| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/30/2010 09:06:31 AM · #5101 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Imagine three points on a line, equally spaced and quite far apart. Seen from either of the more distant points, the middle point appears to be near the opposite point, while from the middle point both points appear to be equidistant.
At least that is my point of view.
You think I'm with them. They think I'm with you. You are a smart guy, and we don't seem to be able to discuss this subject without creating more heat than light.
I've tried quoting bible passages to enlighten the fools who hold signs spewing hate in the name of God, trust me, no light is generated there either, but boy does it get heated. |
THERE's the takehome :-) The bolded portion is a beautiful statement, especially.
R. |
|
|
|
10/30/2010 06:49:15 PM · #5102 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Spelling: "Spelling" is always spelt, S P E L L I N G. |
You mean "Spelling" is always *spelled* S P E L L I N G, right?
;-)
|
|
|
|
10/30/2010 11:15:46 PM · #5103 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Spelling: "Spelling" is always spelt, S P E L L I N G. |
You mean "Spelling" is always *spelled* S P E L L I N G, right?
;-) |
Wait... how is "spelt" spelled then?
I couldn't resist. |
|
|
|
10/30/2010 11:54:25 PM · #5104 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Spelling: "Spelling" is always spelt, S P E L L I N G. |
You mean "Spelling" is always *spelled* S P E L L I N G, right?
;-) |
Wait... how is "spelt" spelled then?
I couldn't resist. |
"Spelt" is spelt "spelled" in the colonies. "Spelled" is spelled "spelt" on the mothership. Wheat is wheat and grammar is grammar and never the twain shall meet.
R. |
|
|
|
11/01/2010 07:57:04 AM · #5105 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Spelling: "Spelling" is always spelt, S P E L L I N G. |
You mean "Spelling" is always *spelled* S P E L L I N G, right?
;-) |
Wait... how is "spelt" spelled then?
I couldn't resist. |
"Spelt" is spelt "spelled" in the colonies. "Spelled" is spelled "spelt" on the mothership. Wheat is wheat and grammar is grammar and never the twain shall meet.
R. |
I just thought it was amusing in the context...!
|
|
|
|
11/01/2010 08:59:24 AM · #5106 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Spelling: "Spelling" is always spelt, S P E L L I N G. |
You mean "Spelling" is always *spelled* S P E L L I N G, right?
;-) |
Wait... how is "spelt" spelled then?
I couldn't resist. |
"Spelt" is spelt "spelled" in the colonies. "Spelled" is spelled "spelt" on the mothership. Wheat is wheat and grammar is grammar and never the twain shall meet.
R. |
I just thought it was amusing in the context...! |
Two countries separated by a common language.....one of my favourite sayings.....
|
|
|
|
11/01/2010 05:15:37 PM · #5107 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Two countries separated by a common language.....one of my favourite sayings..... |
Yes... that is a colourful expression :) |
|
|
|
11/01/2010 07:37:23 PM · #5108 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Two countries separated by a common language.....one of my favourite sayings..... |
Yes... that is a colourful expression :) |
Just goes to show that you both know how to spell properly when you put your minds to it.
:-P
|
|
|
|
11/01/2010 08:37:13 PM · #5109 |
| "Correct spelling" is highly overrated. |
|
|
|
11/02/2010 05:23:36 PM · #5110 |
I was never good a spelling. Should've spelled checked with google.
Here's an article from the UK:
Christian couple barred from fostering children because of their views on homosexuality go to court
Looks like the tide is turning. A homosexual couple in Florida can adopt, but a Christian couple in the UK can't? Granted, it's 2 seperate countries, but this could be the same route the US takes. |
|
|
|
11/02/2010 05:37:23 PM · #5111 |
This couple was denied fostering a child... wow. Adoption is one thing but being denied the right to foster a child? Insane.
