LGBT Demands. When Does it End?

When you talk to me about the LGBT agenda, I'm sorry and I may be judgmental but the impression I get is what is displayed in the photo above. I have to admit that I do not know the source of the photo since I could not back track it Facebook far enough to see where it came from, but the implication is that this person is clearly in a public place displaying his "coat hook" to little kids. I supposed that maybe heterosexual people want should demand from our public elected officials allow is to walk around showing our assets too. We should demand that special right that they get. This is so unfair!!! 

A few days ago, there was an article on the Huffington Post about pressure being placed on Starbucks Coffee regarding their stance on Same Sex Marriage, which is currently making it's way through the State legislature in Washington. The Huffington Post is a News and Opinion web site which is owned by AOL which is my Internet service provider. Starbucks is a business based in Seattle, Washington.

Several Christian Pastors have asked that Christians boycott Starbucks, and in their usual fashion, the people who are affectionately referred to as the "gay"stapo, or proponents of Same Sex Marriage come out of the woodwork and attacked them personally.

Well those who know me  know that I always chime in as necessary, and that usually my purpose is to challenge a view or to make you think about your view. After being attacked personally myself, I asked a simple question on the thread.

I stated plainly and clearly the following...

"“Okay, all kidding and sarcasm aside. Give me an honest answer to this question.

If Same Sex Marriage happens, what's next? Is the LGBT community satisfied and done or will there be more and more demands?

It's like no matter what you have, you demand more. In NJ for example, there are "Civil Unions." Apparently in a few areas there are problems with the CU law. Okay, fix that. Don't change the other. This is what I mean. They capitulate­d, and you're still not satisfied.

In most countries, you have two marriage ceremonies­. One at city hall, and the other at the church. In the US, the state and church act as one in cases of marriage. Doing it at one or the other are considered the same.

Remember now, first it was understand­ing that you wanted. Then acceptance­. Then the ability to rent an apartment, Then ... You get the gist. When is it "over?"

The reply I got was this...

“The problem with "civil unions" is approximat­ely 1138 federal civil rights and responsibi­lities associated with the marriage contract that aren't afforded with "civil unions" and the not-so-sma­ll matter that "separate but equal" never was equal.

You sound like the people who asked me when I was young what I, as a woman of color, was going to want next. It's always been really quite simple: Equal civil rights. Don't you find it ironic that your "the church" is less enmeshed in civil government in other nations than it is in the "Land of the Free"?

Your comments, serious or not, drip with theocratic beliefs and perspectiv­es. Are you aware just how much you share in common with the Ayatollahs­?”

End of reply.

First I take issue with the remarks against the church, and this is always a common theme with the homosexual community. Nowhere in my remark did I say that the church was against anything. I made no claim, and offered an example of how "marraiges" happen elsewhere. Out of that, we get that the church and I as a matter of fact "drip with theocratic beliefs and perspectiv­es" and the we are "Ayatollahs."

I hope not, because "Ayatollahs" would not tolerate them by speech, but would physically "take care of the problem," if you know what I mean. Can't say it because then I would be accused of being a bigot who promotes violence.

Does this have you scratching your head or what? My question of "When does it end" is never answered, and I get the name calling to boot.

As I stated in my comment, if the concept of the Civil Union is a problem, then the problems within that concept should be corrected, and not the taking of something to which you are not entitled, but still that would not be enough for them. They ask us to be tolerant of them, yet cannot tolerate our views.

When does it end? I would really like to know.