Gays Thread.

[Socapro]

Incredibly brave - so important to fight against discrimination and persecution.

I suspect that those lawyers are being paid handsomely by the Gay Rights movement so decided to take the money and go thru the motions.
I won't be surprised if they happily lose the case and go laughing all the way to the bank as they are Ugandan lawyers after all who know how much the vast majority of folks in the country support the Anti-Gay laws.

Yes I imagine their legal fight is funded by the Gay Rights movements and anti-discrimination groups and NGOs, just as a movement against an anti-catholic bill might receive support from the Catholic church and Catholic organisations. But given the people involved are gay themselves I doubt they will be 'laughing to the bank' as you so glibly put it. It's their lives on the line - just by simply standing out in front of the camera they face a violent backlash.

Those who fought against apartheid, slavery, and institutional racism too faced the same popular backlash, with a public whole-heartedly against their movement - did the overall majority support for slavery make it right? I mean the bible is pretty clear that you can enslave your fellow man and woman (take a sex slave alongside your wife why don't you?), so you would have been in favour for your fellow man to be enslaved?

Why are you projecting?
I simply stated my suspicion and I don't think you are correct in assuming that all those people bringing the case against the Ugandan government are gay.
We will eventually see what the out come is to see if my suspicions turn out to be correct or not.

No of course some of them are not gay, just like all those against segregation weren't black and those against slavery weren't slaves - for evil to win requires good people to stand idly by. These people, regardless of whether they are gay or not, face a violent backlash for standing up for another citizen, another human being's  rights

That is your assumption that will remain an assumption without proof.
The Ugandan people in general are pretty civilized from my observations so I would be surprised to see or hear of any violence towards anyone involved in the case.

You are shockingly ignorant.  Just google David Kato - gay rights activist in Uganda who fought a magazine that published the name and occupation of "suspected homosexuals". After winning his lawsuit, he was murdered by anti-gay protesters.

What happened to David Kato back in 2011 is highly unlikely to happen to anyone working on this case so once again I am putting it to you that you have made an assumption regards those working on this case being likely to face a violent backlash.

What do you base your assertion that it's "highly unlikely"? Kato was a very high profile rights activist, these guys are much less known both nationally and internationally. This is also a shift in your position, before you couldn't imagine such "uncivilised" behaviour, and when I point out this has happened before you claim I'm making an assumption.

I have not shifted my position. Provided it does not and has not happened in this instance, you trying to paint another victim picture is as good as a lie.
I have noticed this is a regular tactic being used by folks in the gay rights movement, always playing victim to forward their perverted agenda. You claim that you are likely to suffer violence/abuse when in reality you are the ones most likely to do the abusing once in a position of power over others and given the opportunity.

[asylumseeker]

Tiresias, nothing to state now that Congo has added his piece?

[Tiresais]

Incredibly brave - so important to fight against discrimination and persecution.

I suspect that those lawyers are being paid handsomely by the Gay Rights movement so decided to take the money and go thru the motions.
I won't be surprised if they happily lose the case and go laughing all the way to the bank as they are Ugandan lawyers after all who know how much the vast majority of folks in the country support the Anti-Gay laws.

Yes I imagine their legal fight is funded by the Gay Rights movements and anti-discrimination groups and NGOs, just as a movement against an anti-catholic bill might receive support from the Catholic church and Catholic organisations. But given the people involved are gay themselves I doubt they will be 'laughing to the bank' as you so glibly put it. It's their lives on the line - just by simply standing out in front of the camera they face a violent backlash.

Those who fought against apartheid, slavery, and institutional racism too faced the same popular backlash, with a public whole-heartedly against their movement - did the overall majority support for slavery make it right? I mean the bible is pretty clear that you can enslave your fellow man and woman (take a sex slave alongside your wife why don't you?), so you would have been in favour for your fellow man to be enslaved?

Why are you projecting?
I simply stated my suspicion and I don't think you are correct in assuming that all those people bringing the case against the Ugandan government are gay.
We will eventually see what the out come is to see if my suspicions turn out to be correct or not.

No of course some of them are not gay, just like all those against segregation weren't black and those against slavery weren't slaves - for evil to win requires good people to stand idly by. These people, regardless of whether they are gay or not, face a violent backlash for standing up for another citizen, another human being's  rights

That is your assumption that will remain an assumption without proof.
The Ugandan people in general are pretty civilized from my observations so I would be surprised to see or hear of any violence towards anyone involved in the case.

You are shockingly ignorant.  Just google David Kato - gay rights activist in Uganda who fought a magazine that published the name and occupation of "suspected homosexuals". After winning his lawsuit, he was murdered by anti-gay protesters.

What happened to David Kato back in 2011 is highly unlikely to happen to anyone working on this case so once again I am putting it to you that you have made an assumption regards those working on this case being likely to face a violent backlash.

What do you base your assertion that it's "highly unlikely"? Kato was a very high profile rights activist, these guys are much less known both nationally and internationally. This is also a shift in your position, before you couldn't imagine such "uncivilised" behaviour, and when I point out this has happened before you claim I'm making an assumption.

I have not shifted my position. Provided it does not and has not happened in this instance, you trying to paint another victim picture is as good as a lie.
I have noticed this is a regular tactic being used by folks in the gay rights movement, always playing victim to forward their perverted agenda. You claim that you are likely to suffer violence/abuse when in reality you are the ones most likely to do the abusing once in a position of power over others and given the opportunity.

There's really nothing more to say to you - you're talking absolute rubbish. ALL the evidence points to the serious physical and mental harm that the LGBT community faces in parts of the Caribbean and Africa. You are paranoid - asserting there is some secret gay conspiracy in the halls of power, whilst ignoring the weekly reports of attacks against homosexuals globally. Whenever I give you a counter-example, you gloss over it, or make crazy assertions without any supporting evidence.

Your position has no factual basis, no basis in reality. I could give you a thousand examples and you would still believe what you believe, so there's no point.

