Opponents of Calif gay history law seek referendum Read more: http://www.adn.com/2011/07/26/1986454/opponents-of-calif-gay-history.html#ixzz1THWjiMn4

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

It could be a secret crush or something. Or not. Maybe an insistence that homophobes are homophobes. I know, a novel idea- unfortunately undervalued in a style war.

Still using that same ol spiel eh? It gets old after awhile.

[Zero Sum 305]

Good luck tryin to make a point by ignoring the basis for your points.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You might want to debate this with fishdude or at least direct your messed up post to him.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=gay+parades&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2229l4657l0l5092l11l10l0l0l0l0l1291l4226l5-1.3.1l5l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw=1440&bih=775&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi <---- Your going to tell me kids don't see this #######?

It's people like you that make me sick to my stomach. Your saying that people that live in California their entire lives and who don't want their kids to be subjected to that giant mental issue known as homosexuality should move to another state????

What about the kids who are adopted by these nuts? How's a kid supposed to explain to his/her class mates that he doesn't have a real mom, just a guy who pretends to be his mommy but is actually his biological father, and the guy he's getting buggered by is his/her ..what ..dad or step dad?

Or maybe they say yes this is my mom/dad? You are the type of person who could give two sh*ts less about children as long as you can shove your your type of sick and demented values in someones face. Iv'e seen your kind time and time again and it makes me sick.

Seriously...direct your pathetic bs post to someone else on here, but spare me the bs.

I'm still awaiting your calmly worded, rationally constructed argument that your opposition to this law has anything to do with the reality of it or that your dislike of homosexual people in general comes from anywhere but a place of deep seated hatred and bigotry.

Fixating on the 'weirdness' of gay sex, only suggests that you have some deep seated fascination with it.

I'm still holding out to the view that you are somewhat intelligent and are making these comments out of a desire to create mischief on these boards, albeit in a very unimaginative way. As I said I take you even less seriously if these are your genuine opinions.

Edited July 28, 2011 by fishdude

[mawilson 2,133]

Teaching about racial minorities in history hasn't eliminated racism. Teaching about women in history hasn't eliminated sexism. Teaching about gays will probably make people aware that there are lot more fvcked up males in the world than they once believed there were.

Only males? Female gays are ok?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Female gays are ok by kip too. And yet he seems to spend a lot of time fixating on man on man gay sex and how 'weird' and 'freaky' he finds it, something most heterosexually secure people probably think very little about.

It's like if you have a friend who bigs up his masculinity, but then buys a gay porn dvd just so he can show you how 'weird' it is and it doesn't occur to him what buying gay porn actually says about him.

Edited July 28, 2011 by fishdude

[mawilson 2,133]

You're bigoted against people who don't accept homosexuality as normal.

It's like saying that if you're against racism, you are bigoted against people who believe that other races are inferior.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

It's like saying that if you're against racism, you are bigoted against people who believe that other races are inferior.

being bigoted against someone or a group is having a general intolerance for them. So technically speaking, you're a 'bigot' if you're intolerant of bigots....

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Plainly speaking, that's semantic nonsense

[Zero Sum 305]

It's like saying that if you're against racism, you are bigoted against people who believe that other races are inferior.

Their argument is one to deflect attention from the actual bigotry- a war of style, mind you. For the most part, it makes for dizzying conversation that is ignored by most who can notice the obvious problem behind attacking the person that identifies bigotry in others with some 'rudeness' to give them some of their own medicine. Its a bitter pill for some to swallow because they know there is, beyond the obvious nature of the bigotry, absolutely no defense for such idiocy in supporting discriminatory practices.

[Zero Sum 305]

being bigoted against someone or a group is having a general intolerance for them. So technically speaking, you're a 'bigot' if you're intolerant of bigots....

Yes Paul, technically speaking and one accepted by those accused of bigotry by the bigots (quite the irony, of course). And technically speaking, its better to focus on the actual bigotry being identified. Kind of funny some here would get hung up on the semantics huh? In my opinion its a defense mechanism to hide their bigotry by deflection. What opinion do you have about that specifically? You've made some good and honest contributions in this thread- I'm interested in your detailed perspective on this word play.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

It's like saying that if you're against racism, you are bigoted against people who believe that other races are inferior.

No, it's not.

Plainly speaking, that's semantic nonsense

No, it's not.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Luke 6:27-36

[27] "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, [28] bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. [29] If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. [30] Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. [31] Do to others as you would have them do to you.

[32] "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. [33] And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. [34] And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. [35] But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. [36] Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

[Zero Sum 305]

, C.O.P.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Their argument is one to deflect attention from the actual bigotry- a war of style, mind you. For the most part, it makes for dizzying conversation that is ignored by most who can notice the obvious problem behind attacking the person that identifies bigotry in others with some 'rudeness' to give them some of their own medicine. Its a bitter pill for some to swallow because they know there is, beyond the obvious nature of the bigotry, absolutely no defense for such idiocy in supporting discriminatory practices.

I know you're thrown your towel in with those for whom subtlety and nuance is a struggle, but try to grasp the difference. You're preaching tolerance, but showing intolerance toward those who aren't accepting of gays as you are. All you manage to do is bully some of them into submission, but you don't change their minds. They are still out in society, still not accepting the gay life you want them to embrace.

What kind of progress is that?

To be truly tolerant, you can't bully when faced with an opposing point of view. But that's your knee-jerk response, which makes you less than tolerant. Now, if you want to drop the tolerant act, then, you can continue to bully and no one will care, nothing will change, you can be openly honest and consistent in your message, saving yourself a lot of grief in the future.

[Zero Sum 305]

I know you're thrown your towel in with those for whom subtlety and nuance is a struggle, but try to grasp the difference. You're preaching tolerance, but showing intolerance toward those who aren't accepting of gays as you are. All you manage to do is bully some of them into submission, but you don't change their minds. They are still out in society, still not accepting the gay life you want them to embrace.

What kind of progress is that?

To be truly tolerant, you can't bully when faced with an opposing point of view. But that's your knee-jerk response, which makes you less than tolerant. Now, if you want to drop the tolerant act, then, you can continue to bully and no one will care, nothing will change, you can be openly honest and consistent in your message, saving yourself a lot of grief in the future.

Until you address the law posted more than once, and debate what is actually posted by myself and others, it is moot trying to have an honest debate with you. The only thing you will do is divert truthful statements to your warped sense of an agenda.

It is unfortunate you deflect from the truth actually posted, but its not the first time. Nor given your personality here, will it likely ever change.

Yes Paul, technically speaking and one accepted by those accused of bigotry by the bigots (quite the irony, of course). And technically speaking, its better to focus on the actual bigotry being identified. Kind of funny some here would get hung up on the semantics huh? In my opinion its a defense mechanism to hide their bigotry by deflection. What opinion do you have about that specifically? You've made some good and honest contributions in this thread- I'm interested in your detailed perspective on this word play.

So Paul, want at it? It is an opinion, after all. No need to duck and hide behind semantics like others do around here.