Evidently you're the only one .. I don't know whether that should be a source of comfort or concern for either of us.
Breitbart : Take down the Fascist, Anti-Christian Gay Pride Flag
- Thread starter GFR7
- Start date
Evidently you're the only one .. I don't know whether that should be a source of comfort or concern for either of us.
That is a good question to which I have no answer. So I'm going to go pour myself a cup of coffee!
I would suggest that it is a symbol created by folks who routinely use symbols to direct our thoughts. Whether or not we embrace them determines whether or not they become personal.
:noid:
I think you just answered the question. :chuckle:
No matter what you think of any flag, leave them alone. They are free speech, even if they are it as offensive as flying the Nazi flag or the Communist Red Banner.
People seeing it understand it speaks not about them, but about the person flying it. One can make their own judgement at that point.
People seeing it understand it speaks not about them, but about the person flying it. One can make their own judgement at that point.
:thumb:
Jose Fly
New member
Yeah, that pretty much removes the author of the OP from the category of "rational people who anyone should listen to".
That beliefs are strongly held doesn't legitimate them, so I'd say that's off the mark. And since people are demanding Confederate flags come down from official, rather than personal places, I don't see where a personal statement is relevant either. There is a reason that several states took to flying versions of the Confederate battle flag, and it had a lot to do with segregation, as was pretty clearly understood at the time. No one really doubts the right of an individual to fly whatever flag they want on their own property, no matter how misguided they are.
- homosexuality a symptom of degeneracy
- could destroy our race
- extermination
- merits no mercy
Breitbart : Take down the Fascist, Anti-Christian Gay Pride Flag
At the very least, Breitbart needs to get its facts straight!
The Nazi fascists in Germany displayed no tolerance for gays.
Is that really the kind of company with which American conservatives want to align themselves?
The gay pride flag is neither "fascist " nor "anti-Christian ". It represents the quest for GAY RIGHTS . Being treated decently by society , not discriminated against , being the vicitms of violence etc .
How could this be "fascist ?" Or "Anti-Christian ". Gay people aren't anti-christian ., Many of them ARE Christian . They just want EQUAL RIGHTS . Not "special rights ".
Special rights are the fact that churches in America are tax exempt, even though they should not be .
The REAL fascists are the professional homophobic bigots, such as Scott Lively, Peter La Barbera, Peter Sprigg , Linda Harvey , Bradlee Dean ,
Matt Staver and other abominations masquerading as Christians .
How could this be "fascist ?" Or "Anti-Christian ". Gay people aren't anti-christian ., Many of them ARE Christian . They just want EQUAL RIGHTS . Not "special rights ".
Special rights are the fact that churches in America are tax exempt, even though they should not be .
The REAL fascists are the professional homophobic bigots, such as Scott Lively, Peter La Barbera, Peter Sprigg , Linda Harvey , Bradlee Dean ,
Matt Staver and other abominations masquerading as Christians .
The gay flag doesn't belong on public buildings. Would you like to see the christian flag on them?
There are more christians than there are gays.
Why not?
It's not a popularity contest. That would be directly unconstitutional.
So, they're taking down the Confederate battle flag, and replacing it with...the actual national flag of the Confederacy.
He removed flags that were placed illegally in the first place. Seems like the right thing to do to me.
No one should be stealing flags from graves when they're actually legitimately placed there, but it's not too shocking that petty vandalism would happen with such a divisive symbol.
You don't think he has a bit of a point that the park can't be enjoyed by the descendents of slaves when it contains memorials to a Confederate general? Seems pretty reasonable to me.
whitestone
Well-known member
hey that made me remember its in the old testament not to deface someones burial place.
So are special laws for minorities, and creating laws, when we have elected officials for that. Go ahead and celebrate, untill your rights are taken and the supreme court makes laws you dont like and takes it out of your hands (voters).
You may think the end justifies the means, but we just had 5 justices ignore the constitution and the rule of law.
You just contradicted yourself, and just like a seething liberal, you think people you don't like should be dug up who died long before you were born under different circumstances all because your poor emotions and sensibilities cant handle it.
Shameful. Where you put the body or would you burn it in the street and dance around it, thinking you actually accomplished something? Would you dig up all the soldiers who faught in wars you didnt like too? Youre sick.
Think your family would like it to happen to you on down the line, would that be ok?
Try not changing the subject for a minute and contemplate the question at hand.
Everyone feels that way sometimes with the Supreme Court, and while I agree with you, and with Scalia it seems, that it's a bit strange that a bare majority of unelected judges can revolutionize our view of the Constitution, it's also true that that is the system that we have, and Scalia is seldom so restrained when he thinks that he's in the right.
Today is your day to feel that way. But it should make you feel better to know that it only expands the rights of individuals, and that it is well-founded in prior precedent.
And where would one stop this desecration of the dead?
There are embankments along canals in New Orleans wherein Irish immigrant laborers who died from either Yellow
Fever or Typhoid, I can't remember which, were simply buried where they dropped.
It is petty vandalism when one agrees with the cause but it may be desecration to one who disagrees.
Thats actually false, precedent was that marriage definition was a states right. For example, one state doesn't have to recognize a common law marriage from another state and can define its own law there, just like some states allowed for gay marriage and many made laws to define marriage as a man and woman. Those were based on precedents of states rights who made their laws based on the voters will as it should be.