• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

The push for gay marriage is over - the persecution of Christians begins

 
 
 
Dude, my freedom of religion is so totally allowed to infringe on yours.
 
Why do people think that they have the right to do business in public in any way that they want to? Religious universities and businesses want to be certified public institutions AND not have to deal with any of the things they disagree with in society. It just doesn't work like that. If you want to participate in the wealth of the country you live in you need to follow the rules and accept all of it.
 
Was just looking at a bit of Rush Limbaugh analysis of the situation, and he carries on a similar theme.

Christians Are the Left's True Target

CALLER: ... I'd like to ask you how many gays do you think will be demanding to be married in a mosque?

RUSH: I don't think any.
Click to expand...

...

RUSH: Militant Islamists have not denied them happiness and good times and getting married and all. It's Christians. It's Christians. You might say, "But do they not know that homosexuals are put to death in Muslim countries?" Well, but it's not happening in America. We don't live in those countries.
Click to expand...

Wow. Whenever I read conservatives trying to explain and defend their point of view on issues like this, I come away having less sympathy for them, which is the exact opposite of the whole point and intention in the first place.

Maybe the reason there will be less gays "demanding to be married" in a mosque than a church is that there are less gay Muslims than there are gay Christians, there are less mosques than churches as well. I agree that churches should not be legally obligated to perform any marriages, but trying to play up the sympathy card for Christians going through more opposition will not work, because in the United States, it is primarily the Christians who are opposing gay civil rights in the first place. Other members of other religions do so also, but they do not have the political power that Christians do, so IT SHOULD BE NO SURPRISE AT ALL THAT GAY ACTIVISTS TREAT CHRISTIANS AS OPPOSITION MORE THAN MEMBERS OF OTHER RELIGIONS.



He elsewhere criticizes liberals and gay activists for playing up the persecution card, but seems oblivious to the fact that that is exactly what he is doing. That is what Christian doctrine and Christian culture does with its members on a regular, routine basis. Take a look in the mirror, Rush.

Brian
 
Brian63 said:
He elsewhere criticizes liberals and gay activists for playing up the persecution card, but seems oblivious to the fact that that is exactly what he is doing.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, but that's a different thing. It's like "reverse discrimination." Discrimination is bad, and no one should do it, but if you're going to do it, there's a right and a wrong way to do it.

Oppression of gays is what God wants. So people taking God's side of the argument aren't persecuting, they're being persecuted for being in the right! That's like, 'reverse oppression!"
 
krypton iodine sulfur said:
The thread title is redundant: the whole point of same-sex marriage in the first place was to persecute Christians. Obviously.
Click to expand...

Wait, seriously? I thought we were supposed to persecute them by saying 'happy holidays' or not believing the same things they do? When did we agree to move to this new persecution platform and why am I only hearing about this now?
 
Keith&Co. said:
Brian63 said:
He elsewhere criticizes liberals and gay activists for playing up the persecution card, but seems oblivious to the fact that that is exactly what he is doing.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, but that's a different thing. It's like "reverse discrimination." Discrimination is bad, and no one should do it, but if you're going to do it, there's a right and a wrong way to do it.

Oppression of gays is what God wants. So people taking God's side of the argument aren't persecuting, they're being persecuted for being in the right! That's like, 'reverse oppression!"
Click to expand...

Naw. If you want to do an analogy for "reverse discrimination" it would be Christians who actually are discriminated against for being Christian and special rights being doled out to non-Christians, justified by people pointing out how many other Christians discriminate against non-christians. I don't think that happens in the US.
 
credoconsolans said:
Guess what we'll all be hearing from the GOP presidential candidates until the elections?
Click to expand...

It will be very interesting to find out what the upcoming presidential election will be like, on this issue. By late 2016, gay marriage will probably be a moreso settled issue and the general public as a whole (and even a bit more of just the GOP electorate) will be comfortable with it, realizing that the world did not end as predicted. What positions will the GOP candidates take then, if they want to win over both the GOP primary voters and the general election voters?

Any predictions or just guesses from anyone here on which GOP candidates will "evolve" their positions from now to then, and will be in favor of gay marriage by election time? (so secretly, they were fine with it the whole time but just had to publicly oppose it while on the present campaign) How much will the GOP view change between now and then, both for the various candidates, and the party as a whole?

Brian
 
I think they will need to move left, to counter Bernie. Although expect a lot of rhetoric around "Socialism"
 
Damn, can't find a clip of it anywhere.