This sucks for the orphans. |
|
|
|
11/02/2010 05:52:58 PM · #5112 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
This sucks for the orphans. |
Not necessarily. There are plenty of people without bigoted and hateful views that are willing to foster and adopt. It's quite obvious that any orphan would be better off with them and they might even be Christian as well. As has been pointed out in this thread-not all Christians are bigots and homophobes. They are not being refused because of their Christian beliefs no matter what the right wing Daily Mail says. They are being refused because of their homophobic beliefs, just as if they were racists or anti-semites.
So when  Nullix says...
Originally posted by Nullix:
A homosexual couple in Florida can adopt, but a Christian couple in the UK can't? |
That is not actually the case. What he should say is...
Originally posted by Nullix:
A homosexual couple in Florida can adopt, but a homophobic couple in the UK can't? |
Which seems perfectly sensible to me. They shouldn't be allowed to foster vulnerable children and expose them to prejudice and hate.
Message edited by author 2010-11-02 20:45:40. |
|
|
|
11/02/2010 06:02:02 PM · #5113 |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 10:46:04 AM · #5114 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
So when Nullix says...
Originally posted by Nullix:
"A homosexual couple in Florida can adopt, but a Christian couple in the UK can't?" |
That is not actually the case. What he should say is...
"A homosexual couple in Florida can adopt, but a homophobic couple in the UK can't?"
Which seems perfectly sensible to me. They shouldn't be allowed to foster vulnerable children and expose them to prejudice and hate. |
So someone who doesn't agree with a homosexual lifestyle is homophobic?
If you read the article, you'll find that, "...they are against sex before marriage and [they] do not recognize as marriage civil partnerships between gay couples..."
Is that what homophobic means? That doesn't sound like fear or hate. They don't act like the Westboro folks. Infact their views are what most Christians around the world believe. Are all Christians homophobic? I'm Christian and I don't fear gay people.
These people have fostered around 20 children already and now because of their Christian beliefs, they're being denied? |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 11:54:33 AM · #5115 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
So when Nullix says...
Originally posted by Nullix:
"A homosexual couple in Florida can adopt, but a Christian couple in the UK can't?" |
That is not actually the case. What he should say is...
"A homosexual couple in Florida can adopt, but a homophobic couple in the UK can't?"
Which seems perfectly sensible to me. They shouldn't be allowed to foster vulnerable children and expose them to prejudice and hate. |
|
Originally posted by Nullix:
So someone who doesn't agree with a homosexual lifestyle is homophobic? |
The term 'lifestyle' here is, of course, misleading. What do you mean by 'lifestyle'? The word is used to cushion the blow as some people are squeamish about admitting that they don't agree with homosexuals full stop. Or to be more specific, perhaps, sex between homosexuals. So unless you are referring to liking Liza Minnelli and Lady Gaga, let's not be squeamish and re-phrase the question more honestly as, ' So someone who doesn't agree with a homosexuals right to exist and have sex is homophobic?'
To which the obvious answer is - Yes.
Originally posted by Nullix:
If you read the article, you'll find that, "...they are against sex before marriage and [they] do not recognize as marriage civil partnerships between gay couples..." |
Well, see above really. More spin. They don't agree with sex before marriage and they don't believe gay people can get married so basically they don't believe gay people should have sex full stop. Which is kind of the same thing as saying they don't believe gay people should exist full stop.
Originally posted by Nullix:
Is that what homophobic means? |
Yes.
Originally posted by Nullix:
That doesn't sound like fear or hate. |
Yes it does.
Originally posted by Nullix:
They don't act like the Westboro folks. |
No they don't. So?
Originally posted by Nullix:
Infact their views are what most Christians around the world believe. |
Well, i don't know about 'most' but certainly not all. None of my Christian friends believe this and if i may direct you again to the link to the essay by Bishop John Shelby Spong. Here it is again. Do please have a read. I'd be interested in why you think he is wrong.
Originally posted by Nullix:
Are all Christians homophobic? |
I have to say that whilst your homophobia is pretty strong, your reading comprehension is atrocious. Please read my post again paying particular attention to the bit where i say, 'As has been pointed out in this thread-not all Christians are bigots and homophobes.'
