Rightwinger Rightwinger

Why am I a Hater?

Why am I a Hater?

I posted this in philosophy/life, and got no responses, so....RE-POST!!

I was recently in a friendly--for the most part--discussion about gay marriage.

Now, I really have no valid opinion on the subject, but I will say that I don't think galaxies are going to explode, if gays and lesbians are given the right to say "I do". After all, in the words of the great country music legend/drag queen icon Dolly Parton, "They should have to suffer, right along with the rest of us."
And besides, I really don't think it's my place to judge them. What they do is between them and the God to whom they so cavalierly flip the finger.

It's their choice, it's their consequences. At least, that's how I see it.

However, because I made the statement that I didn't really agree with the homosexual "lifestyle", I was called a "hater".

Several times. Often vehemently.

Now, why am I a hater?

All I did, was to express an opinion; I don't "hate" gay people. My sister is a lesbian, and a very good friend is bi-sexual. The father of another good friend came out several years ago, and he and his "partner" are friends of ours, as well.

I simply disagree with how they live their lives. Is that so shameful and intolerant, really? 

I mean, I disagree with how drug addicts and theives live their lives too, but am I considered a hater for it? I don't think so....
And really, don't gays pretty much disagree with how I live my life, too, having that yucky natural, vaginal sex with someone of the opposite gender, and all.....ICK!

In fact, over the years, I've been derisively called a "breeder" and a "straight"; like there's something weird, or perverse about it. 
Why are they not considered haters, for that? For having that intolerant opinion about me, and what I do in my bedroom? For "hating on" my lifestyle?
Why do we allow political correctness to only go one way? If you understand what I mean, that is?
Why aren't both sides held to the same standard of decorum?

And you know, while I'm at it, speaking of hate, do atheists ever attack any other religions besides Christianity?
They can say the most ignorant, vile, hateful, despicable things about Jesus Christ and the faith He founded, but they never seem to tag other faiths as severely, if at all.

Why is that?

Maybe it's because we Christians are an easy target; we might defend our faith in a debate, but other than that, we won't fight back very hard. They know nothing will really happen to them, if they nastily belittle our beliefs.
I mean, it's not like we're going to issue a fatwa against them or anything, right?

And, they say these mean, hateful things because--as we all know--we're the haters. Not them. 

Funny how hypocrisy works, isn't it?

 

273,075 views 175 replies
Reply #51 Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 42
Homosexuals already have the same legal rights and protections that others are afforded.

What they want is special rights based on their so called "sexual orientation" which is homosexuality.
End of lulapilgrim's quote

I missed this earlier; you're exactly right, and they need to increase their ranks, in order to achieve their political goals. Group politics. 
I read an article some years back, about how some less-than-scrupulous gay groups will infiltrate high schools and middle schools to find "troubled kids"; kids with psychological/emotional issues, physical deficiencies, behavioral issues, parental problems, etc. They subtly convince these impressionable kids that their problems all stem from the fact that they're gay, and if only they would embrace that fact...etc.
This way, they articfially beef up their numbers.
Of course, this does nothing to actually help the kids with their problems, only making them worse by adding further emotional,  moral and social stress onto already over-burdened minds/souls which are too young and/or damaged to handle it. This, in turn often results in deeper depression, even suicides.

As an aside, when Christian groups do this sort of thing, attempting to save souls rather than achieve political goals, it's evil and intolerant.

Just saying.

Reply #52 Top

Quoting Rightwinger, reply 51
Quoting lulapilgrim,
reply 42
Homosexuals already have the same legal rights and protections that others are afforded.

What they want is special rights based on their so called "sexual orientation" which is homosexuality.

I missed this earlier; you're exactly right
End of Rightwinger's quote

Does your sister believe she has the same legal rights and protections others are afforded? Dick Cheney's daughter, Newt Gingrich's sister, and Ronald Regan's son don't think they do. Why is that?

Reply #53 Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 33
But here's the distinction. I have not ever condemned the person who calls him/herself "gay", but rather their sexual behavior, homosexuality, which is intrinsically disordered and against the natural law since the body parts don't fit.
End of lulapilgrim's quote
How do you separate the two Lula??? You talk humanely but your actions don’t agree. We all have our opinions, but most of us make them and move on … but causes hang around well past their welcome. You cannot learn about life and people from a book … any Book. I assume of course you are only talking about gay men here … right? So how do you entangle all the lesbians (almost half) into this mess of your making? The parts do not fit huh … you live a sheltered life Lula …

I will ask one more time then: Lula, “What do you suggest the gay community do to appease your dislike of them?” … or are you just here to bitch about them?

Reply #54 Top

Quoting BoobzTwo, reply 53
which is intrinsically disordered and against the natural law since the body parts don't fit
End of BoobzTwo's quote

What about the natural laws of lets say biochemistry? I certainly know that my feelings and desires are very much controlled by biochemistry.
I also suspect that others are very much influenced in the same way by their own particular biochemistry which may have very distinct effects resulting from very subtle differences.

Reply #55 Top

Quoting Smoothseas, reply 52
Does your sister believe she has the same legal rights and protections others are afforded? Dick Cheney's daughter, Newt Gingrich's sister, and Ronald Regan's son don't think they do. Why is that?
End of Smoothseas's quote

They can't get married; other than that, there's relatively little that I have, which they do not.

Reply #56 Top

Quoting Rightwinger, reply 55
They can't get married
End of Rightwinger's quote

You do know that there are rights and protections that are afforded to people through civil marriage don't you? If you do then saying that they have the same rights is blatantly false. If you don't than you should research the laws of civil marriage to get your facts straight.

Reply #57 Top

Rightwinger #51: For someone who had "has no valid opinion on the subject", you seem to found a few. So you read an article and learned of the covert GAY conspiracy to undermine our public (of course) school children to increase their gay numbers … huh. That must have been a very convincing religious article indeed. Knock on reality here … strange that’s just how religion works in public schools, behind the scenes.  And stranger still, these believers go after the same sorts of people you mentioned, get real. I don’t think many care what you or your Churches do … just stay out of politics. Has nothing been learned from the first fifteen centuries of our Christian heritage when they became as one with the government … and actually believed they were the hand of God? Why if that happened today … we might end up with a country, say the US(G), who might try and  take over the worlds resources, God forbid, with His blessings of course. And yes, it is evil and intolerant particularly when God is used as an excuse … there are no excuses for peddling your/their wares in school … unfortunately; this is inescapable in a free society where people are encouraged to be what they are and not forced to act differently … as the Church would have of all of us.

Reply #58 Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 41
Knock, knock...there is a sexual revolution going on that's direct aim is changing people's view of homosexuality. The Homosexual movement activists are steadily working to impose changes in law, policies, education as well as the institution of marriage so that homosexuality is societaly accepted as normal, respectable, even good.
End of lulapilgrim's quote

The sexual revolution launched the Homosexual Movement which agitates for societal affirmation of homosexuality, a changeable sexual behavior. 

Quoting Smoothseas, reply 43
Knock knock....there have been revolutions going on for centuries to change peoples bigoted views.....Remember slavery and the civil War? Remember the Civil rights movement? How about the women's suffrage and women's rights movements?
End of Smoothseas's quote

Quoting Rightwinger, reply 48
What about them? The Civil War freed the slaves, the Civil Rights Act passed; women have the vote, and work outside the home all the time. Welcome to 1980.
End of Rightwinger's quote

Exactly, people with unchangeable characteristics who have suffered provable harm as a result of unjust discrimination have been given minority status as a civil right.

Quoting Smoothseas, reply 50
Why don't you ask yourself? The correlation between those movements and the current topic should be obvious....for those willing to think for themselves.
End of Smoothseas's quote

There is no correlation between Homosexual movement pushing for "gay rights" and the Civil and women's rights movement which protects women, racial and ethnic minorities from unjust discrimination and rightly so.  No correlation whatsoever.

But, the homosexual activists very cleverly devised a strategy to make what seems a correlation which evidently you bought hook, line and sinker. :omg:

They said portray homosexuals as victims of discrimination so that they need protection in civil rights law. Homosexuals want to include themselves alongside bona fide protected groups based upon race, gender, handicap, etc.

However, it turns out homosexuals have no right to claim this special status. None whatsoever.

The Supreme Court has used a strict test for determining which special classes may be singled out for the increased protection of these laws. Basing its scrutiny on the plight of Black Americans under Southern Jim Crow laws, the SC have used 3 basic criteria to determine if a group deserves protection. It requires that the protected class must demonstrate a history of political powerlessness, economic deprivation, and share an immutable characteristic. Well, homosexuals fail on all 3 of these. Unlike race, or being a woman, homo-sex is not a manifest characteristic, but a changeable sexual behavior. In addition, homosexuals as a group have a higher than average level of professional achievment and income. And with the full backing of the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations, and bills galore in various state legislatures, homosexuals certainly don't lack political clout. No siree.   

