Oklahoma sore losers

[chromium]

I didn't say along side did I? No I didn't.
It is a mischaracterizing of what I did say.

And then you are trying to argue parents. iLOL :doh

There is a difference between what a parent attempts to instill/teach, and that which they try to enforce with that which the child actually learns.
Which is different from what they learn in the media and at schools.

Unless you are a recluse or do not have many friends, I am more than sure that you know many people that learned through education and the media to hold different beliefs despite what their parents attempted.

This is the first time you mentioned education at all. To this point, you've blamed (lol) the media for young people in oklahoma beginning to escape the clutches of religious tyranny. Nonetheless, i highly doubt "liberal education" is the reason in a land where a whopping 11% ever step foot on a college campus

Let me help you out: in oklahoma, the church is ****, the parents are ****, the education is ****, the media is ****, and as this thread offers abundant proof of, the elected officials are ****. The only reason for any progress is their friends, neighbors, family have started to come out despite or possibly in spite of all that. They are no longer some nefarious 'other'. Finally, the lies are being discarded. Not at all sorry it upsets you so

 

[Excon]

There is a difference between what a parent attempts to instill/teach, and that which they try to enforce with that which the child actually learns.
Which is different from what they learn in the media and at schools.

No, there isn't a difference.

You are obviously not paying attention to what you are reading, as you are wrong.
There is a difference between that which a parent attempts to instill/teach and that which they try to enforce, with that which the child may actually learn.
And then you have the issue of those dumb ass and negligent parents who do not even attempt to teach their child but rely on the schools.

So again; I am more than sure that you know many people that learned through education they received and the media to hold different beliefs despite what their parents attempted to instill/teach them.

You also do not appear to understand what I also already stated i this thread.

... please pay attention. I am not arguing her position. I am only pointing out that her position is accurate from her view point.​

Did you not understand that?

Parents don't always know what is best.

Irrelevant to anything said.

There are parents who teach their children all sorts of things that would be considered "indoctrination".

:doh
Irrelevant to anything said, especially as I never said things they taught wouldn't be.

I don't know anyone who learned that something bad was "good" because of the media or through education (especially through education) unless the parents were crappy parents to begin with or it was a subjective "bad".

1. Unlikely.
2. You are ignoring reality.

Homosexuality is not "bad" objectively

:doh
D'oh!
"Bad" is subjective.
Only within the framework of subjectivity can it be determined objectively if it qualifies as such.

Example: Some gay guy might not think anal leakage is "bad", while some may thing it is beyond "bad".

You really should have paid attention when I said I was not arguing her position.

and it does not cause harm to others.

:doh
Another subjective word.

It is no different than heterosexuality.

:doh :lamo
Both objectively and subjectively you are wrong. It is different.

Please provide examples of what you are talking about where media taught something "bad" (harmful) was "good" where the parents actually tried to instill a different belief. What I have seen is where parents were trying to teach their beliefs, such as interracial relationships are wrong, and their children actually changed their minds based on experiencing the world, not on being taught differently by others. Their experiences changed the beliefs.

This is you not wanting to admit to reality in full and only admitting to your own anecdotal memories.

 

[Excon]

This is the first time you mentioned education at all.

:doh
This is you not understanding what the word "taught" means that I used in the first post I made in this thread.

To this point, you've blamed (lol) the media for young people in oklahoma beginning to escape the clutches of religious tyranny. Nonetheless, i highly doubt "liberal education" is the reason in a land where a whopping 11% ever step foot on a college campus

Tyranny? iLOL

Let me help you out: in oklahoma, the church is ****, the parents are ****, the education is ****, the media is ****, and as this thread offers abundant proof of, the elected officials are ****. The only reason for any progress is their friends, neighbors, family have started to come out despite or possibly in spite of all that. They are no longer some nefarious 'other'. Finally, the lies are being discarded. Not at all sorry it upsets you so

You are confused. I am not constrained by her beliefs.
And your opinion is just the same as you say about theirs. "****!"

 

[chromium]

Tyranny? iLOL

Yes, laws allowing adults to try and force minors into changing their sexuality, allowing for businesses and schools to discriminate and expel LGBT but not other minorities, banning marriage rights to gay couples, imprisonment for consensual sex, all of that is most definitely tyranny orchestrated by religion within oklahoma. That is to say nothing of the hysteria that has been done by various churches directly, such as "exorcism" of minors and heinous lies about the "gay agenda" and gay people generally

Now if all you're going to do in response to all this is sit there and laugh kindly GTFO my thread

 

[Excon]

Yes, laws allowing adults to try and force minors into changing their sexuality, allowing for businesses and schools to discriminate and expel LGBT but not other minorities, banning marriage rights to gay couples, imprisonment for consensual sex, all of that is most definitely tyranny orchestrated by religion within oklahoma. That is to say nothing of the hysteria that has been done by various churches directly, such as "exorcism" of minors and heinous lies about the "gay agenda" and gay people generally

Now if all you're going to do in response to all this is sit there and laugh kindly GTFO my thread

Maybe just maybe you should have attempted to understand what was being said before going off half cocked.

Again.

It is like you can not even comprehend what is being said.
In context what is being spoken about it is a threat to what is and has been.​

​

​

​

Tyranny?
I am sure to them that would be homosexuals forcing the product of another efforts, against there will, be provided to them.

 

[chromium]

Tyranny?
I am sure to them that would be homosexuals forcing the product of another efforts, against there will, be provided to them.

