Gaystapo out on the prowl again

[phank]

I've been reading some of the comments on his Facebook post. I was surprised to see that the party of tolerance, civility, equality, inclusiveness and diversity has so many hateful, intolerant, uncivil, "believe as I do or suffer my wrath!" folks in their midst's.

I never knew there was a "party of tolerance". I'd guess if there really was one, worthy members would make the vegetarian party look huge by comparison! Most parties try to be inclusive, which implies diversity, but tolerance and civility are rare in any of them.

[seer]

I've been reading some of the comments on his Facebook post. I was surprised to see that the party of tolerance, civility, equality, inclusiveness and diversity has so many hateful, intolerant, uncivil, "believe as I do or suffer my wrath!" folks in their midst's.

I have been dealing with the left since the early 90s, mostly debating on editorial pages then the net. They are the most intolerant folks around. The political right is not even close. I'm glad Andrew Sullivan spoke up - I had a short e-mail exchange with him a number of years back over a disagreement - he was more than gracious.

[seer]

I never knew there was a "party of tolerance". I'd guess if there really was one, worthy members would make the vegetarian party look huge by comparison! Most parties try to be inclusive, which implies diversity, but tolerance and civility are rare in any of them.

The problem phank is that it was the left demanding tolerance from everyone else, while not willing to offer it for others. Its called hypocrisy.

[Sparko]

Of course, how else could it be? You realize the implication here is that if over time society changes its mind, then morality tracks it?

secularly and temporally within a culture that may be the case, but overall it is not. For example, in ancient Greece (I think) it was considered OK to abandon babies when they were not wanted. In Nazi Germany, it was OK to gas and burn Jews and experiment on them and the disabled. Do we consider such actions moral just because their society did?

But that is a complete side track, yet again.

[Teallaura]

No they're not. They're omnipresent, even in countries with no real stigma against it.

The same pattern is observed in San Francisco - has been for years.

[Teallaura]

The problem phank is that it was the left demanding tolerance from everyone else, while not willing to offer it for others. Its called hypocrisy.

Amen!

[Teallaura]

This is exactly what I was trying to tell Pixie, but you do it better than I can. She was saying that homosexuality presents no special opprobrium on anyone, and you quite correctly point out that your religious faith (the most common faith in the nation) regards their condition as inherently sinful, harmful, and unhealthy. Your bible tells you so. Heterosexuals, for all the problems they have navigating through life, at least don't have to buck THAT current as well.

Three words: Adultery, fornication and divorce.

[Epoetker]

What this point, otherwise entirely correct, seems to carefully NOT notice, is that unusual sexual orientation is yet one more straw on the camel's back of the normal slings and arrows of being human. Heterosexuals of course sleep around - but the sheer weight of legal opposition to this is trivial next to homosexuals doing the same.

As with most liberals, communists, and Satanists, you have a talent for getting things exactly backwards. Opposition to heterosexual men sleeping around is almost entirely legal, and the family courts are legendary pioneers in the surveillance state, while opposition to homosexual men sleeping around is almost entirely visceral, and the view of homosexuality among people not already indoctrinated is either to kill them or push them as far away as possible. Gays aren't fighting the State, they're fighting Nature.

Heterosexual marriages fail half the time and the other half have ups and downs, but nonetheless they are spared laws making their marriage even more difficult than it needs to be.

Otherwise, you sound like someone telling a cripple to suck it up, even athletes get bruises!

Nah, it's more us telling the crippled not to take jobs that require walking, and if they actually get those jobs, not to DEMAND that everyone start respecting them and stop looking at them funny for doing it.

Though 'crippled' may be entirely too nice a comparison. What if the cripples have a keen and abiding interest in crippling the healthy? What if their victory means that We Are All Sodomites Now? What if their slattern female bffs take up the philosophy of spreading as much disease as possible to healthy people because misery loves company?

Homosexuality is an individual disease that has a well-established historical record of turning into a societal cancer. Blaming the victim is hardly the best strategy.

[lilpixieofterror]

What this point, otherwise entirely correct, seems to carefully NOT notice, is that unusual sexual orientation is yet one more straw on the camel's back of the normal slings and arrows of being human. Heterosexuals of course sleep around - but the sheer weight of legal opposition to this is trivial next to homosexuals doing the same. Heterosexual marriages fail half the time and the other half have ups and downs, but nonetheless they are spared laws making their marriage even more difficult than it needs to be.

In other words, you really don't care that struggles with parents and rejection have nothing to do with your sexual orientation, but are a common thread of the human condition that many people, including heterosexuals, struggle with. I know at least one person who was disowned and rejected by their parents for marrying somebody they did not approve of and it a heterosexual union. Are you seriously going to argue that their struggle isn't as 'valid' as the struggle of a homosexual who might have a very similar experience?

Otherwise, you sound like someone telling a cripple to suck it up, even athletes get bruises!

My husband is physically disabled, so I am well aware of the struggles that they go though; however; even he understands that his struggles are not unique and is something that affects millions too.

[KingsGambit]

People justified the boycotts because it wasn't Eich's personal opinions, it was his donations. But here is another case where it is strictly based on personal opinions.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i..._cause_fu.html

[CMD]

People justified the boycotts because it wasn't Eich's personal opinions, it was his donations. But here is another case where it is strictly based on personal opinions.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i..._cause_fu.html

I couldn't help but laugh at this:

It reads like something out of an Onion News article. "Your personal views differ from our own! That is unacceptable in this neighborhood of open-mindedness and tolerance! Be gone with you!"

[Teallaura]

[Sparko]

I couldn't help but laugh at this:



It reads like something out of an Onion News article. "Your personal views differ from our own! That is unacceptable in this neighborhood of open-mindedness and tolerance! Be gone with you!"

that's because "open-minded" doesn't actually mean "being tolerant of other views" -- to liberals it means "you have to accept and conform to our views"

[Darth Executor]

What this point, otherwise entirely correct, seems to carefully NOT notice, is that unusual sexual orientation is yet one more straw on the camel's back of the normal slings and arrows of being human. Heterosexuals of course sleep around - but the sheer weight of legal opposition to this is trivial next to homosexuals doing the same.

There's no legal opposition to homosexuals sleeping around. Maybe you mean social?

[Bill the Cat]

Why won't you answer the question Phank? You know why, don't you? Because you know it will destroy your nonsense argument.

Human male A (25, unmarried US Citizen) is standing in a room with 10 other people. 5 are female and 5 are male

Human female B is 21, unmarried US Citizen, and not related to Human male A
Human female C is 14, unmarried US Citizen, and not related to Human male A
Human female D is 25, married US Citizen, and not related to Human male A
Human female E is 19, unmarried US Citizen, and is Human male A's sister
Human female F is 30, unmarried British Citizen, and is not related to human male A
Human male B is 21, unmarried US Citizen, and not related to Human male A
Human male C is 14, unmarried US Citizen, and not related to Human male A
Human male D is 25, married US Citizen, and not related to Human male A
Human male E is 19, unmarried US Citizen, and is Human male A's brother
Human male F is 30, unmarried British Citizen, and is not related to human male A


Who could human male A marry under the law (before the recent changes in the law)

Oh Phank....