Bush Homophobic
- Thread starter Addicted Archer
- Start date
- Status
kenworth said:
Well, they're both laws ....that's one parallel.
They're both discriminatory ...that's two parallels.
Some in each group being singled out want to change the law that affects them ...that's three parallels.
A few people want to change one law, but they somehow can't see the parallels between that law and any other law.
Got it now?
Baron Max
Baron Max said:...LOL! So now you want to talk about the EFFECTS??? ...LOL! Of course they aren't the same effects, they aren't the same laws, for god's sake!
Baron Max
And therefore the principle and the morality are different, since both are pretty heavily rooted in the effect.
Well, I think until gays and lezzies are willing to discuss and take seriously the concerns of the general public, even if y'all think those concerns are silly and ridiculous, you ain't gonna' have much support. As long as you try to remain arrogant and argue in demeaning ways, you ain't likely to get what you want. There's a lot more of us than there are you ....live with it or try to convince us with serious dialogue (even if the concerns are "silly and ridiculous").
Baron Max
Baron Max
:bugeye: There is something seriously wrong with this new gene pool in the last century of the USA. To even give you an answer to your post is sad. It may not show now or in the next 20 years or so but there will be a major catastrophe when this sh%i@!t hits the fan whether it be a new disease (worse than AIDS) or children who grow into adults that will have some very serious mental problems (should be evident as to why). My friend was raised with his GAY uncle and believe me he has had some major issues in his life : personally and emotionally. Think about it : check out a flick - if you're heterosexual guy - check out a gay one and watch it continously for a few hours a day for a week, if your a heterosexual women do the same with a lesbian flick. DUHH!!!! It's nasty
: check out a flick - if you're heterosexual guy - check out a gay one and watch it continously for a few hours a day for a week, if your a heterosexual women do the same with a lesbian flick. DUHH!!!! It's nasty 
gay men kinda wierd me out, but i mostly ignore it because its not something that ii'll have to deal with because im not gay.
lesbian sex is something diferent....because i agree with that wholeheartedly.
lesbian sex is safer, and if much easier to watch. if you have doubts, just check out my basement stash.
lol
lesbian sex is something diferent....because i agree with that wholeheartedly.
lesbian sex is safer, and if much easier to watch. if you have doubts, just check out my basement stash.
lol
Mod Hat - Why?
Given that there's nothing new to this topic, that it will just be another occasion for one side of the discussion to ignore the other, and that it's been two weeks since anything substantial was posted, I'm going to go ahead and close it.
A few notes, for future reference:
Give it some thought, that's all I ask. I mean, it's not like we have any related topics around here that are over a year old and continue to cycle through the same arguments that have already been addressed multiple times, so ... oh, wait.
Yeah. There is that.
The only other thing I would ask is that people consider the superficiality of certain arguments. If you have one common point between two things, and seven diverse points between them, can you honestly say that the seven disagreeing points have no effect on the one common? That is, does the analogy even work?
Seriously. Just ... give it some thought. Some folks will find their lives easier for being less complicated. Others will find their lives brighter for not having their arguments repeatedly stuffed down their throats.
Everybody wins.
See how perfectly that works?
Thank you.
Given that there's nothing new to this topic, that it will just be another occasion for one side of the discussion to ignore the other, and that it's been two weeks since anything substantial was posted, I'm going to go ahead and close it.
A few notes, for future reference:
• The topic post is at the bare edge of rhetorical propriety inasmuch as its accuracy is concerned; thank you all for simply working with it: as with Dubya himself, we know what he meant.
• It would be helpful to the general concept of discussing same-sex issues if we kept in mind that there are several topics going on, and not every one needs to be a rehash of the same six or so arguments.
• I'm curious as to how many people are paying attention to the recycling of arguments. If you haven't anything new to add since the last time, what makes you think the argument will meet any more success this time? Perhaps the counterpointing poster will simply get tired and not bother? Does that mean you've actually scored an argumentative point? Does it change the underlying reality at all?
• If you wish to recycle old arguments, it would be courteous at least if you were to address at least in part any well-established counterpoints you may be disagreeing with. For instance, if I say all black men have criminal records, and you show me statistics demonstrating that my assertion isn't true, why should I continue to argue that all black men are criminals without at least asserting why I think the counterpoint isn't valid?
• It would be helpful to the general concept of discussing same-sex issues if we kept in mind that there are several topics going on, and not every one needs to be a rehash of the same six or so arguments.
• I'm curious as to how many people are paying attention to the recycling of arguments. If you haven't anything new to add since the last time, what makes you think the argument will meet any more success this time? Perhaps the counterpointing poster will simply get tired and not bother? Does that mean you've actually scored an argumentative point? Does it change the underlying reality at all?
• If you wish to recycle old arguments, it would be courteous at least if you were to address at least in part any well-established counterpoints you may be disagreeing with. For instance, if I say all black men have criminal records, and you show me statistics demonstrating that my assertion isn't true, why should I continue to argue that all black men are criminals without at least asserting why I think the counterpoint isn't valid?
Give it some thought, that's all I ask. I mean, it's not like we have any related topics around here that are over a year old and continue to cycle through the same arguments that have already been addressed multiple times, so ... oh, wait.
Yeah. There is that.
The only other thing I would ask is that people consider the superficiality of certain arguments. If you have one common point between two things, and seven diverse points between them, can you honestly say that the seven disagreeing points have no effect on the one common? That is, does the analogy even work?
Seriously. Just ... give it some thought. Some folks will find their lives easier for being less complicated. Others will find their lives brighter for not having their arguments repeatedly stuffed down their throats.
Everybody wins.
See how perfectly that works?
Thank you.
- Status