America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 6 years ago by jjanecka. 13 replies replies.
Such tolerance
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
tailgater Offline
#1 Posted: Tue, Oct 24 2017, 4:13 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
http://usa.today.e-catworld.com/latest/georgetown-promarriage-group-faces-sanctions-after-students-complain

Seems the Georgetown University's school newspaper and some campus pro-gay culture groups are fighting to ban a group called Love Saxa, which advocates for "traditional" marriage and relationships.

Quote from this "hate" group: “we believe that marriage is a conjugal union on every level – emotional, spiritual, physical and mental – directed toward caring for biological children. To us, marriage is much more than commitment of love between two consenting adults.”

Leaders of gay pride student organizations at Georgetown denounced this language as “homophobic,” and claimed it violated university standards.



I don't know anything about Love Saxa.
I don't go to Georgetown (although I once lived in Georgetown, MA).
I don't subscribe to that school newspaper.

But this is just one more example of complete and total intolerance by the group that claims the opposite.

Some people will reign the hate down on these intolerant Catholic-phobes simply because they're gay.
But even more will support them for the same reason.

I choose to point out their hypocrisy and scorn them for their militant actions.
Maybe they can hire out that would-be vile exhibitionist coffee shop owner who hates pro-life.
rfenst Offline
#2 Posted: Tue, Oct 24 2017, 4:27 PM EST
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,255
.
Krazeehorse Offline
#3 Posted: Tue, Oct 24 2017, 4:40 PM EST
Joined: 04-09-2010
Posts: 1,958
Follow Richard Spencer's travels. The guy is probably a scum bag. I'm not that well read about him. But he goes to universities where there is freedom of speech for everyone. Well, almost everyone. Sometimes you just have to suspend the constitution.
Speyside Offline
#4 Posted: Tue, Oct 24 2017, 6:11 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Meh, the school newspaper and the leaders of the gay pride organizations don't speak for the university. If Georgetown would ban the group then it becomes a freedom of speech issue. Yes, the newspaper is affiliated with Georgetown, but their opinion is not necessarily that of the university.
tailgater Offline
#5 Posted: Tue, Oct 24 2017, 8:45 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
If you google the subject you'll read headlines tying the university itself. I never saw anything of substance to suggest this, so I kept with the facts surround the "tolerance" of the groups involved.

Each of these groups should be exposed for the frauds and haters that they truly are.
SteveS Offline
#6 Posted: Wed, Oct 25 2017, 3:52 AM EST
Joined: 01-13-2002
Posts: 8,751
tailgater wrote:
Each of these groups should be exposed for the frauds and haters that they truly are.


don't count on the mainstream media to accomplish that ... newspapers will ignore it or at best, run a small story buried on an inside page ... TV will ignore it completely ... doesn't mesh with their agenda
tailgater Offline
#7 Posted: Wed, Oct 25 2017, 9:35 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
SteveS wrote:
don't count on the mainstream media to accomplish that ... newspapers will ignore it or at best, run a small story buried on an inside page ... TV will ignore it completely ... doesn't mesh with their agenda


Meanwhile, our local "news" channels show reports when some punk paints a swastika on a school wall.

Since when does petty vandalism make the evening news? Oh yeah. When it fits the narrative that Trump is a racist and the world is collapsing.

But nothing to see here folks. The news media couldn't possibly be biased...
jjanecka Offline
#8 Posted: Wed, Oct 25 2017, 10:11 AM EST
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
.
DrafterX Offline
#9 Posted: Wed, Oct 25 2017, 10:19 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,536
so, you use your hand..?? Huh
dstieger Offline
#10 Posted: Wed, Oct 25 2017, 10:38 AM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
jjanecka wrote:
Pretty sure they're gonna begin rounding us up and killing us because we believe that by definition when you have sex with a woman you're married to her and that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. The whole point of marriage is to give glory to God by raising a family, by "being fruitful" and producing offspring. A man can't even marry in the church unless it's possible for him to have intercourse.

In the words of Thomas Aquinas, it's fine to be gay, just don't act on it. One must understand that the Christian way of life requires seperating the needs of the flesh from the needs of the spirit. The two are set against each other for that reason. Restraint is the only sure way of having freedom.



While I find all of that to be some pretty goofy ****, I agree. Keep it in your ...church. Why does government have any involvement whatsoever in marriage? Ever since government invoked eminent domain or affront or whatever...and appropriated marriage and stole it from religion, we've been asking for this silliness.
Buckwheat Offline
#11 Posted: Wed, Oct 25 2017, 11:03 AM EST
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
dstieger wrote:
While I find all of that to be some pretty goofy ****, I agree. Keep it in your ...church. Why does government have any involvement whatsoever in marriage? Ever since government invoked eminent domain or affront or whatever...and appropriated marriage and stole it from religion, we've been asking for this silliness.


I agree but it really comes down to spousal benefits which are denied to gays and others because their marriages are not officially recognized by the government.
dstieger Offline
#12 Posted: Wed, Oct 25 2017, 11:05 AM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Buckwheat wrote:
I agree but it really comes down to spousal benefits which are denied to gays and others because their marriages are not officially recognized by the government.


My point extends to my opinion that there shouldn't BE any spousal benefits...not government defined, sanctioned, alloted, anyway
jjanecka Offline
#13 Posted: Wed, Oct 25 2017, 1:56 PM EST
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
Right, the government should not be the ones declaring who can get married and who cannot get married. Marriage should not be a government issue. It's a social one.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top