This is the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) video put together of some of the outrageous behavior from homosexual activists after Californians voted for Proposition 8 to return marriage to the normal, natural definition: between a man and a woman.
Notice the "tolerance" from these homosexual activists as they rip a cross from an old woman's hands and stomp on it. Notice how they shout at her and prevent even the news reporter from interviewing her.
Notice too, the venom displayed by the homosexual activists in San Francisco toward a group of praying Christians they ran off the street. The Christians had to be escorted from the area by police for their safety. The police even had to push back homosexual activists on at least one occasion with their night sticks when they tried to get at the Christians.
This is what tolerance looks like? Somehow I doubt homosexual activists would like a dose of the "tolerance" they so often demand from others.
America, don't be intimidated by this hate and venom, and don't be seduced by the smarmy, hypocritical talk of "tolerance" (which really means, "Do things my way or we'll demonize you").
Marriage and family are too important to surrender on the altar of political correctness and intimidation.
After the passage of proposition 8 in California, advocates of homosexual behavior went on the offensive demanding that their agenda be imposed on everyone.
14 comments:
Of course, any group will contain a few individuals that take things too far and I am sure most homosexuals would frown upon this behavior. The main difference with religion is that it teaches ALL members to be ignorant, intolerant, and bigoted.
I still don't understand your point that this is somehow threatening your marriage and family. This has nothing to do with your marriage and family. This only has to do with homosexual's marriage and family.
If Christianity teaches all members to be ignorant, it's interesting that all the esteemed colleges in America were founded by Christians as Christian institutions of learning. It's also interesting that the great scientists of the ages were Christians: Louis Pasteur, Gregor Mendel, Leonardo da Vinci, Galileo Galilei, Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton, and many more.
It's also interesting that (except for the Fred Phelps gang, which practically every Christian says is NOT representative of Christianity in any way, shape, form or fashion), you're highly unlikely to see ANY Christians out shouting in people's faces and screaming and threatening people like has come from a number of homosexual activists recently.
The insanity of the concept of homosexual "marriage" threatens marriage and family, among other ways, like counterfeiting currency threatens the genuine article.
These people are angry; they have had civil rights stripped from them and been branded second-class citizens. What other emotion is rational? Violence is never good, but it's hard to imagine how else to feel. Passivity didn't work in the 60s and obviously won't now either.
If a group of Christians behaved similarly at a homosexual event the results would be swift and certain: They would be attacked by the crowds and summarily arrested and removed from the scene by police. This pastor was arrested for simply handing out literature at a "Pride" rally: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2039537/posts
Where were the police during these confrontations? It was nice that they escorted the Christians out of harm's way, but how about arresting some of the assailants?
One day a situation like this will erupt into serious violence with property damage, injuries and even loss of life and we'll all wonder at how it got so far out of control.
"It's also interesting that the great scientists of the ages were Christians: Louis Pasteur, Gregor Mendel, Leonardo da Vinci, Galileo Galilei, Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton, and many more."
Of course, back then none of those men really had a choice in the matter, did they? Their options were pretty much either Christianity or ...Christianity.
It's interesting that you choose not to quote the many gay activists who condemn this kind of behavior, nor do you highlight those gay activists who are genuinely tolerant, nor do you post some kind of survey or poll showing how the gay community feels about these violent acts. I guess that doesn't work well for the whole "lump all the people I don't like into one category and smear them en masse" approach.
shaunism, they had no "right" stripped from them, nor were they branded "second-class citizens."
They had no right to counterfeit marriage. Marriage can only be created with a man and a woman; two men or two women is just unnatural sex, nothing more.
The tyrannical judges who in May attempted to manufacture a "right" for homosexuals to do the impossible were themselves not only attempting to turn nature upside down, but in doing so they made lawbreakers of themselves, and they should have been impeached. The people of California specifically stated what marriage is in 2000 when they passed a law stating marriage is between a man and a woman; the judicial oligarchs broke the law in decreeing otherwise. The Calif. Constitution says nothing one way or another about marriage, and it shouldn't have had to--people have since the dawn of humanity understood that marriage is between a man and a woman. Judges are not authorized to manufacture law that fits their petty agenda just because a constitution is silent on a matter.
Homosexuals have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that heterosexuals do. They need to special "right" to counterfeit marriage; they can already marry, they simply choose not to.
Sorry, you don't get to redefine nature and a fundamental human institution such as marriage just to make you feel better about engaging in immoral and unnatural sex. And in a representative democracy, judges don't get to make law and activists don't get to intimidate society into burning its moral fabric on the altar of political correctness.
Anonymous 9:27, of course they had a choice. They were searching for scientific truth, not blind religious acolytes. It so happens they believed the truth led to...creation.
Funny, I haven't heard any homosexual activists condemning this behavior. Since the "mainstream" media is very pro-homosexual, if they were saying it, I would imagine the media would break a leg trying to get a microphone in front of them. Maybe it's because the "mainstream" media has pretty much blacked out coverage of this behavior, in protection of their agenda. I suppose you can't broadcast a condemnation of a behavior you haven't covered in the first place, eh?
"Funny, I haven't heard any homosexual activists condemning this behavior."
It's easy not to hear something if you make a point not to look for it. Don't rely on the mainstream media. Try checking out the blogs related to gay rights and you'll be surprised how divided gay people are about this.
I'd like to check out one or two of the blogs, Anon. Would you be so kind as to provide a link or two? Thank you, so much.
Dr. Theo,
These are two blogs I read quite often, and they link to a couple other sites:
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/
Here is one that is more like a forum than a blog, where people from all sides of many gay-related issues can talk; it's probably the most respectful, thoughtful, and constructive place I've seen that explores the relationship between homosexuality and Christianity. Unfortunately, you must register (it's free) to post comments, but I don't think you have to if you just want to read them:
http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/index.htm
Hope that helps! I think you'll see that there is far more disagreement within the gay community than the editor of this blog chooses to let on.
I hope you've had a chance to read some of these blogs, Dr. Theo, and I hope your boss is open-minded enough to check them out, too.
Oh, I guess you had no interest in reading them after all, Dr. Theo.
It's true. Many gay people want to see the sexual promiscuity go away. They see and know the benefits of having a monogamous relationship. And not so surprisingly it is those people who are also fighting for equal marriage rights. :)
Amie, if homosexuals really wanted to not be promiscuous, they could just...restrain themselves. They don't need marriage or a commitment ceremony to exercise responsibility or restraint. It's just an excuse.
Furthermore, researchers have found that even in committed homosexual relationships where monogamy is claimed, the relationship still usually involves outside sexual liaisons. Unfortunately, it seems that people who are willing to hijack and twist the meaning of the word "marriage" into something meaningless are also willing to twist the word "monogamy" into something meaningless.
Besides, homosexuals already have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, just as heterosexuals do. They already have equal rights; they just want the right to do something that clearly doesn't meet the definition of "marriage" and call that illegitimate relationship "marriage." I can call a pork chop an "apple" all day long, but it isn't going to look too good on the teacher's desk or in an apple pie.
Post a Comment