Originally posted by Nullix:
I'm Christian and I don't fear gay people. |
Good for you although using the common tactic of extracting the 'phobia' part of 'homophobia' - as in 'I'm not scared of them lot'- is lazy and pointless. In common usage the term homophobia is also used to define a belief that homosexuals should not have the same human rights as heterosexuals.
Originally posted by Nullix:
These people have fostered around 20 children already and now because of their Christian beliefs, they're being denied? |
No they are not. See my original post. They are not being denied because of their Christian beliefs- there are many Christian parents who adopt in the UK- they are being denied because they have expressed the belief (which i assume they kept hidden during previous fostering- i don't know) that a percentage of humans should not exist and should not have the same human rights as others. They are being denied fostering because they are bigoted homophobes essentially.
Message edited by author 2010-11-03 12:22:37. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 12:58:54 PM · #5116 |
| I had to check your age on your profile Clive, because you argue like an 18-year-old with concrete thinking and black-and-white views of the world. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 01:02:34 PM · #5117 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I had to check your age on your profile Clive, because you argue like an 18-year-old with concrete thinking and black-and-white views of the world. |
Thanks Doc. I assume you don't like my points. I seem to remember you getting upset when i used the term 'bigot' when applied to people who disagree with homosexuality before (maybe earlier in this thread). Do you want to point out where i'm going wrong? |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 01:17:36 PM · #5118 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I had to check your age on your profile Clive, because you argue like an 18-year-old with concrete thinking and black-and-white views of the world. |
Thanks Doc. I assume you don't like my points. I seem to remember you getting upset when i used the term 'bigot' when applied to people who disagree with homosexuality before (maybe earlier in this thread). Do you want to point out where i'm going wrong? |
"they are being denied because they have expressed the belief (which i assume they kept hidden during previous fostering- i don't know) that a percentage of humans should not exist and should not have the same human rights as others."
What does this mean? They should be exterminated? It sounds very inflammatory. Very third reich. Let me get at the point in another manner. Do you think there is any position possible other than considering homosexuality to be a normal, correct, and reasonable activity that does not qualify as being "homophobic" or bigoted?
Message edited by author 2010-11-03 13:18:36. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 01:21:01 PM · #5119 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Well, i don't know about 'most' but certainly not all. None of my Christian friends believe this and if i may direct you again to the link to the essay by Bishop John Shelby Spong. Here it is again. Do please have a read. I'd be interested in why you think he is wrong.
|
Originally posted by John Shelby Spong:
I will no longer act as if the Papal office is to be respected if the present occupant of that office is either not willing or not able to inform and educate himself on public issues on which he dares to speak with embarrassing ineptitude. I will no longer be respectful of the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who seems to believe that rude behavior, intolerance and even killing prejudice is somehow acceptable, so long as it comes from third-world religious leaders, who more than anything else reveal in themselves the price that colonial oppression has required of the minds and hearts of so many of our world's population. I see no way that ignorance and truth can be placed side by side, nor do I believe that evil is somehow less evil if the Bible is quoted to justify it. I will dismiss as unworthy of any more of my attention the wild, false and uninformed opinions of such would-be religious leaders as Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, Albert Mohler, and Robert Duncan. My country and my church have both already spent too much time, energy and money trying to accommodate these backward points of view when they are no longer even tolerable. |
So, he's against the beliefs of the:
Pope (Catholic Church worldwide)
Bishop of Tanterbury (Church of England)
Many Christian Denominations
Doesn't seem very mainstream Christian to me.
What I'm getting from these past posts, if someone doesn't agree with homosexuals lifestyle, they are homophobic. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 01:41:16 PM · #5120 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I had to check your age on your profile Clive, because you argue like an 18-year-old with concrete thinking and black-and-white views of the world. |
Thanks Doc. I assume you don't like my points. I seem to remember you getting upset when i used the term 'bigot' when applied to people who disagree with homosexuality before (maybe earlier in this thread). Do you want to point out where i'm going wrong? |
"they are being denied because they have expressed the belief (which i assume they kept hidden during previous fostering- i don't know) that a percentage of humans should not exist and should not have the same human rights as others."
