moonbattery.gif


« Does Obama Know Who's Running France? | Main | Open Thread »


March 24, 2009

Moonbats Wage Intimidation Campaign Against Prop 8 Supporters

Even with the country going off the rails to the left, moonbats continue to play the sore losers. Typically, they've resorted to unsavory tactics to punish those who supported California's successful Proposition 8, which saved the state from the disgrace of homosexual "marriage."

After giving $10,000 to California's Proposition 8 campaign last year, Charles LiMandri began receiving some unexpected correspondence.
"I got about two dozen e-mails and hate phone calls," said Mr. LiMandri, who lives in San Diego. "They were calling me Nazi, homophobe, bigot. I tried to engage people once or twice — I said that Proposition 8 had nothing to do with being bigoted, it was about preserving marriage — but people don't want to engage on the issue."

Unfortunately for moonbats, LiMandri is a lawyer. The hate emails he collected are now among the exhibits in a suit he's filed to exempt defenders of marriage from state campaign finance regulations that require their names, addresses, and employers to be made public if they contribute over $100.

Menacing of Prop 8 supporters by lefty thugs has been widespread, with letters and emails including death threats.

Leading the effort is Californians Against Hate — whose Web site, www.californiansagainsthate.com, lists the names of 1,100 people and organizations contributing at least $5,000 to the Proposition 8 campaign. The list, compiled from information supplied by the California secretary of state's office, also gives addresses, phone numbers and Web site addresses. …
While Californians Against Hate has focused on major donors, other groups have shown less restraint. Several Web sites use online maps to pinpoint the home or office locations of all known Proposition 8 donors.
Fred Karger, who launched Californians Against Hate in July, acknowledged that intimidation is part of the political strategy.
"One of my goals was to make it socially unacceptable to make these mega-donations that take away people's rights," Mr. Karger said. "I want them to think twice before writing that check."

Instead, think twice before allowing leftist goons like Karger to ram their depraved agenda down society's throat.

fred-karger.jpg
Fred Karger hates people who "hate."

On a tip from Dennis S.

Posted by Van Helsing at March 24, 2009 10:11 AM

Comments

"Californians Against Hate" seem to have no concept of irony.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at March 24, 2009 10:20 AM

The thing I find the most comical in all of this is the way these clowns went hard after the Mormons, harassing them, threatening them physically...when the black community and church memebers of California voted against depravity nearly 70%.

How come these queers don't go into Compton or Watts and start protesting against black churches the way they did against the Mormons...?

...oh, that's right, they know they'd get the shit kicked out of them, and probably killed.

Cowards and hypocrites.

Posted by: keepthechange08 at March 24, 2009 10:44 AM

The same bunch of liberals with those PRACTICE TOLERENCE stickers in the windows are not willing to practice it becuase their evil liberal moonbats

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at March 24, 2009 11:30 AM

How can you possibly call them hypocrits when with a name like "Californians Against Hate" they go out and commit hate crimes?? </sarc>

Posted by: chuck in st paul at March 24, 2009 11:41 AM

"The thing I find the most comical in all of this is the way these clowns went hard after the Mormons, harassing them, threatening them physically...when the black community and church memebers of California voted against depravity nearly 70%."

I believe that is largely for two reasons:
1. If the gay activists engaged in such tactics against the black churches, they would likely be accused of racism, which would lessen their support and harm their public image even further.
2. The gay activists know that many of the people in the black churches won't just sit back and take the abuse, vandalism, etc., like the people in the Mormon churches have. I mean, those members of the black churches who are old enough to have lived through the Civil Rights Era remember what it was like when their churches were vandalized, bombed or burned and its members attacked and threatened for voicing opposition to segregation or expressing support for Dr. King and similar civil rights activists/ groups. They didn't stand for such treatment back then when racists and white supremacists did it, and they won't stand for it now when perverts and deviants do it.

Posted by: Adam at March 24, 2009 12:22 PM

Why are you guys so obsessed about the "abomination" of gay marriage? How does it affect your lives if some fruits 100 miles away live together?

