The aggressive promotion of homosexuality;

But that is the point.

A minority are imposing their way on a majority.

- - - Updated - - -

What is it then?

 

I know more about it than someone who thought food poisoning from eating spoiled oysters was punishment from gawd for eating oysters in the first place did.

 

Do the anti-gay bigots think....they're going to "turn back the clock"? Or even "stop the tide"?


Or is it more of that "We're complaining and whining....over something even we know we've lost on."

 

You should be capable of answering this question, but sexuality derives from a combination of genetic and environmental factors. It is not a conscious choice.

 

So.

Now, Mr Gay Tolerant shows his 'tolerance and libralism' by use of sneering remarks.

Yet Mr Tolerant would be the first to cry 'UNFAIR and HATE', if the non homosexual majority said..

I couldn't care less what some shirtlifter in the gay sauna has to say about spirituality.

- - - Updated - - -

Like what? I could Google it, but I am asking you, in your own words.

 

Really? I'm not sure what you mean there.

Can you please explain that in more detail?

 

is a right wing myth, laughable

 

If you find a true statement to be a sneering remark, perhaps it's time for you to reexamine what is important.

 

It was a statement intended to be sarcastic, and well you know it.

 

Homosexuals, who make up around 3%, are way over represented in media, cinema, and are promoting their lifestyle as normal, in the educational system, etc.

Like I said in my first two or three line of the OP, it is not that I would criminalise the act, nor wish them physical harm, of course not.

 

The rapid advances that have been made in overcoming prejudice are truly impressive. The increasing number of nations and states where equality has been achieved is remarkable, and all the righteous old biddies shrieking that Armageddon is imminent is now soundly contradicted by the reality of decent folks increasingly enjoying routine, normal family lives.

Reminiscent of the civil rights era, what is truly significant is that conservative Republican attorney, George Bush's Solicitor General, Theodore Olson, will be arguing for equality before the conservative Supreme Court:

 

Does not change the fact that it is true.

 

It's moot to the point though.

And in the way you framed it, is was intended as sarcasm, not as an honest and related point of debate.

 

I doubt that. Especially considering some people don't even believe spirituality is real in the first place. Hard to quantify expertise in something that cannot be first proven to exist, wouldn't you agree?

 

Yes, it was, but now that you mention it, let's discuss it for reals. According to your religion, we knew everything there was to know about spirituality roughly 1,700 years ago, when the Council of Nicea "decided" what would go into the bible. So, if I we able to dig up and revive a priest who died in 500AD, he'd know just as much about religion as does a priest who is alive now. On the other hand, dig up a scientist from 500AD and he'd have considerable catching up to do.

Does that seem logical to you?

 

Well, I've come at it from a scientific perspective. The Double Slit experiment (if you are unfamiliar with it, a quick google search will bring you up to speed enough for the purposes of this conversation) confounded me for many year, until I had an epiphany. The reason it behaves as it does is because our reality isn't physically real, rather it's a simulation whose behavior is being calculated, not actuated, and only rendered when required by observation. So, when a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody around to hear it, not only does it not make a sound, there is no tree, there is no woods, and it only probably fell until someone goes in to observe it. (Overstatement for purposes of clarity, any self aware life "counts" as an observer.)

 

There.

Was not so hard to just admit it.

And being saracastic toward the religion of billions of people is not tolerant.

Indeed, it is intolerant.

 

I don't care enough about this to even troll it. I'm off to a different thread. Later.

 

Eh, I think people who believe such foolishness are in a state of willful blindness. There are so many holes, accepting it as right makes no sense intellectually.

 

What is foolish about a man and a women?

It is nature.

 

I was talking about the bigger picture of religion in general. And men with men and women with women is nature, too.

 

Well, yes, but then you could then argue that child molestation was 'natural' on the basis that it has existed, for some time.

It clearly does not lend itself to nature, that being procreation. If you gathered up all the male homosexuals, and gave them their own state, they would die out.

 

A child lacks sufficient maturity to provide meaningful consent. I think that is a statement 99.999% of people would agree with. So, we protect them by declaring an age of consent, above which they are considered legally able to consent. Now, we could debate if we've put that age at the right one, and indeed, different states have different ages, but no matter what age we pick, we're going to be wrong about some people. Some will be below it and in fact possess the maturity to make a reasonable choice to consent, and some will be above it and still be too immature. Regardless, we have to draw the line somewhere.

Most importantly, the child is a victim. They are harmed. For same sex adults, nobody is harmed, assuming mutual consent.

Clearly not, as the overwhelming majority of gay men are born to heterosexual parents. My wife is bisexual, both her (still married to each other) parents are very straight.

 

Some estimates are even more... but let's stick with 3%. That tells me that we are talking about at least 3 million Americans. Now, considering all things, I have to ask how does what you suggest equal, "A minority are imposing their way on a majority."?

That that goes without even mentioning the other tens of millions of people in America, who are NOT homosexual but DO support homosexual people overall. I really don't see anyone passing ANY laws which 'force' heterosexuals or anti-gay people to do/say certain things. I see no law demanding funding or mandatory treatment for "homophobia" or other such condition.

If rights were being TAKEN from heterosexuals and/or homophobes... I'd be as concerned as you seem to be. However, no one is losing rights, even as homosexuals acquire the equality of the same. So... what the HELL are you talking about?

The Constitution is more clear (by far) than the homophobic rhetoric you have expressed above. And I thank God for that. I want you to be a free man, but I certainly don't have any faith/trust in your 'wishes' as expressed in this forum.

No, I don't trust what you say... but I acknowledge your right to be your own person. Step upon and try to truncate my rights or humanity, and there WILL be a fight.

 

Bigots cannot accept that most of the 97% agree that equality must apply to 100%.

If it is only the 3% that gets the bigots so upset, they should take solace in the numerical insignificance of the number of those hitherto having been unequal now achieving equality.

That's insignificant (to all but the 3%, of course.)