religious rights

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Nice avatar.

s.

fnnaaarrrr fnnaaarrrr
Mmmmmmm snoopy...nice 4 legged name....
whistles and shouts "heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere boy"

[InLove]

Hi Everyone, and Peace to all Here.

I was not going to involve myself in this thread any more than I already have, but there are things left unsaid that I feel should be addressed. I know they may prove unpopular, but there are times when one should speak up. So my spirit will be disturbed until I do. So, here goes:

I can understand why a religious organization such as the Catholic Church should have the right to refuse services like adoption to anyone who does not, according to its judgement, meet its criteria. I will even go so far as to say that I think maybe a privately owned business should have this right, too—but I agree with Impqueen in this regard. They should have to post their reservations publicly and prominently ahead of time, as in "We reserve the right to deny service to homosexuals, or Christians, or Muslims or big pink ostriches from the planet Zamabulu." If these are your convictions, though, you must be willing to maybe lose some business and deal with criticism. Not only this, but also you must understand that, if under the law, you are allowed this exclusiveness, then you shouldn’t complain when the Zamabulian ostriches do the same! Frankly, I don’t know how the law in various places views this idea. And so, this may be what paul and some others here are upset over. But public grounds are just that—for the public. If you don’t like who goes there, then don’t go there. Go somewhere where the people you dislike are not comfortable. Like the places that refuse to serve them. Maybe if things operated this way, then the troublemakers from any camp would have no impetus to stir up the cauldron in the first place. I don’t know. Personally, I’d just like to see everyone act out of respect and caring for one another, which really means just using some common sense about these matters and not being in each other’s face about it all the time. Alas, it seems as if this will not happen anytime soon and I guess we just have to, as has been mentioned, wait for that pendulum thingy to work its proverbial magic. By the way, Muslimwoman—do you happen to know the outcome of that lawsuit against the bed and breakfast owners? I am just curious.

Faithfulservant, forgive me, but I just have to ask when it was that you saw the gay community in Dallas in such a way? I am guessing that it may have been some years ago? I am thinking that what you saw was simply the result of a drug and prostitution area of operation which happened to include many gay people. But I can guarantee you that it was not exclusively gay! You and I both know there are areas of Dallas (or any big city, as far as I am aware) which are dangerous, and yes, they are littered with crackhouses, strip joints, porn shops, and numerous liquor stores with iron bars on the windows. But it hasn’t been that long ago when I was out and about everyday, and much of my time was spent traveling through these neighborhoods, mostly by bus or train. What I discovered is that there are some hard-working yet poor and rather disenfranchised people who also live there. Lots of them. Could it be that, at the time you witnessed a high number of gay people in these "dark" areas you speak of, that it was perhaps because it was a period when the gays were very much unwelcome anywhere else? I am just wondering, because in recent years, Dallas has actively sought to attract the gay population to the area. Some top reasons cited for this is that statistics (not stereotyping, by the way) show that gay people in general tend to be meticulous about keeping up their property and legitimate businesses, and this leads to higher property values and boosts the economy. The reports also talked about the increase of a wide range of charitable contributions which has followed on the heels of the growing gay and lesbian residents here. In fact, some of the areas of Dallas, which just fifteen years ago were considered slum areas, are now high-end districts due to the efforts of guess who? The gay community! It is also interesting to note that Dallas has the largest or one of the largest gay Christian organizations in the world. I realize that this is an idea with which you may strongly disagree, but I only mention it because you stated that there were almost no churches in the predominately gay areas of town. Perhaps this has changed, too, since your early days here in DFW.

Paul, I have made an attempt to listen to your views and to find something with which I can agree. Hopefully you will see this. However, I don’t believe that you took me seriously regarding the example I gave you about the children being torn away from loving families and thrown into God-knows-what kind of situation with which they are unfamiliar. I do happen to know of at least one of these cases personally. This is why I spoke about it. The laws may very well have changed by now—I certainly hope so. Anyway, I am not clear as to whether you realize the assumption you made—your initial reaction was this:

I'm assuming your talking about a child losing their parent, and we know what relationship children are reproduced from.

But then your talking of the other parent having left the family home and living with a new partner now of the same sex?

Not a very nice thing to happen to a child is it?

That child has already lost that one parent from their family as a whole family, for we would now call this a broken home.

Still their parent but damage has been done.

But now they lose the parent they may have felt safer with, for we are talking of the home the child lived in, and the other having left for a homosexual relationship right?

Forgive me, but I can’t help noticing that you immediately placed the blame for the broken relationship on the homosexual person. I mean, think about this a bit—does it make sense to you that, according to the laws that are in effect (or at least have been for so long) that the child would have been awarded to the gay parent if the heterosexual parent had made him or herself available in the first place? No, it was the "straight" parent who abandoned this child, leaving the gay parent to raise her, but then years down the road, this person and their family decide that they now want to "do the right thing" and become involved in the child’s life. They decide to take advantage of the situation, that being the death of one of this child’s beloved and responsible parents of years. (By the way, in one of these cases with which I am familiar, the daughter was 11 years old and had very little contact with the mother who left her when she was 3. This was the "straight" mother’s choice. But the judge decided under the law to award the child to this woman, simply because she had remarried, citing that a "two-parent" home would be better. The little girl was absolutely devastated. I just don’t think it was a kind and caring decision. I think the reason cited was just a cover-up for blatent prejudice. She was not even allowed to grieve with the family member she loved and knew! She had to go live with people who did everything they could to interfere in any contact between her and her dear stepfather, even going against court orders and pretty much getting away with it. I’m sorry, but this just stinks, in my opinion, and I don’t see how anyone with a heart could condone such a cruel act.

I live in a democracy (or maybe a democratic republic). It is a country founded on the idea that no one should suffer religious persecution ever again. Many people have given their lives to protecting this foundation, and even though it has it kinks from time to time, hopefully we are set up in a way which does force us to examine ourselves and work these issues out. Theocracy? I don’t think so. Since I am a Christian, I will wait for Christ to set that up. I think He will surprise many with His iron rod and His peaceful government.

Well, I guess I’ve had my say, now. I did anticipate the pros and cons of doing so, and I figure it will cost me something. But a lot of things worth saying are like that.

Oh, and this is just for earl:

(Sorry, couldn’t resist.)

I’ll sign off for now on that note.

InPeace,
InLove

[earl]

Got that song in your head now don't you inLove? Where do & how do you get such great emoticons? Ok now how about a little Donna Summers. "I will Survive?" Disco night at CR. earl

[paul]

InLove

Still not sure i grasp the story.

A homosexual has a relationship with a straight women, they had a child, the straight woman left leaving the gay man on his own with child, the gay man then brought another gay man into the home to raise the child also in a homosexual enviroment?

My feelings on such a subject seems you ask, are complicated, as it is a bit a complicated situation

As i've said i don't think children should be brought up in a homosexual enviroment.
So i think it wrong the child was put in this situation in the first place.

I think what you are saying is the childs homosexual father died leaving her with her fathers boyfriend?

Are you saying he was part of her home for years?

But now you say her real mother now remarried, not sure when you say she wanted to be part of her daughters life again.
Are you saying she had been before the real father died, or only after his death wanted custody?

The thread was on religious rights which there seems to be a little agreement.
I think homosexual adoption is clearly wrong.

But this situation you present is complicated.
My opinion to what you have presented to me, i would think, maybe there should be people involved like some social services.
The daughter left with this gay man, but be introduced gradually into the real mothers life, and being helped to rebuild their relationship.

This girl is the mothers real daughter, yes she made a big mistake leaving her, but shouldn't she be given a second chance, she is her daughter, maybe she's sorted her life out now.
I doubt it would be very easy even finding out the man you have had a daughter with was gay.
Maybe that had something to do with her running away.
Unless she knew already which would be a bit strange.

Maybe the mother has truly changed.
I could understand maybe she just wanted her daughter, she must have wanted her otherwise why would she now go for custody.
She may not have thought of her attachment to this man.

Or maybe she didn't want her to be with this man, obviously she wanted her back, so in that way wouldn't.
And maybe she didn't want her with a gay man.
She may have had a lot of hate now for gay men if she once found out the father of her daughter was gay.
Imagine how that would ruin your life.

You could think everything is perfect have a man and daugther, a perfect family, and then you find out he's gay.
Maybe then she had a lot of hate in her, maybe she'd healed a bit, but with him having custody of her daughter and being gay.
Maybe she resented him in that in many ways he had taken her place.

Maybe that figure had taken her place as soon as she found out the father of her child was gay.
For she would now know he would really rather be with a man than her.

Even if the real father had remarried a woman, i still think the real mother would have a case.
For this new woman, or man in this case was introuced into the girls life.
So why can't her real mother be introduced gradually.

