But when you see the homophobic laws being pushed, then it is virtually certain that republicans are behind them. THAT is the difference. So when you call somebody "divisive" be sure to point at the right people next time.Deegan said:
(Yeah, they didn't have a smilie with the finger)
An open minded person can agree to disagree. I think that it's ok to let gays adopt, but I don't call people bigots merely because I disagree with them. It's a debatable issue. There are areas where reasonable people differ, and this is one of them. I don't think that homosexual conduct is necessarily immoral. If someone does, that doesn't mean that they hate gays. I think that lieing is immoral, but I don't hate people who lie. Accusing someone of hatred can be as bad as hatred, and your comment is an example of that.steen said:
steen said:But when you see the homophobic laws being pushed, then it is virtually certain that republicans are behind them. THAT is the difference. So when you call somebody "divisive" be sure to point at the right people next time.
However, when it ends up as a law against them adopting, then it is bigotry.mpg said:
But when a party passes laws targeted specifically at homosexuals for no good reason other than bigotry, then there is a problem, isn't there? After all, if you can legislate subjective morality, then the question is WHOSE morality gets to rule.
Absolutely. But I also feel that speaking out against the second "wrong" without doing something about the initial wrong, or even seeking to minimize and denying it, that is MUCH worse. When somebody claim that only the second wrong is "divisive," then that very much gets my attention.
I wouldn't be surprised. Anybody who can initiate a law against homosexual adoption with no reason other than "I don't like homosexuals" would also be able to push such laws against anybody else they disapprove off.
I understand that all political persuasions have homophobes. But YOU are minimizing the REALITY that the anti-homosexual laws of all stripes are mainly a republican phenomenon. THEY are the ones who are pushing the "culture war." Your denial of this is disturbing.Deegan said:
Sure they do, and both sides are falling for bigotry and hate mongering.
I have several letters on file in the Clinton Whitehouse as per my position, including the scientific data foundation for these. The same info was sent to my senators and congress person as well as the state reps. And every time I see attempts at bigotry, I fight it, regardless of the source.
Ah, but YOU decided to point fingers, and ONLY at the one who passed a contrary law. THAT is what I can not accept, the hypocrisy of somebody objecting against the demonstrating against bigotry without also condemning the original bigotry. Which do you think is most divisive? The bill directed against republicans, or the republican bill hat started the whole thing?
(again, add the finger in per your own imagination).We are both wrong, but YOU are the one who choose to display the incredible hypocrisy of attacking only the democratic counter bill, while trying to claim that the Republican bill is not a problem, and a problem way outside of just one local bigot.
perhaps you could do so by not being divisive YOURSELF!!!!
No, I am calling you on your hypocrisy, which you so far have refused to acknowledge, and I am calling you on your attempt to minimize the overwhelmingly republican-caused attacks on homosexual rights.
steen said:I understand that all political persuasions have homophobes. But YOU are minimizing the REALITY that the anti-homosexual laws of all stripes are mainly a republican phenomenon. THEY are the ones who are pushing the "culture war." Your denial of this is disturbing.
Sure they do, and both sides are falling for bigotry and hate mongering.
I have several letters on file in the Clinton Whitehouse as per my position, including the scientific data foundation for these. The same info was sent to my senators and congress person as well as the state reps. And every time I see attempts at bigotry, I fight it, regardless of the source.
Ah, but YOU decided to point fingers, and ONLY at the one who passed a contrary law. THAT is what I can not accept, the hypocrisy of somebody objecting against the demonstrating against bigotry without also condemning the original bigotry. Which do you think is most divisive? The bill directed against republicans, or the republican bill hat started the whole thing?
Well, that was a silly question, as you only attacked the democratic bill. It is obvious that you only consern yourself with divisiveness from the democratic side.
We are both wrong, but YOU are the one who choose to display the incredible hypocrisy of attacking only the democratic counter bill, while trying to claim that the Republican bill is not a problem, and a problem way outside of just one local bigot.
perhaps you could do so by not being divisive YOURSELF!!!!
No, I am calling you on your hypocrisy, which you so far have refused to acknowledge, and I am calling you on your attempt to minimize the overwhelmingly republican-caused attacks on homosexual rights.
****. Damn. F%%$ing hell. You are right. What you spoke out against was the republican law, and I couldn't read.Deegan said:
:3oops:
steen said:****. Damn. F%%$ing hell. You are right. What you spoke out against was the republican law, and I couldn't read.
You are right, I maligned you for no good reason, against what you actually did. My sincerest appologies
I was utterly and completely wrong here, nd it seems like I didn't bother reading your post carefully enough. Again, I am sorry. I'll go away now (Slinks out of the tread)