What does this mean? They should be exterminated? It sounds very inflammatory. Very third reich. Let me get at the point in another manner. Do you think there is any position possible other than considering homosexuality to be a normal, correct, and reasonable activity that does not qualify as being "homophobic" or bigoted? |
I don't see how there's any way you could consider a position that DOESN'T consider it such as non-homophobic or not bigoted. Seriously. Any position of such nature is PURELY based on fear, ignorance and un-truths. Although I'm sure that you'll have some completely reasonable SOUNDING yet purely ridiculous counter-arguments :D
|
|
|
|
11/03/2010 01:44:52 PM · #5121 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I had to check your age on your profile Clive, because you argue like an 18-year-old with concrete thinking and black-and-white views of the world. |
Thanks Doc. I assume you don't like my points. I seem to remember you getting upset when i used the term 'bigot' when applied to people who disagree with homosexuality before (maybe earlier in this thread). Do you want to point out where i'm going wrong? |
"they are being denied because they have expressed the belief (which i assume they kept hidden during previous fostering- i don't know) that a percentage of humans should not exist and should not have the same human rights as others."
What does this mean? They should be exterminated? It sounds very inflammatory. Very third reich. Let me get at the point in another manner. Do you think there is any position possible other than considering homosexuality to be a normal, correct, and reasonable activity that does not qualify as being "homophobic" or bigoted? |
I don't see how there's any way you could consider a position that DOESN'T consider it such as non-homophobic or not bigoted. Seriously. Any position of such nature is PURELY based on fear, ignorance and un-truths. Although I'm sure that you'll have some completely reasonable SOUNDING yet purely ridiculous counter-arguments :D |
That's fine. But if Clive agrees with you then you can see how I associated it with concrete, black-and-white thinking. Such thinking is most commonly found in teens. If you have no room to give on the position, then there is no need to discuss it and one can either join the position or ignore it as being "bigoted" (a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices). You can't claim the other side is bigoted because they refuse to change their position and avoid painting yourself with the same brush.
Message edited by author 2010-11-03 13:49:05. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 01:59:15 PM · #5122 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I had to check your age on your profile Clive, because you argue like an 18-year-old with concrete thinking and black-and-white views of the world. |
Thanks Doc. I assume you don't like my points. I seem to remember you getting upset when i used the term 'bigot' when applied to people who disagree with homosexuality before (maybe earlier in this thread). Do you want to point out where i'm going wrong? |
"they are being denied because they have expressed the belief (which i assume they kept hidden during previous fostering- i don't know) that a percentage of humans should not exist and should not have the same human rights as others."
What does this mean? They should be exterminated? It sounds very inflammatory. Very third reich. Let me get at the point in another manner. Do you think there is any position possible other than considering homosexuality to be a normal, correct, and reasonable activity that does not qualify as being "homophobic" or bigoted? |
Yes, it does sound a bit extreme when put like that. What shall i replace it with i wonder? 'Is sinful' perhaps. 'Will burn in Hell for eternity' maybe? Yes, that sounds much more reasonable.
Do you think there is any position possible other than considering homosexuality to be a normal, correct, and reasonable activity that does not qualify as being "homophobic" or bigoted?
Hum. Is there any position that considers homosexuality to be abnormal, incorrect and unreasonable that does not qualify as being "homophobic" or bigoted?
Well, a short Oxford Dictionary definition of 'bigoted' is... having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others:
So if we take 'opinions' as also meaning 'sexuality', or even 'lifestyle' if we must, then viewing homosexuality as 'incorrect' as opposed to hetrosexuality being 'correct' and 'abnormal' as opposed to 'normal' i would have to say it's quite hard for me to envision those views as not being bigoted.
I'm assuming you believe you can hold views that consider homosexuality to be abnormal, incorrect and unreasonable which are not bigoted or prejudice in any way. Care to enlighten me?
The quick Oxford definition of homophobia is 'an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.
This is a bit trickier i guess because of the 'irrational' bit. Perhaps to those foster parents, and some other Christians the view that homosexuals are 'sinful' and 'will burn in Hell for eternity' is entirely rational. I'd say it isn't though.
Anyway, i hope i'm not still sounding like an 18-year-old with concrete thinking and black-and-white views of the world. It does seem pretty simple to me just as i feel racism is pretty simple. You deny that some other humans deserve the same rights as others then you are prejudiced and bigoted. Simple. Perhaps i'm just an air-headed optimist.
Message edited by author 2010-11-03 14:11:11. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 02:05:04 PM · #5123 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I had to check your age on your profile Clive, because you argue like an 18-year-old with concrete thinking and black-and-white views of the world. |
Thanks Doc. I assume you don't like my points. I seem to remember you getting upset when i used the term 'bigot' when applied to people who disagree with homosexuality before (maybe earlier in this thread). Do you want to point out where i'm going wrong? |
"they are being denied because they have expressed the belief (which i assume they kept hidden during previous fostering- i don't know) that a percentage of humans should not exist and should not have the same human rights as others."
What does this mean? They should be exterminated? It sounds very inflammatory. Very third reich. Let me get at the point in another manner. Do you think there is any position possible other than considering homosexuality to be a normal, correct, and reasonable activity that does not qualify as being "homophobic" or bigoted? |
I don't see how there's any way you could consider a position that DOESN'T consider it such as non-homophobic or not bigoted. Seriously. Any position of such nature is PURELY based on fear, ignorance and un-truths. Although I'm sure that you'll have some completely reasonable SOUNDING yet purely ridiculous counter-arguments :D |
That's fine. But if Clive agrees with you then you can see how I associated it with concrete, black-and-white thinking. Such thinking is most commonly found in teens. If you have no room to give on the position, then there is no need to discuss it and one can either join the position or ignore it as being "bigoted" (a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices). You can't claim the other side is bigoted because they refuse to change their position and avoid painting yourself with the same brush. |
I've never tried avoiding painting myself with the same brush. I'm not one of these people that doesn't believe that people have to be tolerant of EVERYTHING. I don't tolerate intolerance. This is not, however, the paradox people like you love to try and convince people it is.
The difference is, I don't believe that people of faith are 'wrong' or should not exist. I just think they should exist within themselves, and not spread it to others that may not wish to observe or share in their beliefs. The christian couple that refuses to accept homosexuality and could never accept that a child they fostered might have such feelings (especially if they ended up fostering older children that are able to start recognizing such feelings) are not suited to foster. More so than any Joe Dick and Harriet than can just biologically have children, foster parents SHOULD be able to accept -- and be flexible about -- just about anything in regards to the children they are fostering. They need to be able to have compassion and understanding OUTSIDE of their personal belief systems, and if a couple was to be unable to do anything but preach intolerance to a child in their care about something that child may be feeling, they are unfit to foster. It's bad enough that we have generations of parents teaching their children bigotry and hatred, we don't need it in foster parents that are taking in children that are probably already a product of so much negativity.
On the day that someone actually comes up with compelling evidence that homosexuality is ANYTHING but a completely normal and harmless state of humanity (which will be never), there can be no argument that being against it ISN'T bigotry. Any more than saying you don't agree with people of a different colored skin could ever be seen as anything other than bigotry.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2010 02:08:26 PM · #5124 |
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by clive_patric_nolan:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I had to check your age on your profile Clive, because you argue like an 18-year-old with concrete thinking and black-and-white views of the world. |
Thanks Doc. I assume you don't like my points. I seem to remember you getting upset when i used the term 'bigot' when applied to people who disagree with homosexuality before (maybe earlier in this thread). Do you want to point out where i'm going wrong? |
"they are being denied because they have expressed the belief (which i assume they kept hidden during previous fostering- i don't know) that a percentage of humans should not exist and should not have the same human rights as others."
What does this mean? They should be exterminated? It sounds very inflammatory. Very third reich. Let me get at the point in another manner. Do you think there is any position possible other than considering homosexuality to be a normal, correct, and reasonable activity that does not qualify as being "homophobic" or bigoted? |
Yes, it does sound a bit extreme when put like that. What shall i replace it with i wonder? 'Is sinful' perhaps. 'Will burn in Hell for eternity' maybe? Yes, that sounds much more reasonable.
Do you think there is any position possible other than considering homosexuality to be a normal, correct, and reasonable activity that does not qualify as being "homophobic" or bigoted?
Hum. Is there any position that considers homosexuality to be abnormal, incorrect and unreasonable that does not qualify as being "homophobic" or bigoted?
Well, a short Oxford Dictionary definition of 'bigoted' is... having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others:
So if we take 'opinions' as also meaning 'sexuality', or even 'lifestyle' if we must, then viewing homosexuality as 'incorrect' as opposed to hetrosexuality being 'correct' and 'abnormal' as opposed to 'normal' i would have to say it's quite hard for me to envision those views as not being bigoted.
I'm assuming you believe you can hold views that consider homosexuality to be abnormal, incorrect and unreasonable which are not bigoted or prejudice in any way. Care to enlighten me?
The quick Oxford definition of homophobia is 'an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.
This is a bit trickier i guess because of the 'irrational' bit. Perhaps to those foster parents, and some other Christians the view that homosexuals are 'sinful' and 'will burn in Hell for eternity' is entirely rational. I'd say it isn't though.
Anyway, i hope i'm not still sounding like an 18-year-old with concrete thinking and black-and-white views of the world. It does seem pretty simple to me just as i feel racism is pretty simple. You deny that some other humans deserve the same rights as others then you are prejudiced and a bigoted. Simple. Perhaps i'm just an air-headed optimist. |
So just a few thoughts.
Your opinion, as I mentioned to K10, fits the definition of "bigoted" every bit as much as the English couple's. Does it not?
You honed in on the word "irrational" for the definition of "homophobic", but I would also hone in on the word "extreme" to imply that there are less extreme positions which may not qualify. But your black-and-white mentality doesn't seem to offer a middle ground. |
|
|
|
11/03/2010 02:12:04 PM · #5125 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I've never tried avoiding painting myself with the same brush. I'm not one of these people that doesn't believe that people have to be tolerant of EVERYTHING. I don't tolerate intolerance. This is not, however, the paradox people like you love to try and convince people it is.
The difference is, I don't believe that people of faith are 'wrong' or should not exist. I just think they should exist within themselves, and not spread it to others that may not wish to observe or share in their beliefs. The christian couple that refuses to accept homosexuality and could never accept that a child they fostered might have such feelings (especially if they ended up fostering older children that are able to start recognizing such feelings) are not suited to foster. More so than any Joe Dick and Harriet than can just biologically have children, foster parents SHOULD be able to accept -- and be flexible about -- just about anything in regards to the children they are fostering. They need to be able to have compassion and understanding OUTSIDE of their personal belief systems, and if a couple was to be unable to do anything but preach intolerance to a child in their care about something that child may be feeling, they are unfit to foster. It's bad enough that we have generations of parents teaching their children bigotry and hatred, we don't need it in foster parents that are taking in children that are probably already a product of so much negativity.
On the day that someone actually comes up with compelling evidence that homosexuality is ANYTHING but a completely normal and harmless state of humanity (which will be never), there can be no argument that being against it ISN'T bigotry. Any more than saying you don't agree with people of a different colored skin could ever be seen as anything other than bigotry. |
Hehe. I love the argument where people say, "it's ok for you to believe or do what you want as long as it is rendered completely irrelevant to everybody but yourself". Woo hoo! Thanks for the understanding. Maybe the English couple should claim the same thing? Maybe homosexuals should be welcome to do whatever they want in the bedroom as long as they are completely and utterly indistinguishable from everbody else in public in their actions and words? Nah, that doesn't quite sound like something you'd go for, so I don't know why you try to pin it on someone else...
Message edited by author 2010-11-03 14:13:09. |
|