When I see the thread title I just keep thinking of the '86 Transformers movie: Megatron: "Their defenses are broken, let the slaughter begin!"
 
credoconsolans said:
or so some Xtians say.

Guess what we'll all be hearing from the GOP presidential candidates until the elections?

http://news.yahoo.com/religious-liberty-rallying-cry-gay-marriage-ruling-050047613--election.html

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Suggest they reread this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Click to expand...
 
Brian63 said:
Any predictions or just guesses from anyone here on which GOP candidates will "evolve" their positions from now to then, and will be in favor of gay marriage by election time? (so secretly, they were fine with it the whole time but just had to publicly oppose it while on the present campaign) How much will the GOP view change between now and then, both for the various candidates, and the party as a whole?
Click to expand...

It will be difficult. Right now, they have an angry base that's really pissed off about how oppressed they are and any candidate is going to need to deal with that in order to become the nominee and that statement will be recorded and replayed during the general election. It's going to be tough for them to make a strong enough statement to get the base voting for them that's also ambiguous enough for them to completely turn around on during the general.
 
fromderinside said:
Suggest they reread this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

This is what they're clinging to:

The SCOTUS has no right to pass a law that requires them to treat gays as equal to them when their RELIGION tells them they should treat them like the abominations they are. So the SCOTUS decision is unConstitutional and keeps them from exercising their religious rights.
 
Brian63 said:
He elsewhere criticizes liberals and gay activists for playing up the persecution card, but seems oblivious to the fact that that is exactly what he is doing. That is what Christian doctrine and Christian culture does with its members on a regular, routine basis. Take a look in the mirror, Rush.
Click to expand...
I call it Mirror Speak and the right-wing has been doing it for the last 6 years. Almost every charge they make of the Democrats, they themselves are the ones that are actually guilty.
 
There is a video out of a CNN anchor (before this SC gay marriage decision came out) was asking Donald Trump about his own 3 marriages and how they are "traditional," and he gave an answer that just pretty much punted the question away:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatc...abbles-when-asked-about-traditional-marriage/

Just based on his meaningless response there, it seems like he is probably fine himself with gay marriage, but just had to pretend to be very opposed to it, for political reasons. I wonder who else among the GOP candidates is in the same boat. Santorum's opposition to gay marriage seems a bit more sincere, so he will probably be holding his position for the long-term, regardless if he does or does not win the GOP nomination this time.

Brian
 
Tom Sawyer said:
It's going to be tough for them to make a strong enough statement to get the base voting for them that's also ambiguous enough for them to completely turn around on during the general.
Click to expand...
I'm sure someone will start with phrases that seem to appeal to the angry base while the base remains angry, but turn out to only be a personal stance. "Well, Bob, when you look closely at that speech, I wasn't saying I had anything AGAINST Gays, just that I, personally, am not gay, and will not be participating in a gay wedding in the White House garden."
 
Keith&Co. said:
Tom Sawyer said:
It's going to be tough for them to make a strong enough statement to get the base voting for them that's also ambiguous enough for them to completely turn around on during the general.
Click to expand...
I'm sure someone will start with phrases that seem to appeal to the angry base while the base remains angry, but turn out to only be a personal stance. "Well, Bob, when you look closely at that speech, I wasn't saying I had anything AGAINST Gays, just that I, personally, am not gay, and will not be participating in a gay wedding in the White House garden."
Click to expand...

But every single person in the base knows this so when any statement contains something which can be interpreted ambiguously, they are going to demand clarification in a non-ambiguous manner. They know damn well the candidates are looking to merely pander to them during the primaries and then ignore them in order to pander to the center during the general so they are going to want firm commitments which aren't worded in a way that can be backed out of.

The good news for them is that Trump is currently soaking up all the crazy, so they can just sit back for a while and wait for the issue to move to the back burner and maybe find a way to not fuck themselves over.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
But every single person in the base knows this so when any statement contains something which can be interpreted ambiguously, they are going to demand clarification in a non-ambiguous manner.
Click to expand...
The Press might.
The American Voter, however, will have heard what he wants to hear and needs no talking head to tell him to be cautious in coming to a conclusion.

I mean, you say 'gay rights' and they hear 'Persecute Christains.'
Say 'military exercise' and they hear 'martial law.'
You says 'No, god dammit, we're NOT invading TEXAS!' and they mutter about how you're weasel wording it....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom