Are liberals REALLY attacking Liberty U based on “Freedom of Speech”?

Never let a good piss go to waste

Never let a good piss go to waste

Only a moron would be so naive. Look at one of Liberty’s chief attackers–Americans United for Separation of Church and State, headed by Barry Lynn. That is the godless group who recently sicced the IRS on Liberty for allegedly violating federal law.  Aww, gee, they are just neutral with no dog in this fight. They are just looking out for freedom of speech. Not.

Remember the case of Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia? It was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court just 14 years ago.  UVA, a state college, was taking student activity fees and distributing them to any group on campus. But when a Christian group asked for some funds, suddenly they were denied simply because they were Christians. Every other group got the funds, just not the Christian group. They were denied funds simply because of their point of view. That is the exact same case at Liberty–Liberty is denying the Democrats official status based solely upon their viewpoint. But Barry Lynn’s group OPPOSED giving the Christian group the same rights that every other group had. You see, boys and girls, liberals don’t give a shit about freedom of speech. They only care about advancing liberalism. That is why all those liberal dumb asses who rail against Liberty taking a stand are squealing like stuck pigs.   

I know, Iknow, some good conservative people oppose Liberty’s position. That is because conservatives have principles, and really don’t like censorship and love freedom of speech. To you I say you are just misguided. Liberty is a private college. Don’t like their rules, leave. It is a Christian college. Christians don’t believe in abortion, end of story. You godless libertarians don’t like it, start your own college.

You Christians out there should applaud Liberty for finally taking a stand and calling the Democrat party what it is–a godless abomination. NO, I am not saying all Christians should be Republicans! I’m saying all Christians should flee the Democrat party until they renounce their position on abortion. Call yourselves independents. Go ahead and vote for a good Democrat who opposes abortion. Use the power of your feet to show the Dems the error of their ways.

And to combat the idiots who are changing the facts about Liberty’s official stance, here is from their own website, from the mouth of Jerry Falwell Jr:

“The University has not banned Democrats from campus. Nor has the Democrat club been banned from meeting. And, never has the University or its officials said that a person cannot be a Christian and a Democrat. Sorry for those who want to run with these titillating sound bites, but these are the facts.”

“The students who formed the Democrat club last October are good students. They are pro-life and believe in traditional marriage. They can continue to meet on campus. The only thing that has changed came about as part of a University-wide review of all student organizations for official recognition status. Official recognition carries with it the benefit of using the University name and funds. While this group will not be an officially recognized club, it may still meet on campus.”

Much to my personal chagrin, Liberty does not say that all Democrats have horns and a forked tongue. I don’t know where they found them, but they did. They found some decent God-fearing Democrats. Must just be deluded. Hopefully they will grow out of their naivete.

41 responses to “Are liberals REALLY attacking Liberty U based on “Freedom of Speech”?

  1. So do you have any actual arguments, or are all your points just based on one-sided ranting and unfounded generalisations?

    It’s sad that you’re speaking out in support of a supposed Christian organisation and yet all you can express is hatred and exclusion. It’s articles like this that justify some people’s description of the religious right as a bunch of aggressive, close-minded, babbling nutcases.

  2. What, you pathetic liberals can dish it out, but you can’t take it? “It’s articles like this that justify SOME PEOPLE’S description, blah blah blah.” Say it yourself, punk. Don’t get “SOME PEOPLE” to say it for you. Now take your microscopic faggot penis and leave.

  3. I don’t quite see what we’re “dishing out”.

    I’m asking if it’s possible for you to engage in a discussion without resorting to homophobic insults and other such childish rhetoric. It would allow people to take your point of view seriously instead of dismissing it as inane ranting.

    If you have a point to make, let it stand on its own merits. Don’t try to make it stick by demeaning people who disagree with you.

  4. Yes Professor. Here is “my point.” Americans United is biased against Liberty U and against Christians in general having the same rights as any other group of people. When Christians were arguing for equal access to funds that were available to ALL OTHER GROUPS but were denied access solely because they had a Christian point of view, they supported denying the Christian group equal access to the funds. But when Democrats were denied equal access at Liberty solely because of their point of view, suddenly Americans United seems upset that the Democrat group is being denied equal access solely because of their point of view.

