About 70 percent of African American voters in California voted for Proposition 8. The numbers are probably higher for Hispanics.

I’d like to see the creeps terrorizing people outside the LA Mormon Temple take their show down to Compton.

Please, go down to Compton and scream obscenities at people who disagree with you. Go down to Compton and call people vile names, assault counter protestors, rip the crosses out of the hands of little old ladies.

Or are you chicken?

What does being ” an asian chick” have to do with being able to “understand”?
A guy just keeps saying that over & over.
I don’t get it.

Are homosexuals wanting acceptance of christian marriage or what? Aren’t civil unions exactly the same only without the blessings of Jesus? I really don’t understand what they are asking for. Why are civil unions not acceptable? IF they want to call it marriage they can call it marriage or whatever else they want.

ZZ ,

Who knows what evils lurks in the hearts of homos, however, I will venture to guess.

They have written at length about removing the stigma of homosexuality, although they often use positive catch-phrases that even avoids calling themselves homosexuals.

Moreover, they have had good results in forcing acceptance upon a largely-unwilling population by getting support from the highest levels of government and in the private sector.

Employees, both government and civilian, often have to undergo sensitivity training by the Kommisars of Homosexuality, upon pain of censure or termination from employment if they express dissent.

Children are force-fed, Timmy Has Two Daddies at very tender ages, and older students, like their parents, have to walk on eggshells when it comes to the mention or even discussion of homosexuality. Any expressions of disagreement, and certainly of contempt for the loathsome practice, is to invite severe penalties.

The short answer is that the homos are demanding everyone’s approval — simple tolerance is, and never was, enough.

Besides, their effort has been shown to be a top-down, cram-down by government and the private sector.

My questions are, who is it that got the ears of top-level leadership and why is the top-level leadership forcing homosexuality onto society?

i have no idea how i would react if someone arbitrarily took away my right to, i don’t know, maybe vote. i don’t think i would ask for it back nicely, pretty please.

I think a lot of people who voted for Prop *, did so not because of the marraige issue, but because gay rights activists have not been willing to be live-and-let-live themselves.

Maybe if they weren’t so actively persecuting the Boy Scouts, maybe there wouldn’t be so many people who are worried that a certain agenda will be forced on kids.

Kind of like what Proof does to me all the time.

I didn’t even know you were gay! (I did suspect as much!)

Here I am trying to be good, and I am relentlessly attacked by the group bully. Bad Proof,BAD!!!

Too funny! Poor widdle Buzzy! Him is so helpwess! Heh.

Here’s a clue. Make rational arguments, based on fact, without insulting anyone and I’ll leave you alone. When you say idiotic things, pull stuff out of your butt and insult people (as you usually do) I will put things in perspective.

Eddie,

The point isn’t that they are more violent, but that historically they have been known to resort to violence when something or someone stands between them and their unnatural desires. Watching the video reminded me of the stories I had read.
/quote]
Historically, eh? Now, when you say “these people” are you willing to account for a vast range of homosexual people who aren’t as deranged as those in the video?

As far as history’s speaking, Judeochristian beliefs have been enforced by some rather violent means as well. Does that mean that “historically” (and therefore imperially proven) christians are all violent?

hungry bear-

I think many people can point to rights that have been taken away over the last thrity years…

-that is my point. even people who lose property don’t take it quietly.

So this right was created against the wishes of the majority of American.

-when the right of ‘freedom’ was extended to the slaves, the majority of america was against it. when the ‘freedom’ for blacks to marry whites (and vice versa) was passed by the courts, majority of americans were against it.

also, you must remember, at the time of our revolution, only about one-third of the inhabitants of the colonies wanted separation from england. the majority either didn’t care or were tories.

sometimes, american rights have to be forced upon us, because a majority is against them. doesn’t make them lesser rights. and yet, we still survive as a nation.

As far as history’s speaking, Judeochristian beliefs have been enforced by some rather violent means as well. Does that mean that “historically” (and therefore imperially proven) christians are all violent?

No! Christianity does not teach or approve of violence! These acts were by people claiming Christianity, but being far from it in their hearts.

“these people” are you willing to account for a vast range of homosexual people who aren’t as deranged as those in the video?

The homosexual community mostly engages in or supports such violence as a means of forcing their will on others or for sexual gratification. Are there some not so subscribing? Yes! But, I haven’t heard from them opposing these recent acts, have you?

With all due respect;

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
~1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (boldface added)

If you believe the Bible is true, you cannot support homosexuality. God places them right up there with thieves, idolaters, and adulterers.

Obviously, if you do not believe the bible is true, this won’t matter to you. The argument breaks down. But no Christian can support homosexuals.

crshedd,

The legal rights and benefits of marriage are available to all within civil unions or domestic partnerships. There is no inequality, no freedom withheld by marriage being what it is.

Move_Zig asks:

My questions are, who is it that got the ears of top-level leadership and why is the top-level leadership forcing homosexuality onto society?

I don’t think that forcing homosexuality on society is the real, end goal among some top leaders in government, the media and commerce.

It has been – and continues to be – an assault on white males and thereby the family. Gay marriage approval is just another weapon in thier arsenal.

Has anybody besides me noticed that EVERY commercial shows white males as stupid, bumbling or incompetent, while the black or female character sorts things out?

Zsa,

There is something more at work here than a quest for equality. You’re correct. The legal standing and benefits of marriage are extended to civil unions or domestic partnerships. This is an assault on marriage. The very connotation that ‘marriage’ carries is to much for the homosexual to bear. It makes their unions something less than marriage as perceived by the vast majority. That cannot stand. They must force everyone to grant them the same social status and approval that marriage carries regardless of the implications.

