Jihadin wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Outlawing lesbian porn is the worst crime that could be committed against the human race.

WHOA WHOA WHOA HOLD THE HECK UP!!!!!!
Little to far there buddy

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Outlawing lesbian porn is the worst crime that could be committed against the human race.

sirlynchmob wrote:
I love how they label him a lawyer, and not a christian. Where are the moderate Christians to denounce this guy?

 cincydooley wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I love how they label him a lawyer, and not a christian. Where are the moderate Christians to denounce this guy?

All over the place.

We do appreciate your trolling, however.

 Hordini wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I love how they label him a lawyer, and not a christian. Where are the moderate Christians to denounce this guy?

All over the place.

We do appreciate your trolling, however.

I don't understand. Where are the moderate trolls denouncing this guy?

 Squidmanlolz wrote:

I might understand, where are the liberal trolls denouncing the moderate trolls denouncing the radical trolls?

 d-usa wrote:
#ModerateChristiansAgainstHate #Slactivisn

Consider him denounced.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You seem fixated on this. Its like me saying that because one Jew eats some bacon, its clearly indicative of their religion, despite being expressly against it.

 Scrabb wrote:
Two pages, two blunders in your blind belief that all Christians are as bad as you've imagined sirlinchmob.


Of course, that one Christian would do such a thing is a blemish against all Christians.

He's satirizing the insane claims conservative Dakka members made in the ISIS thread- that the international Muslim community tacitly supports ISIS because of the lack of international condemnation of ISIS' actions.

That people are getting butthurt about Sirly's comment gives me a bit of an erection honestly, because if I were a Muslim it's probably how I'd feel when I see conservative Christians advocate painting my 1+ billion strong religion as a terrorist organization because of the actions of a relative few.

 d-usa wrote:
Actually, the question was answered by the moderate Christians in this thread condeming the jackass.

But when will the moderate chips denounce the chip on your shoulder?

 d-usa wrote:
Actually, the question was answered by the moderate Christians in this thread condeming the jackass.

But when will the moderate chips denounce the chip on your shoulder?

 Steve steveson wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Actually, the question was answered by the moderate Christians in this thread condeming the jackass.

But when will the moderate chips denounce the chip on your shoulder?

Can I just say, I denounce everything. Even the stuff that contradicts other stuff. In fact especially that stuff.

Except lesbian porn, bacon and whiskey.

So, until pork wielding lesbian porn stars launch acts of terror from a distillery assume that someone has denounced it.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Neither of those posts has to do with the opening remark that I'm referring too.

 d-usa wrote:
Actually, the question was answered by the moderate Christians in this thread condeming the jackass.

But when will the moderate chips denounce the chip on your shoulder?

PhantomViper wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/23/california-lawyer-shoot-the-gays-proposal-2016-ballot

A California lawyer says he wants to legalize the execution of gay people, and there may be nothing the state’s attorney general can do to stop the proposal from moving forward.

Matt McLaughlin, an attorney in Huntington Beach, California, filed paperwork to bring his proposal, which would sanction the killing of gay and lesbian residents on the basis of their sexuality, before voters in November 2016.

The initiative, named the “Sodomite Suppression Act”, is awaiting further review by the office of the state attorney general, Kamala Harris, who does not appear to have the authority to block it. However, the measure is unlikely to reach voters, as the California supreme court can intervene to prevent measures that violate the state constitution from reaching the ballot.

The so-called “shoot the gays” proposal would mandate “any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head, or by any other convenient method”. McLaughlin, a lawyer since 1998, declared in his proposal that it is “better that offenders should die rather than that all of us should be killed by God’s just wrath”.

The initiative would also make it a crime to support gay rights, punishable by a $1m fine, up to 10 years in prison and expulsion from the state. It would be illegal to distribute “sodomistic propaganda” to “any person under the age of majority”. Being a “sodomite” or distributing “sodomistic propaganda” would disqualify a resident from serving in public office or public employment and from enjoying any public benefit.

In February, McLaughlin paid the $200 filing fee to put the initiative on the November 2016 ballot.

Once a sponsor has paid the required fee, the attorney general is directed under California law to prepare a circulating title and 100-word summary of the initiative before sending it to the secretary of state’s office for the signature-gathering period. The proposal would then need to collect at least 356,000 valid signatures within 180 days to qualify for the ballot, which is no easy task. It’s at that point that the supreme court can step in and keep the measure from appearing on the 2016 ballot.

“The statute is clear: that the office has to prepare a summary provided the proponents have paid $200 and followed the right procedures,” attorney Robert Stern, who authored the state’s 1974 Political Reform Act, which imposed expenditure reports for ballot measure campaigns, told the San Francisco Chronicle. Stern told the paper he is unaware of an instance in which the attorney general refused to issue a title and summary.

Harris is scheduled to prepare the title and summary by 4 May 2015.

State senator Ricardo Lara condemned the measure. “I support freedom of speech, but calling for state-sanctioned execution of a protected class calls into question the proponent’s character and judgment,” said Lara, who is gay, in a statement.

Lara, along with members of the legislature’s LGBT caucus, filed a formal complaint with the state bar against McLaughlin on the grounds that attorneys are supposed to demonstrate “good moral character”.

This isn’t McLaughlin’s first controversial measure. In 2004, he tried to qualify an initiative in 2004 that would have added the King James Bible as a textbook in California public schools, the LA Times reported in 2004.

“Even if you don’t believe its teachings, you’ll agree that it includes rich usage of the English language,” the paper quoted McLaughlin saying at the time. He defended the proposal as “good literature” and said it was not an attempt to indoctrinate students.

So... this is a thing...

 CptJake wrote:
So, you up for the $100 dollar bet?

 DarkLink wrote:
Take it from someone who's lived their whole life in California, it's a pretty awesome place in general. It's also very silly to be criticizing California of all places within the US of hating gays.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
Take it from someone who's lived their whole life in California, it's a pretty awesome place in general. It's also very silly to be criticizing California of all places within the US of hating gays.

well cali did pass prop 8, And fought for years to keep it going. So it's also not as welcoming of them either. coastally, accepting. Inland, not so much.

 streamdragon wrote:
This dude needs to go the way of Jack Thompson: have his license to practice law revoked

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I think they might be vat grown...

sirlynchmob wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Actually, the question was answered by the moderate Christians in this thread condeming the jackass.

But when will the moderate chips denounce the chip on your shoulder?

so 10ish out of 2.18 billion, so close to 0, we'll call it 0.

No chips involved, based on what I've seen of american culture and news, you judge religions by their extreme members. Islam is judged based on what makes up less than 1% of them, so I judge christians based on their extremists. I'd guess around 1/2 of them are against equal rights for the lgbt community, this guy proposing this bill seems right up their ally and a christian thing to do. Because we already know from other christians that god hates gays. I say 1/2 because of the number of states that were able to get constitutional amendments with enough votes to deny them the right to marry. thankfully the states have a good legal system to do the right thing.

But if you guys would like to actually do more than post here, You have til the 28th for your comments to be heard by the California Attorney General's Office.

https://oag.ca.gov/node/add/initiative-comment/48523

But I hope it gets to the petition stage, those numbers would be Awesome to have to draw interesting comparisons with

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
It's surprising that we got this out of CA instead of TX.