Video: Time for another “enraged anti-Prop 8 mob” video
posted at 5:37 pm on November 17, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The violence wasn’t captured on camera this time; read the boss for a description of that. The media’s unwilling to place blame where it belongs in these incidents since the identities of the harassers and harassed confound the established Narrative, so they resort instead to feeble, evenhanded tsk-tsking about how “both sides” need to “cool down.” Look out for that as the coverage of this breaks big.
There’s only one man now who can rescue Prop 8 opponents from the terrible trappings of democracy — and luckily, not only has he had a lot of practice at it, this particular issue is one of his specialties. Expect a major 5-4 equal protection decision striking down the referendum sometime next year, with you-know-who writing for the majority. A surefire consolation prize for conservatives? Angriest Scalia dissent evah.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
I went down to city hall with my cross. Some guy waved a sign in my face that said “Yes on 8 Equals Hate”.
Since he was taunting me, I ripped the sign out of his hands, stomped on it several times, and spat in his face.
Jerk.
Saltysam on November 17, 2008 at 10:21 PM
JetBoy isn’t going to answer me because I keep pointing out that he hasn’t answered the question on how silently holding a cross is the same thing as taunting and inciting.
Religious_Zealot on November 17, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Oh, and then I started yelling, “We must fight! Fight these bastards!”
Shame on them for making me do that.
Saltysam on November 17, 2008 at 10:22 PM
That’s because, historically, there has been no doubt about homosexuality being a sin.
There’s no sense in discussing something that was an accepted fact.
Religious_Zealot on November 17, 2008 at 10:22 PM
No. Not kidding. I totally support what the Christian activists stand for, but for a single woman with a cross to wade into a mob of angry gay men in this particular climate just wasn’t wise. And the group on the corner in the Castro District…they apparently were there for most of the night. They underwent hours of abuse. When they saw the direction things were heading, why didn’t they leave before the situation went totally south? Of course they have the right to go where they want to and say what they want to. And, I guess they have the right to exercise poor judgment, which I think they did.
Dee2008 on November 17, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Exactly right. We conservatives were holding our noses to vote for him even in the face of his total disgust for conservative values.
csdeven on November 17, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Well, it was THEIR fault, really.
They should have known what they were getting into.
It’s really horrible how they were there to incite a riot by taunting you with such a horrible, horrible sign.
Shame on them!!!
/channeling JetBoy
Religious_Zealot on November 17, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Well, I have to have my fun! Judaism doesn’t insist that other people believe in Judaism, and so …
thuja on November 17, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Oh, he answered it. If it’s in his home, and his church, and he feels comfortable about it, it’s fine.
If it’s held by someone in public when he’s pissed about a legal decision or electoral result, it’s taunting, inciting to riot, and deserving of assault, destruction of property, and whatever else him and his friends can get riled up enough to do.
Gee…sounds an awful lot like what they claim always happens to them. Good to know they’re taking it out on those who have done nothing to them.
MadisonConservative on November 17, 2008 at 10:25 PM
Apart from communism, I’m not aware of any philosophy, theology, religion or form of government that “insists” that other people believe in what they believe in.
Religious_Zealot on November 17, 2008 at 10:25 PM
You haven’t determined anyone’s postmortem destination and/or compared them to a hated cult leader (from what I’ve seen). Others (on both sides) have.
Yeah, I’d imagine that’s how it’s going down at most of these desks.
———————————————–
I’m surprised at a lot of you. From the beliefs I’ve read in other threads, I would think that the readership here would be against the government defining what a marriage is. You guys certainly care a lot about how the government defines something it doesn’t even have the right to define in the first place.
Well, unfortunately, this kitchen is my country and I’m not sure I like the type of political discourse that’s cookin’. It’s not your job (or anybody else’s) to judge who is a “real Christian” and who isn’t–especially based off of political views.
————————————
I expressed a similar opinion in an earlier thread on the old lady with the cardboard cross and was mocked for including that “however” (in my case it was a “but,…”). Why are these opinions shot down? Both sides are somewhat at fault. Whether you think one side is more at fault than the other (I, in that case, thought it was, of course, the people that got violent) is irrelevant. The fact is, you can’t paint it as black and white like you all so desperately want to do. You’re oversimplifying a complex issue (that goes for the protests issue, not gay marriage as whole; gay marriage is actually a very simple issue–the government has no right to make many judgment on any marriage).
malan89 on November 17, 2008 at 10:25 PM
No, you started that.