    As for my homophobic rants, it’s simple: I don’t take shit from people who come in here and start accusing me of not having actual arguments, and of expressing hatred and exclusion. If my article does not make logical sense to you, if my facts are incorrect, or if you disagree with my conclusions, say so and explain why. I don’t need any pompous ass coming here and cutting me down without explaining why. If you were civil to me rather than patronizing then you would not have been insulted. If you would care to carry on a civil conversation, let’s have at it. But if you want to keep insulting me, you ain’t seen nothing yet. I don’t take shit from liberal punks. P.E.R.I.O.D.

  5. Okay, here’s the obvious point: If, as you say, Liberty should be able to prevent Democrat club funding while still funding the Republican club becuse it’s a PRIVATE college, then it need to forfeit its right to tax-exempt status, because one of the conditions for tax-exemption is to be apolitical.

    It’s a fairly straightforward point of federal tax law. If the university wants to keep public funding, it can’t engage in party politics. It has three options: Allow all political clubs (including Democrats), abolish all political clubs (including Republicans), or renounce public funding.

    Can’t have your cake and eat it, I’m afraid.

  6. Oh, bullshit. The American’s United group, the ACLU, ACORN, all those leftist groups are so democrapic in their point of view that they might as well be considered part of the Democrat party, yet they are still tax exempt. They “have their cake and eat it too.”

    Liberty is not acting pro-Republican and anti-Democrat. Liberty U. is acting anti-godlessness. Which includes being anti-killing of babies, and anti-homosexual behavior. Any other political party can organize there. Just not the one that as part of it’s national party platform includes as planks in its agenda the issues of pro-abortion and pro-homosexual SSM.

    Just as the ACLU is pro-freedom of speech for all, not just for Democrats (wink wink, hey, once in a blue moon they side with Christians and conservative Republicans), Liberty is pro-life and pro-biblical principles for all. If Dem students at Liberty want to call themselves Liberty U Democrats, all they have to do is get the Democrat party to renounce those planks of the national party platform.

  7. It isn’t bullshit. AU, ACLU and ACORN may be left-leaning, but they aren’t part of the Democratic party. As such they are tax-exempt.

    Just like Liberty College is extremely right-wing, but isn’t technically part of the Republican party, so retains its tax exemption.

    People are only calling for Liberty U’s tax-exemption to be revoked because they provided support to one political party while denying support to another.

    It’s got nothing to do with how atheistic Democrats are or how afraid of gay people Republicans are. No one’s telling Liberty U they should stop being fundamentalist Christians. It’s a basic party funding issue. If they wanna fund a Republican club but they refuse to fund a Democrat club, they lose their exemption.

  8. Your bias is showing. You say that ACLU and ACCORN “may be left-leaning” but Liberty U is “extremely right-wing.”

    Let’s get away from the fact that this is the Democrats who are being targeted. Should Liberty be forced to “fund” a Nazi party? Or a communist party? Or a seperatist party? Should they be able to draw a line anywhere in the sand, and say beyond this you must not go? Fund one moronic party, fund them all?

    Admit it, you are hostile to religion and to Liberty U, and this is an excuse to attack them. That’s fine, I can accept that. Just don’t try to blow smoke up my ass by denying it.

  9. I won’t admit it, because it’s not true. Don’t put words in my mouth. I’ve expressed no hostility whatsoever (which, considering your overall tone, is no mean feat). I’ve repeated time and time again, it’s a federal taxation issue. I’d feel the same way about a tax-exempt left-wing university that funded a Democrat club but refused to fund a Republican club. It’s not fair, it’s unconstitutional and what’s more it’s illegal.

  10. So all private universities should fund Nazi political parties, the Communist Party, and the skinhead party? I think such “logic” is absurd. It isn’t “fairness” it is absurdity. It stems from a misguided view that all groups are equal. All groups are not equal. Some are less valid than others. If you think the Dem party is as valid as the Nazi party, then you have problems with being able to use your brain and think. Liberty isn’t muzzling the Dem party, they are just saying you can’t claim to be the Liberty Democrat club or whatever. The little liberals to be can talk all they want, just don’t call themselves the Liberty Democrats, and don’t expect Liberty, a private university, to endorse them.