It is a complicated case, there's a lot of people probably hurt in all this.
I can't help having feelings for the natural mother.
And think i would the same, if she had found out he loved another woman after their daughter was born.

As long as she is going to be good for her daughter and has sorted herself out, i would want her to be back in her daughters life, wouldn't you?

[InLove]

Hi paul.

Thank you for reconsidering the situation, even if we feel differently about some points. No, I don't know for certain why the woman abandoned her baby. And sure, it is quite possible she left because of her husband's sexual confusion. I don't know that for certain--it could have been for any number of reasons. I still find it difficult to understand why she didn't try to obtain at least partial custody at that time, or even attempt to keep in touch over the years.

And yes, I agree that if the child is going to be taken across country by people who are obviously hostile toward the stepfather that there should be social services involved. Most of all, I think the daughter should be allowed to live where she feels safe and comfortable while the mother gradually introduces herself back into her life, instead of the other way around. By the way, I do use the phrase "stepfather" instead of boyfriend, because even though the law does not yet for the most part acknowledge the relationship, that makes it no less real in the eyes of the child and the remaining partner, as well I am sure of the deceased father, if he could have a say. In fact, many stepchildren come to think of their stepparents as simply "parents", right. No different with children raised by homosexual people.

I guess the main point I am trying to make in this thread is that, while there may be frivolous protests by people of any persuasion, including homosexuals, there are still some real concerns being raised which point to the freedoms set forth in the Constitution of the U.S. or the laws of any democratic government. So I think that to lump all gay concerns into the category of selfishness and pride, we should try and recognize those which are truly warranted. We are talking about real flesh and blood people with souls and spirits and heartfelt convictions, not a bunch of monsters. I know it is sometimes difficult to accept, but the Constitution does not put anyone's religious beliefs over the equality of the citizens for which it stands. When this is ignored, especially in the name of the law, then it is always time to examine the judgements being made. If we had not done this in the past, then black people would still be drinking from different water fountains than white people and would still be forced to the back of city buses (or worse).

Again, thanks for at least reconsidering what I was saying.

InPeace,
InLove

[Tao_Equus]

I have looked through a bunch of conflicting statistics, the gays think everybody is gay. But it seems the figures in the UK range from 1.4 -2.2% have ever had a "same-sex" relationship. Many of them, especially females, return to heterosexual relationships. The dedicated gays represent under 1% of the population. The majority of which are male. This compares roughly equivalent to the same as the number of Chinese in the UK. Do the Chinese make so much 'noise'? No they do not.

Before I convince you all that I should apply for membership to gay-bashers anonymous let me make it clear that nobody should face discrimination because of their lifestyle choice any more than their ethnicity. I think that long term relationships should enjoy the same legal status regardless of the sexes of the parties. and that nobody should be discriminated against in the workplace for being gay. I have been guilty on this thread of making glib, flippant remarks that unfairly demean and offend all the people out there that are in genuine loving gay relationships, and this is not what I want. But such people also know enough about the gay community to know also of the truths I speak. And so I hope they understand and forgive my passion on this subject.

In Christianity there are as many varieties/denomination's as there are in a bag of liquorice allsorts. If Christian gays want to practice why not set up their own church where they do not cause real moral offence to the Christians who believe them to have compromised the values of Christianity? Could it be that there is some relationship between the kind of sexual pervert I dislike so obviously from previous posts here and those that seek to find position within the the church? As highlighted again by me in other threads regarding paedophilia within the clergy and how perverts actively seek such positions. Not in every case no, of course not, but every agenda should be considered. The gay community is not all sweetness and light any more than any other group and this is probably my bugbear here. I dislike the lack of honesty regarding the totality of what goes on within the gay community. It all way way to friendly and PC. Homosexuality is not just a sexual orientation, its also a type of predatory sexual deviance. I do not wish any offence to any genuine gays out there and I am sure they better than most know exactly what I mean.

I do not think any church should be forced legally to accept gays, not because gays do not have the right to practice Christianity. But because other people also have the right to believe the sexual practices of homosexuals incompatible with their faith. There is no impediment to them starting their own church and that is what they should do. And if they wish respect they should afford others some too.

I have probably failed but I hope I have shed some context here on what I have previously posted. I have nothing against being gay. I just dont feel all gays are 'healthy' and nor do I feel people should be forced to think so.

Tao

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Impqueen

Which minority group is forcing them to make this choice? The government?

