791)]

Amendment VI [Criminal Prosecutions - Jury Trial, Right to Confront and to Counsel (1791)]

Amendment VII [Common Law Suits - Jury Trial (1791)]

Amendment VIII [Excess Bail or Fines, Cruel and Unusual Punishment (1791)]

Amendment IX [Non-Enumerated Rights (1791)]

Amendment X [Rights Reserved to States (1791)]

Amendment XI [Suits Against a State (1795)]

Amendment XII [Election of President and Vice-President (1804)]

Amendment XIII [Abolition of Slavery (1865)]

Amendment XIV [Privileges and Immunities, Due Process, Equal Protection, Apportionment of Representatives, Civil War Disqualification and Debt (1868)]

Amendment XV [Rights Not to Be Denied on Account of Race (1870)]

Amendment XVI [Income Tax (1913)]

Amendment XVII [Election of Senators (1913)

Amendment XVIII [Prohibition (1919)]

Amendment XIX [Women's Right to Vote (1920)

Amendment XX [Presidential Term and Succession (1933)]

Amendment XXI [Repeal of Prohibition (1933)]

Amendment XXII [Two Term Limit on President (1951)]

Amendment XXIII [Presidential Vote in D.C. (1961)]

Amendment XXIV [Poll Tax (1964)]

Amendment XXV [Presidential Succession (1967)]

Amendment XXVI [Right to Vote at Age 18 (1971)]

Amendment XXVII [Compensation of Members of Congress (1992)]