[lefty]

Tiresias, nothing to state now that Congo has added his piece?

this!........he have an agenda.......once congo say he piece..........agenda get shoot down......I have no respect for people who run away when d argument get inconvenient to dem.........it shows a lack of balls among other things.......

[Tiresais]

Tiresias, nothing to state now that Congo has added his piece?

this!........he have an agenda.......once congo say he piece..........agenda get shoot down......I have no respect for people who run away when d argument get inconvenient to dem.........it shows a lack of balls among other things.......

I'm not responding on purpose - the man has experienced psychological trauma and need professional help. To hark on him given what he's just revealed would be immoral at best. My response from now on is that he needs to engage with professionals to internalise, deal with, and move on from this, as it is currently producing this warped perception of reality.

Substitute the situation with "Black" and you get roughly why I say this - if I think all Blacks are evil and out to rob me because one violently robbed me at knife point my position would not be rationally sound but simply the product of an incredibly stressful situation. You wouldn't go "well that's totally reasonable, please continue hating/being afraid of black people"

[asylumseeker]

Tiresias, nothing to state now that Congo has added his piece?

this!........he have an agenda.......once congo say he piece..........agenda get shoot down......I have no respect for people who run away when d argument get inconvenient to dem.........it shows a lack of balls among other things.......

I'm not responding on purpose - the man has experienced psychological trauma and need professional help. To hark on him given what he's just revealed would be immoral at best. My response from now on is that he needs to engage with professionals to internalise, deal with, and move on from this, as it is currently producing this warped perception of reality.

Substitute the situation with "Black" and you get roughly why I say this - if I think all Blacks are evil and out to rob me because one violently robbed me at knife point my position would not be rationally sound but simply the product of an incredibly stressful situation. You wouldn't go "well that's totally reasonable, please continue hating/being afraid of black people"

You're full of it. First, you evade the unwanted sexual advance, then you decide to re-diagnose Congo ... as long as you arrive at a position consistent with your destination, right? Let me guess, next on the playbook is he's a hypocrite.

So now Congo has gone from needing one type of professional help (for being a "f**king psycho ... because [he's] a horrible human being") to needing professional help because he's experienced psychological trauma? Hmmm, interesting. I suppose he's in denial, huh?

To hark on it would be immoral? How about it seems unethical not to apologise given your strident selective condemnation? That would have been the stand-up thing to do.

In essence you're proselytizing; and because the Gospel according to Tiresais is not being received by the infidel, you've labelled the infidel as possessing a warped perception of reality.

I'm not going to dilute this discussion with comparisons to race because that would just blow up the spot.

[Tiresais]

Tiresias, nothing to state now that Congo has added his piece?

this!........he have an agenda.......once congo say he piece..........agenda get shoot down......I have no respect for people who run away when d argument get inconvenient to dem.........it shows a lack of balls among other things.......

I'm not responding on purpose - the man has experienced psychological trauma and need professional help. To hark on him given what he's just revealed would be immoral at best. My response from now on is that he needs to engage with professionals to internalise, deal with, and move on from this, as it is currently producing this warped perception of reality.

Substitute the situation with "Black" and you get roughly why I say this - if I think all Blacks are evil and out to rob me because one violently robbed me at knife point my position would not be rationally sound but simply the product of an incredibly stressful situation. You wouldn't go "well that's totally reasonable, please continue hating/being afraid of black people"

You're full of it. First, you evade the unwanted sexual advance, then you decide to re-diagnose Congo ... as long as you arrive at a position consistent with your destination, right? Let me guess, next on the playbook is he's a hypocrite.

So now Congo has gone from needing one type of professional help (for being a "f**king psycho ... because [he's] a horrible human being") to needing professional help because he's experienced psychological trauma? Hmmm, interesting. I suppose he's in denial, huh?

To hark on it would be immoral? How about it seems unethical not to apologise given your strident selective condemnation? That would have been the stand-up thing to do.

In essence you're proselytizing; and because the Gospel according to Tiresais is not being received by the infidel, you've labelled the infidel as possessing a warped perception of reality.

I'm not going to dilute this discussion with comparisons to race because that would just blow up the spot.

He needs professional help, my position has not changed.

[asylumseeker]

Tiresias, nothing to state now that Congo has added his piece?

this!........he have an agenda.......once congo say he piece..........agenda get shoot down......I have no respect for people who run away when d argument get inconvenient to dem.........it shows a lack of balls among other things.......

I'm not responding on purpose - the man has experienced psychological trauma and need professional help. To hark on him given what he's just revealed would be immoral at best. My response from now on is that he needs to engage with professionals to internalise, deal with, and move on from this, as it is currently producing this warped perception of reality.

Substitute the situation with "Black" and you get roughly why I say this - if I think all Blacks are evil and out to rob me because one violently robbed me at knife point my position would not be rationally sound but simply the product of an incredibly stressful situation. You wouldn't go "well that's totally reasonable, please continue hating/being afraid of black people"

You're full of it. First, you evade the unwanted sexual advance, then you decide to re-diagnose Congo ... as long as you arrive at a position consistent with your destination, right? Let me guess, next on the playbook is he's a hypocrite.

So now Congo has gone from needing one type of professional help (for being a "f**king psycho ... because [he's] a horrible human being") to needing professional help because he's experienced psychological trauma? Hmmm, interesting. I suppose he's in denial, huh?

To hark on it would be immoral? How about it seems unethical not to apologise given your strident selective condemnation? That would have been the stand-up thing to do.

In essence you're proselytizing; and because the Gospel according to Tiresais is not being received by the infidel, you've labelled the infidel as possessing a warped perception of reality.

I'm not going to dilute this discussion with comparisons to race because that would just blow up the spot.

He needs professional help, my position has not changed.

Good luck living in Trini.