Posted by: Gimme Money at March 24, 2009 1:18 PM

Gimme Money,
There are multiple compounding issues here. As a Porcupine Libertarian I don't care what grown ups do with each other, on the other hand the people should not have their votes overturned by beurocrats or judges (unless it is clearly a Constitutional issue). On the third hand, I also don't care for oppression by the majority.

What is called for here is a strict separation of religious and secular "marriage" . It's hard to say you are against big government if you think it should dictate in the bedroom IMHO.

Posted by: JustAl at March 24, 2009 1:58 PM

How does it affect your lives if some fruits 100 miles away live together?

It doesn't, but that's not the issue here, is it Gimme Money?

Far from just "living together," the rabid opponents of Prop 8 would like to completely change the definition of marriage. Marriage is a religious institution, and is defined as being between one man and one woman. Civil unions allow homosexuals to enjoy the same government-based benefits as those enjoyed by married couples without pissing in the face of every believer in the country.

Homosexual marriage advocates are only concerned with forcing their lifestyle upon everyone and declaring, "Accept it!"

Posted by: cowlove at March 24, 2009 2:00 PM

As a Porcupine Libertarian

Free State Project?

I don't care what grown ups do with each other, on the other hand the people should not have their votes overturned by beurocrats or judges (unless it is clearly a Constitutional issue). On the third hand, I also don't care for oppression by the majority.

I'm not sure I'd call a simply declining to grant a favored status to a situation "oppression". That would pretty much make everyone who isn't married "the oppressed". I don't see a libertarian issue here - nobody is telling anyone what they can do in the bedroom. Nobody is telling anyone who they can live with, or what arrangements they can make for disposal of their property, or even what kind of private contract they can make between themselves. But the right to do as you please does not equal a right to public approval. All that a lack of official recognition implies is that gay relationships don't rise to the level of importance deserving public protection that straight relationships do. And why should they? Clearly, straight relationship have a higher social value because if you don't have straight relationships, you don't have a society in short order. If nobody ever forms another gay relationship, who cares? What would the public impact of that be? None, as far as I can tell.


Posted by: Rob Banks at March 24, 2009 2:23 PM

Rob,
Not really into the Free State Project (although there is at least one state I would like to "set free"). The rights of the people are best served if the center of mass of governmental power rests closer to them, therefore, states rights need to be strengthened.

You make valid points except that I do not see marrige as a de facto favored status, But personally I have never seen this as the big deal so many on both sides do.

Gimme Money's post which I was replying to addressed the fact that many seem to have a visceral hatred of the idea of gay "marriage" which they demand the government enforce. Both sides have the right to their opinions, and frankly I don't like either one trying to force their views on others.

The Civil Union option put forth by cowlove mirrors the last line of my post, and if available in all states, is, IMHO, the best solution.

Posted by: JustAl at March 24, 2009 2:46 PM

The Civil Union option put forth by cowlove mirrors the last line of my post, and if available in all states, is, IMHO, the best solution.

Whoa, not my solution, just something I can get behind (no pun intended).

To be honest, this is where my Libertarian leanings come through, because I don't think the government should really be involved in any aspect of two consenting adults entering into a contractual obligation. However, it has, and civil unions are the only equitable solution. Forcing the government, over the will of the people, to further entrench itself in an area where it does not belong is not even a consideration, in my opinion at least.

Posted by: cowlove at March 24, 2009 2:59 PM

"Gimme Money at March 24, 2009 1:18 PM"

Gay marrage doesn't bother me one bit. However, death threats, vandalism, assaults and other CRIMINAL acts do. Apparently, such acts don't bother you in the least because you don't mention them.

Posted by: KHarn at March 24, 2009 3:38 PM

The more Gimme Money talks the less I choose to listen. If it smells like a troll...

