What do you think. I see the argument of two wrongs don't make a right, but at the same time, it's a bit of a taste of their own medicine.
Members of the Boston Satanic Church performed a "Pink Mass", which is a same sex marriage over the grave of the WBC's founder's mother.
http://gawker.com/satanists-turn-wbc-fo … socialflow
This has to be one of the sickest, most perverse things ever done.
Doesn't matter if it is the mother of Phelps; doesn't matter what she was like or wasn't like; those evil people need their nasty hind ends peppered with gunshot. Nobody better even try to tell me that kind of crap is covered under "freedom of speech".
I don't know. I don't see this as any more disrespectful to the beliefs of others than what the WBC does. Actually, it is more respectful. They aren't chanting horrible things at a funeral. Whether or not I agree with their beliefs isn't the question. This looks like a tit for tat scenario to me.
You just don't get it, do you? And liberals claim to not get it. But indeed they do get it.
BOTH sets of people are engaging in harrassment, bullying, public defamation of character, and more criminal activities. Neither group has any moral right to do what they do, and they wouldn't have any legal right to do so IF the liberal agenda would prosecute the WBC. And why don't they? Because then they themselves would have to behave or be prosecuted. Ya see, they don't give a whit about common decency nor about the average human being, even. They have no shame. They whine and holler about "civil rights", but the truth is that they just don't care about anything or anybody except whoever will give them their next perverted sexual thrill.
I'm not saying the Boston Satanic Church is going about it the right way, though they are essentially protesting a hate group.
But it's interesting that a group so misinterpreted as hateful is protesting a truly hateful group with a union of love.
I understand your outrage. But, I don't see the dilemma over freedom of speech as a liberal agenda. I hate.everything the WBC stands for. But, you've seen how other things go when you start making exceptions to the law where freedom is concerned. If we say the WBC can't demonstrate and these knuckleheads can't retaliate with an in their face protest...where does it end? I'll tell you.
Sooner or later it will be against the law for you to post a Christian comment on Hub Pages. Because someone will insist your view is offensive. They'll take it to court and win. Because there is precedent. The WBC was offensive and they were forced into silence. Then you can retaliate. Some atheist irritates you and you get it illegal for them to share their views. The next thing you know, babies will start being born with no tongues. They don't need them. Because every view is offensive to someone and we haven't spoken in years.
Sometimes silence would be golden. There are things that should never pass a person's lips. The things the gay agenda say is one of them. The things the WBC says is another one of those.
As far as babies born without tongues.......I know you were making a metaphor..........but the liberal agenda doesn't even care if babies are born, period, so that's not a good comparison when it comes to the Left's claim to be fighting for civil rights like free speech etc.
Edit--------the spreading of the Gospel by Christians isn't even comparable to those two horrid groups, so I'm not gonna even get into that except to say that Christians have a moral right to speak about the Lord no matter who or what tries to take away our freedom of speech. To throw Christianity onto the same balance scale as those two groups would be to cater to the same wrong comparisons that those two groups are trying to force upon us all.
you're right! I'm left. I don't care if babies are born! They should just be reabsorbed into uteri!
No but seriously, you can't make a statement saying people to the left don't care if babies are born. We care so much if babies are born that we want to protect the mothers' right to have the baby when IT IS RIGHT FOR THEM, and for the baby. If one is in a situation of an accidental pregnancy whether it be rape or not, the mother should have the right to prove her competency enough to decide if she can provide a good upbringing for a life. It is also up to the mother and her doctors as to whether or not she is in a healthy enough state to bring in a child.
so it's ok to bring a child into a world when the parents are ill-equipped to raise it?
This is way off topic
Yeah, its ok. There is always adoption.
Unique concept, I know.
Mind your own business is a unique concept too. Force others into poverty by making long term life decisions on their behalf against their better judgment is a unique concept.
Oh. Wait. Maybe it isn't so unique. Pro lifers do want it to be an every day occurrence.
What judgement? Laid down got pregnant when they couldn't afford the child.
Again, what judgement?
It isn't butting into anybodies business to answer a question on a forum.
You will respond but it will never change the fact that stupid people will always make stupid decisions and look for the easy way out.
Right there. Looking at someone else's life and commenting on it in a derogatory manner.
No. However, by commenting as you did you make it clear you have no problem commenting on other people's business. Any woman who has had an abortion will feel as if you are talking about her.
Stupid is another judgment. Thanks for proving my point.
You obviously didn't follow along, judgement as in good judgement or bad judgement.
Like this for instance
"Force others into poverty by making long term life decisions on their behalf against their better judgment".
So I ask again what judgement? If you're poor and cannot afford to have a child then you should use one of the other CHEAPER forms of birth control!
Or not engage in acts that might cause pregnancy.
Use some GOOD JUDGEMENT!
It has been my observation that pro lifers are either men (who have no right to an opinion, since they are not in jeopardy of having others force their views on them on this issue) or women who have had abortions and are embarrassed to admit it to the world. Shoving their regrets into other people's lives. I'm curious. Do you fall into either category?
You are confused, I am a man and I have every right to an opinion!
Who are you to tell me I don't?
Really doesn't matter because I have an opinion and I will express it to you or whoever.
What are you going to do about it?
The question is rhetorical, you aren't and can't do anything about it!
Must drive you nuts that a man just signed into law today abortion restrictions.
Tell me again how we can't have an opinion.
sometimes it's not a stupid decision. Sometimes it's pure accident, even though all the appropriate measures have been taken. I have a sister who was on birth control as well as used a condom. Pregnancy happened. Or how about those girls that have had the horrendously unfortunate luck of getting raped? It's not about good judgement, sometimes it happens, and a person isn't able to take care of a child, or perhaps cannot physically bear a child because it will kill them.
I think if you look at the statistics you will find that most abortions are performed because the child would hamper the woman's lifestyle.
In other words, for frivolous reasons.
Rape/sex abuse of any type is a very infrequent reason for abortions.
This is true. It's been true ever since the advent of approved abortion, and even before.
Advocates of baby-killing tried, and keep trying, to cover their wrong thinking with any distraction that they can come up with.
These facts are told in "Jane Roe's" books "I Am Roe" and "Won By Love". But even her opinions (she, the "Roe" of Roe v. Wade, have been shoved under the carpet by the current of evil that allows babies to be killed legally.
Why are YOU obsessed with abortions? It is NOT even the TOPIC of discussion. What a woman elects to do with HER body, NOT YOURS, is HER business. A woman has the right to an abortion if she deems to be so. Mind YOUR business and live YOUR life. If one lives one's live fully and well, one has little time to mind other people's business. A woman having an abortion does not affect you or others. It is HERS to own!
THANK YOU a million times. Prolifers have INVERSE LOGIC. Their mantra is that if one gets pregnant for whatever reason, endure it and have the baby although the mother isn't ready for the child or conditions are unfeasible to bring the child into the world. Children should be planned and wanted; in addition to that, socioeconomic conditions must be in order before considering having children. Children should be brought up in only the most conducive psychological, emotional, mental, and socioecnomic environment possible.
Emile R, SOME people DON'T get it! They were asleep in sociology class that day! IGNORE such people. I, you and other prochoice people believe that children should have a great quality of life with all the socioeconomic opportunities available. Prolifers believe in LIFE-doesn't matter to them if the child grows up in abuse and socioecononmic squalor and impoverishment with poor nutrition, food, health care, and an overall poor quality of life. Those issues are amiss with prolifers- all they want is for chidren to be born although they are unwanted. To them, it is not the QUALITY of life, it is the QUANTITY of life.
MY and YOUR final answer to such intrusively zealous and atavistic prolifers should be:
It's okay, it's not like orphanages are already overflowing with malnourished and neglected children.
I know. They want to run their mouths, point the finger and scream murderer. But.......how many pro lifers actually go out of their way to make the lives of the children of unwed mothers, kids in orphanages or foster homes better? I'd bet less than 1%.
You mean like in Romania or Africa?
Certainly not a problem in the U.S.
Zelkiiro, as my father said, sense can always learn from nonsense but nonsense CAN'T learn from sense. Some people are set in their ways, living in medieval times and having a similar morality instead of living in the 21st century. Such people are dying out and will soon become extinct! Ignore!
I think you are a bit harsh concerning liberals and babies. I think liberals care about both parties involved. But, freedom of speech isn't something to be tinkered with. We either have it or we don't. I would fight tooth and nail for your right to offend me by speaking your mind (which you do. Quite often). After I'd helped secure that right I would simply turn a deaf ear because if I choose to be offended whose fault is that? Mine.
Everyone has a right to voice their opinion.
Um, nope. The responsibility for the offense still belongs to the person or persons who committed the offense, IF indeed the offense is an actual offense.
For instance, the WBC and the gay activists actually do say and do offensive things.
I, however, do not say anything that should offend you. In that case, yes, that's your responsibility, not mine.
Remember ya can't validly compare Christianity with obscenity and harrassment.
Ah, hypocrisy knows no bounds for believers.
First of all, Brenda, the ceremony is covered under 'freedom of religion', the very same freedoms you yourself enjoy and exploit at every opportunity.
Secondly, you speak about common decency, yet you lash out at homosexuals all the time, and much worse, you want to censor them because you believe they have a 'gay agenda', whatever that is.
Lastly, yes, spreading the gospel is no different in regards to how folks abuse their rights, whether freedom of speech or freedom of religion. You have no more or less rights to speak about your lord than the Satanists and the WBC. We could very well say the same thing about evangelism, that "silence would be golden".
Eh, nope you can't, not and be correct.
You may try to equate Christianity with Satanism and with the bullying WBC and with the radical homosexual movement, but you would be wrong on all counts.
No, I'm pretty sure he's right and your argument has no legs to stand on.
Actually, in the case of freedoms of speech, religion, and expression, they kinda are because just like you and I have the right to practice Christianity and express our views of the things we disagree with, the WBC, Satanism, and Homosexuals have those same constitutional rights (whether we personally, spiritually, or philosophically agree with them or not) as long as they are not causing physical harm to others or damage to property or rioting.
I agree it's not freedom of speech. But it is a union of love over some one's grave. I'd honestly feel honored if weddings of any sort were performed over my grave
How does it violate free speech? Granted its the dumbest shit Ive ever heard of but not sure about the free speech issue.
Can one say juvenile, high school and college antics worthy of frat house behavior? C'mon now, so silly indeed. That's all it is really!
It's a crazy world we live in. I must say I find the idea disturbing and somewhat hypocritical. Satanic love? Now there's an oxymoron for you if ever there was one. On the other hand the brand of Christian hate WBC espouses is also an oxymoron. Somehow I have a vision that at the end of days these two groups will be locked in a room with each other for eternity. But it is a free country and a person/group can do pretty much whatever they please. I'm just glad I don't live near any such whackos---but wait! Burning man is just around the corner! Oh my!
All I see in this story is people who desperately want attention getting it.
I think the pink mass stupidity would pretty much go away if ignored. Now it has media attention the poor woman's grave will be a loony magnet.
Maybe I just have a severely macabre (or juvenile) sense of humor, but the mental image I get from this description is EXTREMELY effin' funny.
How sad. How would you like to get married as part of a plan to attack someone else's beliefs? WBC is as strange a notion to me as the group having the marriage ceremonies. I think that if we live life and come to a conclusion that it's purpose is to hate, then either our perspective of life or our life must be pretty sick.
But I suppose it is good for all of us to see these people in action. Because it helps us see these wild ideas in our heads and the logical conclusion if we follow them. Sometimes hate creeps into my thoughts, by seeing these folks I can immediately reject that hate because I can see what it does in the end.
I always figured a grave was private property of somebodies. Don't you buy a plot? Isn't it like condominiums? So isn't doing what they did the same as going into a house. Clearly it is trespass with the intent of doing harm.
Rather than satanic, I have to say it's pathetic.
There are ways of drawing attention to yourself, and there are ways of drawing scorn on yourself. It's more a case for the shrink than an outrage. If no-one paid attention to them, that would irk them no end! After all, why do you suppose the act was performed, if it wasn't to grab everyone by the b***s and say,
'Aren't we a shocking bunch of so-and-so's?!'
Best just to draw a veil over it and consign it to the rubbish/trash tip of history...
I absolutely despise the WBC. They're nothing but a cheap hate group who enjoys going around disrespecting the dead and harassing people mourning loved ones.
This particular protest, however (which I believe was NOT a same sex marriage per se as has been reported, but a ceremony celebrating same sex love) is also disrespecting the dead. Going to somebody's grave site and doing something you know would offend them and their family is disrespecting the dead.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Descending to your enemy's level doesn't make you better than them. It makes you worse, because you're supposed to know better.
(And hey, an on topic response. Can we shoo the abortion discussion off to, you know, a thread about abortion, please?)
by Felixedet20004 years ago
What do you think about the promotion of same sex marriage?The adoption of this pattern of marriage is also a source of concerns to various stake holders in the religious and political circles.What is you say in all...
by Nicola Thompson3 years ago
Just after Same-Sex marriage was legalized in California - It's been immediately asked to be "intervened by the court". Should it be? After all, isn't that how a democracy works?
by Innuentendre4 years ago
If incest laws were created to prevent inbreeding and same sex couples are at no risk of doing so, should same sex marriage laws supersede incest laws?
by mohamedhmm7 years ago
I believe we are as human kind we should defend our human rights and our wellness from any harmful act such as same sex; so, let's come together to protect our human rights and keep our society safe for us and next...
by mdawson177 years ago
In my own personal belief I do not think that the marriage of the same sex was ever blessed by God. I am curious what my fellow hubbers response would be if they were asked if same sex marriage was ok in the eyes of God?
by Ralph Deeds5 years ago
As gay rights advocates intensify their campaign to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, the bulk of their money is coming from an unexpected source: a group of conservative financiers and wealthy donors to the...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.