[Tiresais]

Tiresias, nothing to state now that Congo has added his piece?

this!........he have an agenda.......once congo say he piece..........agenda get shoot down......I have no respect for people who run away when d argument get inconvenient to dem.........it shows a lack of balls among other things.......

I'm not responding on purpose - the man has experienced psychological trauma and need professional help. To hark on him given what he's just revealed would be immoral at best. My response from now on is that he needs to engage with professionals to internalise, deal with, and move on from this, as it is currently producing this warped perception of reality.

Substitute the situation with "Black" and you get roughly why I say this - if I think all Blacks are evil and out to rob me because one violently robbed me at knife point my position would not be rationally sound but simply the product of an incredibly stressful situation. You wouldn't go "well that's totally reasonable, please continue hating/being afraid of black people"

You're full of it. First, you evade the unwanted sexual advance, then you decide to re-diagnose Congo ... as long as you arrive at a position consistent with your destination, right? Let me guess, next on the playbook is he's a hypocrite.

So now Congo has gone from needing one type of professional help (for being a "f**king psycho ... because [he's] a horrible human being") to needing professional help because he's experienced psychological trauma? Hmmm, interesting. I suppose he's in denial, huh?

To hark on it would be immoral? How about it seems unethical not to apologise given your strident selective condemnation? That would have been the stand-up thing to do.

In essence you're proselytizing; and because the Gospel according to Tiresais is not being received by the infidel, you've labelled the infidel as possessing a warped perception of reality.

I'm not going to dilute this discussion with comparisons to race because that would just blow up the spot.

He needs professional help, my position has not changed.

Good luck living in Trini.

Hah looks like I'll need it.

[asylumseeker]

Tiresias, nothing to state now that Congo has added his piece?

this!........he have an agenda.......once congo say he piece..........agenda get shoot down......I have no respect for people who run away when d argument get inconvenient to dem.........it shows a lack of balls among other things.......

I'm not responding on purpose - the man has experienced psychological trauma and need professional help. To hark on him given what he's just revealed would be immoral at best. My response from now on is that he needs to engage with professionals to internalise, deal with, and move on from this, as it is currently producing this warped perception of reality.

Substitute the situation with "Black" and you get roughly why I say this - if I think all Blacks are evil and out to rob me because one violently robbed me at knife point my position would not be rationally sound but simply the product of an incredibly stressful situation. You wouldn't go "well that's totally reasonable, please continue hating/being afraid of black people"

You're full of it. First, you evade the unwanted sexual advance, then you decide to re-diagnose Congo ... as long as you arrive at a position consistent with your destination, right? Let me guess, next on the playbook is he's a hypocrite.

So now Congo has gone from needing one type of professional help (for being a "f**king psycho ... because [he's] a horrible human being") to needing professional help because he's experienced psychological trauma? Hmmm, interesting. I suppose he's in denial, huh?

To hark on it would be immoral? How about it seems unethical not to apologise given your strident selective condemnation? That would have been the stand-up thing to do.

In essence you're proselytizing; and because the Gospel according to Tiresais is not being received by the infidel, you've labelled the infidel as possessing a warped perception of reality.

I'm not going to dilute this discussion with comparisons to race because that would just blow up the spot.

He needs professional help, my position has not changed.

Good luck living in Trini.

Hah looks like I'll need it.

What you'll need is better judgement.

[lefty]

Tiresias, nothing to state now that Congo has added his piece?

this!........he have an agenda.......once congo say he piece..........agenda get shoot down......I have no respect for people who run away when d argument get inconvenient to dem.........it shows a lack of balls among other things.......

I'm not responding on purpose - the man has experienced psychological trauma and need professional help. To hark on him given what he's just revealed would be immoral at best. My response from now on is that he needs to engage with professionals to internalise, deal with, and move on from this, as it is currently producing this warped perception of reality.

Substitute the situation with "Black" and you get roughly why I say this - if I think all Blacks are evil and out to rob me because one violently robbed me at knife point my position would not be rationally sound but simply the product of an incredibly stressful situation. You wouldn't go "well that's totally reasonable, please continue hating/being afraid of black people"

You're full of it. First, you evade the unwanted sexual advance, then you decide to re-diagnose Congo ... as long as you arrive at a position consistent with your destination, right? Let me guess, next on the playbook is he's a hypocrite.

So now Congo has gone from needing one type of professional help (for being a "f**king psycho ... because [he's] a horrible human being") to needing professional help because he's experienced psychological trauma? Hmmm, interesting. I suppose he's in denial, huh?

To hark on it would be immoral? How about it seems unethical not to apologise given your strident selective condemnation? That would have been the stand-up thing to do.

In essence you're proselytizing; and because the Gospel according to Tiresais is not being received by the infidel, you've labelled the infidel as possessing a warped perception of reality.

I'm not going to dilute this discussion with comparisons to race because that would just blow up the spot.

He needs professional help, my position has not changed.

Good luck living in Trini.

Hah looks like I'll need it.

so d asshole dat try to assault him doh need none, he jus gay an' misunderstood, what if d situation did end bad for congo, how about dat, you f**k up oui and might be d one actually in need of help

[Tiresais]

Tiresias, nothing to state now that Congo has added his piece?

this!........he have an agenda.......once congo say he piece..........agenda get shoot down......I have no respect for people who run away when d argument get inconvenient to dem.........it shows a lack of balls among other things.......

I'm not responding on purpose - the man has experienced psychological trauma and need professional help. To hark on him given what he's just revealed would be immoral at best. My response from now on is that he needs to engage with professionals to internalise, deal with, and move on from this, as it is currently producing this warped perception of reality.

Substitute the situation with "Black" and you get roughly why I say this - if I think all Blacks are evil and out to rob me because one violently robbed me at knife point my position would not be rationally sound but simply the product of an incredibly stressful situation. You wouldn't go "well that's totally reasonable, please continue hating/being afraid of black people"

You're full of it. First, you evade the unwanted sexual advance, then you decide to re-diagnose Congo ... as long as you arrive at a position consistent with your destination, right? Let me guess, next on the playbook is he's a hypocrite.