Do you really want me to believe the government woke up one morning and said "oh let's create a law to ensure gay people have equal rights"? This has been driven by organisations supporting equal rights for gay people and good on them. Gay people should be allowed to get on with their lives as every other person does. However, imo, their sexuality is their private life and should remain private, as should the private lives of hetrosexuals. So the minority group that has forced this is the gay community.

Where would you draw the line Impqueen? Our children learn about the reproductive system in biology lessons. Should they now include instruction on homosexual activities? What about teaching our children the medical conditions that anal sex can cause?

Originally Posted by Impqueen

The government has to make law in line with the moral standards of this country

Who decided what the moral standards of the country are? Who asked us? Clearly they are having to legislate our moral standards, or more correctly what they now feel our moral standards should be or this law would not have been necessary. The fact that we are having this conversation surely means that our moral standards have not changed enough, in the 40 short years, for this to be acceptable to everybody.

Originally Posted by Impqueen

If they are keeping their daughter so cloistered from sexuality that at 14 they can't face having the 'some people go to bed with other people of their own sex' conversation then I suggest there will be trouble ahead. Seriously at fourteen no-one is talkin about sex at all? What does she think her periods are for?

Wow, has our country really come to the point where we believe a 14 year old girl should know all about sex and every aspect of it? I am really quite staggered that you say their daughter is "cloistered". Are our morals now so far in the gutter that a 14 year old girl, who is still a child and does not shag around, is now seen as a freak? Perhaps her parents are happy for her to know what her periods are for and that one day she will marry and make babies. It is their choice that their daughter does not know about anal sex, among other issues and they certainly get my vote as good parents.

Originally Posted by Impqueen

Are we going to have 'straights only' signs about the place?

This was actually my point. We do already have gay only signs about the place but are now legislated to include homosexuals into every aspect of life. Surely it should be one or the other, either we are equal and the same or different.

Originally Posted by Impqueen

People refusing service to gay people on the excuse of their religion are really doing it out of sheer dislike for gay people.

I am sorry but I simply do not agree with you here. The website I have spent months designing is to provide services for a niche market. Now the whole site has to change to fit in with the law and provide services for gay people. People's sexuality was not the issue, in the niche market I cater for I have never met anyone that has stated they are gay. The same services are provided for gay people by many companies, so why should I have to change my whole marketing strategy? If you look round the net you will find dating sites exclusively for black people or asians or by religion or by sexual preference. But of course it would be against the law for me to have a white only site or a hetrosexual only site. I do not sue because I am not allowed onto niche market sites, so why can't I have a niche market site for hetrosexuals? Good Lord, being a hetrosexual is now a niche market - I give up.

Originally Posted by Impqueen

What's discriminatory about gay pride marches? I believe heteros can go on them to support their gay friends.

I think you missed my point. It is about legislation. Yes anyone can go and support a gay pride march and I am sure they are a lot of fun for the people taking part. However, I am not legally allowed to hold a hetrosexual rights march, I would be arrested. As with the issue of coloured people, You can have a black only club but not a white only. We are legislating against the majority in order to protect the minority.

Originally Posted by Impqueen

What would be the reasoning behind a hetero march? If someone wants to do it, they should be able to. I won't be there.

I wouldn't be there either, nor would I be at the gay march. Sexuality is a private matter and should not brought into the streets.

However, why should it be a great hoot for gay people to march in the street and declare their pride in being gay but be pointless for hetrosexual people to be proud of their sexual orientation? Your comment would suggest that people should be proud to be different but almost ashamed to be of the majority.

Originally Posted by Impqueen

And now the pendulum there is settling back to the middle and we can use the word again. Gradually the gay one will too I suspect.

On the whole the pendulum has swung some way back, yet the legislation still stands. After 20 years I can be sued or in fact imprisoned for starting a white only magazine or tv show but can start a black only one tomorrow. So in 20 years I shall have to provide services for gay people, while they are not required to provide them for me. Yes, things will calm down over time but will the government never learn?!

Salaam

[paul]

InLove

If this was the case, maybe it was just too much for her.
Something must have led her to leave her child.

If i put myself even in a similar situation, say i married a woman we had a child, i found out she was a lesbian.
It would break my heart.

Maybe i'd want to commit suicide.
Maybe i'd want to take my child and leave my wife and never see her again or want her part of my childs life.
But that may not be possible.

The hardest thing maybe to have to bring that child up and see that woman who has so much destroyed this perfect family i hoped for.
To have to face her as part of my childs life, to have to face that hurt and betrayal, and destruction of my perfect family on a regular basis and a regular part of my now torn family.
Not only that but i'm probably going to have to see her with a woman in future and they together may be part of my childs life.

Not only that but i'm probably going to have to face the shame of it, see my child have to be brought up like this.
It would not be as i hoped.

Maybe i would want to just run away, think it was my only choice.
Maybe i'd want to leave it all behind and try to start again.

This women may have been greatly hurt to do such a thing, maybe it took her while to be able to trust a man again, and maybe she's managed that and now is ready to have her daughter back, but maybe she still understandedly has some resentment towards gay men.
Maybe she thinks her broken family can now be put back to peices.
And the gay man may be part of the brokenness and not the family she hoped for and is hoping to mend.
She may not want him to be be part of her family, i can understand that.

Would you in such a situation?

He may only be a reminder and what she associates with the ruin of her perfect family.

I'm all for equality of all.
And i'm for the equality of children.
For their God given parental right according to nature and God's love.

And i'm for the right for everyone to live by God's love and righteousness.

Where as we all fall to sin, and it is a right even.
It's not exactly a right i'm for.
I'm not for my right in it, but i fall in it, and for that equality is in us all.

In that there may be tolerance and mercy, on us as sinners.

Love not in the man his error, but the man: for the man God made, the error the man himself made. Love that which God made, love not that which the man himself made.
- Saint Augustine

[InLove]

Hi TE--

Just a quick comment on the following, if I may. You touched on a question that so often goes unaddressed in favor of a flame war. So since we've managed to get this far in the discussion for a change, it seems like a good opportunity.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

In Christianity there are as many varieties/denomination's as there are in a bag of liquorice allsorts. If Christian gays want to practice why not set up their own church where they do not cause real moral offence to the Christians who believe them to have compromised the values of Christianity?

As I mentioned in an above post, the area where I live has one of the largest, if not the largest gay-accepting Christian organizations in the world. What I mean by this is they have a church. You can read about it here if you like. There are some interesting links to follow as well, links which deal with some commonly debated subjects regarding homosexuality and Christianity. (Interesting to note that anyone is welcome at this church, not just homosexuals.)

Regarding your question, the issue really boils down to a difference in Scriptural interpretation, which as you pointed out, is present between lots of Christian denominations. But anyway, over time people have asked the gays just what you have asked--why not create your own church so as to stop disrupting the "regular" Christians. So they do. One would think, then, that the problem would be solved. But it isn't. Some (certainly not all, by any means) of the same Christians that asked this of the gays then take offense at the church they started. There have even been some small but disturbing protest attempts right outside the church grounds! Not to mention the hate mail they receive. See, it just never ends. As a matter of fact, I have had people ask me why do I insist on being called a Christian since I can see both sides of the interpretation concern.

As you pointed out, the troublemakers of this world come from all walks of life. I am not arguing that all is sweetness and light when it comes to gays any more than anyone else. I just think that many times, concerns that should be taken seriously are tossed aside simply because they come from people who are still seen by many as unworthy of the same basic considerations as the rest of us. That's why I think it is important to try and discern between political lobby issues, no matter who they come from, in order to determine what is frivolous and what is not. That's all I am saying.

InPeace,
InLove

[InLove]

Hi paul.

Since my posts have been rather long so far, I won't re-post everything, because it is easy to scroll back and read the conversation. But you asked me if I wouldn't react the same way as the woman who left her child.

I've not been faced with the exact situation, but I have been divorced before due to the actions of the first man to whom I was married. (I have been divorced, remarried and widowed, and now I am married again.) I won't go into all of this, since it is private anyway, and my daughter sometimes reads the comments on this website. But I am telling you this much because I assure you that when I was faced with divorce, my highest priority was to retain custody of my child. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING was going to keep me from her. So, yes I do have a hard time sympathizing with someone who would just up and leave a three-year-old, especially if they felt strongly that the child would not be raised in a good home. Thank God that the little girl we have been discussing did have a loving family all those years. I only hope that her mother has been able to come to grips with her own problems enough to provide such an atmosphere, and that she has decided to see fit, in the interest of her child, not to totally exclude the stepfather from her life. If not, then I think the stepfather should have legal recourse, and that the law should support him in upholding at least his visitation rights.

That said, I still have compassion for anyone who is as distraught as the woman in this story seems to have been. So in telling you of her actions, I was only pointing out that I thought the decision handed down was very wrong. I know we disagree in this matter, but I am glad that at least we can talk about it without harpooning one another. Again, thanks for that.

InPeace,
InLove

[InLove]

delete--double post

[paul]

Obviously i thnk the woman did wrong, it's very likely she does to and has to live with it.

The thing is this woman did leave her child, sad as it is, not only for the child but also for the woman.
It's good if some could handle the situation better and make the better decisions in their life, have a greater strength and even love.

The thing is i would think she must have been hurting, she made a mistake.
Maybe some may have more support from loved ones, maybe some could be stronger people, and a better person at this time to be able to handle the situation rightly.

But we know all people fall to sin, maybe in some cases maybe we would have managed to make better choices, to live by love better, and we can be truly grateful for that.

This woman probably needed help and guidence, support, cmofort and love even.

If such thing had happened to me, and i made such a terrible mistake as this woman, although we could say i now have no right.
If i had grown and been forgiven and changed as a person, i may want my child from that unrelated homosexual as soon as possible.
The way i feel about such a thing i probably would.
I can see your point though, and because of my own mistake, maybe i would have to have a little patientence as really i've made the child have in me being part of their life again.

With my feelings I wouldn't want my child to be brought up in a homosexual enviroment.
So in this maybe i can sympathise with this woman more than you, and as i've mentioned maybe she was even in some ways pro homosexual before all this happened, but i would think such a situation would have greatly changed that.

But here's a problem I would have with even adoption.

If i had children and all the childs relatives died, the child may have to be adopted, now i may never have wanted that child to be brought up in such a home, maybe i'd want them to be brought up in a traditional catholic home.
I see a huge crime if my child was then placed in a homosexual enviroment deeply against my wishes.
Don't you see the crime in that?

And that could happen to anyones child against their wishes.

Just another thought.
What if a child is brought up in beleifs that homosexuality is wrong.
And hasn't a catholic agnecy got the right to teach that?

So if they are then forced to let their children be adopted by homosexuals isn't that cruel if the children think homosexuality wrong?

And children can think that anyway, and have they then to be forced to live in a homosexual envirmoment?

Just wonder how much the childs feelings would be considered before placing them in such a home.

I can't help have the feeling their feelings wouldn't be accepted, as mine and many with the same feelings as me are not today, then i would think much less a childs.
They would say they have been taught bigiotry.

Maybe say it would be good for such to placed in a homosexual enviroment.

There's many rights then neglected in this.

So if we then talk of equal rights, human rights, i can't help think in gay adoption human rights ore non existent, it seems to me just gay selfishness.

[earl]

Kansas has long been homeground for 1 of the most homophobic, hate-filled, "Christian" churches in America-the 1 started by Rev. Phelps whose chief misson it appears has been to picket funerals of deceased, apparently homosexual men, in recent years those who have died in combat in Iraq. His followers typically hold up signs proclaiming "God hates fags." Folks like this give "God" & Christians a very bad name. On the other hand this hatred in turn spawned the creation of a group of military vets called the patriot guard, (most of whom no doubt were not homosexual) who began to attend such funerals to both honor the deceased and do what they could to support and protect the grieving attendees. Various legislation state and federal was then passed to limit such groups right to free "hate" speech. So Patriot Guard or Fred Phelps, who's the real Christian here? earl

[Paladin]

Hey Earl,
good to see you. The Patriot Guard here in Colorado consists of riders who believe the families and friends of the fallen deserve their time to grieve and say goodbye. Essentially forming a circle with their backs to the protesters, even revving up their engines to drown out the hateful shouts from the likes of the Phelps clan.
As far as religious rights goes, the gay community here in Colorado springs holds dialouges with the Focus on the Family groups all the time, but you don't hear about it much. Live and let live, as the saying goes. While we peek into every house and bedroom to make sure everyone is living up to our ideas of morality, there is much greater evil afoot that demands attention.

[Muslimwoman]

Hi Earl

I saw a documentary about that church and was seriously disgusted. In the UK we have now legislated against free speech where that could instigate violence or hatred. This law was necessary and imo would get my full vote.

I don't see why the US hasn't put a restraining order on these people to stop them attending the funerals in any way (even from a distance). They really are extremist scum. If they want to sit in their homes or church and spout such hatred fine but they should not be allowed to take it into the streets.

I was delighted to see yesterday that in Italy a mosque has been closed and 4 men arrested for teaching hatred and terrorist techniques. In my view this is what we must do, not legislate the masses but go to the root of these problems and remove the cause, so others cannot follow.

Salaam