Correct.
What mob mentality are you talking about? I don’t know of any Protestant/Evangelical group who would knock a crucifix from anyone’s hand. The only mob mentality I’ve seen demonstrated is that of those who ganged up on the old woman and grabbed the cross out of her hand. Are you repudiating them now?
Now I know that you are a hypocrite but it may not be your fault. You are a product of principle-free education and thinking. Wake up, young man!
baldilocks on November 17, 2008 at 10:25 PM
Oh, I’m not knocking Judaism. I just knock anyone who claims (because some seriously do) that their religion is the “true” religion. You’re free to believe that, which makes sense because it’s what you believe, but asserting such a thing as fact is really, really deserving of a *facepalm*.
MadisonConservative on November 17, 2008 at 10:26 PM
The point is to convert them to better behavior, not to taunt. The gays themselves consider it taunting because they fail to see something’s wrong with them and automatically assume Christians just hate them (that may be the case with some, but most just honestly want to help them). Personally, I think it’s a waste of time. I follow Jesus’s “one strike and to hell with you” biblical model. If I think I’m talking to a reasonable person, I might try one serious discussion (or a bunch if the person is honestly undecided) in an attempt to turn them. If they overtly resist, fine. They can face God’s judgment instead.
BS. Much like with blacks, most modern gays have had nothing remotely serious done to them (certainly no more than they’ve done to other people). I’m sick of being stuck in identity politics to my neck everywhere I go and running into a**hole minorities who think they are owed something because of something that was done to somebody who isn’t them. Screw you all.
Uhh, are you retarded? Real jews would stone your ass to death. The only reason why “jews” have embraced “the rights of gay people” is because modern jews are a hilarious caricature of what they used to be a few thousand years ago. Heck, forget about gays, I suspect that the overwhelming majority of today’s JEWS would get executed under Moses.
Darth Executor on November 17, 2008 at 10:27 PM
There aren’t very many people here that are acting like adults.
malan89 on November 17, 2008 at 10:27 PM
New Flash: According to the bible, WE ARE IMMORAL
That still does not justify mob intimidation.
The Ugly American on November 17, 2008 at 10:28 PM
baldilocks on November 17, 2008 at 10:25 PM
God help me if I ever end up in an argument with you!
Saltysam on November 17, 2008 at 10:28 PM
Ever heard of noahides? That’s what jews expect the gentiles to be and they certainly do try to convert non-jews to it. Heck, there were a bunch of jews hanging out outside a nearby supermarket asking people if they were jews or not and giving gentiles noahide pamphlets.
Darth Executor on November 17, 2008 at 10:28 PM
Actually, it’s the “job” of every Christian to judge (i.e. DISCERN) whether someone is a real or false Christian and whether they are a real or false teacher.
And it’s not as difficult as some would suggest.
You will know a tree by the fruit it bears.
Religious_Zealot on November 17, 2008 at 10:31 PM
I’d say bantering back and forth on someone else’s blog, in our underwear, using fake names, and hiding behind our computers is probably the first clue.
Saltysam on November 17, 2008 at 10:34 PM
There IS no ‘but’ or ‘however’ – they were peaceful protesters who deserved to be left behind.
The only way there is a legitimate “but” or “however” is if we are comparing the juvenile tantrum throwers with animals who have no control over their actions.
It is quite enlightening and informative how they are attacking religion.
Religious_Zealot on November 17, 2008 at 10:36 PM
Pardon me, but I am fully clothed. Way to cold in Michigan this time of year and fuel is still expensive.
Dee2008 on November 17, 2008 at 10:36 PM
No, they exercised perfect judgment. Let the country see how far the gaystapo are willing to do.
Darth Executor on November 17, 2008 at 10:36 PM
You don’t call the shots in this particular kitchen, the private property called Hot Air LLC. You can like it or not like the political discourse here, but until the owner or one of her representatives tells me to calm down, I’ll ignore your command. Just saying.
A piece of advice, not a command: before you jump into the Kool-aid, you ought to find out what the flavor is (I hope you get the metaphor). Jetboy is the one who question the Christianity of another. I merely turned judgment back around on him. I don’t really know the state of his Christianity since the criterion has not been discussed. So if you want to give such a warning, your directing it to the wrong place.
baldilocks on November 17, 2008 at 10:36 PM
deserved to be left ALONE.
PIMF
Religious_Zealot on November 17, 2008 at 10:37 PM
your=you’re (I hate when I do that.)
baldilocks on November 17, 2008 at 10:37 PM
QFT
malan89 on November 17, 2008 at 10:37 PM
i hate it when your doing that too.
Darth Executor on November 17, 2008 at 10:38 PM
When I got home from voting, I hit my head against the wall three times, and then vowed, I will never vote for a weak Republican again.
That was the last time. Period.
The. Last. Time.
Saltysam on November 17, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Your being to much off a grammar-gestapo!
Religious_Zealot on November 17, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Good judgment if they wanted to risk bodily harm to make a point. Not so good if they thought they’d be allowed to demonstrate peacefully.
Dee2008 on November 17, 2008 at 10:41 PM
On what basis did you come to that conclusion?
This is why I back off sometimes. Cause when I’m on, I’m onnn. :-)
Backing off=good marriage training.
baldilocks on November 17, 2008 at 10:41 PM
………..Has there ever been a national gay outrage over a gay rights issue like the Prop 8 vote in California? Not to my knowledge. Am I wrong?
SC.Charlie on November 17, 2008 at 10:41 PM
You apparently aren’t following me here. In the example I used, I said Evangelicals, by vote, had “marriage” taken from them. Only Catholics can be married. And if I, as a Catholic, walk around an incensed group of Evangelicals shortly after the vote, with a crucifix (known to be more a Catholic symbol than an Evangelical one) am I acting as a true Christian should?
ROTF!!!
Perhaps I am a product of such…believe me, I argued with many a teacher, and professor in college. You should have seen me in my Govt 101 class…sheesh!
JetBoy on November 17, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Darth Gestapo!
baldilocks on November 17, 2008 at 10:43 PM
I think sometimes people forget that a basic teaching/value of Christianity is that we will be persecuted because of our beliefs and that we will be blessed when that happens:
(Matthew 5:10-12)
Religious_Zealot on November 17, 2008 at 10:44 PM
Dee2008: These people show up every Friday night to pray, sing and minister to anyone willing to listen.
Unfortunately, it appears that the gay community’s philosophy of tolerance and diversity only applies to them.
My question is, where were all the free speech gays and lesbians during this melee and why did they not step in to protect these people?
I mean, even during the midst of the L.A. Riots, you had people willing to put themselves in harms way and say enough.
The Ugly American on November 17, 2008 at 10:44 PM
JetBoy,
I’m STILL waiting for your explanation on how the mere appearance of a cross is taunting and inciting to homosexuals.
Religious_Zealot on November 17, 2008 at 10:45 PM
The question itself demonstrates the difference between what we, you and I, and, on a macro basis, Christians and Protestants, think is a “true Christian.”
baldilocks on November 17, 2008 at 10:46 PM
ad nauseum I’ve explained this. I’m done. Take my explanation, or don’t. I’m done with it.
JetBoy on November 17, 2008 at 10:48 PM
I wear a cross around my neck every day.
I do so not because I am “taunting” anyone (whatever THAT means)…
…but because Christ is my Lord and Savior.
So, should I now worry about where I go and who I run into in case they have problems with what God has to say about their behavior?
Should I take it off to be “tolerant” and “sensitive” to those who are completely intolerant and insensitive to my OWN beliefs?
Is the fractured, incorrect theology of other people supposed to override correct theology?
Religious_Zealot on November 17, 2008 at 10:49 PM
Just so you know, if the Lubavitcher Jews convince you to go Noahide, they will try to convert you Judaism in the long run.
thuja on November 17, 2008 at 10:49 PM
Repeating your sentence ad nauseum is NOT the same as explaining it.
You continue to repeat, not explain.
Unless/until you actually explain how/why silently holding a cross is akin to taunting and inciting, I will continue to ask you for an explanation.
Although, truth be told, your silence on the matter speaks more eloquently about you and your beliefs than anything you could write in a post.