Posted by: Anonymous at March 24, 2009 4:01 PM

"Gay marrage [sic] doesn't bother me one bit. However, death threats, vandalism, assaults and other CRIMINAL acts do. Apparently, such acts don't bother you in the least because you don't mention them."

Please elaborate sir, because I don't know what you're talking about.

The way I see it the best way for society to work is that we all leave each other alone. Extend the Laissez-faire (leave alone) principle to society at large. Let gay people get married so long as they leave you alone. Where the "forcing their lifestyle on the rest of us" comes from is beyond me. And using the power of government to force one's will upon others when those people's actions don't affect you in the least is repulsive to me.

You leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. From private citizen to private citizen and from private citizen to government.

Posted by: Gimme Money at March 24, 2009 4:30 PM

“Without pissing in the face of every believer in the country.”

But you have to live with that in a free country. You cannot demand that every non-believer or believer with a dissenting opinion dance to your tune. That's the price of living in a free country. What if one day you woke up to read a newspaper article: “those who blame atheists for every evil committed in the history of mankind are pissing in the face of non-believers; non-believers plan to use the power of government to crush freedom”? Honestly, how would you feel?

This is the culture of “I'm offended, so stop it or else” shining through again.

Posted by: Gimme Money at March 24, 2009 4:34 PM

First of all it wasn't the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints that made a fuss, it was the members. We do have a consitutional right to voice our opinions, and vote our conscience. That's what democracy is all about. I've struggled with this issue a lot because of the ramifications both religiously and for what it means to others rights. It is not an issue that's been taken lightly. I am all for less government all the way around but there comes a point in time where you have to draw a line. While that is a tough decision, you have to ask yourself what's the next step IF we allow this. Is it just a matter of time before we see pedophilia paraded before our eyes. I remember the controvesary of the first kiss with Ellen...and now it's part of almost every movie or sitcom you sit down to watch. It's a slow process but look at the progress they've made....the scary thing is they are willing to fight to the end to get what they want. Once this is accomplished then the next source of sexual deviants will step in and say well you're taking my rights away....and you just keep going...Marriage is a religious word in and of itself....whatever happened to seperations of religion and government. This is about opinions and forcing ones opinions on another, and while I use to believe that some were born that way, it's become a revolution and many use that as the excuse for their sexual perversion. I'm not forcing anyone to be a Mormon or think like me, nor do I want anyone to force me to accept their homosexual behavior....it boils down to a difference in beliefs! but respecting others right to choose, as long as it doesn't affect me. AND lastly respecting others, Californians Against Hate seem to think that that should only apply to them. Their blantant hate of those who oppose them is quite obvious as Utah prepares for the influx of the many gay groups who plan to protest and spread their hate during our Semi-Annual General Conference. Permits have all been applied for and the police force have been in special training because of the obvious threats. They are expecting anywhere from 20,000 to 200,000 depending on how many they could recruit and afford to get there. How nice of them to spread their hate, while God fearing people go to listen to their church leaders in worship. Californians Against Hate is an oxymoron to say the least.

Posted by: celestialdragonfly at March 24, 2009 5:46 PM

I thought you guys were for free speech? Oh, I forgot, people you don't like don't get the same freedoms.

Now, death threats are criminal acts and should be prosecuted. However, contacting a person and telling them I don't like their political opinion is quintessential free speech. He asked for this when he signed his name on a controversial action.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 24, 2009 5:52 PM

Free speech, sure we're all for that, it is after all a constitutional right, that is when done in a respectful and peaceful fashion. But what went on at many LDS churchs and temples during the whole Prop 8 finale days was anything but peaceful. It was more like angry mobs. The funny thing is they are attacking a minority religious group of people who've dealt with the same kinda of issues in the past. It's nothing new for the members of this church and won't be the last time either. For that matter all religions will face this as un-believers go on the attack, it's happening more and more.

Posted by: celestialdragonfly at March 24, 2009 6:13 PM

However, contacting a person and telling them I don't like their political opinion is quintessential free speech. He asked for this when he signed his name on a controversial action.

What part of:

"I got about two dozen e-mails and hate phone calls," said Mr. LiMandri, who lives in San Diego. "They were calling me Nazi, homophobe, bigot. I tried to engage people once or twice — I said that Proposition 8 had nothing to do with being bigoted, it was about preserving marriage — but people don't want to engage on the issue."

...did you not comprehend?

BTW, when is the list of those who opposed Prop 8 coming out so those of us who oppose homosexual depravity can express OUR 'political opinion' which is 'quintessential free speech'?

You and your sorry ilk are just mad because it was mainly liberal voters (blacks, hispanics, etc) who voted to end the assault on marriage in Kalifornistan.

Posted by: SK at March 24, 2009 6:17 PM

Question for GimmeMoney: do you have any problem with necrophilia? If so, why?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at March 24, 2009 7:10 PM

The gays marched around Temple Square and did all their little queertimidation tricks. People let them do their thing, then the city swept up all the trash they left, and Salt Lake City went on with life like nothing happened. Because nothing did. When you've been shot, tarred and feathered and run across 2,000 miles of wilderness just to stay alive a 1,000 homos aren't that impressive.

Posted by: john of utah at March 24, 2009 8:09 PM

Question for Jay Guevara: are you high? All I want to know is why people feel they need to use the absolute force of government to control other people's lives when such control doesn't benefit or even effect them in the least. What's worse is the conservative side of the political spectrum is supposed to be in favour of a modest government that keeps the country working but stays out of people's private lives.

It seems your argument is “I know what's good for you better than you do and I'm going to make sure you behave how I dictate using the force of government. And remember: I'm doing this for your own good.” But when the government turns round to you and sticks its ugly nose into your private lives, trying to confiscate you guns for example, you don't like it one bit. And before you start yapping on about how I hate guns I was merely using that as an example of a government's attempt to control private citizens lives and behaviour that you don't like; because you're the victim.

If people want to own guns fine. If gays want to get married fine. Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. Believe me that works.

Posted by: Gimme Money at March 24, 2009 8:14 PM

The right to bear arms is a part of the constitution but the right to be gay isn't.....there is a big difference.
Also if you want to be gay be gay....we don't care what you're sexual lifestyle is just stop trying to force feed it to us. It's the fact that you want to change the definition of marriage to fit YOUR lifestyle and thus have us acknowledge your deviant sexual lifestyle as legit and God fearing people just are not going to do that. It also deals with ideology which is not a part of the constitution....it is suppose to remain seperate for a reasoon.

Posted by: celestialdragonfly at March 24, 2009 8:46 PM

Plain, simple, Ignorant, bigots. As strong as the word "stupid" is, it certainly applies to you adults who "believe" in a magical god. How arrogant to think, much more say it in front of other adults, that your "god" will cheat your death but not the deaths of "non-believers." Sounds like a 4 year old saying, "My dad is going to beat up your dad." If your precious heaven is so wonderful, go there asap so the rest of the critical thinking humans can promote humanity's progress without the impediment of religion. Not one fatal, hurtful, bad thing has occurred to ANYONE where same sex marriage is legal in the WHOLE WORLD! With what logic, reasoning and examples are you supposing to provide for same sex marriages being wrong or bad in any way?

Posted by: David KCMO at March 24, 2009 9:01 PM

The fact is, we don't want ANY legislation on our religion! How difficult is this to understand?

Look, in a civil union style of couple (aka secular marriage), there is no religious connotation and you get all the legal benefits afforded any other married couple.

When I got married, I distinctly remember no religious ceremony required, just two signatures and a witness. That's it!

If after acquiring the Civil Union, the couple in question wants to go to a WILLING religious practitioner (Rabbi, Priest, Pastor, etc.) and have a ceremony before God, that's between them and God.

If you want our religion off your laws, keep your laws off our religion!

Why do these gay extremist groups insist on only pursuing the religious marriage, when they can have both through the means described above?

They only want to attack the religious right, that's the only logical answer.

Posted by: Evil Monk at March 24, 2009 10:18 PM

Furthermore, atheists have been getting married for quite some time now. No one has decreed that they must have ANY ceremony other than a Justice of the Peace to preside and ask the usual secular questions of "Do you?"

Bigotry? Look who's talking! We just want our religion to be left alone! If the situation were reversed and someone was trying to force religion into marriage in a state, you AND I would be crying out against such injustice in the name of "Separation of Church from State"!

Why do people like you insist on forcing things into other people's lives? I guess freedom only applies to those citizens who qualify...

Posted by: Evil Monk at March 24, 2009 10:26 PM

Posted by: SK at March 24, 2009 6:17 PM

I comprehend all of it; it's all free speech. It's not polite and it's not what he wants to hear, but it's all protected.

"BTW, when is the list of those who opposed Prop 8 coming out so those of us who oppose homosexual depravity can express OUR 'political opinion' which is 'quintessential free speech'?"

I presume you're asking if publishing such a list represents free speech.

Greater transparency in the political process sounds like a goal which is completely in line with democratic beliefs. Also, according to many conservative thinkers, since the word "privacy" doesn't appear in the Constitution that means that the right to privacy is fictional and does not actually exist. This is mostly used as a counter-argument to Roe v. Wade, but it applies equally well here. Can't have it both ways.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 24, 2009 10:52 PM

Please elaborate sir, because I don't know what you're talking about.

Then you didn't read the article, did you?

But you have to live with that in a free country.

Yep, and if voters in California had voted against Prop 8, I wouldn't have a whole lot to say. But they didn't. They voted to not allow gays to redefine a religious institution according to their desires. This isn't about us nasty conservatives forcing our beliefs on anyone. This is about voters in California refusing to allow gays to do so. Is that somehow unclear? It seems you don't firmly grasp the situation, because every argument you've leveled at conservatives should rightfully be aimed at the very community you're defending.

I'm with you on the "leave me alone, I'll leave you alone" outlook, which is why I support the voters of California who chose to take that very stance.

Posted by: cowlove at March 25, 2009 5:44 AM

“Without pissing in the face of every believer in the country.”

I made that comment because that's what this entire situation is about. Just look at David KCMO's post concerning religion in general. Gays purport to want only equal rights. They have them in the form of civil unions. There is no "right to make religions bend to your will" enumerated in the Consitution, yet that's exactly what gays are fighting for.

Posted by: cowlove at March 25, 2009 5:55 AM

What about the person above who points out that atheists are entitled to get married? Aren't they pissing in the face of believers?

Posted by: Gimme Money at March 25, 2009 6:07 AM

" As strong as the word "stupid" is, it certainly applies to you adults who "believe" in a magical god."
And you have the gall to accuse US of being bigots? Try looking in a mirror, buddy.

"If your precious heaven is so wonderful, go there asap so the rest of the critical thinking humans can promote humanity's progress without the impediment of religion."

News flash, bigot: Believing in God does NOT mean you are incapable of critical thinking.

As for your hateful, ignorant comment about Heaven, two points:
1. It's those horrible, evil, bigoted Christians who do a LOT to help the poor, hungry, and needy in America and all over the world. After Katrina devastated New Orleans, who was it that came from all across the country to help out, wading through raw sewage to bring food, drinkable water, and medical supplies to the survivors? It wasn't the American Atheists Society or the "Free- thinkers" groups, it was the evangelical Christian groups, because they knew God had called on them to help those dear people. My own church is involved in too many missions, charities, and community outreach projects for me to count. The Christian faith and its followers have long been among the most outspoken supporters of the great movements in social progress, such as the Abolitionist Movement and the Civil Rights Movement. We are the ones who are doing real good in the world, and have been for centuries, but hatemongering Christophobes like you ignore those contributions to try and stereotype all Christians as mean, brainless fanatics. The reason why we won't just "Go to Heaven ASAP" is because we know the Lord still needs us to help serve Him on Earth, that is an essential part of the Christian walk.
2. Saying those things about Heaven essentially amounts to your wishing death upon everyone who believes in God. Way to demonstrate tolerance, you hypocrite. I may not agree with you, but I wouldn't wish death upon you, because as a Christian, I value your life as a fellow human being.

Posted by: Adam at March 25, 2009 6:37 AM

What about the person above who points out that atheists are entitled to get married? Aren't they pissing in the face of believers?

Sigh...

If atheists were lobbying to force religious institutions to provide non-religious "marriage" ceremonies, then it would be comparable.

Posted by: cowlove at March 25, 2009 6:45 AM

I thought the issue was not the homosexuals are demanding non-religious marriage ceremonies; apparently they already exist as religiously correct civil unions (or something). I thought the whole problem is that homosexuals want a religious marriage.

Posted by: Gimme Money at March 25, 2009 9:18 AM

Gimme Money are you being purposefully dense?

Posted by: cowlove at March 25, 2009 9:53 AM

All I want to know is why people feel they need to use the absolute force of government to control other people's lives when such control doesn't benefit or even effect [sic] them in the least.

I repeat the question: do you have any problem with necrophilia, and if so, why? Why should government control other people’s lives in that connection, when such control doesn’t benefit or even affect them in the least?

The point is that one can make exactly the same arguments for condoning necrophilia as those for condoning homosexuality. No one is hurt, privacy, freedom to express oneself, etc. But the fact is that some behavior is repugnant, just as some smells are; it’s almost programmed into our DNA.

It seems your argument is “I know what's good for you better than you do and I'm going to make sure you behave how I dictate using the force of government. And remember: I'm doing this for your own good.”

Please do not put words in my mouth. And forcing people to do things for their own good is stock in trade for liberals, not for Americans.

Plain, simple, Ignorant, bigots. As strong as the word "stupid" is, it certainly applies to you adults who "believe" in a magical god.

I will not have you criticizing Obama. And he does so exist.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at March 25, 2009 10:08 AM

“effect [sic]”

LOL! Rather pathetic sir; this is a blog not a doctoral thesis!

“The point is that one can make exactly the same arguments for condoning necrophilia as those for condoning homosexuality. No one is hurt, privacy, freedom to express oneself, etc. But the fact is that some behavior [sic] is repugnant, just as some smells are; it’s almost programmed into our DNA.”

There are plenty of rational arguments (maybe we should go into health and cleanliness for one!) against people screwing corpses; a pair of men living together 1000 miles away is not analogous to that at all. And if you find the idea of two living men fucking each other so repugnant, whether they're allowed to marry is surely irrelevant.

“Please do not put words in my mouth. And forcing people to do things for their own good is stock in trade for liberals.”

I'd say liberals and conservatives are equally guilty here!

Posted by: Gimme Money at March 25, 2009 10:19 AM

Jay Guevara,

You are exactly what I was referring to as "stupid." This may hurt, but you need to hear it: dead people can't consent to sex, you moron.

The individuals in this post who are against gay marriage equality are letting their cat out of the bag: insecurity, ignorance, betterosexuals, haterosexuals, "we" are better than "them," my imaginary friend in the sky makes my rules to live by, uneducated, homophobic, psychosocially inept, incapable of empathy and sympathy, afraid of others who don't look and live like yourself, misogynists-its the same as homophobia, douchecommets, wannabe king of the hill, etc.

Here's the deal, when you are on your deathbed-you don't worry if you're going to heaven, because your brain, if even against your conscious will, knows it doesn't exist. In your last hours you will question if you have loved strong enough and let enough love in. When we re-evaluate our lives the last thing a person considers is if they did enough to stop gay marriage from becomming legal.

There are no reports of any hetero or homo marriages ending in spontaneous combustion via divine intervention, lightning bolts, floods, being swallowed by whales, etc. in any part of the world where homos are married. None of the bullshit you guys are trying to make the ignorant afraid of have, are, or will happen. In fact, nothing bad will happen if Jill and Marti or Mike and David get married in a church.

