When tolerance is tested

[NYcarbineer]

You could care less about the privacy rights of women. You want to put men in there restrooms and locker rooms.

So which bathroom should the lesbians use?

Women's, you know the gender you are born with, and that you cannot change your DNA.

Really? So the women who are attracted to women should be able to 'invade the privacy' of other women in a public restroom, but men who are not attracted to women shouldn't?

What sense does that make, using your idea of 'sense'?

So a grown man changing in a girls locker room is okay? But a lesbian that the girls don't know is gay, shouldn't be allowed to use the girls locker room. Should go change with the boys? That's your reasoning? You're one screwed up individual.

The cure is here:

View attachment 160135

So you don't believe a gay person should have the right to use any public restroom other than those specifically for gays of either sex?

See, people? This is what the OP insists we 'tolerate'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If homosexuality were the predominant sexuality you'd have a point and an argument. It's not so you don't.

Species don't experiment with removing themselves from the gene pool. They are either asexual or sexual. That has nothing to do with being gay or lesbian.

Then why make it about gay or lesbian when it comes to marriage equality?

Ok. So lets venture off on this. If two of the same gender cant perpetuate the species, what is there purpose?

Name ONE state in the US that has a reproductive 'purpose' component to its qualifications for a marriage license.

ONE is all I ask.

Thats irrelevant to the scientific question. Governments change for the better and worse. Our govt also errs on killing life before birth. What other species kills itself intentionally before it is born?

No, it's not irrelevant because YOU created the premise. Are you running away from your premise now?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Species don't experiment with removing themselves from the gene pool. They are either asexual or sexual. That has nothing to do with being gay or lesbian.

Then why make it about gay or lesbian when it comes to marriage equality?

Ok. So lets venture off on this. If two of the same gender cant perpetuate the species, what is there purpose?

Name ONE state in the US that has a reproductive 'purpose' component to its qualifications for a marriage license.

ONE is all I ask.

Thats irrelevant to the scientific question. Governments change for the better and worse. Our govt also errs on killing life before birth. What other species kills itself intentionally before it is born?

No, it's not irrelevant because YOU created the premise. Are you running away from your premise now?

There are no states that require reproduction in marriage and they shouldn't. That has nothing to do with the question that I asked.

 

[jknowgood]

So which bathroom should the lesbians use?

Women's, you know the gender you are born with, and that you cannot change your DNA.

Really? So the women who are attracted to women should be able to 'invade the privacy' of other women in a public restroom, but men who are not attracted to women shouldn't?

What sense does that make, using your idea of 'sense'?

So a grown man changing in a girls locker room is okay? But a lesbian that the girls don't know is gay, shouldn't be allowed to use the girls locker room. Should go change with the boys? That's your reasoning? You're one screwed up individual.

The cure is here:

View attachment 160135

So you don't believe a gay person should have the right to use any public restroom other than those specifically for gays of either sex?

See, people? This is what the OP insists we 'tolerate'.

So, you think a gay man should have the right to use the women's bathroom? Even if it will make the women uncomfortable? So the women should be forced to tolerate it?

 

[Windparadox]

`
`
I do know that the far left and far right have become equally as intolerant as the other.

 

[easyt65]

A true test of tolerance comes when the LGBT community has someone within that community who is a Republican.

An LGBT, a WOMAN, a Black, etc...within the GOP... OR An anti-Abortionist, a gun-rights advocate, etc...within the DNC...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Interesting. Carbine doesn't have the guts to answer any of my questions. She responds with insults instead. First, I'm a bigot, next I'm a Junior RWnut.

But what I'd really like to know is how I'm being bigoted?

I know, being gay is wrong. The way I see it, hate the sin not the sinner. I really don't care what they do, but it seems like they want me to care.

If you want to be able to deny a gay person equal rights, you are hating the so-called sinner.

 

[miketx]

`
`
I do know that the far left and far right have become equally as intolerant as the other.

bullshit. you see us going around ruining people who we disagree with, now do you?

 

[jknowgood]

Interesting. Carbine doesn't have the guts to answer any of my questions. She responds with insults instead. First, I'm a bigot, next I'm a Junior RWnut.

But what I'd really like to know is how I'm being bigoted?

I know, being gay is wrong. The way I see it, hate the sin not the sinner. I really don't care what they do, but it seems like they want me to care.

If you want to be able to deny a gay person equal rights, you are hating the so-called sinner.

I hate no one, can't say that about you.

 

[jknowgood]

`
`
I do know that the far left and far right have become equally as intolerant as the other.

I'm not intolerant, I just draw the line at men in girls locker rooms. I was against gay marriage, because it redefined the meaning. I was all for civil unions though. It is law now, so nothing I can do about it.