Religious_Zealot on November 17, 2008 at 10:50 PM
You’re good.
You twist and manipulate like no one’s business.
Probably why I like ya.
Anyway, getting into the nitty gritty of what IS a Christian is a long debate for another time. Of course, I’m on the side of Catholicism being the one, true church…but that’s me.
But in any form of Christianity I’ve ever encountered, the cross would never be approved of as a weapon of taunting or incitement. Pure and simple.
JetBoy on November 17, 2008 at 10:52 PM
I wasn’t singling you (or anyone else) out at all. And I wasn’t referring to the discussion here at Hot Air. I was referring to the national discussion on gay marriage (um, watch the video). We’re not treating each other nicely. And I know someone’s going to come back with “but it’s not OUR side”. It doesn’t matter. Either way, we’re divided. If Prop 8 had failed, people would be just as divided (maybe not expressing their feelings in the same way, maybe doing the same–and either way, it wouldn’t define the way all pro-Prop 8 people expressed their feelings). We can’t afford divisiveness right now. Nothing wrong with disagreeing. But we still all have a vision of where we want the country to go (and none of us want gloom and doom). Like I said, we shouldn’t get so worked up about government’s definition of something they don’t even have the right to define. And this is a request (not a “command”) from someone who knows you all agree on so much more than what you disagree on to all of you: be civil.
I do it all the time. I’ve given up even previewing my comments because any error that I make will hide itself until I hit submit and I’ll notice it a second later.
——————
Again I ask–why can’t there be this much passion against Obama’s crappy tax policies or how he’s going to become Putin’s mantoy? I mean, gay marriage is what gets you worked up? Srsly?
malan89 on November 17, 2008 at 10:52 PM
JetBoy, I should also add that your disgust over the symbol of the cross (it TAUNTS! it INCITES!!) also speaks volumes about where your faith and your heart REALLY are.
It’s not Baldilocks who is questioning your Christianity.
Your own words and actions do that quite nicely.
Religious_Zealot on November 17, 2008 at 10:52 PM
LOL
malan89 on November 17, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Yet again…
…how is silently holding a cross the same as using it as a “weapon of taunting or incitement.”
For someone complaining about being judged, you sure have no problem judging other people’s motives and inner thoughts.
Religious_Zealot on November 17, 2008 at 10:55 PM
LMAO!!
JetBoy on November 17, 2008 at 10:57 PM
Stop being a tool. You know full well I never said that. Yeah, ya know, I make them cover up the crucifix hanging over the altar at church every Sunday, or I can’t go in…
JetBoy on November 17, 2008 at 11:01 PM
It should be noted that what ‘heat’ there is here on this thread really has little to do with homosexuality.
It has much, much more to do with people blaming the victims of the attacks and in absolving these anti-Prop-8 idiots of their actions.
Religious_Zealot on November 17, 2008 at 11:01 PM
I’m amazed at how easily the issue gets twisted and ends up being portrayed this way.
It is precisely the fact that the government does not have the right to “define” it, or to “re-define” it.
The people have motivated to prevent this very thing by limiting the power of the government to interfere with “marriage”.
“Marriage” has had a distinct and precise meaning that governments have been forced to recognize as a matter of common and natural law.
Saltysam on November 17, 2008 at 11:01 PM
Hey, they’re YOUR words, not mine.
If you don’t like how they sound then maybe you shouldn’t utter them.
Of course, a first step would be an attempt to articulate your emphatic misbelief that simply having a cross equates to “taunting.”
Religious_Zealot on November 17, 2008 at 11:02 PM
I’ll answer the question that you aren’t straight-forward enough to ask: Protestants think that one gets to the Kingdom of God through faith in JC alone; Catholics believe that faith is how you get their, plus some other things (not trying to argue about that). That was my only point.
I said what I said (about your question) in good faith. If you think I’m twisting something, that’s because you think that, like you, everyone avoids answering a tough question.
baldilocks on November 17, 2008 at 11:02 PM
Well, I don’t believe the cross by itself could ever represent anything but hope and the promise of new life. I do believe that in this case the woman used the cross to identify herself as a Christian. I can’t say what her intent was, but the reaction of the crowd was clear. In their anger and disappointment, they saw her as a symbol of all those who were responsible for their loss. Perhaps she didn’t know they would feel that way. Or perhaps it was a deliberate act to provoke further hurt and anger.
But here’s the thing–even if we assume she was being mean spirited (and she probably wasn’t), the behavior of the crowd bordered on criminal. They should have just ignored her.
Dee2008 on November 17, 2008 at 11:02 PM
Gotta love a few quotes from this video…
If they followed me home, they’d have the business end of my 12 gauge waiting for them. There’s no way they’d get close to hurting my family.
By what standard would they attribute shame on certain behaviors? Don’t they believe that all behavior is tolerable? Why such intolerance of intolerance?
What are the Christians doing that is hypocritical?
Send_Me on November 17, 2008 at 11:06 PM
Actually, it’s the intimidation by the ‘no on 8′ crowd that’s working me up.
I personally think that the government should remove the word ‘marriage’ for the books totally and make all things civil unions. Marriage should be the province of religious institutions. See? All you had to do was ask.
baldilocks on November 17, 2008 at 11:06 PM
You know who benefits from a gay marriage flamewar turning into an all out religion flamewar? That’s right….
malan89 on November 17, 2008 at 11:07 PM
We are in total agreement. Amazing.
malan89 on November 17, 2008 at 11:07 PM
Well said, Dee.
If the woman wanted to taunt, then she would have done something else besides silently walking among the protesters holding (clinging to?) a cross.
Now, if she was shaking the cross at the people or “preaching” about their immorality and that they are going to hell…
…then I wouldn’t be very sympathetic for what happened.
But stating that she was taunting seems to indicate a little more about the person making that statement than what was in the heart of the elderly lady.
Religious_Zealot on November 17, 2008 at 11:07 PM
I mentioned that earlier…intimidation. There’s a harsher word for that.
baldilocks on November 17, 2008 at 11:08 PM
This. I agree completely. “Marriage” should be an institution of the Church. The government should only be able to govern over civil unions.
Sir Corky on November 17, 2008 at 11:09 PM
their=there
Blame the two-buck Chuck.
baldilocks on November 17, 2008 at 11:09 PM
I solved it!
baldilocks on November 17, 2008 at 11:10 PM
Glad you two find it so funny. Marriage is a sacred ceremony created by God uniting one man and one woman. It is not a right. Those of you who practice Homosexuality and claim to be Christians will have to justify your behavior before God, just like the rest of us. I am not going to argue with you. You are so set in your beliefs it would be like putting a hat on a mule. It doesn’t make him look any better and just makes him mad. I will pray for you,
though…and this country.
kingsjester on November 17, 2008 at 11:10 PM
Oh, I’m straight-forward…(insert pun here)…I just didn’t want to veer off on a religious debate about true Christianity…which church is right.
(psst…the Catholic church)
James 2:20–“But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?”
JetBoy on November 17, 2008 at 11:10 PM
I’ve heard this particular “insult” before and it really makes absolutely no sense.
Of COURSE Christians are hypocrites.
Because, you see, EVERYONE is a hypocrite.
No one can live up to their beliefs and ideals 100% of the time.
And it’s ironic that group that preaches tolerance and love is beating up old ladies because they have the audacity to carry a cross!
Religious_Zealot on November 17, 2008 at 11:10 PM
Well, much as I’d love to continue this little tete-a-tete, it’s bedtime. It’s been interesting and I’ve actually learned a thing or two. Thanks for the debate.
Dee2008 on November 17, 2008 at 11:11 PM
I solved it!
baldilocks on November 17, 2008 at 11:10 PM
…and malan89 said there were no adults in the house.
Saltysam on November 17, 2008 at 11:13 PM
Marriage is very often a civic ceremony, granted by the state. No church need be involved.
And you’re very correct…God will be my judge. And yours. No one else.
JetBoy on November 17, 2008 at 11:14 PM
HALLELUJAH!!!….we’ve reached détente ; )
The Ugly American on November 17, 2008 at 11:15 PM
You didn’t even click on what I linked to, did you? It was something both sides of this ridiculous debate could enjoy. But, no, you just want to accuse me of being a homosexual (NTTAWWT). Go be a troll somewhere else.
malan89 on November 17, 2008 at 11:15 PM
Well, count me in, too, on the agreement.
Marriage has too many religious underpinnings to be left entirely to the state to define.
Separate the two (marriage and civil unions), let the state be in charge of licensing and assuring proper rights and privileges…
…and let the church be in the business of marrying people.
(All that said, that STILL won’t solve this problem because equal rights and privileges is NOT what these people are after.)
Religious_Zealot on November 17, 2008 at 11:15 PM
Radical Islam.
Y-not on November 17, 2008 at 11:16 PM
Exactly.
Okay…cocktail time!
The Ugly American on November 17, 2008 at 11:16 PM
Mea culpa!
Religious_Zealot on November 17, 2008 at 11:17 PM
Yes, I was wrong. This thread is like a freakin’ Coke commercial now.
malan89 on November 17, 2008 at 11:18 PM
And radical Evangelical Christianity, apparently.
JetBoy on November 17, 2008 at 11:18 PM
Don’t worry…
…I’m STILL waiting for JetBoy to elaborate on his thesis that silently holding a cross is taunting and inciting to homosexuals.
Religious_Zealot on November 17, 2008 at 11:19 PM
Apparently, “card-check” is just one Congressional session away.
Saltysam on November 17, 2008 at 11:19 PM
Yeah, I figured you just had a brain cramp. Actually, the lag time between your post and mine suggests that Hot Air posters are not the anti-Muslim hate-mongers that some of our lib trolls say we are.
Y-not on November 17, 2008 at 11:19 PM
I’m unaware of “radical, Evangelical Christianity” killing people and forcing them to convert to their religion.
Religious_Zealot on November 17, 2008 at 11:20 PM
You beat me to it.
Y-not on November 17, 2008 at 11:20 PM
See? And people say all I want to do is argue. (Well, I do but…)
I’m declaring victory. Love ya all, even you, Jetboy. :-)
baldilocks on November 17, 2008 at 11:20 PM
I am not a Troll.
I have been participating on this site since before the election. I am a Conservative Southern Christian Gentleman with an opinion on this subject. I did not say YOU were a Homosexual. I just do not believe that this is a very funny subject.
kingsjester on November 17, 2008 at 11:21 PM
Let’s close this thing.
malan89 on November 17, 2008 at 11:23 PM
And I’m not very salty.
Saltysam on November 17, 2008 at 11:23 PM
And I CERTAINLY wouldn’t label the LDS crowd as “radical evangelical Christians.”
Religious_Zealot on November 17, 2008 at 11:23 PM
Love back at ya *hug*
Victory? hmmm…
JetBoy on November 17, 2008 at 11:24 PM
Of course not. Especially not STEVE YOUNG ….
JetBoy on November 17, 2008 at 11:26 PM
*crowd*
Awwwwwwwwwwww…
The Ugly American on November 17, 2008 at 11:27 PM
I wish you would have responded, at least?
Saltysam on November 17, 2008 at 11:27 PM
Where’s a few hundred Alpha Males when you need them? Oh wait… San Francisco, OK I get it. Most asked question in good ole’ San Fran, “are you driving or am I”….
Hog Wild on November 17, 2008 at 11:28 PM
I’ll raise your hand. If only so we can all go get a drink.
Sir Corky on November 17, 2008 at 11:28 PM
If you’re speaking about what groups/affiliations/denominations voted for Prop 8, it should be noted that it consisted of more than just “radical, evangelical Christians”, unless you have a unique and very broad definition of this.
From the San Francisco Chronicle:
It appears that Catholics were one of the biggest voting blocks FOR Prop-8.
Religious_Zealot on November 17, 2008 at 11:32 PM
Oh…
…so your definition of “radical evangelical Christians” is: “all those who voted YES on Prop-8.”
Interesting.
Religious_Zealot on November 17, 2008 at 11:33 PM
Tucking myself into beddie.
Good night, God Bless, go in peace to love and serve the Lord.
Group hug? I’m doin’ it anyway…
*HUG*
‘nite.
JetBoy on November 17, 2008 at 11:34 PM
I see what you mean…
…because stating that homosexuality is a sin is SUCH a radical Christian statement.
/sarc & rolleyes
Religious_Zealot on November 17, 2008 at 11:36 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »