It seems self evident to me that we can disagree without being disagreeable. The poster in question stated:
Being a lesbian I feel compelled to set people like Paul Ryan straight. Liberals are liberals first and homosexuals 2nd. They will vote for an rich old white male democrat before they will vote for a young poor black lesbian. I vote for my liberty 1st, both economic and individual. My worldview extends way beyond my genitals. Gay marriage is not on my radar as an issue except to oppose it. MARRIAGE IS A RITE NOT A RIGHT. IT IS A COVENANT NOT A CONTRACT. If your sole purpose is to get my vote based on my bed you are useless and YOU INSULT ME BY ASSUMING THAT WHEN I VOTE ALL I CARE ABOUT IS MY SEX ORGANS.
I WILL NOT BE PANDERED TO AS A WOMAN OR AS A LESBIAN. If economic or individual liberty is destroyed then nothing else matters.
Admirable, I'd say. She possesses much more clarity than many on FR.
I had a simple question...why did you feel the need to act like an @ss? It's not like it's the first time, you and I have disagreed many times before, with you being particularly disagreeable.
So...should gays be treated any differently than anyone else on FR? That was the question I pondered.
It appears the answer to that question, as expressed in many different ways on this thread, is: They shouldn't be posting here at all.
Sound about right? Can you be honest enough to admit it? All of you?
It’s the old adage: on the Internet nobody knows you are a dog. Unless you say woof.
Why don’t you ask Jim?
Gay marriage is not on my radar
My wife has Christmas pictures
So...should gays be treated any differently than anyone else on FR? That was the question I pondered.
You’re criticizing me for being rude?
That’s pretty funny.
Seems a bit hypocritical, don’t you think, in light of the multiple posts you made to me, calling me a “moron,” and a “pervert,” etc?
Actually, I was quite polite to the poster in question. Shoot, I didn’t even respond to you in kind.
The other funny thing is that in reading her posts, I saw language used about homosexuals that I would most certainly never use. Really, really harsh stuff. Self-loathing you might even say. Do you wonder at all why that is?
Dude.
There’s been two zots on this thread already.
~sniff~
You itching to be the third?
Frankly, one can't help but wonder if this is question that affects you very personally.
You contend that there are 'gay beings'. I disagree, as such the premise you base your arguments upon is not relevant.
The ONLY objective defining characteristic regarding homosexuality is the inclination, predisposition, and or choice to engage in homosexual sex. ANYONE can claim to 'be' homosexual AND there is ONLY way to even attempt to prove such a claim -engage in homosexual activity. Even then, still it proves NOTHING as to a state of being but rather a state of doing.