Part II, "Krystallnacht, 1938"--Gay Violence

[Symphony]

This thread is really about violence towards "anti-Gays".

Latest possible unfolding, is the possible increasing prohibition on profanity on the air.  That's fine, prohibiting like Howard Stern's language, etc.

But this may be the loophole being sought to silence on a larger scale--other talk show hosts, etc., and lead to the general "hate speech" legislation already being bandied about.

Which would have certain implications for what we have printed on our t shirts, etc.

[grace]

Maybe there's a gay conspiracy to take over the world, but frankly the arguments and evidence put forward seem disturbingly reminiscent to me of the case made by the Jewish-Conspiracy-to-Take-Over-the-World folks.

Unfortunately, at least some of the violence (and I'm talking both physical and verbal) against "anti-Gays" is a response to violence done to Gays. As sad as it is to say, I'm afraid we Christians may have started it (or at least, some who were walking under a Christian banner started it). And regardless of whether we did or not, the fact remains that it is being used against us. We claim to abhor violence and to hold love as our highest tenet. We speak of Jesus, who ate with lepers and tax collectors. And then:

Thanks to Betty Bowers, homosexuals' sneaky little secrets are now revealed to the godly:
THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA!
As every Christian knows, there is only one enemy that threatens our entire civilization. And I am, of course, not talking about Satan. I'm talking about those damned homosexuals!

and

One wonders what is behind contemporary popularity of male homosexual behavior. Perhaps it is, in practical terms, the inconvenience of impregnating a female on the one hand, and (absent the threat of AIDS) the relative inconsequentiality of anal or oral copulation with another male on the other hand, that seduces them. That line of reasoning has a certain perverted logic which appeals primarily to less mature, more naive, the self-deluded or even vicious, evil perverts. [Junto Society]

And especially, I’ve heard too many times about homosexuals being beaten up, even killed, for being gay.

When we get riled up and speak out of our own repulsion instead of in Jesus’ voice, we unintentionally incite more of this hatred and violence. And by our own participation, whether direct or indirect, we become the hypocrites they accuse us of being! And the hatred and violence come back on us from those who can claim of themselves, “at least we’re not being hypocrites!”
I’m not trying to justify homosexuality. I'm not excusing violence against "anti-Gays". I’m trying to say that we are going about this wrongly, and in a un-grace-filled, unproductive and downright destructive way.
The Enemy loves it when we borrow his tools! And perhaps we're beginning to experience the consequences of doing so.

In His love,

-Grace

[Symphony]

Thank you, Grace.

I appreciate your very valid reservations; I don't recognize those quotes appearing anywhere here.  Perhaps they did and I missed them.   The second one, about inconsequentiality, is incisive.  It seems very accurate to me.


As a brief aside, there was an incident mentioned this last week, in the Chicago news(on WBBM Radio), of a lesbian daughter of a Chicago alderman, "butting", like a billy goat, a police lieutenant, in a parade there.  The report said it knocked him down, bruised.  Said she butted him head down, full force in the chest.

Yes, we can't be associated with the bigotry that is so unChristlike.

But I don't think there's anything in this thread, or the other original one here(Part I), that is in anyway  "vindictive".

I do intend to "call a spade a spade".  

This gay thing, as an agenda, which it is, is incredibly wicked--precisely because it is masquerading merely as a "Life"-style, something "alternative".

True, there are other "sins".  But this one is seeking public sanction--protection.

And once they are protected...

I think accurately identifying the trend, where we can, is important--indeed critical.  They would prefer desperately that we not.  They are of the darkness.  We must expose darkness whereever it is.

Yes, with care.  Yes, perhaps with love.  Tho the whole point of all of the gay thing is exactly that--it is masquerading as "love".

It is quite hideous.

And I'm not being hateful when I say that.  Tho they may--and will--make me out to be that.  And I may have to pay the supreme price for that.  Hate speech legislation is already in the works, in various venues--and it's criminal, not civil.

"The White Rose" student movement in Nazi Germany painted "Hitler is a Mass Murderer" on city buildings at night; they were caught.  And beheaded.  And they were their own students, there.  They were their own German people.

The homosexuals similarly.  They don't WANT you to contradict them, Grace.  They become hysterical(if you hadn't noticed).

We don't have to be hateful when we contradict someone.

But we must contradict them.  We must.   We have to.

[grace]

Hello Symphony,

Re:

I don't recognize those quotes appearing anywhere here.  Perhaps they did and I missed them.