And this, "We're soing it to save our children from being taught that gay marriage is ok" bullshit is just that. The reality is that you're attempting to keep your children from an education that informs them that their parents are ignorant bigots who are insecure discriminators.

Posted by: David KCMO at March 25, 2009 11:13 AM

And, Jay, while we're at it, what makes you think your comparison of homosexuals and necrophiliacs is logical in any way? When you make statements like this, all it does is flag your intelligence meter on the extremely low end.

Clearly your parents didn't drill one of live's most important lessons into your head: Don't attempt to converse with those smarter than yourself about things which you are totally unable to draw real conclusions about, because the smarter individuals will not be the ones making you look like a complete idiot-YOU WILL!!! Unfortunately, without even knowing it.

If you doubt what I have told you, I dare you make another post from the perspective you have displayed in any attempt to redeem yourself and see what happens.

Posted by: DavidKCMO at March 25, 2009 11:31 AM

And for the rest of you asscaps who claim that Homosexuals are into redefining traditional marriage, you have clearly fallen into the same trap this Jay G. has: Not knowing when to stop putting your 2 cents in about things you have no clue about.

In the Old Testament of the Jewish Fairy Tales, marriage was between one man and 20 plus women, without the women's consent. It was about property rights as in the new husband OWNING THE WOMAN instead of her father. $50 bucks says you didn't see that one comming.

Here's another one: I have gay/lesbian friends in Israel and Pakistan and Afganistan who are legally married and have been for the last 15 years. Europe isn't the only area of the world who doesn't think homosexuals are wrong.

Here's a question for the Buybull Lovers in here:

If you really fo think the Buybull is to be followed so strictly, why haevn't you thrown stones at your kids when they misbehave-seriously, that's what your coveted Buybull says to do to your children when they're bad. Or this one: men shouldn't even look at a woman much less talk to her or be in her presence when she is menstruating. When is the last time you thought, "Man, I hope she isn't bleeding like a stuck pig, I'd really like to approach her and talk to her."

And you guys can shove your "the Buybull specifically says men shouldn't lie with other men" crap where the sun don't shine. The year is 2009, not 0009.

Again, if heaven is so great and you really believe it exists, go there now, please.

Posted by: David KCMO at March 25, 2009 11:51 AM

Dabid,
It's not our fault your boyfirend left you with a case of the crabs he picked up from a local sheep so please cut the drama.
The great thing about America is you can rant and rave until your head explodes on this site but you're not going to change people's minds. It's no wonder you are atheist because you're pissed at God for telling you what you do sexually with another man is an abomination. Can't help you with that since it came from God.
However I do have a suggestion. Quit bashing on people and their beliefs. Then when and if you can present a rational discussion then maybe people will engage you in a meaningful debate. Until then piss off polesmoker.

Posted by: Farmer Ted at March 25, 2009 12:09 PM

If Christians are so terrible, and our religion so full of bigotry, why are queers pushing so hard to be married in religious ceremonies?

Posted by: cowlove at March 25, 2009 12:50 PM

The trolls go in, the trolls go out. The more you feed them, the more they shout.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 25, 2009 1:00 PM

Lmao...I had to share this. Let's bear in mind that all these comments are coming from this link, and they're signed by someone calling himself David Biritz KCMO.

For every idiot bigot who equates homosexuality to beastiality: I would donate to a film of you ignorant fools being raped by an angry hung Chimp and then ripped apart by his sharp teeth and hands.

Homosexuals don'p fuck ferrel animals. We fuck like ferrel animals.

If you want to question the "clairity" of this statement regarding what species we are referring to, get a gun and shoot yourself.

Because you just made yourself look like a total bigot idiot who just wants to discriminate, from stupidity, so your true insecurities don't appear, to you only, as though everybody with intellectual capabilities just saw you as such: a morbidly obiese white trash 6 year old with a fat drunk set of parents with no education.