There is no harm done to the bigots whatsoever in the process of securing gay rights, so this is just a laughable claim. It's not even remotely comparable to anything i listed

 

[Excon]

There is no harm done to the bigots whatsoever in the process of securing gay rights, so this is just a laughable claim. It's not even remotely comparable to anything i listed

:doh
More subjectivity.
Like I said.

I am sure to them that would be homosexuals forcing the product of another efforts, against there will, be provided to them.​

I am sure that forcing them to provide the product of their efforts to those they do not want to is "harm" to them.

 

[AGENT J]

Has anyone, ever, explained what these "dangers" to society are? That it requires emergency action to preserve them?

How can we preserve something if we dont know what it is?

no . . NEVER . . . at best imaginary danegers have been presented here and there that nobody honest takes seriously because they are made up

 

[roguenuke]

:doh
More subjectivity.
Like I said.

I am sure to them that would be homosexuals forcing the product of another efforts, against there will, be provided to them.​

I am sure that forcing them to provide the product of their efforts to those they do not want to is "harm" to them.

It doesn't matter that they believe or think that "harm" is done. Many of those who tried to prevent interracial couples from getting together honestly believed/believe (since there are still some out there today) that their relationships are harmful.

 

[Excon]

It doesn't matter that they believe or think that "harm" is done. Many of those who tried to prevent interracial couples from getting together honestly believed/believe (since there are still some out there today) that their relationships are harmful.

False equivalency.

 

[chromium]

:doh
More subjectivity.
Like I said.

I am sure to them that would be homosexuals forcing the product of another efforts, against there will, be provided to them.​

I am sure that forcing them to provide the product of their efforts to those they do not want to is "harm" to them.

Their only case in these oklahoma laws not being struck down would be arguing there is no "compelling governmental interest" in preventing such discrimination, something the courts have been rejecting even in "RFRA" states

Likewise, they would be denied standing in any lawsuit or appeal, because there is no injury to their bigoted cashiers/managers being forced to conduct business *exactly the same as always*, merely selling products to homosexuals as well. The only 'injury' is in their ****ed minds

Your sig also contradicts your position here, since 'passion' is all the bigots have to argue with

 

[Excon]

Their only case in these oklahoma laws not being struck down would be arguing there is no "compelling governmental interest" in preventing such discrimination, something the courts have been rejecting even in "RFRA" states

Likewise, they would be denied standing in any lawsuit or appeal, because there is no injury to their bigoted cashiers/managers being forced to conduct business *exactly the same as always*, merely selling products to homosexuals as well. The only 'injury' is in their ****ed minds

Your sig also contradicts your position here, since 'passion' is all the bigots have to argue with

You are arguing all over the place, against things I did not say and going off on irrelevant tangents to what was said.
Besides your opinion being just as bigoted as hers, this is what you get for not paying attention.
Again, as you were already told.

... please pay attention. I am not arguing her position. I am only pointing out that her position is accurate from her view point.​

 

[roguenuke]

False equivalency.

Just because you want to claim a "false equivalency" doesn't make it true. They are pretty much the same thing, one group of people who believe what others choose to do causes harm, but they cannot show that it causes harm at all because the beliefs are really based on their personal dislike of those people.

 

[Excon]

Just because you want to claim a "false equivalency" doesn't make it true. They are pretty much the same thing, one group of people who believe what others choose to do causes harm, but they cannot show that it causes harm at all because the beliefs are really based on their personal dislike of those people.

Just because you say they are pretty much the same thing doesn't make it true. Especially as they are not.

Your argument was nothing but false equivalency.

 

[roguenuke]

Just because you say they are pretty much the same thing doesn't make it true. Especially as they are not.

Your argument was nothing but false equivalency.

No it isn't. They are quite equivalent situations. You reject them as such due solely to your bias against homosexuals/homosexuality.

 

[Excon]

No it isn't. They are quite equivalent situations. You reject them as such due solely to your bias against homosexuals/homosexuality.

Wrong.
It was a false equivalency.


And stop speaking about that which you do not know.

 

[roguenuke]

Wrong.
It was a false equivalency.


And stop speaking about that which you do not know.

Then explain why it is a false equivalence. You have an obligation to support your claim of you want it to be taken seriously.

 

[Excon]

Then explain why it is a false equivalence. You have an obligation to support your claim of you want it to be taken seriously.

I do not need to explain why you your want to insert an irrelevancy such as a false equivalency.

 

[roguenuke]

I do not need to explain why you your want to insert an irrelevancy such as a false equivalency.

You need to explain why it would be a false equivalency. Otherwise, you are simply trying to divert the discussion.

 

[Excon]

You need to explain why it would be a false equivalency. Otherwise, you are simply trying to divert the discussion.

:naughty
No, you are trying to divert with a false equivalency.
I do not need to explain what is evident.

 

[CLAX1911]

You need to explain why it would be a false equivalency. Otherwise, you are simply trying to divert the discussion.

People that refuse to explain why you are guilty of what they accused you of are simply falsely accusing you of things because their argument failed.

Some folks think the last post equals winning.

 

[Excon]

People that refuse to explain why you are guilty of what they accused you of are simply falsely accusing you of things because their argument failed.

Some folks think the last post equals winning.

Wrong.
His assertion was diversion and a false equivalency.
I do not need to explain what is evident.

 

[CLAX1911]

Wrong.

Nope.

 

[Excon]

Nope.

:doh
Yes you are wrong here. Just as he was.

 

[CLAX1911]

:doh
Yes you are wrong here. Just as he was.

Nope.