Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

WTF · 10-20-2012, 09:42 PM

http://now.msn.com/rev-phil-snider-p...h-with-a-twist

You gotta watch the video to comment

CuteOldGuy · 10-20-2012, 09:47 PM

Good video, for a change, WDF. The good Reverend makes an excellent point.

WTF · 10-20-2012, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Good video, for a change, WDF. The good Reverend makes an excellent point.

Why thank you COGay

acp5762 · 10-20-2012, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTF

http://now.msn.com/rev-phil-snider-p...h-with-a-twist

You gotta watch the video to comment

That was good,too bad he got a little fumbled up. But I think we should all be equally protected by the Laws of this land and by the Constitution for which this country was built upon. I don't think anyone group of people be their origin, Race or even sexual orientation deserves a special corner on their rights or degree of protection.

JD Barleycorn · 10-21-2012, 12:54 AM

It is hard to elevate one group of people without lowering another group.

LordBeaverbrook · 10-21-2012, 01:50 AM

ACP & JD, he said he SUPPORTED the ordinance and he "fumbled up" on purpose to show that people arguing against LGBT right use exactly the same arguments that racial segregationists used in the 1950's. Did you not get that?

JD, so you are saying that it was hard to elevate the serfs in Russia and the blacks in South Africa with out lowering the aristocracy and the whites? So it was better off not doing it? Making a discriminated group equal or protecting them explicitly under the law (which is what LGBT rights really are) is NOT lowering other groups unless you mean that the other groups may not get all of what they once did (which in some cases was everything). So, you are against equality? Really?

LexusLover · 10-21-2012, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by austxjr

JD, so you are saying that it was hard to elevate the serfs in Russia and the blacks in South Africa with out lowering the aristocracy and the whites? So it was better off not doing it? Making a discriminated group equal or protecting them explicitly under the law (which is what LGBT rights really are) is NOT lowering other groups unless you mean that the other groups may not get all of what they once did (which in some cases was everything). So, you are against equality? Really?

Did you just change what he meant by what he said?

Equal rights, means .... EQUAL RIGHTS ...

.... whether it means that in 2012 is about to be decided by the Supreme Court.

[Scholarly wisdom is predicting that the Supreme Court will confirm that principle.]

i'va biggen · 10-21-2012, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

It is hard to elevate one group of people without lowering another group.

the lowering of teachers unions makes room for gays...

WTF · 10-21-2012, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

It is hard to elevate one group of people without lowering another group.

Like in marriage? Where you elevate straight people as the only ones that are allowed to do so?

WTF · 10-21-2012, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by austxjr

Making a discriminated group equal or protecting them explicitly under the law (which is what LGBT rights really are) is NOT lowering other groups unless you mean that the other groups may not get all of what they once did (which in some cases was everything). So, you are against equality? Really?

JD and LL are to bigoted to understand that concept.

They aregue to be able to fire gays because they are gay is ok!

They do not want them to be able to marry.

Equal right means just for white males. White Females , if they learn to cook and clean for their white husband...

WTF · 10-21-2012, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ekim008

the lowering of teachers unions makes room for gays...

JD does not know he is gay as of yet.

He is just in his third decade of 'experimenting'.

We all think it was his Boy Scout leader that triggered his gay gene.

acp5762 · 10-21-2012, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by austxjr

ACP & JD, he said he SUPPORTED the ordinance and he "fumbled up" on purpose to show that people arguing against LGBT right use exactly the same arguments that racial segregationists used in the 1950's. Did you not get that?

JD, so you are saying that it was hard to elevate the serfs in Russia and the blacks in South Africa with out lowering the aristocracy and the whites? So it was better off not doing it? Making a discriminated group equal or protecting them explicitly under the law (which is what LGBT rights really are) is NOT lowering other groups unless you mean that the other groups may not get all of what they once did (which in some cases was everything). So, you are against equality? Really?

No I really didn't but I just stated my stand on the issue anyway.

acp5762 · 10-21-2012, 08:48 AM

Heres a better video on the subject. I say start listening to comedians instead of News Reporters and Politicians, Preachers and people on Blogs cause none of them know shit. They just confuse everyone and then of course some people will take what they say and believe it and go around and act like they are real intelligent. But comedians get the point so there is no mistakening what they mean.

http://youtu.be/HtJ_sDRRVVI

WTF · 10-21-2012, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acp5762

. But I think we should all be equally protected by the Laws of this land and by the Constitution for which this country was built upon. .

I agree with you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by acp5762

That was good,too bad he got a little fumbled up. .

He did not get fumbled up.

He just showed how racism of that era has now been turned towards the gays. If you want to deny gays the same rights you enjoy, (Marriage...) then you are the new racist of today. That was his point and I have agreed with it and made the exact same point for years around here. He just did it so much better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by acp5762

. I don't think anyone group of people be their origin, Race or even sexual orientation deserves a special corner on their rights or degree of protection.

They wouldn't need protection if folks could not fire you for being gay!

Do you think it ok to fire a person if his employer learns he/she is gay?

Should they be able to fire you if you belong to the Tea Partty?

Think man.

LexusLover · 10-21-2012, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTF

JD and LL are to bigoted to understand that concept.

They aregue to be able to fire gays because they are gay is ok!

Tell-tale sign of a flaming liberal .... believe they can read others' minds ... and then having believed they read others' minds they assign certain thought processes to them, since the flaming liberal "knows-it-all" and believes they are smarter than the others. That's why they want to gather up all the money and pass it out to the have-nots, because they want to be able to tell the have-nots how to spend the money they get passed out, because the flaming liberals believe they know better than the have-nots .... besides ..... they want a hand out as well.

My preference is to provide the have-nots with the tools and education to get their own money and spend their own money wisely. That way they are more independent. For instance WTF could benefit from a pell grant to go back and touch up his GED skills and information.

Geez, WTF, you can go ahead and get married. You don't need the State to approve it .. just do a ceremony, exchange rings, and kiss each other!