Homosexual Lobby Issues Death Threats Against Christians

[Jennifer Groves]

 

"A federal court in Tacoma, Wash., has been asked to order that the names of signatories of a state petition seeking to protect traditional marriage be redacted to protect them from death threats from homosexual activists."

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=317681#ixzz1R0ij3Ciz

 

• "I will kill you and your family."
  
  
• "Oh my God, This woman is so f---ing stupid. Someone please shoot her in the head, again and again. And again."
  
  
• "I'm going to kill the pastor."
  
  
• "If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter…"
  
  
• "We're going to kill you."
  
  
• "You're dead. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon … you're dead."
  
  
• "I'm a gay guy who owns guns, and he's my next target."
  
  
• "I warn you, I know how to kill, I'm an ex-special forces person."
  
  
• "Get ready for retribution all you bigots."
• Burn their f---ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers."

"The issue is the some 138,000 Washington state residents who signed a petition in 2009 to repeal a law that gave same-sex partners all the legal rights of married couples. The petition forced a referendum vote in November of that year in which voters decided to sustain the law.

 

" . . . because the state considers such petitions "public records," homosexual activists are demanding the names and addresses of the signers in order to post them on the Internet and "publicize on their web sites, in searchable format, the identities of every person who signed the … petition," according to a new filing seeking nondisclosure of the names.

"

"Homosexual promoters have stated publicly they want to post the personal contact information on the Internet so that activists can find them . . .

 

So far, the three LGBT groups involved--BashBack!, KnowThyNeighbor.org, and WhoSigned.org--have already carried out some of their threats-- painting swastikas on people's lawns, throwing bricks through their windows, and graffitied churches and glued doors shut. They have also threatened to kill the children of those who signed the petition.

 

 

[William L Beck]

Mr. Smith,

 

I believe you're confusing "rights" (as described and delineated in the Constitution) with the LGBT movement's desire to NORMALIZE a perversion.  I don't think any liberty-loving person would endorse the government snooping into people's sex lives (as with earlier sodomy laws), but at the same time the cultural mores of the country have already been stretched to the limit and to normalize homosexual behavior by recognizing such through the tradition of marriage is insane and detrimental to our country.  Live and let live, but do not push a perverted agenda. 

The institution of marriage (whether through religious doctrines or legislative actions) has always been heterosexual in nature as a means to promote and support procreation and the nurturing of families - thereby sustaining society culturally, economically, and physically.  The family is the foundation of a free society.  Socialists' primary strategy is to loosen the binds of family, conferring that function to the state.  We've seen many times how that plays out (ask any former citizen of a communist/socialist country how happy they were under those regimes).

I think the point of Ms. Grove post was to illustrate how the Left plays the game when they don't get their perversions endorsed.  And the call the right wingers hateful.  Go figure.

This is when libertarianism strays into the realm of libertine.  I'm a firm believer in liberty, but with rights come responsibilities.  You mentioned the example of a single person subsidizing those who are married.  Remember, the family contributes to the stability of society and thus the country.  It is not a true subsidy because families incur much more cost in  the effort to provide future citizens.  Rather than complain about the "subsidy" maybe we should revise the tax code, eh?

Oh, and one more thing - you mention the first amendment to the Constitution and in the same breath criticize the inclusion of religion as a valid component to this discussion on marriage ("...cease to be the country based on the bedrock of the Constitution.").  I think the Founders might beg to disagree.

Just my opinion.

[Jennifer Groves]

That's a whole lot of different issues. Not legally recognizing homosexual marriages certainly doesn't preclude a person from determining who visits you on your death bed.

 

What most concerns me in your responses is that you apparently DO agree with killing and raping the children of people who support traditional marriage. You certainly haven't condemned the violence that LGBT groups are advocating. We already don't--and won't--agree that such hostility is OK. It isn't, and it's not a minor issue. The whole point of this post--and the WND article--is to reveal how violent the LGBT political activist groups are.

 

If it's not important to you that marriages have legal recognition by the State, then why worry about whether or not homosexuals are legally married to begin with?

 

As far as tax laws go, most of them need to be dropped and the fed/state employees need to seek private sector jobs. I don't even think we should have Soc Security to begin with--the system is already bankrupt.

 

Historically, every country/culture has some form of legal recognition of marriage because it involves property rights. The whole issues of dowry, bride wealth, marriage work contracts, etc. have to be recognized by more than just the two people marrying--otherwise the dissolution of the marriage or death or mental incapacitation of one partner makes it difficult to determine who is responsible for what and who receives what. It may be legally recognized by a tribe or even just a clan, but that's the counterpart to having states recognize it here in the U.S. And most marriages involve offspring--that's one of the major reasons for marriage in the first place--which can complicate legal issues.

 

Homosexuals have the option of making out wills and leaving whatever they want to whomever they want. I already explained my position on forcing employers to recognize homosexual unions--it is a violation of others freedom of religion.

 

Psychologically speaking, I think many homosexuals are frustrated about society not accepting their "marriages" as legal (at least in the majority of states, and certainly the majority of people) because, as Scott mentioned, they cannot procreate. There is jealousy involved here on a very basic level. There is one thing heterosexual partners can do that homosexual partners never can--regardless of all the medically-assisted options that may exist. 

 

Homosexual "marriage" does not fit the natural order of anything--by either biblical or by evolutionary standards. Don't shoot the messenger--I didn't create the system and humans don't have the capacity to change it.

 

To pretend that homosexuality is just a natural choice or simply genetic doesn't even make sense from a logical perspective. Even evolutionists have to agree that that type of gene in nature (if it exists) would be considered a mutation (even though it doesn't kill that individual)--natural selection weeds out such individuals in every generation, because homosexual individuals would, by definition, not procreate and thus not pass on the "homosexual gene".

 

I have had several homosexual friends over the years. Contrary to media's depictions, LGBTs do not comprise 50%  of the population, as their activist groups would have us believe. People who don't live in concentrated enclaves of homosexuality and aren't involved in industries dominated by homosexuals tend not to run into too many. But in every case where I've known much about the background of the individual, it's been a very dysfunctional history--which is why I don't agree homosexuality is determined entirely by "genetics". Sure, lots of heteros come from dysfunctional backgrounds also, but my LG friends consistently had terrible relationships with the parent of the opposite sex.

 

I realize this is beyond the realm of what we're discussing, but ultimately it does come into play--marriage as an institution is for families who have the capacity to produce offspring, and that type of union should be protected-legally. Those LGBTs who recognize that--and there are some who do--know full well they already have all the same basic human rights as the rest of us, as guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

There is an alarming tendency these days for people to think everything is a  "right"--FCC claims broadband is a "civil right", and "free" pre-paid cell phones are a "civil right", and "free" college is a "civil right". They also tend to use "civil" and "human" interchangeably.

 

Marriage is NOT a guaranteed human right--homosexual or otherwise. It's a hetero privilege that a lot of people enter into and then decide maybe they shouldn't have :) Obviously, for Christians, it's also considered sacred.

 

We need to be very careful when we talk about "rights" and not confuse them with "privileges". The Constitution does not guarantee marriage. The First Amendment does not guarantee marriage of any kind--it doesn't even address that.

 

Your attempt to suggest that the Constitution--and by extension, the founders of the United States--has no connection to any religion is ludicrous. Revisionist history is a lie. Try reading the founding fathers--actual letters, journals, etc. Christian principles are the only principles that allow for religious freedom--because Christ does not force anyone to believe in Him. Countries founded on the principles of other religions generally have the worst human rights records in the world, and homosexuals are not only denied human status, they are often persecuted and killed.

 

[Malcolm Smith]

I guess I just don't understand the basic construct here.  As Tea Partiers, I believe we should  strive to EXPAND liberties, rights and personal freedoms, not single out groups of our fellow Americans for denial of same.

And we're not discussing the bigger issue here: to the extent homosexuals have to petition the government for the same rights as heterosexuals, is the extent to which the government is intruding into our private lives, has no business there, and must be rooted out. Let's look at just a couple of examples:

If I'm single and making the same wage as a married person, why does that person get to pay fewer taxes? Why am I forced to subsidize them? Using the tax code for social engineering to promote marriage? How is that a legitimate government function?

If I'm working for a contracted wage and benefits package, isn't my right to decide whom I want my benefits conferred to?

If I'm the one paying in to my Social Security account, shouldn't I be the one to decide who my beneficiary is?

If I'm on my deathbed, shouldn't I be the one to decide who may visit me?

In summation, why is the State involved in the marriage business in the first place? THAT should be the Tea Party's question.  If we bring religion into the political discussion, then I humbly submit that at that juncture we cease to be the country based on the bedrock of the Constitution and just one of any number of radical theocracies out there.

Let's review that pesky 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[Scott Arnett]

Marriage is a biblical principle instituted to create a family unit, Malcolm. Homosexuals do not procreate, therefore do not fall under this principle. Your idea of "A Basic Right" is convoluted.

If the state wished to grant "Civil Unions", that would be another matter to be debated and decided upon by the individual states.

To condone such behavior is reprehensible and misguided.

[Jennifer Groves]

 

So you're OK with militant homosexuals threatening to kill and rape the children of families whose parents signed a petition protecting traditional marriage?

 

Yeah, killing and raping children really is comparable to signing a petition.

 

You don't see conservatives or Christians demanding the home addresses of homosexuals so they can go to their homes and attack them.

 

The rights guaranteed in the Constitution--and the Declaration--do not include homosexual marriage. The U.S. is one of the few countries that protects people who practice a homosexual lifestyle--try being a homosexual in an Islamic country.

 

Again, a political lobby that insists that gay marriages be legally recognized infringes on the rights of taxpayers whose religions do not support homosexuality, because our tax dollars will be used to support that practice. And it denies Christian businesses the ability to uphold biblical standards in their workplace.

 

The actions of these LGBT groups are indefensible.

[Malcolm Smith]

When people go around imposing the tyranny of denying another group of people whether or not they can marry whomever they choose (what many would consider a basic right), they should expect some sort of backlash.  Doesn't the tree of liberty sometimes have to be watered with the blood of tyrants?