I did not find them on this forum!!!! And I didn't mean to imply that I had!!!

I didn't mean to mislead; sorry about that! I just typed "Christian" and "homosexual" into my search engine, and that is what popped up. If you look up Betty Bowers or Junto Society, you'll find where I got these from. I haven't searched through this forum with a fine-tooth comb for material such as that.

Both of those sources are of the radical fundamentalist type. But you see, they're the ones who get the air play   ;it is sensationalism that sells papers and ups ratings. Problem is, when we say something like:

Tho the whole point of all of the gay thing is exactly that--it is masquerading as "love". It is quite hideous.

, it is portrayed in the media and percieved by the general public as being rooted in the Betty Bower attitude. It has become almost impossible for a Christian to speak up without their words being attached to that hateful and unChristlike caricature; this is tragic, and it it is the Enemy's work.

If we want to bring Christ's true message, we are going to have to learn to choose our words very carefully; the most righteous of messages becomes the momentum of the Enemy if it can be sucked into the vortex of that caricature. We must speak unequivocally to our convictions, yet our words need to be surrounded with an honor guard of lovingness and Christspirit in order to keep on track and reach their mark. Anyone whose words are not so rooted and guarded is shooting themselves and everyone on their side of the issue in the foot.

In His love,

-Grace

[Symphony]

thank you, Grace.

What would you feel about wearing a shirt that said, "Homosexuality is a sin." ?

[onestarfisher]

But we must contradict them.  We must.   We have to.

Amen to that. That really struck home.

[Symphony]

With much prayer, patience and kindness.

[sincereheart]

Posted by: grace  Posted on: March 10, 2004, 10:55:08 PM  
Maybe there's a gay conspiracy to take over the world, but frankly the arguments and evidence put forward seem disturbingly reminiscent to me of the case made by the Jewish-Conspiracy-to-Take-Over-the-World folks.

Keep reading, grace.....

Gays and Straights in the Work Force:
Tolerance for Other Viewpoints
by John W. Whitehead
12/08/2003

“All that gay and lesbian people are asking for is, if not understanding, then at least tolerance. All they are asking for is the same basic civil equality that all Americans yearn for and should be entitled to.” — Iowa State Rep. Ed Fallon

For many years, the rallying cry of the gay rights movement has been for greater tolerance and equal treatment — something due all Americans. Rarely, however, does one see those who champion tolerance for gays urging tolerance for other viewpoints. As gays have approached the mainstream, individuals who express concern about the gay lifestyle have found themselves ostracized. That is evident nowhere more than in corporate America.

In recent years, the tendency among corporations has been to aggressively advocate tolerance toward homosexuals. According to the Human Rights Campaign, the largest gay rights advocacy group in the country, 333 of the Fortune 500 companies have written policies prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. Many also require their employees to undergo sensitivity training on the subject.

Such protection of the gay lifestyle in the business world has caused concern among some heterosexual employees, including religious employees, who often find that their rights to freedom of religion and freedom of conscience are not being accommodated by such companies. One example is Albert Buonanno.

In January 2001, Buonanno, an employee of AT&T, was handed a new AT&T Broadband Employee Handbook and asked to sign an “Acknowledgment of Receipt and Certificate of Understanding.” The certificate stated, in part, “I agree to follow the policies, rules and regulations contained in the handbook and to abide by any revisions made to them in the future.”

Upon reviewing the 84-page handbook, however, Buonanno — a Christian with biblically based beliefs regarding homosexuality — found several parts to which he could not in good conscience conform. On page 6, in the section titled “Diversity,” the handbook stated: “Each person at AT&T Broadband is charged with the responsibility to fully recognize, respect and value the differences among all of us.” On page 67, the company gave sexual orientation protected status.

For Buonanno, to acknowledge respect for a lifestyle that he believes to be sinful would be a compromise of his faith and a contradiction of the Bible’s views on homosexuality. So Buonanno notified his supervisor that — based on his religious beliefs — he could not sign the certificate of understanding. Buonanno added, however, that he had no problem declaring he would neither discriminate against nor harass people who were different from him, including homosexuals. He simply wanted to remain true to his faith and do his job.

AT&T’s response was typical of many politically correct establishments. The company gave Buonanno two choices: sign the certificate or be fired. Though his religious beliefs should have been accommodated in some fashion, his employment was terminated.

His case is only one among many in which employees have been wrongfully denied accommodation and the right to freedom of conscience because of their religious beliefs — rights guaranteed both under federal law and under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

The issue is about more than an individual’s objection to homosexuality. It concerns the freedom of conscience — the right of individuals to object to something they believe is wrong, especially when it contradicts their religious beliefs, whether about war, abortion, homosexuality or whatever. That has always been a fundamental right guaranteed to all Americans. Such objections — unless they interfere with the clearly defined mission of the employer — must be accommodated.

Freedom of conscience in the workplace is an issue that we all need to support. Indeed, should anyone, gay or straight, be forced to deny and violate what they believe are sincerely held religious beliefs?

The First Amendment doesn’t apply only to speech that is politically correct or popular. It was written to protect speech that others might consider politically incorrect and unpopular. It was also written to protect those individuals who may not be part of the mainstream — people such as Albert Buonanno. It specifically protects the right of religious minorities to practice their religion without being harassed and denied a rightful place in the work force for doing so.

Gay people know what it means to be discriminated against because of lifestyle or beliefs. They therefore should be the first to defend people like Albert Buonanno. And we should demand that our workplaces not become bastions of conformity — where only accepted beliefs prevail. Indeed, if we truly believe in tolerance and diversity, then we all must practice it.


Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.
http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=255

[Symphony]

It's more or less an ultimatum--in-your-face.  That's why I'm comparing this to the Nazis.

And the gays recoil in self-righteous indignation--because it's the homophobes who're suppose to be "the Nazis".

When in fact it is the gays and their "cause", who're are glaringly in our face.

We know this is so because, as sincereheart's citation there clearly illustrates, in new policies by, for instance, ATT(and I imagine all corporate policies--just read the employment policies online, of any of them--including, or especially, any major law firms'--easily accessible here online--"sexual orientation", as it is called...), it is made very clear to this employee that while he is required to tolerate their variances, they are not required to tolerate his.

Which is what the Nazis were all about.  You were required to "tolerate" them; they were not required to tolerate you.

You are required to tolerate the homosexual; he is not required to tolerate you.  American legislative law now supports that; and here, we see, so does corporate--that is, commercial, or economic policy.

Which is exactly where the Nazis headed, once they achieved power--cornering the right, or privilege, to even be employed.

Next, will be the right to employ--that is, hire people--even yourself--that is, the right to be self-employed.

Stupid Americans.

"...for God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose by being of one mind and giving over their royal power to the beast..." (Rev. 17:17).

[JudgeNot]

It's more or less an ultimatum--in-your-face.  That's why I'm comparing this to the Nazis.

And the gays recoil in self-righteous indignation--because it's the homophobes who're suppose to be "the Nazis".

When in fact it is the gays and their "cause", who're are glaringly in our face.

That's right.

Which is what the Nazis were all about.  You were required to "tolerate" them; they were not required to tolerate you.

You are required to tolerate the homosexual; he is not required to tolerate you.

That's right, too.

The liberal's "tolerance" is a one-way street.  They will decide what should and what should not be tolerated.  Everyday, more and more of them decide God cannot and will not be tolerated.

But God is watching.

And they bend their tongues like their bow for lies: but they are not valiant for the truth upon the earth; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they know not me, saith the LORD.
Jeremiah 9:3

[Symphony]

Yes, that's true, God is in control of all this.  Thanks, JudgeNot.

[JudgeNot]

This story speaks of the tolerance the radical homosexuals have for us.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38156

[Symphony]

thank you, jn.  yes, I read that article just now.  wow, the "gay militia".  just like the brownshirts.  and bursting in on a peaceful assembly of Christians.   why am I not surprised.

but i wonder here in U.S. if we'll even see anything like a gay militia--seems to me any opposition to the gay is merely token in force, therefore any real militia on their part would hardly be necessary.

I've heard it said the German Gestapo secret police, was formed largely in response to the opposition created by catholic and protestant clergy, in their outspokeness to Hitler.

But here in U.S., there doesn't seem to be much opposition to the gay agenda.  I'm thinking the US is going to go homosexual pretty much without even a whimper.

those who are strongly opposed will simply lose gradually their emplooyment, their income, then their property, then they'll be just homeless, then maybe like the Christians into the catacombs on the outskirts of Rome....

But most of mainstream Christianity, I think, here in US, is going along with the gay thing.  The gays won't need any militia, seems to me.