:-k 🤔

DrafterX wrote:

Hell, that happens here all the time. Hell, given that you're likely the only person to have actually read the entire article, that means that Drafter and HD already did it.

victor809 wrote:

I think you already tried that closeminded tactic. FAIL

HockeyDad wrote:

an arian foster website. apparantly he hates the gay too

teedubbya wrote:

So when does Vic go crying out fo the room like Sammy did?:-k

DrMaddVibe wrote:

A white supremacist site against adoption????

HockeyDad wrote:

I think protocol dictates that he has to email rfenst first.

HockeyDad wrote:

yea they think adoption is too soft. they just call it takeing

teedubbya wrote:

The writing style here is repetitive, I'll give you that.
But as far as warning against someone reading half an argument and filling the rest in their head? That seems valid. Hell, that happens here all the time. Hell, given that you're likely the only person to have actually read the entire article, that means that Drafter and HD already did it.

And I'm not 100% sure I understand your "if you disagree" statement. Most of the article doesn't particularly ask for agreement. It states some global and local issues surrounding gays, discusses CFA's involvement in anti-gay issues worldwide... The "agree/disagree" thing would be over whether you actually think the argument is specifically about marriage I suppose. Or about the lopsidedness of the gay-rights issue. But a bulk of the page is simply statements about the state of the world. That's not really an "agree/disagree" thing...

victor809 wrote:

"- In 29 states in America today, my partner of 18 years, Cody, or I could be fired for being gay. Period. No questions asked. One of those states is Louisiana, our home state. We live in self-imposed exile from beloved homeland, family, and friends, in part, because of this legal restriction on our ability to live our lives together."

I don't believe this. Unless the authors particular job allows for this (and he doesn't supply this information) then this is simply not true. This would be a clear case of discrimination, and there are federal laws that would most surely prevent this.

tailgater wrote:

the Family Research council leadership has officially stated that same-gender-loving behavior should be criminalized in this country. They draw their pay, in part, from the donations of companies like Chick-Fil-A. Both groups have also done “missionary” work abroad that served to strengthen and promote criminalization of same-sex relations.

The FRC is very clear about their beliefs of Marriage being one man/one woman. And they advocate that gay people can often be cured. But their mission is NOT to criminalize homosexuality. Also, this organization fights many fights, and sexuality/marriage is only one issue of many. The authors words above would lead one to believe that FRC only exists to rid the world of gays.

tailgater wrote:

This isn’t about mutual tolerance because there’s nothing mutual about it. If we agree to disagree on this issue, you walk away a full member of this society and I don’t. There is no “live and let live” on this issue because Dan Cathy is spending millions to very specifically NOT let me live. I’m not trying to do that to him.

Actually, the Chik Fil-A issue truly is about "live and let live". The Boston and Chicago mayors didn't lash out at CFA because of their affiliation with anti-gay groups. They lashed out based on a specific interview where Cathy publicly supported "traditional marriage as defined in the Bible".
Everything learned about Cathy, CFA and the FRC was after the fact. After they didn't simply "live and let live".

The author then describe this issue as being akin to watching a big bully beat up a little kid.
I ask in the case of CFA versus the city of Boston: who is the bully??

tailgater wrote:

He finishes with some honest opinions and a good outlook on the situation. But he fueled his argument with innuendo and half truths in order to make his point appear more salient.
I'm sure there are better, and even more "interesting" articles out there that would have been more worthy of our attention.

vic has a gay homo feed?

teedubbya wrote:

The agree/disagree statement is about the paragraph I quoted.
He's basically saying: read the words with an open mind, but if you don't concur with my argument then take a step back, open your mind even more, and come back to re-read what I am saying.
He's telling you up front that if you don't "get it" then you didn't accept his interpretation. It's boorish.

tailgater wrote:

I suppose that's valid. But again, sometimes that may actually be necessary considering the context (an internet argument over a highly divisive topic). Most people ARE actually so entrenched (both sides) that regardless of the accuracy of an argument, they wouldn't believe it on first blush.

I willingly admit that I've reversed my opinion on divisive topics after reading something a second time. The human brain fills in things it expects to see sometimes, so the first read through you may not even be reading it correctly.

victor809 wrote:

I suppose that's valid. But again, sometimes that may actually be necessary considering the context (an internet argument over a highly divisive topic). Most people ARE actually so entrenched (both sides) that regardless of the accuracy of an argument, they wouldn't believe it on first blush.

I willingly admit that I've reversed my opinion on divisive topics after reading something a second time. The human brain fills in things it expects to see sometimes, so the first read through you may not even be reading it correctly.

victor809 wrote:

by the way in here forming your opinion means concurring with the RNC

teedubbya wrote:

by the way in here forming your opinion means concurring with the RNC

teedubbya wrote: