Political Crossfire Forums

[F'losrix]

rainidame wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: rainidame wrote: I think it is way unfair, and a disservice to homos for you to rant so outrageously.
I could be wrong, but I don't think this thread was targeting the lackluster support from people who think it's perfectly acceptable to refer to gay people as 'homos' and to teach their children to hate by making 'extremely rude remarks'.

Sorry, but like the old saying goes - "With friends like you, who needs enemies?" Just because you aren't calling for gay people to be exterminated or deported, don't try to deceive yourself or others by saying you're supportive of their basic rights. Neutrality isn't support, and I'd have to say yours is pretty damned weak if all it takes is the outraged response of one very offended gay person to turn your vote the other direction.

If you're a progressive, I'm a vermicious knid.

My children don't hate homos, and I'm sorry if "homos" bothers you, but gay only refers to men and lesbian only to women and the "sexual" part of the word is pretty well understood, so for brievity, I use a perfectly accurance unslanted abbreviation. You may have a social slant to it if you choose, but I do not.

I would stand out front and protect my homo friends with my life, I would vote for their anticipated happiness, I would extend every neighborly or friendly assistance as needed. But my family's choices ARE my business, and I have the right and obligation to express my opinions to them about their potential behaviour.

And it is again not reasonable for you to assume that my comments here on an anonymous DEBATE forum, reflect my behaviours, only my opinions. I personally have many out of step opinions upon which I do not act, I am sure you do as well. My opinion was asked. I support your right to be different than I prefer, I don't approve of it, but neither do I approve of abortion. Still support abortion rights, but would NEVER have one and have instructed my daughter that only idiot careless women get pregnant unplanned. WHY because it works as a parenting tactic.

Lastly I wonder why I have to like your lifestyle to be progressive enough to support it. I don't think I do. I think that when I think about what makes a homo a homo, EWWWWWWW is the best I can do. BUT I totally support the concept that this is the land of the free and man lots of folks can do things I don't think are okay, but I'll sure support their right to it.

ISN'T THAT ENOUGH FOR YOU HOMOS? Blacks said "give us rights" they didn't say we had to like them. You folks want more than I can give. Another reason for setting you aside as a priority.
'Homo' is a slur, whether you acknowledge it to be or not. 'Gay' does actually cover both gay men & lesbians, but since gay women have their own word and prefer it, I'm quite willing to refer to them as 'lesbian' if that is their preferred label.

If you think you aren't teaching your son to hate from what you've described, I believe you're mistaken. If you think it will keep him from becoming a homosexual, you're also mistaken. For your sake and his I hope he turns out to be heterosexual.

As for the 'eww' factor, behavior isn't what makes a person a homosexual. Sexual orientation and sexual behavior are very different things, and the sexual behavior most often associated with gay men isn't even the preferred practice of most of them, if they do it at all.

[rainidame]

Skeptical Mystic wrote:
'Homo' is a slur, whether you acknowledge it to be or not. 'Gay' does actually cover both gay men & lesbians, but since gay women have their own word and prefer it, I'm quite willing to refer to them as 'lesbian' if that is their preferred label.

If you think you aren't teaching your son to hate from what you've described, I believe you're mistaken. If you think it will keep him from becoming a homosexual, you're also mistaken. For your sake and his I hope he turns out to be heterosexual.

As for the 'eww' factor, behavior isn't what makes a person a homosexual. Sexual orientation and sexual behavior are very different things, and the sexual behavior most often associated with gay men isn't even the preferred practice of most of them, if they do it at all.

Homo is a slur but it is also accurate and slurs are in the eyes of the beholder. No matter what term I use someone will be offended if not today, then next year when that term becomes a slur. It is HOW it is said that matters. Here I am being direct and brief.

My son does not hate homos, as he has friends who are already, senior in high school and all.

As for the subtle semantics of sexual orientation vs sexual behaviour, . . . you are telling me homo men aren't sodimizers? And homo women don't use pretend penises? I think one can't be without the other unless you are only getting to third base for the life of your relationships. I say, EWWWWWW, but more power to you.

[F'losrix]

rainidame wrote: As for the subtle semantics of sexual orientation vs sexual behaviour, . . . you are telling me homo men aren't sodimizers?
That's correct. It's a common misconception about gay men - they don't all engage in that form of sex, and it isn't what makes them homosexual.

Quote: And homo women don't use pretend penises?
Some do, a great many don't. It's a matter of personal preference, depending on what the lady in question finds stimulating. Some don't like to be penetrated by anything or anyone. The lesbians I lived with didn't have any 'toys'.

Quote: I think one can't be without the other unless you are only getting to third base for the life of your relationships. I say, EWWWWWW, but more power to you.
Like I said in my initial response to you, your knowledge on the subject is incomplete.

[rainidame]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: rainidame wrote: As for the subtle semantics of sexual orientation vs sexual behaviour, . . . you are telling me homo men aren't sodimizers?
That's correct. It's a common misconception about gay men - they don't all engage in that form of sex, and it isn't what makes them homosexual.

Quote: And homo women don't use pretend penises?
Some do, a great many don't. It's a matter of personal preference, depending on what the lady in question finds stimulating. Some don't like to be penetrated by anything or anyone. The lesbians I lived with didn't have any 'toys'.

Quote: I think one can't be without the other unless you are only getting to third base for the life of your relationships. I say, EWWWWWW, but more power to you.
Like I said in my initial response to you, your knowledge on the subject is incomplete.

Well then I guess you win, I have yet to meet a gay man that didn't partake in one end or the other of sodomy, nor a lesbian than didn't get on one end or another of a dildo. So though I still say it isn't the norm, I will have to accept it may be the exception.

[Wallie_x]

I think what most of this boils down too is what I've seen in the gay community subjectively. I say this with honesty, I have not met one (active) gay man who does not have the following spiritual qualities:

1) spiritually immature.
2) self absorbed
3) narcissistic
4) reacts rather pettily when hurt emotionally.
i.e. It's my way or the highway.

It's of little wonder then that so-called 'progressives' do respond lukewarmly to the rantings within the gay community.

Marriage is between a man and a woman only. No quipping or illogical argument will change that. The attempt by gays to steal this term for their unions simply underscores the statements made above.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Wallie_x wrote: Marriage is between a man and a woman only. No quipping or illogical argument will change that. The attempt by gays to steal this term for their unions simply underscores the statements made above.

If the fight is over what it's going to be called, then there is no problem with me at least ... the legal side is what is important.

[F'losrix]

Wallie_x wrote: I think what most of this boils down too is what I've seen in the gay community subjectively. I say this with honesty, I have not met one (active) gay man who does not have the following spiritual qualities:

1) spiritually immature.
2) self absorbed
3) narcissistic
4) reacts rather pettily when hurt emotionally.
i.e. It's my way or the highway.


Most of the anti-gay people I've met are:

1) More concerned with inserting their religious doctrines into law & government than in tending to their own spiritual deficiencies.
2) Incapable of minding their own business
3) Self-righteous and egotistical in the extreme
4) Bullies who rely on inflammatory statements, misrepresenting their loss of power as persecution, and are incapable of employing a balance of logic and compassion in examining the issue.

Their position is that if you don't like being bullied by them, you should emigrate.

Quote: It's of little wonder then that so-called 'progressives' do respond lukewarmly to the rantings within the gay community.
I would say they simply have bigger worries. There are three kinds of people in this world:

1) Those who feel an obligation to make the world a better place through a balanced approach that respects differences.
2) Those who think they know what's best for everyone and too bad for anybody who disagrees with them.
3) Those who would prefer that everyone just mind their own business and leave each other alone.

These categories cut across all ideologies, with the majority of people fitting into category 3. I would view progressives as being mostly category 3 with the more politically active ones in category 1.

The lukewarm response of progressives isn't a negative reaction to gay people - it's simply that they'd rather the issue just went away so they could concentrate on more important things like education, the environment, etc.

Quote: Marriage is between a man and a woman only. No quipping or illogical argument will change that. The attempt by gays to steal this term for their unions simply underscores the statements made above.
Marriage means different things to different people. No amount of squawking about it will change that, nor the fact that no one has ownership of the word, so it can't be stolen.

All you're doing is repeating the same arguments you've already made that have been debunked. If you can't add something new to the debate, I invite you to spend your time elsewhere.

[rainidame]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: Wallie_x wrote: I think what most of this boils down too is what I've seen in the gay community subjectively. I say this with honesty, I have not met one (active) gay man who does not have the following spiritual qualities:

1) spiritually immature.
2) self absorbed
3) narcissistic
4) reacts rather pettily when hurt emotionally.
i.e. It's my way or the highway.


Most of the anti-gay people I've met are:

1) More concerned with inserting their religious doctrines into law & government than in tending to their own spiritual deficiencies.

BS, I am atheist, never told you that you should do things my way, and yet you attacked me anyway. . . see Wallie_x's list #4.

2) Incapable of minding their own business

As I said before, I would LOVE to mind my own biz, but you folks are in my face at every turn telling me all about your needs and how you are victims, etc.


3) Self-righteous and egotistical in the extreme

Americans, homo or hetero, suffer this problem.

4) Bullies who rely on inflammatory statements, misrepresenting their loss of power as persecution, and are incapable of employing a balance of logic and compassion in examining the issue.

The only flamer is you being angry and belligerent because mine and other's opinions don't have the passion you want it to, we are lack luster, but no one I've seen hear that stayed on topic was bullying or flaming anything.


Their position is that if you don't like being bullied by them, you should emigrate.

Quote: It's of little wonder then that so-called 'progressives' do respond lukewarmly to the rantings within the gay community.
I would say they simply have bigger worries. There are three kinds of people in this world:

1) Those who feel an obligation to make the world a better place through a balanced approach that respects differences.

Respect is earned individually, not as a group, IMHO. You don't have mine but many homos do. And there is no proof variety makes the world a better place.

2) Those who think they know what's best for everyone and too bad for anybody who disagrees with them.

Like you.

3) Those who would prefer that everyone just mind their own business and leave each other alone.

WAIT A MINUTE, your #2 above says we SHOULD mind our own biz, but now you treat is as though it would be bad for you. Make up your mind.

These categories cut across all ideologies, with the majority of people fitting into category 3. I would view progressives as being mostly category 3 with the more politically active ones in category 1.

The lukewarm response of progressives isn't a negative reaction to gay people - it's simply that they'd rather the issue just went away so they could concentrate on more important things like education, the environment, etc.

WRONG. It is a combination of both, tired of homos ranting AND different priorities.

Quote: Marriage is between a man and a woman only. No quipping or illogical argument will change that. The attempt by gays to steal this term for their unions simply underscores the statements made above.
Marriage means different things to different people. No amount of squawking about it will change that, nor the fact that no one has ownership of the word, so it can't be stolen.

All you're doing is repeating the same arguments you've already made that have been debunked. If you can't add something new to the debate, I invite you to spend your time elsewhere.

The argument hasn't been de-bunked to everyone's satisfaction. Get over thinking that we should all agree with you.

[F'losrix]

rainidame wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: Wallie_x wrote: I think what most of this boils down too is what I've seen in the gay community subjectively. I say this with honesty, I have not met one (active) gay man who does not have the following spiritual qualities:

1) spiritually immature.
2) self absorbed
3) narcissistic
4) reacts rather pettily when hurt emotionally.
i.e. It's my way or the highway.


Most of the anti-gay people I've met are:

1) More concerned with inserting their religious doctrines into law & government than in tending to their own spiritual deficiencies.

BS, I am atheist, never told you that you should do things my way, and yet you attacked me anyway. . . see Wallie_x's list #4.

Learn to read - I said most, not all

2) Incapable of minding their own business

As I said before, I would LOVE to mind my own biz, but you folks are in my face at every turn telling me all about your needs and how you are victims, etc.

:roll: You're the one inhabiting the Gay & Lesbian forum. Maybe you should consider getting out of our face.

3) Self-righteous and egotistical in the extreme

Americans, homo or hetero, suffer this problem.


Perhaps, but that's hardly relevant.

4) Bullies who rely on inflammatory statements, misrepresenting their loss of power as persecution, and are incapable of employing a balance of logic and compassion in examining the issue.

The only flamer is you being angry and belligerent because mine and other's opinions don't have the passion you want it to, we are lack luster, but no one I've seen hear that stayed on topic was bullying or flaming anything.

No, I'm simply responding to things you've said that I find personally offensive. It has nothing to do with your lackluster support.

Their position is that if you don't like being bullied by them, you should emigrate.

