« Look away!!! Ignore this!!! | Main | Observation re: Auto 'bail out' ... »
November 18, 2008
'We're talking to you people, yeah you ...' UPDATED
...stay out of our neighborhood."
Mmmmmm.... such wonderful tolerance, inclusion and celebration of diversity.
Hypocrites.
UPDATE Patterico
A desciption that the violent mob tried to physically molest one of the people of the prayer circle
At first, they just shouted at us, using crude, rude, and foul language and calling us names like “haters” and “bigots”. Since it was a long night, I can’t even begin to remember all of the things that were shouted and/or chanted at us. Then, they started throwing hot coffee, soda and alcohol on us and spitting (and maybe even peeing) on us. Then, a group of guys surrounded us with whistles, and blasted them inches away from our ears continually. Then, they started getting violent and started shoving us. At one point a man tried to steal one of our Bibles. Chrisdene noticed, so she walked up to him and said “Hey, that’s not yours, can you please give it back?”. He responded by hitting her on the head with the Bible, shoving her to the ground, and kicking her. I called the cops, and when they got there, they pulled her out of the circle and asked her if she wanted to press charges. She said “No, tell him I forgive him.”Patterico comments:Afterwards, she didn’t rejoin us in the circle, but she made friends with one of the people in the crowd, and really connected heart to heart. Roger got death threats. As the leader of our group, people looked him in the eyes and said “I am going to kill you.”, and they were serious. A cop heard one of them, and confronted him. (This part is kinda graphic, so you should skip the paragraph if you don’t want to be offended.) It wasn’t long before the violence turned to perversion. They were touching and grabbing me, and trying to shove things in my butt, and even trying to take off my pants - basically trying to molest me. I used one hand to hold my pants up, while I used the other arm to hold one of the girls. The guys huddled around all the girls, and protected them.
As someone who supports gay marriage, I think this is a horrible way to go about convincing the opposition.Well, Pat, it looks like the hate is from the SSM advocates is certainly indicative of their basic narcissism. It is all about them and woe anyone disagree. Or, as Dennis Prager observes:The left-wing blogs applaud it all. They admit of no possible principled support for Proposition 8. They agree that anyone who supported it or voted for it is a hater and a bigot.
And when you start demonizing the other side, sometimes angry mobs form. And when angry mobs form, it can get violent.
It all comes down to what you think is the best method of persuasion. Do you admit that there may be a principled basis for your opponent’s argument, but do your best to persuade him that he’s wrong? Or do you simply conclude that your opponent’s arguments are evil, and that you have to step up the rhetoric and general level of nastiness?
The likening of the movement for same-sex marriage to the black civil rights struggle is a primary argument of pro same-sex marriage groups. [...]Do they care? Obviously not.It is worth noting that the people least impressed with the comparison of the gay struggle to redefine marriage with the black struggle for racial equality are blacks. They voted overwhelmingly for Californias Proposition 8 which amends the California Constitution to define marriage as being the union of a man and a woman. [...]
One has to either be ignorant of segregation laws and the routine humiliations experienced by blacks during the era of Jim Crow, or one has to be callous to black suffering, to equate that to a person not being allowed to marry a person of the same sex. They are not in the same moral universe.
There is in fact no comparison between the situation of gays in America in 2008 and the situation of most black Americans prior to the civil rights era. Gays are fully accepted, and as a group happen to constitute one of the wealthiest in American life. Moreover, not being allowed to marry a person of the same sex is not anti-gay; it is pro-marriage as every civilization has defined it. The fact is that states like California already grant people who wish to live and love a member of the same sex virtually every right that marriage bestows except the word married. [...]
Gay and straight activists who liken their demand to redefine marriage to black suffering under Jim Crow merely cheapen historic black suffering.
Posted by Darleen at November 18, 2008 06:31 AM
Comments
just stop discriminating against good Americans in the name of Christ. ~ Leah
Posted by: ML at November 18, 2008 09:02 AM
Hey ML, what was that you were saying about how no Christians were running around passing judgment on gays?
I wouldn't expect the Klan to get a warm reception in Harlem, either.
Posted by: Josh at November 18, 2008 12:18 PM
Josh
Like I said before you are consistent and in that note, wrong again.
Just because these militant homosexuals physically and verbally attacked these people carrying Bibles does not mean that Christians are hating homosexuals.
Matter of fact the Christians in this case refused to press charges against the homosexuals that attacked the female in the group, forgiveness the homosexuals could never grasp, with the different morals and all.
Those brave gay guys attacked a female, ironic isn’t it.
Posted by: ML at November 18, 2008 04:32 PM
I don't see any physical assault in the vid. Evidence or it didn't happen. I wonder if Patterico's correspondent is named Ashley Todd.
Posted by: Josh at November 18, 2008 08:39 PM
I guess Prager's never heard of Loving v. Virginia. What a dumbass.
Posted by: Josh at November 18, 2008 08:41 PM
The homosexuals here in California are not looking for equal rights, they all ready have them.
Its about forcing their gay agenda upon the rest of society.
California Family Code
Section 297-297.5
297. (a) Domestic partners are two adults who have chosen to share one another's lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring.
297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.
They have the same rights, its just not called marriage.
Posted by: ML at November 19, 2008 07:10 AM
Separate but equal, eh ML? Why do gay people scare you so much?
Posted by: Josh at November 19, 2008 08:17 AM
Josh
Why do all of you have the same talking points, cant any of you think for yourself? It’s a rhetorical question.
What the hell is wrong with separate but equal?
I am straight, they are gay, we are separate but equal.
I am male my wife is female, we are separate but equal.
If gays don’t want to be separate then they cant be gay, its that simple.
Here is a document you have never read.
The Declaration of Independence
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Separate but equal enshrined in a great American document.
So please explain how separate but equal was un-American again?
The 2 most common elements in society are hydrogen and stupidity, the left proves the latter.
Posted by: ML at November 19, 2008 09:43 AM
Jefferson was referring to nations, not people. Reading is fundamental. Good to see you endorse the rationale of Plessy v. Ferguson, though. It's nice to have the bigotry out in the open.
Posted by: Josh at November 19, 2008 10:17 AM
Granted its speaking about countries not gays, but I think the same principle applies.
Unless you can argue that a gay couple is indistinguishable from a straight couple in every aspect then they are by their very nature different or separate, but equal as in legal rights.
So this is really about semantics and only semantics.
Posted by: ML at November 19, 2008 11:18 AM
ML, that's the single stupidest thing you have ever typed (and I too am shocked to see your surpass your earlier record). The Declaration is not a document on your side in this matter; as Lincoln showed soon after Dred Scott, the Declaration declares all men equal, not unequal because of whom they date. The mind boggles at your incomprehension, but, given your lack of understanding of context with regard to Scripture, at you are consistent in your concrete misunderstanding of historical and mythological texts.
By the way, Josh, that "testimony" is straight from a blog post and I think the woman's name is Ashley Todd or something.
Posted by: timb at November 19, 2008 12:36 PM
the Declaration declares all men equal
Timb
Separate but equal.
What part of fu**ing equal don’t you understand?
Posted by: ML at November 19, 2008 01:02 PM
No, ML, it declares all Men equal and says there are times when one group of people need to form a new government. What part of declaring independence from Britain means you get to express your hatred for sinners by denying them civil rights, you obnoxious, self-righteous queer bashing theocrat? Jefferson was not separating individuals, you tool, he was separating nations by declaring all people are equal.
When you failed American history, you probably failed the part where Lincoln used the Declaration to argue for minority civil rights and against slavery.
I'll say it again, you are so dumb, you make Darleen look average
Posted by: timb at November 19, 2008 06:43 PM
Timb
Your vitriol is boring.
If you have seen one crazy Kos-kiddie you have seen them all.
Posted by: ML at November 20, 2008 06:43 AM
Timb
You have a severe case of Cranial Rectal Inversion, you will need to see a specialist.
Posted by: ML at November 20, 2008 07:11 AM
Look, more gay agenda being forced upon American business.
eHarmony forced to offer same-sex dating services
By Michelle Malkin
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/20/eharmony-forced-to-offer-same-sex-dating-services/
Posted by: ML at November 20, 2008 08:05 AM
ML, in case you're not aware of this fact: You have "conversed" with me at Patterico and here. I do NOT visit Kos. The most "liberal" blog I read and comment at is Balloon Juice. However, mostly I like commenting at right wing sites where it's much easier to feel superior to the blogger AND the commenters.
It is actually surprising to me how little right wingers know. For instance, you are unaware what the Declaration of Independence means. You are unaware the Bible is a collection of stories and an anthology of an oral tradition (Jeez, could you watch ten minutes of this week's NOVA). You believe in Creationism!
And, you are but one of the many dolts hanging out on right wing sites: check out the fabulous Pablo, the angry JD, the bigoted Another Drew, the clownish Darleen....this is a treasure trove of serotonin (look it up, ML). You are the minor leagues, ML, and embarrassing you is fun in a pinch. And, since Darleen decided the best way to get rid of me and Josh is not to respond in the comments (the clarion call on Protein Wisdom did not bring any new visitors apparently), I have to abuse you while waiting patiently for her seething self to return.
Which brings to me to your word of the day calendar: the tone in which you read my missives is all wrong, dunderhead. There is no vitriol. only weary head-shaking or laughter. See, ML, vitriol implies your silly, 25% of the population angers me. That's not true.
I must admit that around 2003 or so, I was despairing of the America I knew and not the version of Alabama: cronyism and theocracy that Georgie and Sean Hannity were trying to create.
At that time, before the disastrous invasion I certainly would have been angry for the thousands of women and children (not to mention Americans) you dolts were about to slaughter. But, now that I know we will be safe for another generation from the likes of you, you do nothing but amuse me. Sorry to disappoint.
Posted by: timb at November 20, 2008 08:12 AM
Timb:
Great comment, man. Made my afternoon.
Posted by: Joko at November 20, 2008 11:18 AM
Timb
I recall making comments to you at Patterico, when I saw you here I could tell from your lack of logic or should I say your illiberal logic that you were the same “timb”.
Sorry you missed my Declaration of Independence point, I thought the point, being the same principle was easily deduced, apparently not. I am not a great writer so it is possible it was me, but given your track record I doubt it.
You get your Bible information from NOVA, no wonder you’re so screwed up.
We all know that NOVA is the Biblical authority. I cant stop laughing.
Didn’t you say your wife was a Christian? Perhaps of the non-Bible believing variety?
Timb you are free to believe whatever you want about the Bible, whether its based on fact, fiction or fantasy or whatever NOVA says. Did they even explain which Bible they were talking about, you do know they are not all the same, don’t you?
I should be embarrassed for even attempting to argue with your much higher intellect but for whatever reason I am not.
I suppose I pick on you because its fun to watch you scream your vitriol such as racist, queer bashing, hater, bigot etc...
I assume from your thoughts about the Bible that you also consider the Torah to be total crap, and to stick with your line of reasoning the Qur’an is OK? Am I right?
Posted by: ML at November 20, 2008 11:25 AM
ML:
You were OWNED. It's obvious to everyone that you're some sort of religilous moron who's incapable of making anything resembling a coherent argument.
I'll give you this, however: you are entertaining. Keep up the good work!
Posted by: Joko at November 20, 2008 12:01 PM
Joko
Well at least a religious moron can be entertaining, you not so much!
Posted by: ML at November 20, 2008 12:17 PM
Just because I liked to be OWNED and abused by the intellectually superior.
A timb double standard:
the tone in which you read my missives is all wrong, dunderhead. There is no vitriol. only weary head-shaking or laughter.
So while its possible I misread timb’s vitriol missives, although I doubt it, the possibility that my missives have been misinterpreted is not on the table at this time nor in the near future.
And my missives did not contain unproven liberal buzz accusations of queer-bashing, self-righteous haters and such.
But you read it and decide for yourself.
Posted by: ML at November 20, 2008 12:33 PM
The Qu'ran? What on earth are you talking about? The special timb refers to was a pretty well-done documentary about the historical evidence for various events described in the Bible. It was an attempt to synthesize the state of the scholarship for a popular audience, and overall it succeeded.
To return to the separate but equal point, ML, can you say whether you think racially segregated schools are constitutionally permissible? Morally permissible?
Posted by: Josh at November 20, 2008 01:22 PM
Josh
Succeeded in what? Convincing timb that the Bible is just oral tradition, implying it is thus inaccurate. If that is the case I would not agree.
Of course I don’t think that racial segregation is permissible in any form.
One question:
How does not identifying gay marriage as just “marriage” segregate gays?
Posted by: ML at November 20, 2008 02:35 PM
DWSI97 ylmjjhosdyoa, [url=http://hhidcsukzdwe.com/]hhidcsukzdwe[/url], [link=http://etkxiesdrxfo.com/]etkxiesdrxfo[/link], http://odpohvarymyx.com/
Posted by: xirvgxcv at November 20, 2008 03:43 PM
ML, the NOVA special specifically dealt with the lack of historical fact in the Torah by talking to archaeologists and theologians. It was focused on how the Jewish people kept their faith, identity, and tradition of monotheism amidst the most incredible odds.
It was neither pro and con versus regarding the Torah, just mentions what scholars actually have found and known for decades.
Still, just because I know Moses never led anyone out of bondage doesn't mean I don't let my kids read Exodus. It is, one of the most uplifting and beautiful stories in the world. It just means it's fiction, like Jesus's miracle, Mohammed writing with a air pen, Icarus flying too close to the Sun, Joseph's Smith's magic golden tablets (okay, that last one is such b.s. I got to wonder what people are thinking).
See, the ironic thing about discussing things with you is that I have no interest in divesting you of your faith or Darleen's of hers. I wish you knew more about your faith, but that's a pie in the sky dream.
What I appreciate about people who believe (in any faith) is their shared sense of purpose. Churches are a marvel of community binding and, when those beliefs are directed properly, community good. It's when people of faith start believing their beliefs mean they are better or morally superior to others that I begin to have problems.
Whether it's you and Darleen trying to keep some nice couple from marrying, or some Saudi kook cutting off a thief's hand, or a group of Protestant's marching through Belfast to annoy Catholics, or Jewish settlers thinking the Torah gives them the right to scuttle a peace process, I get annoyed.
Build your hospitals, reform your criminals, save the drunks from drinking, build your suburban palaces to "God," but stop suicide bombing or bombing the Olympics or shooting people at Mosques (I don't suppose you need links to suicide bombing or Eric Rudolph or Baruch Goldstein do you?).
Like everything, faith is used to justify the good and the bad. My making fun of you is because you practice a divisive form of Christianity which does not bring people together; it revels in dividing people into good and bad. Per your own tradition, that's not your job; it's God's.
My real religion, or at least the only thing I have minimal faith in, is the Founding documents of my country and the law that results. So, I take offense when you misuse one of the most singularly awesome documents in history in an effort to deny a group of people the chance to "pursue happiness" all because you think some magical 2000 year old book tells you they are bad.
With that, Godspeed offered sincerely and ironically.
Posted by: timb at November 21, 2008 08:46 AM
Timb
Wow the vitriol never stops it just keeps going and going,
first I am just like an Islamic terrorist now I am a domestic terrorist or at least a firm supporter of one.
Amazing that you could deduce all that from my very few comments, if you think you can make all kinds of ludicrous accusations and that I would take anytime to refute them is well ludicrous.
Mocking you and lack of logic is fun albeit a bit too easy.
Posted by: ML at November 21, 2008 02:56 PM
Correction:
Mocking you and your lack of logic is fun albeit a bit too easy.
Posted by: ML at November 21, 2008 02:57 PM
Homosexuals in California through registered civil unions have the exact same rights as a
legally married heterosexual couple, same legal contract. The only difference is the name, homosexuals claim that because the name is different then their civil rights are being violated and or they are being segregated, neither is true.
1. They have the same rights as a marriage hetero couple, so legally their rights can not be denied.
2. Words along do not segregate, only actions do.
3. Segregation was making blacks sit in the back of the bus or not allowing them into the same school or separate water fountains, no gays are subject to that today and its absurd for them to pretend otherwise.
Posted by: ML at November 21, 2008 05:22 PM
4z616K idgoabflxbtk, [url=http://fcqhdptauxzd.com/]fcqhdptauxzd[/url], [link=http://nfynfklbkkpy.com/]nfynfklbkkpy[/link], http://mrczhabrdanb.com/
Posted by: ejctlwzk at November 22, 2008 02:28 PM
ML, first, you need to learn about the difference between "degree" and "kind." Accusing you of being a fundamentalist, evangelical and then listing the sins of such people is NOT accusing you of being a "domestic terrorist." You subscribe to a belief system which produces at its extremes a tendency toward violence in unstable people. Some religious fundamentalists commit violent acts. Is this news to you?
Secondly, learn basic logic. "All cats are animals" does not mean "All animals are cats."
So, as for you and Dar and Eric Rudolph: Opposition to homosexuality -- check
Belief abortion is murder -- check
Fundamentalist beliefs -- check
Wikipedia page: Eric Robert Rudolph (born September 19, 1966), also known as the Olympic Park Bomber...Rudolph declared that his bombings were part of a guerrilla campaign against abortion and what he describes as "the homosexual agenda." He spent years as the FBI's most wanted criminal fugitive, but was eventually caught...Rudolph has also called himself a Roman Catholic in "the war to end this holocaust" (of abortion).
To quote from what I said and your sensitive soul could not process:
It's when people of faith start believing their beliefs mean they are better or morally superior to others that I begin to have problems.You, my friend, are the one seeking to keep fellow citizens from exercising their personal choice in whom they marry (see Loving v Virginia).
To you and the similarities between your divisive interpretation of Scripture and crazies, I can only offer the words of the wise guy himself:
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
If the fruit of your belief is dividing people legally, then you are known by those grapes Eric Rudolph picked from that thornbush. Jesus told you to love your enemy and yet you want to stop them from getting married? Where is the love, ML, where is the hope in that?
Posted by: timb at November 24, 2008 08:35 AM
ML, first, you need to learn about the difference between "degree" and "kind." Accusing you of being a fundamentalist, evangelical and then listing the sins of such people is NOT accusing you of being a "domestic terrorist." ~ Posted by: timb at November 24, 2008 08:35 AM
Really now?
Build your hospitals, reform your criminals, save the drunks from drinking, build your suburban palaces to "God," but stop suicide bombing or bombing the Olympics or shooting people at Mosques (I don't suppose you need links to suicide bombing or Eric Rudolph or Baruch Goldstein do you?)~Posted by: timb at November 21, 2008 08:46 AM
First of all the “but stop suicide bombing” makes it a direct accusation that I partake of such things or condone such actions, just another of your too numerous to mention straw-man arguments.
Now in reality a place you have never been, I wonder what the number of Islamic suicide bombings last week compared to Christian suicide bombers really are? Care to guess?
So, as for you and Dar and Eric Rudolph: Opposition to homosexuality -- check
Belief abortion is murder -- check
Fundamentalist beliefs -- check
That is very weakest of analogy. First of all only timb himself defines Eric as a Christian in spite of any evidence and only because his pigeonhole argument doesn’t work without it and hasty generalizations. To call you an imbecile would a complement.
It's when people of faith start believing their beliefs mean they are better or morally superior to others that I begin to have problems.
Just another assumption to setup more straw-men, I never once said I was superior to others.
My lack of bible knowledge teaches me that all people are created in the image of God, thus we are all equal no one group or race is inherently less than others.
Morality is a different issue, I consider jihadist to be morally reprehensible, killing unarmed non-combatants is the height of cowardliness and injustice and Sharia with a woman being 1/3 of a man in court beside the many other things, I think that is morally inferior. If that is wrong then our
laws themselfs are wrong and the ten commandments are wrong and America itself is wrong.
You, my friend, are the one seeking to keep fellow citizens from exercising their personal choice in whom they marry
More illogic straw-man BS, as I have repeated ad nauseam, domestic partnerships in California have the same exact rights as heterosexual marriage, no one is being denied any “rights”.
Posted by: ML at November 26, 2008 09:21 PM