So now Congo has gone from needing one type of professional help (for being a "f**king psycho ... because [he's] a horrible human being") to needing professional help because he's experienced psychological trauma? Hmmm, interesting. I suppose he's in denial, huh?

To hark on it would be immoral? How about it seems unethical not to apologise given your strident selective condemnation? That would have been the stand-up thing to do.

In essence you're proselytizing; and because the Gospel according to Tiresais is not being received by the infidel, you've labelled the infidel as possessing a warped perception of reality.

I'm not going to dilute this discussion with comparisons to race because that would just blow up the spot.

He needs professional help, my position has not changed.

Good luck living in Trini.

Hah looks like I'll need it.

so d asshole dat try to assault him doh need none, he jus gay an' misunderstood, what if d situation did end bad for congo, how about dat, you f**k up oui and might be d one actually in need of help

If true, it's clear the lecturer is in the initial wrong- relationships between students and lecturers are usually banned by universities as they compromise the student-lecturer relationship and undermine the unbiased of your marking. That's even before we get to the other problems here.

I'm not interested in that as much as I am the question at hand - homosexuality. The lecturer is gay, but his actions were not the product of this, just like rape is not a crime of heterosexuality if it's a woman being assaulted by a man. Sure, they require one-another - clearly a heterosexual lecturer wouldn't have approached him (depending on your definition of sexuality - a Kinsey scale renders this point less important as sexuality changes over time), but it wasn't his homosexuality that made him sexually assault Congo, just as heterosexuality is no the cause of the sexual assault of women

[Socapro]

Incredibly brave - so important to fight against discrimination and persecution.

I suspect that those lawyers are being paid handsomely by the Gay Rights movement so decided to take the money and go thru the motions.
I won't be surprised if they happily lose the case and go laughing all the way to the bank as they are Ugandan lawyers after all who know how much the vast majority of folks in the country support the Anti-Gay laws.

Yes I imagine their legal fight is funded by the Gay Rights movements and anti-discrimination groups and NGOs, just as a movement against an anti-catholic bill might receive support from the Catholic church and Catholic organisations. But given the people involved are gay themselves I doubt they will be 'laughing to the bank' as you so glibly put it. It's their lives on the line - just by simply standing out in front of the camera they face a violent backlash.

Those who fought against apartheid, slavery, and institutional racism too faced the same popular backlash, with a public whole-heartedly against their movement - did the overall majority support for slavery make it right? I mean the bible is pretty clear that you can enslave your fellow man and woman (take a sex slave alongside your wife why don't you?), so you would have been in favour for your fellow man to be enslaved?

Why are you projecting?
I simply stated my suspicion and I don't think you are correct in assuming that all those people bringing the case against the Ugandan government are gay.
We will eventually see what the out come is to see if my suspicions turn out to be correct or not.

No of course some of them are not gay, just like all those against segregation weren't black and those against slavery weren't slaves - for evil to win requires good people to stand idly by. These people, regardless of whether they are gay or not, face a violent backlash for standing up for another citizen, another human being's  rights

That is your assumption that will remain an assumption without proof.
The Ugandan people in general are pretty civilized from my observations so I would be surprised to see or hear of any violence towards anyone involved in the case.

You are shockingly ignorant.  Just google David Kato - gay rights activist in Uganda who fought a magazine that published the name and occupation of "suspected homosexuals". After winning his lawsuit, he was murdered by anti-gay protesters.

What happened to David Kato back in 2011 is highly unlikely to happen to anyone working on this case so once again I am putting it to you that you have made an assumption regards those working on this case being likely to face a violent backlash.

What do you base your assertion that it's "highly unlikely"? Kato was a very high profile rights activist, these guys are much less known both nationally and internationally. This is also a shift in your position, before you couldn't imagine such "uncivilised" behaviour, and when I point out this has happened before you claim I'm making an assumption.

I have not shifted my position. Provided it does not and has not happened in this instance, you trying to paint another victim picture is as good as a lie.
I have noticed this is a regular tactic being used by folks in the gay rights movement, always playing victim to forward their perverted agenda. You claim that you are likely to suffer violence/abuse when in reality you are the ones most likely to do the abusing once in a position of power over others and given the opportunity.

There's really nothing more to say to you - you're talking absolute rubbish. ALL the evidence points to the serious physical and mental harm that the LGBT community faces in parts of the Caribbean and Africa. You are paranoid - asserting there is some secret gay conspiracy in the halls of power, whilst ignoring the weekly reports of attacks against homosexuals globally. Whenever I give you a counter-example, you gloss over it, or make crazy assertions without any supporting evidence.

Your position has no factual basis, no basis in reality. I could give you a thousand examples and you would still believe what you believe, so there's no point.

My position has no factual basis?

Facts are none of the people on the case on behalf of the Gay Rights movement in Uganda who are opposing and fighting against the new laws have suffered any violent attacks and you are simply scare mongering as the gay rights movement usually does.

Fact also are that the Gay Rights movement are now actively seeking to victimize anyone who opposes the teaching of Gay sex as natural and healthy in schools in America and Christian teachers are now actively being prevented from getting jobs in schools.

It is an aggressive agenda that will now stop until Christian and other Religious teachings are completely driven out of all schools in America and around the world.

See video below as more evidence of the systematic victimization now taking place.

Coach Dave Ready to Lead Prayer Into America's Schools
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/QcZoVt-7KGs" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/QcZoVt-7KGs</a>

And here is the video giving us the details of the case of a Christian Coach who was not hired because of the influence the Gay and Anti-Christian lobby now have on schools in America.
Pastor Manning referred to this case in video featured above in previous post.

[Bakes]

Allyuh really need to keep quoting the entire f**king chain in each response??  This shit making each response hard to read... not that much is being said.

[Bakes]

Coach Dave Ready to Lead Prayer Into America's Schools
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/QcZoVt-7KGs" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/QcZoVt-7KGs</a>

And here is the video giving us the details of the case of a Christian Coach who was not hired because of the influence the Gay and Anti-Christian lobby now have on schools in America.
Pastor Manning referred to this case in video featured above in previous post.

Yes, he was passed over because of the Gay lobby, and not because he's a f**king moron...

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/o2SiLnhquUo" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/o2SiLnhquUo</a>

[lefty]

tiresais you readin like didn' even read or seriously consider congo's account ,therein lies d actual issue......yuh fly off d handle when the gay get assaulted, but sudden loss yuh "voice" when it became clear dat violence reciprocated violence..............a would imagine that condemnation would go both ways in such a case............so regardless of how yuh try to spin it yuh silence speakin louder than yuh words. gross hypocrisy of d highest order.

I done

[Tiresais]

tiresais you readin like didn' even read or seriously consider congo's account ,therein lies d actual issue......yuh fly off d handle when the gay get assaulted, but sudden loss yuh "voice" when it became clear dat violence reciprocated violence..............a would imagine that condemnation would go both ways in such a case............so regardless of how yuh try to spin it yuh silence speakin louder than yuh words. gross hypocrisy of d highest order.

I done

*sigh* as I've said in other threads, I am against violence in total. My reading of his account was that the lecturer panicked when he realised that the phone compromised his life, both professionally and personally, and so stole/mugged (latter meaning through use of force) the phone back. His actions were clearly not acceptable, as I've said. My "sympathy" (if you can call it that, I think the lecturer is being a prick from the first instance) with the guy is that his position is forced due to the intense homophobia he would experience were he to come out - a similar study in Jamaica ("the most homophobic place in the world") by the Human Rights Watch found that homosexuals were more likely to marry early in order to protect themselves from the intense scrutiny that might come, i.e. as a defence mechanism. This 'scrutiny' involves being hacked with machetes - one of the most recent cases was a 17 year old stabbed to death for cross-dressing.

The appropriate response to this is not to get a bunch of ex-military blokes to criminally threaten the person with a deadly weapon. Congo should have shipped him into the university and police and let them deal with it. Instead, he responded to a crime with a crime, and now has a genuine phobia of homosexuals. This isn't just a secular understanding of the law - Jesus specifically removes "An Eye For an Eye" at the Sermon on the Mount, so even within his own moral framework he is inconsistent.

This is all by-the-by, I'm not sure why you think I'm silent given my posts, but that's for you to think and feel. My main point is that Congo was clearly scarred by these events and should at least see a counsellor who might be able to help him deal with the whole incident.

[Socapro]

Coach Dave Ready to Lead Prayer Into America's Schools
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/QcZoVt-7KGs" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/QcZoVt-7KGs</a>

And here is the video giving us the details of the case of a Christian Coach who was not hired because of the influence the Gay and Anti-Christian lobby now have on schools in America.
Pastor Manning referred to this case in video featured above in previous post.

Yes, he was passed over because of the Gay lobby, and not because he's a f**king moron...

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/o2SiLnhquUo" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/o2SiLnhquUo</a>

If you took the time to properly view the video I posted you would see that he was clearly the leading candidate for the position but was victimized because of his Christian belief.

The other video you posted had little or no bearing on why he was not given the job as the school coach at the end of the day.

Point of the matter is that there is an ongoing campaign by the Gay Rights movement to remove all Christian and religious teachings from schools in America and it is now having a serious effect on those who are getting jobs.

If the coach was Gay and for the Gay Rights movement he clearly would have been given the job as he was clearly the most qualified candidate who applied.

[Tiresais]

And here is the video giving us the details of the case of a Christian Coach who was not hired because of the influence the Gay and Anti-Christian lobby now have on schools in America.
Pastor Manning referred to this case in video featured above in previous post.

Yes, he was passed over because of the Gay lobby, and not because he's a f**king moron...

If you took the time to properly view the video I posted you would see that he was clearly the leading candidate for the position but was victimized because of his Christian belief.

The other video you posted had little or no bearing on why he was not given the job as the school coach at the day.

Point of the matter is that there is an ongoing campaign by the Gay Rights movement to remove all Christian and religious teachings from schools in America and it now having a serious effect on those who are getting jobs.

If the coach was Gay and for the Gay Rights movement he clearly would have been given the job as he was clearly the most qualified candidate who applied.

Would you have a problem with a racist coach being employed? Anti-Christian coach? Anti-Islam? If a coach is expected to coach players from diverse backgrounds and sexualities, an essential qualification of the job is to be able to have a working relationship with your players.

[Bakes]

tiresais you readin like didn' even read or seriously consider congo's account ,therein lies d actual issue......yuh fly off d handle when the gay get assaulted, but sudden loss yuh "voice" when it became clear dat violence reciprocated violence..............a would imagine that condemnation would go both ways in such a case............so regardless of how yuh try to spin it yuh silence speakin louder than yuh words. gross hypocrisy of d highest order.

I done

Congo's isolated anecdotal account no more proves that gays are aggressive and violent, any more than the Ariel Castro case proves that Puerto Ricans (or heterosexuals for that matter) are violent, sexual deviants.

[Socapro]

And here is the video giving us the details of the case of a Christian Coach who was not hired because of the influence the Gay and Anti-Christian lobby now have on schools in America.
Pastor Manning referred to this case in video featured above in previous post.

Yes, he was passed over because of the Gay lobby, and not because he's a f**king moron...

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/o2SiLnhquUo" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/o2SiLnhquUo</a>

If you took the time to properly view the video I posted you would see that he was clearly the leading candidate for the position but was victimized because of his Christian belief.

The other video you posted had little or no bearing on why he was not given the job as the school coach at the day.

Point of the matter is that there is an ongoing campaign by the Gay Rights movement to remove all Christian and religious teachings from schools in America and it now having a serious effect on those who are getting jobs.

If the coach was Gay and for the Gay Rights movement he clearly would have been given the job as he was clearly the most qualified candidate who applied.

Would you have a problem with a racist coach being employed? Anti-Christian coach? Anti-Islam? If a coach is expected to coach players from diverse backgrounds and sexualities, an essential qualification of the job is to be able to have a working relationship with your players.

My problem is that he was clearly the BEST man for the job but was victimized because of his Christian belief.

If he was Gay and clearly the best man for the job I would have similarly expected him to get the job provided he would not have allowed his personal sexual life style to influence how well and unbiased he was going to perform his job on a professional level.

[Tiresais]

And here is the video giving us the details of the case of a Christian Coach who was not hired because of the influence the Gay and Anti-Christian lobby now have on schools in America.
Pastor Manning referred to this case in video featured above in previous post.

Yes, he was passed over because of the Gay lobby, and not because he's a f**king moron...

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/o2SiLnhquUo" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/o2SiLnhquUo</a>

If you took the time to properly view the video I posted you would see that he was clearly the leading candidate for the position but was victimized because of his Christian belief.

The other video you posted had little or no bearing on why he was not given the job as the school coach at the day.

Point of the matter is that there is an ongoing campaign by the Gay Rights movement to remove all Christian and religious teachings from schools in America and it now having a serious effect on those who are getting jobs.

If the coach was Gay and for the Gay Rights movement he clearly would have been given the job as he was clearly the most qualified candidate who applied.

Would you have a problem with a racist coach being employed? Anti-Christian coach? Anti-Islam? If a coach is expected to coach players from diverse backgrounds and sexualities, an essential qualification of the job is to be able to have a working relationship with your players.

My problem is that he was clearly the BEST man for the job but was victimized because of his Christian belief.

If he was Gay and clearly the best man for the job I would have similarly want him to get the job provided he would not have allowed his personal sexual life style to influence how well on unbiased he was going to perform his job on a professional level.

I understand your concern here - you see it as discrimination against his Christian beliefs, but my counter still stands - if the university wants gay players not to be discriminated against then he is clearly not hte best man for the job regardless of his qualifications.

Again - if he was racist with teh same qualifications would he be the best man for the job?

[lefty]

tiresais you readin like didn' even read or seriously consider congo's account ,therein lies d actual issue......yuh fly off d handle when the gay get assaulted, but sudden loss yuh "voice" when it became clear dat violence reciprocated violence..............a would imagine that condemnation would go both ways in such a case............so regardless of how yuh try to spin it yuh silence speakin louder than yuh words. gross hypocrisy of d highest order.

I done

Congo's isolated anecdotal account no more proves that gays are aggressive and violent, any more than the Ariel Castro case proves that Puerto Ricans (or heterosexuals for that matter) are violent, sexual deviants.

wasn't my point, was speakin specifically about him appearing to gloss over the fact that the "wrong" went both ways.............I think I made it clear that I am not anti-gay or anti gay rights so it was an attempt to demonize anyone.....was addressin the imbalance in his responses to congo's initial comments and eventual qualification of said comments

dais all

[Socapro]

And here is the video giving us the details of the case of a Christian Coach who was not hired because of the influence the Gay and Anti-Christian lobby now have on schools in America.
Pastor Manning referred to this case in video featured above in previous post.

Yes, he was passed over because of the Gay lobby, and not because he's a f**king moron...

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/o2SiLnhquUo" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/o2SiLnhquUo</a>

If you took the time to properly view the video I posted you would see that he was clearly the leading candidate for the position but was victimized because of his Christian belief.

The other video you posted had little or no bearing on why he was not given the job as the school coach at the day.

Point of the matter is that there is an ongoing campaign by the Gay Rights movement to remove all Christian and religious teachings from schools in America and it now having a serious effect on those who are getting jobs.

If the coach was Gay and for the Gay Rights movement he clearly would have been given the job as he was clearly the most qualified candidate who applied.

Would you have a problem with a racist coach being employed? Anti-Christian coach? Anti-Islam? If a coach is expected to coach players from diverse backgrounds and sexualities, an essential qualification of the job is to be able to have a working relationship with your players.

My problem is that he was clearly the BEST man for the job but was victimized because of his Christian belief.

If he was Gay and clearly the best man for the job I would have similarly want him to get the job provided he would not have allowed his personal sexual life style to influence how well on unbiased he was going to perform his job on a professional level.

I understand your concern here - you see it as discrimination against his Christian beliefs, but my counter still stands - if the university wants gay players not to be discriminated against then he is clearly not hte best man for the job regardless of his qualifications.

Again - if he was racist with teh same qualifications would he be the best man for the job?

What makes you assume that he would have discriminated against Gay students?
Would have been better to fairly give him the job and then if he committed such an offense in the future, discipline/dismiss him for not being totally professional in doing his job.
I don't think his track record shows anywhere in the past that he has discriminated against Gay students in the course of doing his job.
This is what bothers me with the Gay Rights movement. You complain about being discriminated against and are always quick to play the victim card even when you have not been victimized and are being treated fairly but will discriminate against others if placed in a position of power at the blink of an eye.

[Bakes]

If you took the time to properly view the video I posted you would see that he was clearly the leading candidate for the position but was victimized because of his Christian belief.

The other video you posted had little or no bearing on why he was not given the job as the school coach at the end of the day.

If you took the time to watch the video and think for yourself you would understand:

1) The other video is sympathetic to his cause so of course it would skew the facts in his favor.  The video paints this rejection as being premised on his faith, when in fact there are ample reasons why this idiot should not be on the public payroll, say nothing of being let anywhere to coaching children.

2) That you would say that the video I posted does not explain why he was not hired, serious calls into question your intelligence.  Maybe you didn't watch the video, but in it he justifies the need for bullying in society.  This at a time when bullying is the chief emerging problem in American schools.  So painting by numbers for you... schools are fighting a growing problem where bullying threatens the proper administration of the school environment, where a number of students have been assaulted, killed and pressured into suicide, and here you have this idiot coach tacitly encouraging bullying... and yet you don't think the school had a legitimate reason to reject him?  Are you even being serious?  You can't see how the video I posted helps explain his rejection?

And that's not even the half of it.  This coach forced his players to pray with him... which as a Christian might be acceptable, but what if he was muslim and he forced your child to pray to Allah?  What if he was a Satanist and he forced your child to pray to Satan?  This might be hard for you to understand, but the US Constitution says that there must be a separation of Church and State... the State can't go into a Church and tell them what to pray or how to pray, and conversely, the "Church" cannot intrude into PUBLIC schools and force prayer on anyone.

[Tiresais]

And here is the video giving us the details of the case of a Christian Coach who was not hired because of the influence the Gay and Anti-Christian lobby now have on schools in America.
Pastor Manning referred to this case in video featured above in previous post.

Yes, he was passed over because of the Gay lobby, and not because he's a f**king moron...

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/o2SiLnhquUo" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/o2SiLnhquUo</a>

If you took the time to properly view the video I posted you would see that he was clearly the leading candidate for the position but was victimized because of his Christian belief.

The other video you posted had little or no bearing on why he was not given the job as the school coach at the day.

Point of the matter is that there is an ongoing campaign by the Gay Rights movement to remove all Christian and religious teachings from schools in America and it now having a serious effect on those who are getting jobs.

If the coach was Gay and for the Gay Rights movement he clearly would have been given the job as he was clearly the most qualified candidate who applied.

Would you have a problem with a racist coach being employed? Anti-Christian coach? Anti-Islam? If a coach is expected to coach players from diverse backgrounds and sexualities, an essential qualification of the job is to be able to have a working relationship with your players.

My problem is that he was clearly the BEST man for the job but was victimized because of his Christian belief.

If he was Gay and clearly the best man for the job I would have similarly want him to get the job provided he would not have allowed his personal sexual life style to influence how well on unbiased he was going to perform his job on a professional level.

I understand your concern here - you see it as discrimination against his Christian beliefs, but my counter still stands - if the university wants gay players not to be discriminated against then he is clearly not hte best man for the job regardless of his qualifications.

Again - if he was racist with teh same qualifications would he be the best man for the job?

What makes you assume that he would have discriminated against Gay students?
Would have been better to fairly give him the job and then if he committed such an offense in the future, discipline/dismiss him for not being totally professional in doing his job.
I don't think his track record shows anywhere in the past that he has discriminated against Gay students in the course of doing his job.
This is what bothers me with the Gay Rights movement. You complain about being discriminated against and are always quick to play the victim card even when you have not been victimized and are being treated fairly but will discriminate against others if placed in a position of power at the blink of an eye.

So if you had two candidates, Candidate A is better qualified, but has used twitter and facebook to say things like "Blacks are the inferior race", whilst candidate B has no such comments in their social media, you would pick Candidate A?

[Socapro]

If you took the time to properly view the video I posted you would see that he was clearly the leading candidate for the position but was victimized because of his Christian belief.

The other video you posted had little or no bearing on why he was not given the job as the school coach at the end of the day.

If you took the time to watch the video and think for yourself you would understand:

1) The other video is sympathetic to his cause so of course it would skew the facts in his favor.  The video paints this rejection as being premised on his faith, when in fact there are ample reasons why this idiot should not be on the public payroll, say nothing of being let anywhere to coaching children.

2) That you would say that the video I posted does not explain why he was not hired, serious calls into question your intelligence.  Maybe you didn't watch the video, but in it he justifies the need for bullying in society.  This at a time when bullying is the chief emerging problem in American schools.  So painting by numbers for you... schools are fighting a growing problem where bullying threatens the proper administration of the school environment, where a number of students have been assaulted, killed and pressured into suicide, and here you have this idiot coach tacitly encouraging bullying... and yet you don't think the school had a legitimate reason to reject him?  Are you even being serious?  You can't see how the video I posted helps explain his rejection?

And that's not even the half of it.  This coach forced his players to pray with him... which as a Christian might be acceptable, but what if he was muslim and he forced your child to pray to Allah?  What if he was a Satanist and he forced your child to pray to Satan?  This might be hard for you to understand, but the US Constitution says that there must be a separation of Church and State... the State can't go into a Church and tell them what to pray or how to pray, and conversely, the "Church" cannot intrude into PUBLIC schools and force prayer on anyone.

I did not watch the second video you posted because as far as I am aware the coach supposed support of bullying was not an issue raised with him not being given the coaching job and he was basically narrowed down as the best candidate for the job before suddenly not being given the job at the last minute.
The reason given for it was his Christian values and likeliness to try to impart some of those values onto his students rather than his supposed stance on bullying.

Its Saturday and I am here looking at football and doing a number of things while also posting to this discussion board so will try to look at the video you posted later when I can concentrate on it to see if it bears any relevance to him not being given the job. I some how doubt it has any connection as his stance on bullying was not the reason given for him not getting the job at the last minute.

PS: Btw I hope you realize that Allah is just the same God that Christians prayer to by a different name.

[Bakes]

I coming back with mih observations on the vid in a bit.

1. “the family is threatened”

Where is his proof that the "family" is being threatened by the "gay agenda"?  As opposed to say, divorce, incest, infidelity and out of wedlock births?

2. The American people have said they don’t want to change the definition of marriage

Meaningless... in the 60s "the American people" also said they didn't want interracial marriage... or equal rights for black people for that matter.  The will of the majority is a persuasive, not mandatory authority.

3. The rationale for gay marriage can used can be used to justify any deviancy

Begins with the disavowed premise that homosexuality is "deviant" behavior.  We may think of it as morally or statistically deviant, but again... the exact thing was used to argue against interracial marriages.  In fact, nothing prevents the same arguments from being made today.  Bottom line is that sex between two consenting adults is in no way comparable between sex between an adult and a child, or sex betrween a human and an animal.  The argument fails on its face.