 

 

 

Reply #59 Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 58
Exactly, people with unchangeable characteristics who have suffered provable harm as a result of unjust discrimination have been given minority status as a civil right.
End of lulapilgrim's quote

So what was done to people like Matthew Shepard is "just" discrimination? How do you explain that one away or similar cases which may or may not be as widely known?

Reply #60 Top

Quoting Rightwinger, reply 51
Homosexuals already have the same legal rights and protections that others are afforded.

What they want is special rights based on their so called "sexual orientation" which is homosexuality.
End of Rightwinger's quote

My statement stands.

Homosexual people, as citizens, already have, use, and enjoy the same rights as all other Americans.

What homosexual people get under existing laws are the same rights as all  other Americans and they deserve no more and no less.

The laws already in place work very effectively when a crime or civil question arises. There isn't a citizen that the state and federal Constituions don't protect.

We have the 14th Amendment which says we are all equal under the law. So when a homosexual person gets unfairly evicted or fired, he can go to a lawyer and get justice under the 14th Amendment. Same as me or any other citizen. 

The homosexuals and their advocates know it's not about unjust discrimination. The reason they want special rights is becasue these laws normalize and affirm homosexuality in society. They send a clear message that society no longer (as did those times  before the sexual revolution) believes that there is anything wrong with homosexuality and that those who still think there is should be punished. This is where fines and lawsuits come in. 

 

 

Reply #61 Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 60
The homosexuals and their advocates know it's not about unjust discrimination. The reason they want special rights is becasue these laws normalize and affirm homosexuality in society. They send a clear message that society no longer (as did those times before the sexual revolution) believes that there is anything wrong with homosexuality and that those who still think there is should be punished. This is where fines and lawsuits come in.
End of lulapilgrim's quote

Those are your beliefs not the beliefs of people on the other side of the fence.

Reply #62 Top

Lula, I think homosexuality is already well affirmed in society (a hate crime you know!!!) and throughout the government, the Churches and around the world. They have the rights of all other single Americans (here), but they are stopped there, for now. If you don't know of the benefits gleaned from marriage and civil contracts ... then you haven't been listening to the poor and downtrodden people whose soles you are salivating over. You don't listen to what anyone else says knowing all there is ... so why not ignore them too. If you think the Church has dominion over marriage, you are sadly mistaken. And they certainly wouldn't have any interests in civil unions which is not a moral issue at all ... just a legal one. Need I remind you of the separation of Church and State (mythology and reality). Take your case to court again if you wish ... but you will never win this ridiculous plight of yours in the public domain.

http://www.americancatholic.org/News/Homosexuality/default.asp

Separation of Church and State huh, hahaha … and a Constitutional amendment yea right … when the cow jumps over the moon … maybe then. But there is no discrimination here ... oh this is hilarious but sad, hahaha, sorry.

Reply #63 Top

Quoting BoobzTwo, reply 62
and a Constitutional amendment yea right
End of BoobzTwo's quote

Well they are "strict constructionists".....We will construct the constitution to strictly adhere to our doctrine if it not constructed strictly enough already.

Reply #64 Top

Quoting Smoothseas, reply 63
Take your case to court again if you wish ... but you will never win this ridiculous plight of yours in the public domain.
End of Smoothseas's quote

They won't ultimately win in court either. Ted Olsen who represented Bush in Bush v. Gore was on Bush's short lists for AG as well as the Supreme Court. He not only openly supports gay marriage, but also believes banning it is unconstitutional and is one of the lawyers working against the Prop 8 law in Ca. It is obvious that some of the old Bush supporters (by this I mean sheep not major monied interests) realize some of the issues where they were deceived but many don't realize that this is another of the issues he wasn't so upfront about. The truth is Bush became a reborn again right before he ran for Texas Gov. I don't blame him, he knew he couldn't hide his old problems of alcoholism and drug abuse so he had to take the redemption route. In any case the major players in the Republican Party mostly just use the Gay card for political expediency however the Gay Card is becoming a tougher play because their own family members are coming out of the closet and the judges Bush appointed are not the religious zealots the sheep think they are. The ID case in another thread is the first sign of that and there will be more. 

Reply #66 Top

Quoting BoobzTwo, reply 65
Couldn't agree more.

Gay Marriage Attorney Ted Olson

 
End of BoobzTwo's quote

Solicitor General in the Bush Administration no less. Go figure.DOH

How does the FOX crowd miss such things airing on FOX? Must be because they show the real substantive stuff like this on Sunday morning while they are off experiencing different programming.

Reply #67 Top

Quoting Smoothseas, reply 59
So what was done to people like Matthew Shepard is just discrimination? How do you explain that one away or similar cases which may or may not be as widely known?
End of Smoothseas's quote

I'm going to answer this by quoting an article by Abiding Truth Ministries. The author is Scott Lively. Sorry I don't have the date.

I think you'll find it both informative and interesting. I know I did.

"It was 1926 and a culture war was raging between the Fascists and the Communists in Germany. The growing Nazi Party was strong, but the people still favored the Communists. It fell to young Josef Goebbels to win hearts and minds to the Nazi cause. How could this be done?The Nazis were newcomers, trying to change the social order, and their aggressive tactics were offensive to many people. But in a move that would establish him as a master propagandist, Goebells turned the tables by casting the Nazis as victims of the Communists. The key was Horst Wessel.

Horst Wessel was just another Nazi street thug, but on Feb. 12, 1926, he was murdered by a Communist. Wessel wasn't killed over ideology; it was a matter of unpaid rent to his landlady. However, the timing was right for Goebell's scheme and so Horst Wessel became the first martyr for the movement: the symbol of Nazi victimhood at the hands of the evil Communists. The "Horst Wessel" song , became literally, the anthem of the Nazi Party, and Wessel assumed mythic stature as figure of near religious worship. 

In 1998, a culture war was raging between the homosexuals and the Christians and even though the homosexual movement was growing strong, the people still favored the Christian values of Marriage and the natural Family. The leaders of the "gay" movement needed to win more of the public to their position. How could this be done? The "Gays" were still relative newcomers, trying to change the social and moral order of the nation, and their aggressive tactics, "We're queer, we're here, get used to it."

were offensive to many people. But in a move that would confirm their reputation as master propagandists, the "gay" leaders turned the tables, casting the homosexuals as victims of Christian "homophobia".The key was Matthew Sheppard.

Matthew Sheppard was just another self-identified "gay" but on Oct. 23, 1998, he was murdered by two men. He wasn't killed because he was a homosexual, it was a matter of robbery. And the robbers obviously weren't Christian,however, the timing was right for the "gay" scheme and so Matthew Sheppard becaame the new martyr of the homosexual movement; a symbol of "gay" victimhood at the hands of the evil Christians. The "Matthew Sheppard Play" became the showpeice of the "gay" movement, and Sheppard himself assumed mythic stature as a figure of near religious worship.

Matthew Sheppard is the Worst Hessel of the modern "gay" movement. His legend is a lie. It's purpose is to deceive and manipulate the public. And its proponents are facists.

Indeed, the AMerican "gay" movement is as fascist as the German fascist movement was "gay" and there are many links between the two. For example, the first US homosexual organization, formed in 1924, was the Chicago Chapter of the  German Society for Human Rights. The most member of the German parent organization was Hitler's closest friend, op[enly homosexual Ernst Roehm, head of the Nazi SA (also known as the Brown Shirts). Interestingly Horst Wessel, as a member of the early SA was probably a homosexual or bisexual as well. (And yes, Hitler was "gay".)

But this isn't an article about German Nazis. You can read about them in "The Pink Swastika" which I wrote along with Jewish researcher Kevin E. Abrams, (see www.defendthefamily.com ). This article is about modern "gay" propagandists. They follow the Nazi model but their threat is not just an interesting historical question. It is quite actual and immediate. 

It is a testament to "gay" propaganda that much of the American public now thinks of Christians as the aggressors and homosexuals as victims. But it is the "gays", not the Christians that are trying to overthrow the traditional, family centered society. And it is the Christians, not the "gays" that are being silenced and marginalized for their views: in government, mass media, academia, and corporate America. Adolf Hitler would be proud. The fascists who deny freedom of speech to others and advocate pre-emptive violence against their "oppressors", have pulled off another propaganda coup."

..............................................................

The homosexual activists exploited the murder of  Matthew Shepard and the story captivated the nation's media. They  promoted the line that he was "killed because he was gay". When in fact the case is much more complicated than that.  

Katie Couric took up the spurious "gay" charge  and slammed an ad featuring former homosexuals saying the ad might have led to Shepard's murder by fomenting anti-gay "hate".

TV documentaries used the MS case to push "hate crime" laws favored by homosexuals. The day Shepard died, Clinton pressed Congress to pass hate-crime legislation that specifically favored homosexuals. 

You mention other stories.

Have you heard of Jesse Dirkhising? In case you haven't Jesse was 13 years old when he was brutally sexually assaulted and murdered in Rogers, Arkansas, on Sept 26, 1999 by two homosexual men. The media outlets said nothing until a month later, when the Washington times ran an expose of the media's inattention. Can you think of a good reason why the media coverage surrounding the murder of a "gay" college student Matthew Shepard should be any greater than the sadistic killing of 13 year old Jesse Dirkhising by two homosexual lovers in Arkansas?

 -------------------------------------------

Another question?

If Matthew Shepard had AIDS and approached those two guys for sex and did have sex with them, and they got AIDS, should he be charged with a hate crime? Just wondering.

Reply #68 Top

Quoting Rightwinger, reply 55
They can't get married; other than that, there's relatively little that I have, which they do not.
End of Rightwinger's quote

They can't get married to each other but they sure can get married that is if they want to marry someone of the opposite gender.

So given the laws that are in place in your state, they have the same rights and privileges as anyone else.

Quoting Smoothseas, reply 52
Does your sister believe she has the same legal rights and protections others are afforded? Dick Cheney's daughter, Newt Gingrich's sister, and Ronald Regan's son don't think they do. Why is that?
End of Smoothseas's quote

These people have the same legal right to marry as long as they abide by the law in their state. Let's be clear. Everyone has access to marriage as long as they meet the legal requirements.If the legal requirement sof the state they live in are that marriage is between a man and a woman, then they have the right to marry as long as they abide by the laws.

 

But, this is not about legal access to marriage; rather it's about redefining marriage to be something it has never been.

 

 

Reply #69 Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 68
I'm going to answer this by quoting an article by Abiding Truth Ministries. The author is Scott Lively. Sorry I don't have the date.
End of lulapilgrim's quote

I wouldn't expect you to provide anything more than some piece of propaganda to try to write off the existence of bigotry in the case.

Maybe you should have looked at actual court testimony. One of the defendants pleaded guilty and the other tried to present some kind of gay panic defense until both the defendants girlfriends testified that the act was planned beforehand and perptrated specifically because the victim was gay.

That is actually in the court record not off some agenda driven religious propaganda site.

In any case you should take a look at the video link BT posted.....My opinion on the issue is very much in line with that of Ted Olsen's. My opinions on legal matters that involve the constitution are usually formed from information from actual cases and well known constitutional lawyers. Not politician/lawyers who know how to construct schemes to tie up issues in courts while they work their way up the political ladder or religious zealots whose legal opinions are about as valid as unicorns.

 

In any case if I was you I wouldn't be so afraid of proposed laws that try to limit your ability or the ability of the Westboro Baptist Church to say what you will. The supreme court will in the end protect your freedom of speech so that you can say what you want about gays just as much as it will protect others freedom of speech to call you a bigot. If a case like that makes it to the Supreme Court I wouldn't doubt Ted Olsen is the one who brings it seeing how he also successfully won the Citizens United case on the grounds of freedom of speech.

 

Reply #70 Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 67
The day Shepard died, Clinton pressed Congress to pass hate-crime legislation that specifically favored homosexuals.
End of lulapilgrim's quote
Lula, why do you need to do this kind of thing … is this a RCCC thing or what? Shepard was mortally attacked in October, 1998 and died 6 days later. Wyoming tried to enact hate crime legislation … during their next session but that failed. Clinton's ‘efforts’ were rejected by the Congress in 1999. In 2000, both houses passed this legislation but it was conveniently removed before final passage. In 2007, a bill was introduced and both houses of congress passed it … but because Bush wouldn’t sign it … it was conveniently dropped. The bill was finally incorporated in hate crime legislation (amended) and signed into law by the infamous Obama in 2009.  It took 11 years to get this done and you intimate a ‘quick response’ to his death; sounds pretty misleading to me…  

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 67
TV documentaries used the MS case to push "hate crime" laws favored by homosexuals.
End of lulapilgrim's quote
Who cares what they document about??? ... What "hate crimes"??? ... Favored by homosexuals??? Are you serious … of what ‘hate crimes’ do you speaketh? Sounds like you are about to step on your own homophobic foot … oh pray tell continue… Katie Couric’s opinion huh … you are getting desperate.

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 67
If Matthew Shepard had AIDS and approached those two guys for sex and did have sex with them, and they got AIDS, should he be charged with a hate crime? Just wondering.
End of lulapilgrim's quote
We have laws, human laws that allows us to deal with your hypothetical slander … what just because he was gay, you are not being curious here at all. Why don’t you at least attack someone alive and leave the unfortunate dead alone… in heaven. It never fails to amaze me … the ease with which you can manipulate a real life tragedy … to suit your intolerant views.  Imagine whatever you want, whatever took place in that bar but the FACTS speak for themselves. You should be ashamed of this kind of behavior.

Reply #71 Top

Quoting Smoothseas, reply 50
Why don't you ask yourself? The correlation between those movements and the current topic should be obvious....for those willing to think for themselves.
End of Smoothseas's quote

Last I checked, your sexual orientation was not grounds for slavery.  While there are people that discriminate (it is called free will), I have yet to see the government instituting slavery or even capital punishment for being gay.

There is a HUGE difference.  You only have to look at the situations to see one is unjust, the other completely immoral.

Reply #72 Top

Doc: I believe the reference was to the 'revolutionary' processes ... not the specifics in each case, hahaha ... or the case you decided to take offense of. You were joking ... right?

Rightwinger: The open and I stress open homosexual ‘revolution’ is just such a case and they are using the same proven process and arguments. Is there another way for them?  Why should they have to change anything? Or are you uninterested at all in their being people rights?

Reply #73 Top

SMOOTHSEAS POSTS:

So what was done to people like Matthew Shepard is "just" discrimination? How do you explain that one away or similar cases which may or may not be as widely known?

SMOOTHSEAS POSTS 69 

I wouldn't expect you to provide anything more than some piece of propaganda to try to write off the existence of bigotry in the case.

What you expect for answers is beside the point. What I offered more than answered your question.   

In 1998, a college guy was robbed, beaten and killed by 2 men and the media went wild reporting it. Why? Because the college guy identified himself as "gay".

"Hate crime" laws were immediately called for which essentially change the punishment meted out; it varies according to whom the crime was committed against.    

If Matthew Shephard were not "gay" would that make it less of a crime?  So, why the calling for new "hate crime" laws? The laws already in place worked just fine. The two guys were tried and punished. Should they have gotten a different or harsher punishment because Shephard was "gay"?

Fast forward a year later and the murder of Jesse Dirkhising....

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 67
..... Jesse was 13 years old when he was brutally sexually assaulted and murdered in Rogers, Arkansas, on Sept 26, 1999 by two homosexual men. The media outlets said nothing until a month later, when the Washington times ran an expose of the media's inattention. Can you think of a good reason why the media coverage surrounding the murder of a "gay" college student Matthew Shepard should be any greater than the sadistic killing of 13 year old Jesse Dirkhising by two homosexual lovers in Arkansas?
End of lulapilgrim's quote

 

 http://www.armyofgod.com/JesseDirkhising.html

 

and we find that the media treated the murder of Matthew Shephard very differently than the murder of Jesse Dirkhising. Why Smoothseas? Wasn't the life of a 13 year old boy just as valuable as that of a homosexual college student? Apparently not.

 

As far as the existence of bigotry, you have not answered my question about Jesse Dirkhising. Won't you admit the media showed plenty of bigotry in his case?

Why did the media fail to cover the murder of Jesse Dirkhising? Was it to protect homosexuality and hold it up high just like they did with M. Shephard's homosexuality? Of course it is. 

Reply #74 Top

Quoting Dr, reply 71
There is a HUGE difference. You only have to look at the situations to see one is unjust, the other completely immoral.
End of Dr's quote

There certainly are huge differences, but there are also similarities. Back in the day many of the things we now consider immoral and unjust were not viewed that way. However don't narrow your side of the argument to just slavery. I included woman's rights as well and even today many religions including some mainstream ones practiced in this country don't exactly treat women as equals now do they?

 

Reply #75 Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 73
What I offered more than answered your question.
End of lulapilgrim's quote

What you offered was propaganda that is very easily proven to be incorrect and quite contrary to the FACTS. You offered something that is not even as worthy of consideration as somebody's opinion might be.