    You don’t know what you are talking about when you say “it’s unconstitutional.” There is nothing constitutional about the issue. It’s also not “illegal.”

    Whether it is “fair” or not depends upon your definition of fair. If you think Nazis, Commies, skinheads, Charles Manson’s followers and the Democrat party are all equivalent, with no viewpoint being superior to any other (which might not be too far from the truth), then I suppose that you could argue that this is “unfair.” If, however, you have morals and principles and are able to distinguish right from wrong, good and better from bad and worse, then you would have no problem “discriminating” against the bad. Sorry if you are unable to discriminate in such a matter, but don’t impose your lack of such ability upon others.

  11. Claiming tax exemption but not meeting the criteria for tax exemption is illegal. It’s against federal tax law.

    If tax-exempt private universities want to fund one party, they have to fund all parties that request it. That’s the condition. That’s the way we avoid single-party states, you see. We don’t use public money to fund private organisations that practice unilateral party-politics.

    I absolutely don’t question your ability to discriminate. Based on your terms it would appear that you seriously enjoy discriminating. Tell me, do you really think that people who don’t agree with you are automatically inferior to you? That doesn’t sound very “moral” or “principled”.

  12. “Discriminate” has come to be a bad word, with negative connotations. It means to discern the difference between various things. We all “discriminate” all the time. I use my intellect to discern that people who rape, murder, steal and maim are not acting appropriately. I discriminate against their actions because my intellect discerns that they are wrong. So do you.

    Where we apparently differ is that you have lost the ability, or you choose not to employ that ability, to discriminate amongst various moral positions. (Yes, I question your ability to distinguish between moral and imoral positions.) I oppose abortion on moral grounds. It is axiomatic to me that killing an unborn child is murder. Therefore, I oppose it.

    Homosexuality is immoral, therefore I oppose it. And I don’t “enjoy” discriminating against homosexuals. I would “enjoy” it if they repented of their sins and ceased their ungodly behavior. Or at least stopped trying to claim that their ungodly behavior was not imoral and condemned by God. I comit sins, I’m not perfect, but I don’t try to go around claiming that what is sin isn’t really. If I steal, I don’t go around proudly proclaiming “Say it LOUD: I’m a thief and I’m proud!” Hopefully you can discriminate enough to see that I oppose immoral acts, whether comitted by me or anybody else, and I oppose those who try to claim that immoral acts are not really immoral.

    And you are wrong about Liberty supporting Pubs. They are simply allowing them to exist on campus, they are not endorsing them. So long as the Pubs don’t officially take any ungodly and imoral positions as part of their official party plank. If the Pubs cross that line, then they are gone. If the Dems would cease their support of abortion and of homosexuals, then they are welcome, too. The University is taking a MORAL position, not a political position.

    It is a private college. It does not have to allow the NAZI party, nor the Communist Party, nor the pro-NAMBLA party, because of their imoral positions. You want to force your values down their throat–which is that all parties are entitled to the college’s endorsement–but they don’t have to accept your values. If you want to have a college where NAMBLA and NAZI, Commie and skinhead can all be endorsed along with Pub and Dem, START YOUR OWN COLLEGE.

  13. No, you’re absolutely right. Discrimination is not a bad thing all the time. I just think it’s a shame when people discriminate against groups that really pose no threat to them whatsoever. It’s a manifestation of fear. Usually, the fear is a result of active ignorance.

    For instance, my notions of morality are based on reality and pragmatism, and I discriminate according to that. Your notions of morality are based on a book that some guys wrote a few centuries ago and is full of magic and superstition and other such Harry Potter-type stuff. I mean, it’s a nice book and all, but you’d have to be a hypocritical maniac to base your life on it. That notwithstanding, believe there’s a bit in it that goes “Judge not lest ye be judged” and another bit that goes “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. Did you read those bits? Why do you not live according to those bits? I also think that the Bible says that you won’t inherit the Earth, because calling everyone who disagrees with you a “faggot” isn’t a particularly meek thing to do.

    With regard to Liberty U, again, you’re completely missing the point, so I’ll highlight the important bits in all caps for you.