4. Movement to legitimize pedophilia- 2011 group seeking to normalize sexual relations with children

5. Patent nonsense... the symposium was held to promote the need for treatment for people sexually attracted to children, so that they could be helped BEFORE they act on their attraction.  Even if you wanted to argue the the goals of ThinkB4Uact are nefarious... one symposium, by one organization hardly constitutes a "movement".  You can't even argue "that's how it starts" because 3 years later and there has been no momentum or follow up.

6. In Berkeley two lesbians trying to turn 11-year old boy into a girl, drugs/surgery, no one objecting

Actually, people are objecting... but this was done after consultation with medical professionals, prompted by the little boy threatening to cut off his own penis.  Say what you will of the story, but it's hardly proof of a deviant conspiracy by "the gay agenda."

7. “Bathroom laws” part of a campaign to abolish gender distinctions

While I don't agree with the law, I'm not that opposed to it either.  But all that aside, transgendered people are not "gay", therefore this has nothing to do with a "gay agenda"... only an ignorant person would confuse the two.

8. No more “mother” and “father” now “parent 1” and “parent 2”

And this is evidence of a gay agenda??

9. What starts as asking for tolerance demands obedience

When it comes to laws, yes... but people are still free to think/believe what they want.  Civil Rights laws have hardly stopped the incidence of racism in society.  So much for the "obedience" talk.

10.  Persecution of Christianity- churches will be prosecuted

Foolishness.  Addressed elsewhere there is no evidence of this happening.  The separation of church and state has already been discussed on the other thread... no need for more explanation here.

11. Free speech and freedom of religion undermined by gay agenda

Again... patent foolishness.  See above.

Over to you now Socapro... defend the "points" yuh in agreement with.  I firmly expect yuh to shrink from the task.

[Bakes]

I did not watch the second video you posted because as far as I am aware the coach supposed support of bullying was not an issue raised with him not being given the coaching job and he was basically narrowed down as the best candidate for the job before suddenly not being given the job at the last minute.

You clearly picking and choosing what evidence is out there to support your own bias and ignorance.  The coach's stance on this and several other issues are well known and highly controversial.  He was the former coach of a CHRISTIAN school... where he was free to talk about Jesus and preach the bible all he want.  That school FIRED him... you need to look into why that is.  Maybe the fault is with the man himself.  But nah... is because he Christian.  The gays at his former Christian school get him fired.  Nonsense.  He was the leading candidate according to the School Superintendent.  The Superintendent does not have the unilateral authority to hire and fire... the School Board does. There was ample reasons to not hire this fool... you need to educate yourself on the issues instead of watching nonsense videos and assuming. 

The reason given for it was his Christian values and likeliness to try to impart some of those values onto his students rather than his supposed stance on bullying.

Foolishness.  These 'reasons' were given where?  You have proof... or yuh just going by what was said in the video?

Its Saturday and I am here looking at football and doing a number of things while also posting to this discussion board so will try to look at the video you posted later when I can concentrate on it to see if it bears any relevance to him not being given the job. I some how doubt it has any connection as his stance on bullying was not the reason given for him not getting the job at the last minute.

PS: Btw I hope you realize that Allah is just the same God that Christians prayer to by a different name.

I hope you realize that there are serious differences between Islam and Christianity beyond the name by which each calls its Supreme Being.  Islam is not compatible with Christianity just as Judaism is not compatible with Christianity, given that both of those other religions deny the deity of Christ.

[Bakes]

Lakewood school board won’t hire Daubenmire as football coach


HEBRON, Ohio — It appears that the two great passions of Dave Daubenmire’s life — coaching and preaching — are incompatible, at least to three of the five board members of Lakewood Local Schools.

The board voted 3-2 tonight to reject Superintendent Jay Gault’s recommendation to hire the controversial Daubenmire as Lakewood High School’s head football coach.

Daubenmire, 61, has been a provocative figure since 1997 when, as coach of London High School, complaints about him praying with the football team prompted the American Civil Liberties Union to sue the district.

That suit was settled out of court in 1999, and Daubenmire was given another one-year coaching contract with the promise that he’d stop praying with his players. But in early 2000, after leading his team to an undefeated season, he resigned.

Almost immediately, Daubenmire started Pass the Salt Ministries, and later another group, Minutemen United, drawing both followers and critics with his conservative Christian views.

In 2007, Minutemen United drew headlines for interrupting services at churches in Granville and Columbus that welcomed gay members.

He often speaks of manhood and the “sissification” of today’s boys.

In a video posted last summer, he said the women’s movement came along “because the men withdrew and ran back in the closet and hid behind their wives’ skirts.”

Many of those things were brought up last night in Lakewood High’s gym as 22 members of an audience that exceeded 100 stood to speak to the board. Of those impassioned speakers, nine, including Elyzabeth Holford, the executive director of Equality Ohio, urged the board to vote no.

Thirteen spoke in favor of Daubenmire, many of whom cited his success on the field. He coached at Heath High from 1982 to 1988 before taking over at London, where he coached for the next 11 seasons, guiding that team to the playoffs five times between 1992 and 1999.

Most recently, he started the football program at Fairfield Christian Academy in Lancaster in 2008, going 23-8 with two playoff appearances in his final three seasons before he was fired after the 2012 season, citing a difference of opinion with the administration.

“It’s time to get this right,” said Mark Nichols, a football booster. “Our kids deserve the best. Hire the best. I believe that’s Dave Daubenmire.”

Daubenmire, who lives in Hebron and is a Lakewood grad, gave a loud, fiery appeal on his behalf.

Board members Judy White, Trisha Good and Bill Gulick voted against hiring Daubenmire. Tim Phillips and Forrest Cooperrider were in favor of the $5,520 one-year contract.

-------------------

Note that is says NOTHING about his Christian faith or a a "gay agenda"... I await your proof that he was fired because of his faith.