Quote: It's of little wonder then that so-called 'progressives' do respond lukewarmly to the rantings within the gay community.
I would say they simply have bigger worries. There are three kinds of people in this world:

1) Those who feel an obligation to make the world a better place through a balanced approach that respects differences.

Respect is earned individually, not as a group, IMHO. You don't have mine but many homos do. And there is no proof variety makes the world a better place.


Respect is earned individually, but that's not the point. Prejudice exists because people find it easier to condemn an entire group from whom they differ, rather than treating them as individuals. I don't have any respect for you because of the insulting nature of your initial post. I don't believe your assertion that you respect many 'homos', and you've given me no cause to think I could ever earn your respect, regardless.

2) Those who think they know what's best for everyone and too bad for anybody who disagrees with them.

Like you.

You don't know me well enough to make such a statement. And you never will, thanks to your attitude. Your loss.

3) Those who would prefer that everyone just mind their own business and leave each other alone.

WAIT A MINUTE, your #2 above says we SHOULD mind our own biz, but now you treat is as though it would be bad for you. Make up your mind.


#2 doesn't say that. It is meant to imply that they should stop interfering with other's lives since their reasons for doing so are utterly self-serving. I subscribe to category #1, and sometimes you actually accomplish that by not interfering with people's lives. 'Minding your own business' could imply not only a lack of interference, but a complete lack of concern for the welfare of others. I have not said we should ignore each other's needs completely - quite the opposite. Re-read #1.

These categories cut across all ideologies, with the majority of people fitting into category 3. I would view progressives as being mostly category 3 with the more politically active ones in category 1.

The lukewarm response of progressives isn't a negative reaction to gay people - it's simply that they'd rather the issue just went away so they could concentrate on more important things like education, the environment, etc.

WRONG. It is a combination of both, tired of homos ranting AND different priorities.

Fine. What you don't seem to get is that your apathy isn't accomplishing anything. You want the ranting to stop? Well get a clue, because it's not going to until we get what we want or the extremists that oppose us find a way to silence us. Which outcome do you think is going to be better for America in the long run?

Quote: Marriage is between a man and a woman only. No quipping or illogical argument will change that. The attempt by gays to steal this term for their unions simply underscores the statements made above.
Marriage means different things to different people. No amount of squawking about it will change that, nor the fact that no one has ownership of the word, so it can't be stolen.

All you're doing is repeating the same arguments you've already made that have been debunked. If you can't add something new to the debate, I invite you to spend your time elsewhere.

The argument hasn't been de-bunked to everyone's satisfaction. Get over thinking that we should all agree with you.

Some people will never be satisfied with how much an argument has been debunked. Do you know what word is used to describe such people?

[F'losrix]

To rainidame:

I find it especially telling that by your silence you seem to agree with Wallie's statements below. I see that you decided to attack my response to him, rather than disagreeing with anything he's had to say. If you agree with that his statements apply to all gay people, then I don't think you're as progressive as you apparently view yourself:

Wallie_x wrote: I think what most of this boils down too is what I've seen in the gay community subjectively. I say this with honesty, I have not met one (active) gay man who does not have the following spiritual qualities:

1) spiritually immature.
2) self absorbed
3) narcissistic
4) reacts rather pettily when hurt emotionally.

[rainidame]

Well, Skeptic, I would have to say we are in agreement. I didn't attact your response. I was intending to point out that even if a few gays (and here I mean male homos, because I do not find this to be the case so much with lesbians) YOU certainly appear to fit Wallie_x's subjective observation.

Spiritually immature as you seem to lack even the basic do unto others. . .which in my opinion would have entailed discussion with those willing to support your agenda rather than petty attacks and outrages.

Self-absorbed as you don't care that I am uncomfortable with you, but you try to skewer me with the idea that you hate me because I don't support you enough.

Narcissistic . . . well you took a discussion that asked liberals to explain themselves, and turned it into a debate about your feelings and how they are now bothered by other's honesty.

Emotionally petty . . . again can't seem to keep your eyes on the goal which should be in this thread to gain support, instead you make it personal and thereby attempt to justify your petty inability to look for a logical solution somewhere in the middle.