    Whether the people at Liberty U believe in God or Allah or Buddha or whatever, the fact is that as a TAX-EXEMPT ORGANISATION, they are LEGALLY NOT ALLOWED to ENGAGE IN PARTY POLITICS.

    By supporting a Republican club but not a Democrat club, Liberty U are ENGAGING IN PARTY POLITICS. Which is LEGALLY NOT ALLOWED.

    The fact that Liberty U believe in an imaginary friend has absolutely no bearing on the issue. Aren’t you a lawyer or something? I’d have thought you’d be able to understand that the debate hinges on a point of tax law, not on how terrified of gay people you and your xenophobic co-fundies are.

    For reference it’s section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Here’s the link:,,id=163395,00.html

    Do you understand now that the real issue here is not how much Liberty U are afraid of people who think for themselves, but merely a simple tax exemption issue?

  14. Yeah, sooner or later it all boils down to if you are an ignorant godless heathen then you and I are not going to see eye to eye on some issues. But I’ll still bite. Homosexuality is harmful, maybe not to me right at this moment, but to society in general. The homosexual lifestyle is dangerous, and leads to vastly increased risk of STDs, HIV and AIDS, suicide and early death. I personally give blood every chance I get, and one of the first questions in the pre-screening is “Have you EVER had sex with another man since 1976.” Perhaps that magical book by the imaginary God knew what they were doing? And godless heathen know-it-all isn’t quite so smart as he wants to think?

    And it is cute how you jump to the conclusion that faggots scare me. Wrong. They disgust me. I pity them. But they don’t scare me. Just like I pity you, for being a fool.

    As often as you keep repeating the same idiotic point it does not make it so: Liberty isn’t favoring one party against another. They are discriminating on the basis of the particular moral issues supported by one of many parties. In the same manner they would discriminate against the NAZI party if some wanted to call themselves the Liberty NAZIs. Liberty isn’t rejecting Democrats in general, just the immoral issues that they officially support. If the Dems would drop their support for those immoral issues, then not a problem.

    Do you EVEN read what you cited to? “Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”

    All Liberty is doing is saying Dems, you can’t call yourselves the Liberty Democrats. That isn’t “indirectly participating in or intervening in any political campaign.” Words have meaning. As much as you would like to stretch the term “indirectly” to mean ANYTHING and everything, the activity has to be directed at “participating” or “intervening” in a campaign.

  15. I pity you then. You must not know any homosexuals. It’s a shame, they’re good people. You could probably learn a thing or two from them about love, acceptance, understanding, learning, being open-minded and so on, things you sorely lack. Gay people really aren’t a threat to you, you know.

    I’m going to stop arguing with you over the Liberty issue, because you’re deliberately ignoring fundamental points of it to back your view up.

    Look at it this way, I might be a Godless Heathen, but at least I’m not scared of all the things I don’t understand. Maybe one day you’ll come around. You seem so angry and vindictive and paranoid about so much stuff. When you stop basing your beliefs on fear and hatred, people like myself will be happy to welcome you.

    Have a great day.

  16. Dude, I know a lot of nice people who also act immoral. Embezzlers and bank robbers are really sweet, too. Doesn’t mean that I accept what the DO as being moral. “Open minded” to you means not having any morals. “Open minded” to me means seperating what they do (any immoral acts) from who they are (a child of God). And oh, by the way, ou seem self-righteous and know-it-all. Perhaps one day you can discover that you don’t know as much as you thought you did…

  17. If you know lots of people who do what you consider to be immoral things and you consider them to be nice and sweet, what is the point of having a value judgement on morality?

    If your open-mindedness allows you to separate what you consider to be immoral acts from who people are, why do you continue to express such virulent hatred for gay people?

    Open minded to me merely means not being so quick to judge people according to the limited information I have about them – I accepted a long time ago that what I don’t know far exceeds what I do know.

    However one of the things I do know is that men who go on and on about gay people being “disgusting faggots” are more often than not often closet homosexuals themseves. So when did you realise you were gay, and what is it that’s preventing you from admitting to it? Are you afraid that your friends will reject you? I can direct you to places where you can meet other closeted gay men, if you like.

