LGBT supporters of the 2A....pretty good read

[todd c]

the butt hurt is strong on this thread. see what i did there? the problem is government giving special benefits to a church bonded class and not the same benefits to other types of bonded unions. the other problem is the gay community is blaming churches not the people in office for the rules. i really dont care if somebody marries a goat pays the same as me in taxes i just dont want them pushing their sex life in my face. i dont care what people do just keep it private

 

[tuna]

There is a reason that I refer to being open about 2A stuff as "coming out of the gun safe"

The tactics used by the Rainbow Flag folks have worked quite well, in normalizing their group, WRT the rest of society.

Isn't that what the Open Carry Texas folks are trying to do - and being harassed from every side while doing it?

Glad to have another group standing up for the 2A. I'm a Christian, and I'm straight. I don't really care what YOU do, as long as you're not stepping on MY rights.

If you don't like guns, and don't own one, that's fine. Just don't tell me not to.
If you're gay, that's fine. Just don't hit on me after I tell you I'm straight - and I won't set you up with a member of the opposite sex to "set you normal".
I'm against abortion. I would vote to continue it being legal, because that is YOUR choice.

Not all Christians follow into the same narrow stereotype. Maybe Christians can be next, after showing that blacks, gays and gun owners are people too.

 

[josh2600]

Holy Trinity man. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God. Should have learned that in CCD too if your teacher was any good and could keep your attention.

Sorta just like the same vampire can be an undead human, a bat, or mist.

Not all at the same time. Trinity - 1 Vampire - 0

 

[warwickben]

....

 

[mikeyp]

Homosexuals that are Ammosexuals? That's unpossible!!! I could care less who other people are banging, as long as they aren't trying to hook up with my wife. Then I need a hiding spot for a body...lol

 

[ggboy]

I actually got a lot out of this thread.
But I think the idea of changing minds as the gay community did might be worth looking into.
And that they do NOT have to " align with left " as regards thier lifestyle.
ggboy

 

[Christian]

Gay dudes rock, every time one comes out I start looking better as an option.

Seriously though, I've never understood why the super religious types gave a crap about whether someone is gay or not. If their belief is that all gays go to hell they should be happy because then the bar to get into heaven is dropped due to the dwindled roll call heading upstairs.

 

[pastera]

Drransom.

People where married before "the church" and what about people who are married that don't follow faith .
A lot of old marriages where land contracts .


My gay friends don't want the right/force the church to allow them be married . .

There are lbgt friendly churches of all faiths .

They want the rights and the title just like straight non believers get. No a cop out title to please churches .
Again "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there faith "

This really requires its own topic not to crap up this thread.

Many people profess a faith they no nothing about - think about how little the anti's know about their own positions.
Marriage simply is part of faith. On my phone it is too hard to fully explain this.
The parts of marriage the LGBT community is trying to enjoy are entitlements given by the government to people who are married.
If the government treated all people equally without regard to religion, then they would not give special 'rights' to married couples.

 

[kalash]

Two points:
1) You would think that white Christian males would be the least likely group to be into guns, seeing as they have not really faced any persecution throughout history, at least when compared to any other group. Women, gays, Jews, blacks, etc should be embracing gun ownership and yet, for the most part, they don't. It confuses the hell out of me.

2) I've only been shooting for a couple of years and gun owners continue to impress me. It is by far and away the friendliest group of people I've ever come across.

Educate people to the fact that governments cannot grant rights, only restrict them, and these problems will tend to work themselves out.

This is why gay marriage shouldn't even be a topic of discussion. It is not forbidden in the constitution and, to the best of my knowledge, we have no laws forbidding it. Therefore it is legal.

 

[wacky_doug]

I'm a straight Christian and supporter of the LGBT community.

Here's a great facebook page, "LGBT for Gun Rights"

https://www.facebook.com/LGBTforGunRights

This page blows my liberal friends' minds. They're like, "we really support gays, but why do they have guns?" And I'm, "because people still insist on trying to bash them."

I love it when things don't line up along people's pre-conceived lines. We need a lot more of that.

 

[pastera]

White Christian males haven't historically faced persecution because there into guns!
If the laws that extend privileges to married couples only allow for traditional couples, that's a ban on gay marriage - they are trying to get the same perks (no sex and lose half your income h

 

[caboose84]

My only issue in the gay rights thing is not so much the "granting" of equal privileges- but the inevitable (from the left track record)- "We were discriminated against previously, therefore we must be compensated by being favored going forward" and also the "They discriminate against us therefore you must punish them by revoking their tax exempt status" game. See the race baiting hustlers (aka Sharpton and Jackson) for how that has played out for us all.

 

[Sprocket]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjective

If I describe a male of aprox. 55 years old with curly hair, a blunt nose, a distinguished piece of genitalia and a long track record, likes watermelon Jolly Ranchers, fried chicken and mac & cheese - you're probably thinking about - Not This Guy

At what point does an adjective cross the line into an insult? Oh, when the person being described is butt-hurt.

 

[goodlife30]

Good way to stop gay bashing = firearm. I really don't care what people do in their personal lives. If two guys wanted to shack up together what do I care? The gay community like 2a supporters just want to keep government out of their lives.

 

[Ham Slam]

I totally agree I have a friend who is a gay car driver, and he can drive pretty good.

I don't see what being gay has to do with owning a gun, and I think that as a society that we should be past bring sexuality into daily conversation and poster making.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[whacko]

I totally agree I have a friend who is a gay car driver, and he can drive pretty good.

I don't see what being gay has to do with owning a gun, and I think that as a society that we should be past bring sexuality into daily conversation and poster making.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The focus of the article was about stereotyping gun owners as right wing bible thumping anti gay rights rednecks..........and the subject of the article challenges that stereotype. Maybe you missed that.

 

[whacko]

Two points:
1) You would think that white Christian males would be the least likely group to be into guns, seeing as they have not really faced any persecution throughout history, at least when compared to any other group. Women, gays, Jews, blacks, etc should be embracing gun ownership and yet, for the most part, they don't. It confuses the hell out of me.

2) I've only been shooting for a couple of years and gun owners continue to impress me. It is by far and away the friendliest group of people I've ever come across.



This is why gay marriage shouldn't even be a topic of discussion. It is not forbidden in the constitution and, to the best of my knowledge, we have no laws forbidding it. Therefore it is legal.

I'm confused......are you saying because the constitution has nothing forbidding it that states SHOULDNT make it illegal or are you saying that currently it is legal everywhere for homosexuals to marry? Cruz I'm pretty sure if a gay couple went to the courthouse in Georgia or Alabama right now theyll have a problem.

 

[whacko]

Mostly Christians get offended because marriage was defined by the Church, the taken over and redefined by the gov, and then subverted into whatever anyone else wants it to be. Note that normally, it's not enough for gay people to have the same rights to stay and live together, per the same laws that married men and women do; its that they have to be a giant PITFA because they want the Church to change the definition of marriage to include them (and therefore imply that what they're doing is right, good, or otherwise endorsed by the Church). It's not exactly that we're against marriage being redefined to being man + man or woman + woman - it's that we're against it begin redefined to _anything_ but man + woman. If we change it for this, where does it end? Man + goat? 2 men + horse + cow? And really, I could care less if that's your thing - but if you jam your thumb up my ass trying to get something that someone else created and defined into whatever your lust of the week is, well, we have a problem.

That's the major problem. The tenet is "hate the sin, love the sinner", but listen - it's much easier said than done, especially in emotional situations. One of the core tenets of Christianity is the belief that mankind is flawed, and can never measure up to an objective moral code; therefore, saying that all Christians should be perfect is about as smart as saying that all people in a hospital shouldn't be sick. And the "Christians" that imply otherwise are out of the loop. Those people do more damage to the Church that anyone else I can think of. There's even a word for those people; they're called "Churchians". Give that a search some night.

As to your second question, if you care enough to find the answer, recommend "Cynic Sage or Son of God", by Boyd. Not the best work, but a very good one for understanding the answers to some of those questions, and it's a good read, even if you don't agree.

so you are telling us that the Christian church defined marriage?

 

[carbuncle]

He guy who taught my NRA Pistol class back in the 90's was queer as a 3-dollar bill, a knowledgable ambassador for the sport and a great shot. Live and let live.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Well, this thread has completely drifted off-topic.

 

[pastera]

A few things. First a bible quote I memorized: "He who is without sin may cast the first stone" -J.C.

Do you have any idea what that even means when taken in the greater context of the story it tells?

Another is that saying "True Christians don't do x" is a logical fallacy known as a 'no true scotsman'. There are LOTs of Christians that hate LGBT folk, and if hate is not the right word, than they definitely disapprove and don't understand.

There are religious christians and faithful Christians - two different characters completely. Matthew 7:21-23 governs this concept.

As there is a defined standard for a Christian within the Bible, I can claim that there are "true" and "false" Christians by invoking these standards. While different denominations have small differences, the basic rules of who is and isn't a Christian apply equally to all. That an outsider cannot fairly judge between the religious and faithful, is irrelevant. The fact remains that those who espouse hatred toward their brother cannot be Christian BY DEFINITION.

The bottom line is what you said best, government shouldn't have jack to do with it.

Unfortunately there are plenty of rights that are afforded to married couples that are not afforded to single or same-sex couples in many other states. Among them are the right to file taxes jointly, and a number of tax breaks and benefits. Take a look at young people in the military. They frequently have spurious marriages for all the federal benefits that come with it (BAH among other things).

The government (federal and state) should either not recognize that married couples are anything other than individuals, or allow those same benefits to anyone who files a civil union and allow any two persons to file for civil union.

Agreed, no reason to give the government another bite at the apple - they caused the problem by getting involved so the only real solution is to completely remove government from the situation.

 

[Bt74]

Oh yeah I expect the bigot train .........and the bible thumping right .

Ah...and YOU are not a bigot?????

 

[whacko]

Ah...and YOU are not a bigot?????

Actually no........evangelical christians have every right to believe what they wish. Maybe you should read a little more of the thread before you come to that determination.....expecially the one I posted about chick filet and how I actually supported them during the BS last year with their store planned for Boston. BTW I used to work with a guy that that was an evangelical christian.......he took the term "bible thumper" as a term of endeerment.

 

[Terminator03]

the butt hurt is strong on this thread. see what i did there? the problem is government giving special benefits to a church bonded class and not the same benefits to other types of bonded unions. the other problem is the gay community is blaming churches not the people in office for the rules. i really dont care if somebody marries a goat pays the same as me in taxes i just dont want them pushing their sex life in my face. i dont care what people do just keep it private

I haven't read this entire thread, but have read enough to get the general feel of the discussion. This post I quoted really sums up my biggest personal beef with the whole movement. I agree that the .gov should stay out of the issue entirely, but then we would still have the issue on the state level so that presents a problem just the same as with 2A rights. I'm not particularly averse to whatever someone chooses to do sexually, or otherwise inside their own home, but I'm definitely against public displays of ridiculous sexual behavior (not talking about kissing, handholding, or other generally accepted behaviors). I'm referring to flamboyant parades and things of that nature. I mean, what the hell, if the gays are allowed to have these parades and demonstrations why can't we, as hetero males have a massive "straight guy/girl" parade complete with topless girls in g-strings riding on phallic floats and stuff like that? Bottom line inmo, is that sexuality is (and should be) a private thing, same as religious beliefs, and not forced onto the public - especially children. For the record, I have not known, or met any members of the LBGT community that are NOT ridiculously super liberal, and anti-gun, which has spurred many "spirited" discussions because they expect me to understand and support their "rights", while at the same time openly denying me my 2A rights. Good to see that there are some that support 2A, but they must not be from the NE, MA in particular.

 

[dragonballzz]

Actually no........evangelical christians have every right to believe what they wish. Maybe you should read a little more of the thread before you come to that determination.....expecially the one I posted about chick filet and how I actually supported them during the BS last year with their store planned for Boston. BTW I used to work with a guy that that was an evangelical christian.......he took the term "bible thumper" as a term of endeerment.

But youre not allowed to use the BT word. Only other BTs can call each other BTs.

 

[whacko]

But youre not allowed to use the BT word. Only other BTs can call each other BTs.

I guess BT74 would have felt better if I had said the "evangelical christians" will be on momentarily he would have felt better. Anywhoooo..........

 

[calsdad]

Believing there is a child in a women's womb , be it two months or six months old doesnt make me a anti freedom person. It makes me human. And im not the "religeous right " Im a father.

I honestly think the whole "A" thing is a little bit different than arguing about the right to defend YOURSELF, marriage or partnership between two consenting adults, and a whole host of other topics where a person is simply asking to make a decision on THEIR OWN LIFE - without harming or asking anything from other people. Sorry - but you DON'T have an absolute right to do whatever you want there. If you wanted to keep your absolute right to do whatever you want with your own body or your own life - you should have thought of that before you involved another one.

IMHO - Believing in an absolute right to "A" - is a little like believing that you should have the "right" to keep a pet - and then kill it if you get sick of it or don't want the responsibility any more. You're involving another life - and you have a responsibility there.

The anti's use a form of this argument all the time to try to take away guns - the only way they can use that argument is by making up all sorts of bullshit about guns everywhere , kids being able to buy guns on the street, guns coming to life and killing people, people being mesmerized by guns and just wanting to kill everybody - etc. In other words - the only way they can use the greater responsibility argument to take away guns - is to just blatantly make shit up.

They know the greater responsibility argument is a good one - which is why they keep going for it.

 

[ggboy]

Why do we keep picking on poor Ron Jerramy?
Sorry, I can't help it.
ggboy

 

[Bt74]

I guess BT74 would have felt better if I had said the "evangelical christians" will be on momentarily he would have felt better. Anywhoooo..........

Nah, Bible Thumper is a derogatory term, just as Teabagger is. Years ago I worked with a guy that hung with a lot of black guys. He used to say things like "hey ******" to them, he thought it was a term of endearment.... not so. The black guys kept mumbling about him taking it too far, but he was oblivious.