Now I have noticed you show some rationality in other topics in this forum, but I shall never be giving your opinions or ideas respect from here on because you have shown yourself to be the very type that causes us in the middle, trying to be fair, to give up caring about your ilk and what my current attitude would call your petty little tribulations. Thank goodness my homo friends aren't like you or I might retain this current attitude.

[rainidame]

Just out of curiosity does anyone else feel that lesbians are more tolerable and more . . . I want to say acceptable, but maybe "normal," . . . less of what Wallie_x pointed out above than gay men? Here I am talking about generalities, not each and every individual. Lesbians seem to be to be less sexually permiscuous, less flamboyant, tend to just "be" rather than screaming it from the rooftops, seem secure enough in their decisions to NOT have to go on the defensive,less involved in drugs, less involved in party time. Things like this? I think if we could vote rights for lesbians and gays separately . . . we would be surprised at the number who tolerate female homos vs male ones.

[F'losrix]

rainidame wrote: Well, Skeptic, I would have to say we are in agreement. I didn't attact your response. I was intending to point out that even if a few gays (and here I mean male homos, because I do not find this to be the case so much with lesbians) YOU certainly appear to fit Wallie_x's subjective observation.

Spiritually immature as you seem to lack even the basic do unto others. . .which in my opinion would have entailed discussion with those willing to support your agenda rather than petty attacks and outrages.
Go back and re-read your initial post. It wasn't an attempt at discussion, it was an attack itself.

Quote: Self-absorbed as you don't care that I am uncomfortable with you, but you try to skewer me with the idea that you hate me because I don't support you enough.
You don't care that your comments were offensive to me...why should I care if your misinformed attitudes about gay people make you uncomfortable around them? I don't hate you, but you have very thoroughly annoyed me.

Quote: Narcissistic . . . well you took a discussion that asked liberals to explain themselves, and turned it into a debate about your feelings and how they are now bothered by other's honesty.
BS. You're the one practicing narcissism, whining about how you think I attacked you.

Quote: Emotionally petty . . . again can't seem to keep your eyes on the goal which should be in this thread to gain support, instead you make it personal and thereby attempt to justify your petty inability to look for a logical solution somewhere in the middle.
What you've failed to appreciate is that for a gay person, this IS personal! So far I haven't seen you propose any sort of a middle ground solution for us to debate & discuss. I'm quickly concluding that on this issue, there is no middle ground. Either you think gay people should be treated as equal human beings, or you don't. I'm usually not one to see things as black and white, but you've pretty well convinced me on this one.

Quote: Now I have noticed you show some rationality in other topics in this forum, but I shall never be giving your opinions or ideas respect from here on because you have shown yourself to be the very type that causes us in the middle, trying to be fair, to give up caring about your ilk and what my current attitude would call your petty little tribulations.
In other words you don't care how rational a person is about other issues if they disagree with you on this one.

I don't find that you're trying to be fair.

The fact that you think my tribulations are petty when you really don't know anything about me pretty much says it all.

[rainidame]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: rainidame wrote: Well, Skeptic, I would have to say we are in agreement. I didn't attact your response. I was intending to point out that even if a few gays (and here I mean male homos, because I do not find this to be the case so much with lesbians) YOU certainly appear to fit Wallie_x's subjective observation.

Spiritually immature as you seem to lack even the basic do unto others. . .which in my opinion would have entailed discussion with those willing to support your agenda rather than petty attacks and outrages.
Go back and re-read your initial post. It wasn't an attempt at discussion, it was an attack itself.

Quote: Self-absorbed as you don't care that I am uncomfortable with you, but you try to skewer me with the idea that you hate me because I don't support you enough.
You don't care that your comments were offensive to me...why should I care if your misinformed attitudes about gay people make you uncomfortable around them? I don't hate you, but you have very thoroughly annoyed me.

Quote: Narcissistic . . . well you took a discussion that asked liberals to explain themselves, and turned it into a debate about your feelings and how they are now bothered by other's honesty.
BS. You're the one practicing narcissism, whining about how you think I attacked you.

Quote: Emotionally petty . . . again can't seem to keep your eyes on the goal which should be in this thread to gain support, instead you make it personal and thereby attempt to justify your petty inability to look for a logical solution somewhere in the middle.
What you've failed to appreciate is that for a gay person, this IS personal! So far I haven't seen you propose any sort of a middle ground solution for us to debate & discuss. I'm quickly concluding that on this issue, there is no middle ground. Either you think gay people should be treated as equal human beings, or you don't. I'm usually not one to see things as black and white, but you've pretty well convinced me on this one.

Quote: Now I have noticed you show some rationality in other topics in this forum, but I shall never be giving your opinions or ideas respect from here on because you have shown yourself to be the very type that causes us in the middle, trying to be fair, to give up caring about your ilk and what my current attitude would call your petty little tribulations.
In other words you don't care how rational a person is about other issues if they disagree with you on this one.

I don't find that you're trying to be fair.

The fact that you think my tribulations are petty when you really don't know anything about me pretty much says it all.

So let me get this straight, you don't want me to be honest about the question, because you might take it personally, and then you might get your panties in a wad. Hmmm, like I said I think I shall have problems with giving you respect.

You suggest I have attacked you for attacking me? I haven't attacked you I have analyzed your responses as being attacks. Remember YOU asked if I agreed with Wallie_x, you did want an honest answer didn't you? Nope, you didn't you wanted smoke blown up your arse.

Okay here goes,

Gee, I so wish the world was perfectly fair to you. No matter whats going on in my life that the extreme right is interfering with, I will put homosexuals desires (which I don't actually consider "rights") way ahead of anything that might be more pertinent to my life. Furthermore, I will make a concerted effort to watch and enjoy every possible homo oriented media, entertainment, or discussion and promise to vigorously condemn anyone who doesn't think homos walk on water.

Do you feel better now? Pfft!!

[ToonArmyIsComing]

rainidame wrote: Okay here goes,

Gee, I so wish the world was perfectly fair to you. No matter whats going on in my life that the extreme right is interfering with, I will put homosexuals desires (which I don't actually consider "rights") way ahead of anything that might be more pertinent to my life. Furthermore, I will make a concerted effort to watch and enjoy every possible homo oriented media, entertainment, or discussion and promise to vigorously condemn anyone who doesn't think homos walk on water.

Do you feel better now? Pfft!!

Here is my opinion, I don't care what you think of gay people. You don't like them, that's your choice, but I wouldn't be happy if you take that dislike and try to use the government to punish gay people by taking their rights away!

[rainidame]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: rainidame wrote: Okay here goes,

Gee, I so wish the world was perfectly fair to you. No matter whats going on in my life that the extreme right is interfering with, I will put homosexuals desires (which I don't actually consider "rights") way ahead of anything that might be more pertinent to my life. Furthermore, I will make a concerted effort to watch and enjoy every possible homo oriented media, entertainment, or discussion and promise to vigorously condemn anyone who doesn't think homos walk on water.

Do you feel better now? Pfft!!

Here is my opinion, I don't care what you think of gay people. You don't like them, that's your choice, but I wouldn't be happy if you take that dislike and try to use the government to punish gay people by taking their rights away!

Don't worry Toon, I vote based on principle not people, and the principles of the USA as I see them is that everyone can participate in whatever they want so long as all participating are doing so willingly. Freedom, I believe it is called. I shall not let my discomfort sway anything as substantial as my vote.

[F'losrix]

rainidame wrote: So let me get this straight, you don't want me to be honest about the question, because you might take it personally, and then you might get your panties in a wad. Hmmm, like I said I think I shall have problems with giving you respect.
Obviously, you are having a problem giving me any respect. But I'm frankly not convinced that earning your respect is worth the effort.

Quote: You suggest I have attacked you for attacking me? I haven't attacked you I have analyzed your responses as being attacks. Remember YOU asked if I agreed with Wallie_x, you did want an honest answer didn't you? Nope, you didn't you wanted smoke blown up your arse.
Being honest without being unnecessarily offensive takes some skill.

I was simply pointing out that for all your talk about being supportive of gay people, you didn't seem to take any offense at Wallie's characterization of them as a group. You found it more important to turn my response to him (which wasn't directed at you) into an opportunity to attack me further. I was ready to let our discussion simply end until you did that.

Quote: Gee, I so wish the world was perfectly fair to you. No matter whats going on in my life that the extreme right is interfering with, I will put homosexuals desires (which I don't actually consider "rights") way ahead of anything that might be more pertinent to my life. Furthermore, I will make a concerted effort to watch and enjoy every possible homo oriented media, entertainment, or discussion and promise to vigorously condemn anyone who doesn't think homos walk on water.

Do you feel better now? Pfft!!
No. What I would hope is that you could find some common ground with gay people in their struggle against the extreme right. But you apparently can't be bothered.

As for portrayals of gay people in entertainment media, no one is asking you enjoy shows aimed at a gay audience. I simply responded to your ridiculous assertion that gay people were taking over every TV show.

I don't expect you to worship gay people or defend them at every turn. I'd simply like you to treat them with some common decency and basic respect as human beings, and I don't find that you are despite how progressive you think your own attitude is.

Are we done now?

[rainidame]

I think though that a valid concern is being missed here. I am odd woman out no matter what the topic. I am glad to live in America because I can be THAT different than my neighbors or my family or my community at large and though I KNOW they DON'T like me, and WON'T let their children come and play at our house, and they gossip mean hateful exaggerations about me, . . . I still have my rights, the right to be different and to take the lumps that come with it.

Why do you, Skeptic, think that your "rights" should come with a Valentine's Card attatched? You've chosen to be hated as much as I, being that no matter how hard I try I CANNOT (not willnot as I have tried, really I have) toe the lines of the "normal people" around here. You say you CANNOT be normal either, whether this be genetic or not it another day. . .my point is that we are both apparently incapable of toeing the norm. But I accept that discomfort I cause others and have won over many be simply understanding, being available to help whenever it seems appropriate (I am home 24/7 so I have been "useful" to the neighbors, even those that dis me, in reporting both car and home burglaries) and slowly but surely my mormon community is beginning to embrace this witch. I'm sure however that if I had behaved like you and demanded their approval, acceptance, EVERYTHING warm and fuzzy; NO WAY! They would have found the way to push me out of the neighborhood.

Anyway, I think maybe I have just matured better or faster, or maybe its just the diff between men and women. What do you think? How come I am happy to have rights even though I am an outcast and you seem to think your rights should reverse your outcast status?

[Wallie_x]

ToonArmyisComing Sez: Quote: Here is my opinion, I don't care what you think of gay people. You don't like them, that's your choice, but I wouldn't be happy if you take that dislike and try to use the government to punish gay people by taking their rights away!

I don't believe anyone is trying to take rights away from anyone. In my mind what I am doing is trying to prevent the gay community from sanctifying their civil unions by the outright theft of a term that should never define their unions: i.e. "marriage".

Only in the current era where the country's moral compass has demagnetized could such a preposterous idea be given any validity to begin with. The secular left has succeeded in getting many to agree with the idea of moral relativism. This idea in itself, though plausible on it's surface, has an Achilles' heel, though few in the secular world seem to realize it.

Moreover, it amazes me of how few of the so-called participants in todays debates, give any validity to tradition, history, real spirituality and especially the thoughts of their predecessors. Most so-called modern thinkers trash all ideologies to supplant their own. To me that only verifies how truly shallow they are as persons, but especially as so-called 'thinkers'.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

Wallie_x wrote: I don't believe anyone is trying to take rights away from anyone. In my mind what I am doing is trying to prevent the gay community from sanctifying their civil unions by the outright theft of a term that should never define their unions: i.e. "marriage".

Well, I personally don't care about the name as long as it isn't used as part of an agenda to give Heterosexual couples preferential treatment.

Wallie_x wrote: Only in the current era where the country's moral compass has demagnetized could such a preposterous idea be given any validity to begin with. The secular left has succeeded in getting many to agree with the idea of moral relativism. This idea in itself, though plausible on it's surface, has an Achilles' heel, though few in the secular world seem to realize it.

Why is that? Why should I live according to your moral values? Why do you want to punish me and the people who don't live according to your moral values using the government?

Wallie_x wrote: Moreover, it amazes me of how few of the so-called participants in todays debates, give any validity to tradition, history, real spirituality and especially the thoughts of their predecessors. Most so-called modern thinkers trash all ideologies to supplant their own. To me that only verifies how truly shallow they are as persons, but especially as so-called 'thinkers'.

I am amazed by your attempt to force people like me to live by your traditions and moral values. I am an individual. I shouldn't be penalized if my life doesn't fit your traditions!