  18. I call thieves “thieves.” I call “pedophiles” pedphiles. I call “murderers” murderers. What do you call them? And yes, I’m “quick to judge them” too. You are “quick to say what they do is not immoral.” Or “slow to say what they do is immoral.”

    And, dude, if I had a quarter for every sloppy thinker who tried that those who condemn homos are closet faggots. That one gets old. How about this? Everyone who condemns Christians is a closet Christian? Or everyone who condemns animal cruelty is a closet animal torturer? Make sense to your feeble mind?

  19. Most intelligent people are capable of making the fairly obvious distinction between criminals such as thieves and pedophiles and murderers and animal torturers, and people who merely happed to be attracted to other people of the same sex. To lump them all in together would be… What was it? Sloppy thinking?

    Well, it’s a shame that you’re not a closet gay, if that isn’t the case. At least it would some sort of excuse for your attitude towards them. As it is, even the Bible doesn’t condone your anger and hatred towards them. Wrath is a sin, man. But I’m sure God will forgive your for it, just as he’ll forgive homosexuals for their lust.

    If there is a God, that is. If there isn’t you’ll have spent your life being all pissed off at a bunch of people for no reason. Imagine that.

  20. No, most “intelligent people” make the distinction that “stealing” a pack of gum is less disgusting than sticking one’s arm up another man’s butt. Most people make the distinction that a 24 year old man being attracted to a 15 (who looks 18) year old woman is less disgusting than two middle aged men being attracted to each other.

    And you keep saying I’m angry, and pissed off. You are projecting. If there isn’t a God you will have spent all this time lecturing people about how smart you are and how wrong they are. Why will you care after you are dead? Why do you care now? You have a few years left, if you are lucky, then you die. “Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.” (You wouldn’t know it, but that is straight out of the Bible.) As is, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.'”

  21. I just came across this.

    You’re full of contradictions, John Doe. Considering your attitude to wealth redistribution and your faith, I would have thought you’d have a harsher view of theft compared to homosexuality (after all, the Bible only vaguely condemns being gay, but not stealing is one of the Ten Commandments). And considering your libertarian views, I would have thought you’d feel it’s none of your damn business what two consenting adults get up to in private, regardless of how offputting you might find it. And presumably you think people should be allowed to drink and smoke as much as they want, and own guns, right? So how does that mesh with your concerns about the alleged increased health risks of being gay? Smoking alone costs $92 Billion and kills almost half a million people a year, alcohol kills another 90,000, and firearms kill another 30,000. AIDS only kills around 15,000 people a year. Total suicides are around 45,000. Even if all suicides were caused by homosexuality (which is ridiculous, but let’s assume so for the sake of the argument) that’s 60,000 deaths caused by something you object to, compared to the 600,000 deaths caused by things you don’t object to. So is being gay more or less harmful to society than cigarettes, booze and guns?

  22. You do not know me or my views. You think you do. I have an equally harsh view towards homosexuality as I do towards theft. What makes you think otherwise? The Bible does not “vaguely” condemn homosexuality, it condemns it, period.

    Libertarian does not equal licentiousness. Where have I said it is any of my business what consenting adults do in private? If you are asking for my personal views, I reject homosexuality. I will oppose idiots who try to rationalize it and to say that the Bible does not condemn it. If certain locales want to criminalize such behavior, I support their right to do so, because traditionally this country maintained the right to do so. Homosexual behavior is not a right enshrined in the constitution.

    Personally, I could give a shit what two fags do on their own time, but it becomes my business when they try to pass such behavior off in public as moral and decent and normal. When they try to teach public school kids that, it becomes my business. When they try to force the majority to change the definition of marriage to include any two consenting adults, it becomes my business.

    I could give a shit if queers all die of AIDS. [I feel the same about smokers and drinkers.] My pointing out that homosexual behavior is despicable behavior that causes disease should not be construed by you to mean that I personally would outlaw it on that basis. It is just a fact. If I were Emperor, I’d employ “Don’t ask, don’t tell” throughout the universe–“If you are a fag, whatevah, just shut the hell up about it.” Got a REAL issue worth discussing? Talking about homos bores me. Been there, done that.