“jim crow laws were voted on by the majority. did not make them right. some of the laws were voted for numerous times. majority passed. does not make them right. when this country was founded, majority favored slavery. does that mean we should never have outlawed it?”

crshedd:
I beg to differ… Actually, I dont beg. The majority did not favor slavery when this country was founded. To placate the “whiner Babies” in the south (and that isn’t an insult on present day southerners as I am one), those in the majority stayed silent. The South was so sparsely populated that the only way they could get seats in the house was to count the slaves in poular vote (though not for taxation purposes).

Evne many people in Virginia favored abolishing slavery. Washington freed all his slaves on the death of himself and Martha. Not only did he free them, but he ordered in his will that those too old, or too young were to be cared for by his estate until thier extinction, or twenty-fifth birthday. Madison decried the evil of the South. Henry did as well. But because people in the South threatened and cajoled, the majority stayed quiet. I’m so glad people in Califonia finally said enough.

The courts took too much power into thier own hands and away from the people. Be happy that our right to vote and create laws is still in our hands. That is what upsets nazis and socialists.

only 9 states recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships.

So take the fight there rather than against marriage.

Did you miss the part where Connecticut already has civil unions and yet the homosexual’s still cry for “equality” and the right to marry?

The elephant in the room is the fact that anyone can marry, even homosexuals, but nobody, even heterosexuals can marry the same sex. That’s because marriage is the union of one man and one woman, regardless of how progressives re-define it.

It’s not an equality issue either. This is another equivocation. The legal standing and benefits of marriage extend to civil unions. There is no inequality.

Let’s say we redefine family so that anyone could join whatever family they wish. Wouldn’t it be more fair if say a poor child could proclaim himself a member of a rich family? Who care what the definition of the word is or the historical, traditional, religious, and societal implications are. “Equality” is the issue.

19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door.

Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.

And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.

Historically, these types are a violent group. The two accounts are from the biblical books of Genesis and Judges.

Your right Rob, there is no excuse for that type of behavior. But to carry a cross through the middle of the protesting crowd is a bit ballsy.
I don’t like it when someone does something that they know will get a negative reaction just to use that reaction to be able to punish that person or group.

Why should one not counter demonstrate? The gay marriage protests are obviously to “get a reaction”. Obviously they’re bad then too?

Eddie,

The point isn’t that they are more violent, but that historically they have been known to resort to violence when something or someone stands between them and their unnatural desires. Watching the video reminded me of the stories I had read.

Physical attacks? This is not protest. This is anarchy and communism-hedonism.

Chief,

You know where I have seen this before?

This is a socialist tactic.

From the days of 1917 in Russia, to Italy in 1919-1922, to Germany of the late 1920′s through the 1930′s, there were all sorts of uniformed political adjuncts to the various factions.

Unlike the civilized discourse or even spirited debate of the then-Republican or Democratic Parties (before the term Democratic was suborned and hijacked) , the violent Socialists’ purpose was to do exactly what you see here.

The scary part is that very often, violence has gotten them into power.

The SA or Sturmabteilung, commonly known to us in America as the Brown Shirts, were but one contingent of the various quasi-military street-fighting groups: the Red Brigades, the Spartakus Brigades, the Bolsheviks, the Black Shirts, the Red Front — and the Reaktion, the Freikorps and Stahlhelm — who rose in response to combat them, the fascisti in Italy, and so on.

For us the conquest of power will not be effected at one blow. It will be a progressive act, for we shall progressively occupy all the positions. of the capitalist state, defending tooth and nail each one that we seize. Moreover, in my view and in that of my most intimate associates in the party, the economic struggle, likewise, will be carried on by the workers councils. The settlement of economic affairs; and the continued expansion of the area .Of this settlement, must be in the ‘hands of the workers councils. The councils must have all power in the state. To these ends must we direct our activities in the immediate future, and it is obvious that, if we pursue this line, there cannot fail to be an enormous- and immediate intensification of the struggle. For step by step, by hand to hand fighting, in every province, in every town, in every village, in every commune, all the powers of the state have to be transferred bit by bit from the bourgeoisie to the workers and soldiers councils.
– address of Rosa Luxemburg at the Founding Conference of the Communist Party, Berlin, 1918

That is why the US, and the West, ignores Leftist tactics at their own peril. The homosexuals have allied themselves with the Left, since they style themselves as an oppressed and insular minority — always welcome within a Left who seeks to divide and conquer any society by exploiting disaffected groups (Obama belongs to one such group, the one which preaches Marxist Black Liberation Theology).

Homosexuals have made great advances by cowing the American Psychological Association into declaring them not to be perverts through violent, disruptive tactics.

Preparations for the assault on the APA by the Homosexual Collective began in early 1970 with the formation of an alliance between San Francisco gay leaders and lesbian/feminist activists. The immediate target was the APA annual convention to be held in San Francisco that May. As described by Ronald Bayer in Homosexuality and American Psychiatry-The Politics of Diagnosis, the Collective decided on a strategy of intimidation, verbal confrontation and “guerrilla theater” tactics to bring meeting functions to a standstill. APA opponents were assailed as “motherf — kers,” and chaos and pandemonium reigned. The psychiatric profession was accused of minority oppression and violating the civil rights of homosexuals. The officers of the APA quickly sued for peace and offered the first of many concessions to the militant coalition

These homosexuals are using Socialist tactics. The rest of polite society has not awoken to the fact that war has been declared on us by the Homosexuals and other Marxists.

Better buy ammo now, before Obama arms his own Brown Brigades.

=============================

Other references:

Obama supported Socialist Kenya’s Raila Odinga, who encouraged his followers to riot after he lost the election.

Freikorps

National Socialist rise to power.

Defend marriage, outlaw divorce.

And I went down to the demonstration
To get my fair share of abuse

You Can’t Always Get What You Want
Rolling Stones