archive2009-14.pdxradio.com » Politics and other things

Another anti-gay conservative "exposed" ...

(43 posts)

  1. Brianl
    Member

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/12/phillip-hinkle-craigslist_n_925638.html?1313177923&icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl14|sec1_lnk2|86067

    Um, wow.

    Posted on August 12, 2011 - 08:12 PM #
  2. fairandbalanced
    Blocked

    It is not "anti-gay" to define legal marriage as between a man and a woman.

    And obviously this congressman is not only NOT anti-gay, but happy to celebrate and enjoy gayness.

    Posted on August 12, 2011 - 08:21 PM #
  3. Brianl
    Member

    "It is not "anti-gay" to define legal marriage as between a man and a woman."

    Au contraire. It is the wish to ensure that GLBT people cannot enjoy the same rights, freedoms and privileges as us hetero folks, thus the "defining legal marriage as between a man and a woman." You cite religious beliefs behind your view, thus your theocratic stance, for a secular law and issue in the United States. It's pretty fucking obvious that if you want to write into the state's constitution bigotry and theocratic rule, subjecting a group of people to less rights than the rest of us, than you're pretty clearly anti-gay rights.

    Do you know how stupid you sound? Or do you even care?

    Posted on August 12, 2011 - 08:30 PM #
  4. fairandbalanced
    Blocked

    I have religious beliefs that stealing and murder is wrong. How do you feel about that "theocracy" being imposed upon us all?

    A religious argument in support of a law doesn't invalidate the law or the reasons for the law. Besides, there are sound arguments in support of defining marriage as between a man and a woman without appealing to religion.

    "It's pretty *EXPLITIVE DELETED* obvious that if you want to write into the state's constitution bigotry and theocratic rule, subjecting a group of people to less rights than the rest of us, than you're pretty clearly anti-gay rights."

    You want special rights and not equal rights. Everybody already has the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. That the opposite sex doesn't appeal to someone is not the fault of the law and is not discriminatory.

    "Do you know how stupid you sound? Or do you even care?"

    I know that you're incapable of having a civil discussion with somone of an opposing viewpoint and that you are quick to resort to the ad hominem "tactic."

    I don't think my views are "stupid"--just different than yours. They seem "stupid" to you because of the little world in which you're confined, and because you subordinate reason to passion and emotion.

    Posted on August 12, 2011 - 08:45 PM #
  5. Chris_taylor
    Member

    "I don't think my views are "stupid"--just different than yours."

    I would have stopped there F&B. You actually had some decent comebacks but fell to the very thing you despise.

    Posted on August 12, 2011 - 08:51 PM #
  6. Brianl
    Member

    "I don't think my views are "stupid"--just different than yours. They seem "stupid" to you because of the little world in which you're confined, and because you subordinate reason to passion and emotion."

    I don't fault the message. I fault the messenger in this case. You have proven, time and again, incapable of self-thought, or intelligent discourse.

    "You want special rights and not equal rights. Everybody already has the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. That the opposite sex doesn't appeal to someone is not the fault of the law and is not discriminatory."

    See my point above. WHY SHOULD a homosexual person have to marry someone of the opposite sex? Why can't they marry the person they love, are committed to, and want to spend the rest of their lives with? What is so "special" about that? You support legislation and the continued belief that GLBT people should have to live a lie, and conform to the whims of YOUR beliefs and try to be with someone of the opposite gender. And you wonder why the suicide rate among gay people is three times higher than the heterosexual population.

    "I know that you're incapable of having a civil discussion with somone of an opposing viewpoint and that you are quick to resort to the ad hominem "tactic.""

    Oh I'm perfectly capable of having a civil discussion. You just bring out the very best in me.

    Posted on August 12, 2011 - 08:51 PM #
  7. fairandbalanced
    Blocked

    I've got nothing against you, Brian. But I get weary of your anger and your insults. If you don't want to play nice or at least make some effort, then maybe I shoult just ignore your posts. I've done a pretty good job of turning the other cheek and not responding in kind, but there comes a point where for the sake of self-respect and what is right, that I should just disengage, and in not dignify your abuse by responding to you.

    As far as I'm concened, the door is always open for a civil and friendly discussion, but if you keep calling me names, I think it's best I ignore you. It's up to you.

    Posted on August 12, 2011 - 08:56 PM #
  8. Brianl
    Member

    You do what you feel is necessary. I get angry because, time and again, many of us have tried to engage you in civil, friendly, intelligent discussion, but have been shot down by your unwillingness to be part of it. Instead, you result to your usual flip-flopping, or bringing up the Big A, or other ways of sullying the thread and this board.

    Part of civil, friendly discussion is respect. On both sides. And you don't have any respect towards you in here, because you haven't EARNED it.

    I know you'll make it out to be a conservative thing. You're a righty in a lefty-leaning board. Well that's simply not true. Skybill has a lot of respect in here. Deane does too. Others that are conservative do as well. Once again, it's not the message, it's the messenger.

    Oh hell, why do I even bother try to explain to you? You're either ignorant or apathetic on this ... or both. You don't know and/or you don't care.

    Posted on August 12, 2011 - 09:04 PM #
  9. fairandbalanced
    Blocked

    I've shown you respect Brian. I'm showing it now. I am civil to you when you are not civil to me. I am respectful to you, after you have cursed at me and insulted me.

    What more do you want?

    I'm more than meeting you half way.

    Skybill and Deane are Skybill and Deane. I'm me. I have my own ways to communicate, my own quirks, and my own good points and flaws.

    You take my posts personally. I don't take yours personally, unless you're attacking me personally. And you let your anger from one thread carry over into another thread, and attack me for the most innocent comments.

    So I'm irritating sometimes. So is MK. So are a lot of other posters. So are you sometimes. I don't jump into threads to make trouble and I restrict my posting to just a couple of threads at a time. I am striving to be civil, and striving to self-correct when I see I've made an inappropriate comment or was unnecessarily combative. I'm a work in progress, but I'm no troll. I'm here for the learning experience, which includes learning about myself. But I'm also going to be true to what I believe is right, and take the heat for it if necessary, but I don't see why the disagreements cannot be more friendly.

    Posted on August 12, 2011 - 09:18 PM #
  10. skeptical
    Member

    I'm more than meeting you half way.

    Ha ha ha ha!

    but I'm no troll.

    Reminds me of Nixon's infamous line: "I am not a crook!"

    and attack me for the most innocent comments.

    Slicing and dicing, perhaps?

    I'm here for the learning experience

    In a few months you will have more posts than just about everyone else here. What can you learn from this?

    Posted on August 12, 2011 - 09:23 PM #