  23. Why does it become your business when people try to pass of homosexual behaviour as acceptable in public? Or, to put it another way, assuming that a group of people found something that you do in public objectionable, how would you feel if they tried to stop you? Why, for that matter, is it your business who’s allowed to get married? How does it affect you personally if two men you’ve never met can achieve the marital status as you? And not that I was aware of the introduction of classes where kids are taught all about homosexuality, but how exactly do you suffer if someone happens to teach kids that behaviour which you happen to disagree with is nonetheless basically okay? Would you rather there were classes that taught kids that some people are abnormal perverts because their sexuality is different from yours?

    I’d say it’s a real issue because you support legislating against it, and therefore it merits discussion. I can see why some people like to think that their personal definition of morality is the only one worth bothering with, but surely you can see that that’s just not workable.

  24. Hey, Bob, people find things that I do objectionable all the time. They object to my drinking, to my gambling, to my hunting, to trapping (I don’t trap, but I support those who do), to my fishing, to my polical beliefs, to my religious beliefs, etc. ad nauseum. This is America, Bobby boy. People can and do object to what others do all the time. Just because some are faggots, they think they are off limits from people objecting to what they do? You got a problem with America Bobbo?

    Your “argument” about two queers marrying goes too far, Bobby Boy. The same argument supports marriage between a parent and an adult child, two siblings, polygamous marriages, interspecies marriages, you name it. And it IS my business when people force the majority–who believe homo sexual marriages are immoral–to accept such marriages. It is no different than if I said “what business of yours is it if I choose to have Michael Vick-style dog fights in private.

    I support a states’ right to legislate against homosexual behavior, or a localitie’s right to legislate against such behavior. THAT was the norm for +200 years. It only changed when the Sup Ct in Lawrence v Texas changed the Constitution and overturned clear precident.

  25. No it doesn’t. Incestuous marriages are illegal because of the risk of inbreeding. Interspecies marriages are illegal for the same reason bestiality is illegal, it’s abuse because animals can’t consent to it. As for polygamous marriages, I’m not entirely sure why they’re illegal, and I’m not sure they should be, since it doesn’t hurt anybody, just like gay marriage. It doesn’t fit your personal specific idea of what marriage should be, but it doesn’t hurt anyone.

    Are you really going to compare consentual sex between two adults to mutilating and killing animals for profit and entertainment? I mean, I get that you’re repulsed by gay people, but at least try to apply some kind of logic to it.

    And what would happen if the majority decided that homosexuality was okay, and your opinion became the minority in your locality? What would happen if the majority where you live decided that gay marriage should be allowed, but made hunting and gambling illegal? What would you do? I’m curious.

  26. Yawn. I REALLY don’t give a shit about this subject. It’s been talked to death, and I certainly am never going to change your mind.

    As to animals fighting, so what that animals get killed? They get killed in hunting and fishing and trapping. They get killed for food. It is morally permissible for bullfighting in Spain. It is a moral issue. You side against it and in favor of homosexual conduct. I side against both of them. That is the “logic” of the situation.

    Close relatives can “marry” then if one or the other is fixed so that no offspring result? And what about animals who enjoy it? Oops, there goes your argument.

    Please don’t tell me you are a closet fag.

  27. Actually, yeah, why shouldn’t closer relatives be allowed to marry if one or both of them are infertile. As for animals, as long as we can’t verbally communicate with them there’s no way for them to consent. To marriage or sex.

    There is no logic in comparing the killing of animals for entertainment and consentual sex between two adults. Regardless of your opinion of either, they’re two situations which have nothing in common.

    And what if I was gay? Would that make me less of a human? Deserving of being randomly assaulted by cops, as you suggested in your other article? Would you think I should have less rights than you because I happen to be sexually attracted to the same gender? Would you assume I was some sort of pervert by choice, or perhaps brain-damaged in some way? I’d just really like to know what it is that prevents you from being able to realise that there’s nothing wrong with being gay. And don’t say “The Bible”, because I bet you my savings I can find a dozen passages in the Bible that claim YOU’RE an abomination.

  28. – And I appreciate you’re bored with the subject, John, but this is how we grow as people and develop as a species, by having our preconceptions challenged. 200 years ago people just as smart as you and I genuinely believed that black people were genetically inferior to white people. Ridiculous, right?

    All I’m saying is that it’s fine that you feel the way you feel about these things, and it’s probably down to the environment in which you grew up, but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t entertain the possibility that things you think of as wrong, or disgusting, or even evil, are actually just okay and natural, and no threat to you or your way of life. No one’s asking you to join in or anything. But it’s not helpful for you to hate, or to advocate hatred, because it doesn’t solve anything. There always have been and always will be gay people, and they will always want to live with the same rights as you and I, so why not consider acceptance? Hell, I think it’s pretty weird that people dress up as horses in the bedroom, or spank each other, or smear each other with food or whatever – Hell, if I’m honest I find the idea of sex with another dude pretty offputting. But I’m okay with other people doing it, and I certainly don’t think it’s worth getting worked up about. Hell, if I’m honest I find the idea of sex with another dude pretty offputting. Why not try that outlook?

  29. Maybe I was born this way. I don’t like faggots or liberals. Don’t hate me, accept the way I am.

    Does being a thief make someone less human? Or being one who participates in dog fighting? Or one who is a necrophiliac? Who is talking about somebody being less human? I’m talking about people doing disgusting things. And where did I suggest cops should randomly assault faggots? You making shit up now?

    While we are getting in touch with the way that we feel, how about admitting that perhaps YOU are wrong, that what homos do really is disgusting and immoral? Whoa, no, that’s too far out to deal with, dude?

    Finally, I don’t hate faggots. I hate what they do. Some gay people that I have met are very nice, enjoyable persons, and I did not find anything about them that was not to like. Except what they did in the bedroom.

    Here’s a little something I wrote a while back that expresses exactly how I feel about the subject. Enjoy:

  30. “Bob Dole”:

    Let’s get some definitions straight to begin with, because you build an argument of marriage on faulty logic.

    A CIVIL UNION describes a legal joining of a couple into a family unit. The fine points of civil union vary a bit from state to state, and country to country, but this is the gist of it.

    A MARRIAGE is a combined civil union and parochial sanctification of the same. Marriage is a SANCTIFIED event, which CANNOT be performed by in a non-religious ceremony. It is thereby governed by the religious edicts of the church.

    While it has become commonplace to interchange the two meanings (and of course, for the sake of political correctness) they are in fact descriptive of two different types of ceremonies.

    All marriages are civil unions. All civil unions are not marriages.

    The GLBT community fight for “same sex” marriage for a couple different reasons – the main of which being societal “normalization” of gay relationships. It’s a political play really, inasmuch as there is no RIGHT to marriage guaranteed in the constitution or by state law (much to the chagrin of ugly men everywhere – straight or gay). All major religions I am aware of define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, so that pretty much rules out gay marriage.

    Since there is no RIGHT to marriage, marriage cannot be a civil RIGHT. Nor a gay RIGHT. Just because a group of people want something does not make it a RIGHT (Dems and health care notwithstanding).

    My personal position has always been that civil union partners and marriage partners should be equally protected under the law. Domestic partnerships should have the same legal status (meaning right to survivorship, health benefits, tax ramifications and so on) as marital partners do. From a strictly legal viewpoint, same sex partners and opposite sex partners should be treated equally. This I believe is not the law of the land in most states – and IMHO should be across the land.

    Marriage on the other hand, cannot be between anyone but a man and a woman. Period. My rationale for this is above, and inasmuch as it is ordained by literally thousands of years of history and billions of believers, is not subject to change by popular rhetoric or the PC police.

    As far as homosexuality goes, see the Old Testament book Leviticus for passages condemning homosexuality:

    “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13)
    Also see Dueteronomy 23:17.

    And in the New Testament, Paul does not curse homosexuality outright, rather lumps it in with all sins of the flesh – including fornication and adultery. See several verses in 1Corinthians Ch. 5 and 6 for references.

    For the record, biblically this is not glancing rebuke – it is stern consternation and specifically forbidden – “…Like it or not…” (Mr. “O”gasm himself).

    I personally have a less rigid view on homosexuality (and understand the difference between it and bisexuality and sexual mis-assignment) and as such, choose to personally reject the sin, not the sinner. But that’s just me…

    This is my view, and as always YMMV…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s