Why can't your homophobes just admit that your sense of being seen as the king of the hill, master of the universe, or whatever the hell you like to refer to your "maleness" as, is totally threatened by homosexuals and women who are smarter than you? Or is it that if you accept us you will then have to turn in upon yourselves and take a hard long look and reply with, "Wow, you really are a racist, homophobic and misogynistic bigot who is sooooooooooooo insecure!" And don't think every homosexual in America hasn't had to face that exact same fear right in front of our eyes every day of our lives.

Beterosexual ignorant bigots uneducated buybull sheep liars to children mismgynist homophobic brainwashing mind raper adults who believe in magical sky gods. and that's the short list. since you clearly forgot, the CURRENT YEAR IS 2009, and NOT 109 a.d.

David, if you're going to claim intellectual superiority, you should learn that showing such seething hatred and intolerance while pretending to rail against the same is the very definition of hypocrisy. If you have to resort to telling people to kill themselves, you've lost the argument, period.

All you've done here is reaffirm whatever stereotypes you hope to destroy. You come across as an angry, bitter, lonely queer shouting at the darkness, not knowing that you've been engulfed by it.

Posted by: cowlove at March 25, 2009 1:02 PM

My, my, hit a nerve, didn't I?

Homosexuality is a perversion, and as such is in the same category as necrophilia. Consent is irrelevant; some behaviors are not considered acceptable, nor should they be.

Dial back the intellectual pretension, the hatred, and also (at least in my case), the gratuitous disparagement of my supposed religious beliefs. I'm a straight up atheist. I believe some things are simply destructive to society. Homosexuality is one of them. Drug use is another. Liberalism is bidding fair to become a third.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at March 25, 2009 1:19 PM

There are plenty of rational arguments (maybe we should go into health and cleanliness for one!) against people screwing corpses; a pair of men living together 1000 miles away is not analogous to that at all.

So...screwing someone in the pooper is...healthy and clean by your standards?

The problem is that homosexuals harbor and spread disease, and consequently present a considerable public health problem. They are a major reservoir of all STDs – syphilis, gonorrhea, and of course, AIDS – not to mention hepatitis B (originally used by epidemiologists to model AIDS transmission, since it affects the same groups), and methicillin-resistant Staphyloccocus aureus infections. Their activities were responsible for contaminating the blood supply in the 80s, and even today put everyone at risk of spreading some other delightful malady that gains a foothold among them.

For this reason, concern over two guys screwing each other 1000 miles away is very much in the public’s interest to discourage. Tolerate, but discourage. Discouraging homosexuality is analogous to discouraging coughing on others, handling food with dirty hands, or spitting on the sidewalk: it promotes public health.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at March 25, 2009 2:05 PM

It appears David didn't even notice my reply to his first hatemongering post, or at least didn't acknowledge it.
Again, as his more recent posts point out, he is a complete hypocrite, accusing us of being bigots while simultaneously slinging around the most hateful, bigoted, stereotypical, and inaccurate (You're calling us uneducated, David? I for one have a B.A. in History with a good GPA, and am currently working on my Masters so I can get into ministry) insults.
You talk about how supposedly on our deathbeds we'll feel bad for not abandoning our faith and completely accepting all forms of perversion, but I'd imagine on your deathbed all you'll have to show for your life is slinging around hatred and insults over the Internet towards people who believe differently than you do. Not a good legacy to leave behind. I deeply pity you for so many reasons.

Posted by: Adam at March 25, 2009 5:31 PM

Do you think the gay lifestyle is all about fashion tips and "Will and Grace" re-runs?

Take a look at this link below and see what their behavior is really like at one of the wonderful corporate sponsored "gay pride" events in San Francisco. They want to subvert and transform the definition of marriage (which has existed between man and woman alone in countless cultures for countless years) in order to legitimize their perversions.

Warning: very unsettling material, please do not view while eating or in the range of the impressionable.

Folsom Street Fair 2007 Photos

Posted by: Pharos at March 25, 2009 7:30 PM