 

[Windparadox]

I'm not intolerant, I just draw the line at men in girls locker rooms. I was against gay marriage, because it redefined the meaning. I was all for civil unions though. It is law now, so nothing I can do about it.

`
I actually agree with with you. I'm just referring to overall intolerance.

 

[sartre play]

Not gay, gay people have not effected my life in any good or bad way, think its a good thing that a percentage of the population chose not to make more baby's. we still have lots of open land, am not in any hurry to see us over populated & looking like India.

 

[Lastamender]

A true test of tolerance comes when the LGBT community has someone within that community who is a Republican. What some of them seem to forget is that they are fighting for the same rights, but from the other side of the aisle. It's one thing to say "you're wrong, and here's why" whilst laying out a principled argument, it is another to completely marginalize and vilify them for supporting someone you deem as a "threat" to your rights.

Hmph, at least try to be objective. Don't just play the part, just freaking do it. It's not hard. I'm a Christian with gay friends, is being gay against my faith? Well, yes, it is, but am I going to shove that down someone else's throat? No, a friend is a friend no matter who they choose to go to bed with. Being heterosexual, it's quite frankly none of my concern. God made us all.

I just wish sometimes the LGBT community wouldn't let it's fringe elements define who they are. Because there are some truly fine people out there who are gay. It's good to fight for your rights, but it's wrong to fight each other. If you want to be tolerated or better yet accepted in society, start by practicing those things amongst yourselves. All the hatred that gay people deal with, they shouldn't be directing it against one another.

But who am I to lecture? I'll leave this to you to ponder in the days leading up to Thanksgiving Holiday. Yes, THANKSGIVING. Christmas is a month and half away. Sheesh.

Later...

The LGBT community doesn't let the fringe elements define who they are. People like you use the fringe elements to define the LGBT community,

in order to rationalize your own hatred and bigotry.

Lesbians and gays have always been on the fringe. That has nothing to do with hatred and bigotry. It actually is antithetical to Darwinism and natural selection. Of course I do have problems with the lack of transitional fossils in stratum but thats another topic.

How can you say homosexuality is antithetical to Darwinism when entire species of animals can change their gender when necessary?

Is not a species one purpose but to replicate itself? Why would a species choose to remove itself?

If homosexuality were the predominant sexuality you'd have a point and an argument. It's not so you don't.

No it is not the predominant sexuality or the world population would depend on 3 to 4% of the people living to replenish it. In short, we as a species would have died out.

 

[Seawytch]

How can you say homosexuality is antithetical to Darwinism when entire species of animals can change their gender when necessary?

Is not a species one purpose but to replicate itself? Why would a species choose to remove itself?

If homosexuality were the predominant sexuality you'd have a point and an argument. It's not so you don't.

Species don't experiment with removing themselves from the gene pool. They are either asexual or sexual. That has nothing to do with being gay or lesbian.

Then why make it about gay or lesbian when it comes to marriage equality?

Ok. So lets venture off on this. If two of the same gender cant perpetuate the species, what is there purpose?

Population control, surrogacy, caretaker.

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-a...scover-evolutionary-advantage-homosexual-sex/

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486

 

[Seawytch]

The LGBT community doesn't let the fringe elements define who they are. People like you use the fringe elements to define the LGBT community,

in order to rationalize your own hatred and bigotry.

Lesbians and gays have always been on the fringe. That has nothing to do with hatred and bigotry. It actually is antithetical to Darwinism and natural selection. Of course I do have problems with the lack of transitional fossils in stratum but thats another topic.

How can you say homosexuality is antithetical to Darwinism when entire species of animals can change their gender when necessary?

Is not a species one purpose but to replicate itself? Why would a species choose to remove itself?

If homosexuality were the predominant sexuality you'd have a point and an argument. It's not so you don't.

No it is not the predominant sexuality or the world population would depend on 3 to 4% of the people living to replenish it. In short, we as a species would have died out.

No shit, Sherlock...do ursine mammals also evacuate in sylvan environments?

You just reiterated my point.

 

[JoeB131]

So tell me the alternative that produces as much energy as coal and at a lower price. That you approve of.

I'm good with Nuclear, which is cheaper and cleaner. I'm good with oil. I'm good with natural gas. None of these are as dirty as coal or as dangerous.

The reality is, though, is that coal usage is declining... has been for a while now.

Thats irrelevant to the scientific question. Governments change for the better and worse. Our govt also errs on killing life before birth. What other species kills itself intentionally before it is born?

Wow, nothing like a crazy anti-abortionist to brighten up my morning.

Here's the thing. Most other species reproduce at the expectation of a high mortality rate. A bug lays hundreds of eggs because only a few few will hit adulthood. Since we've wiped out everything that kills humans except other humans, we need to get our population growth down as a matter of survival.

this isn't complicated.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

So tell me the alternative that produces as much energy as coal and at a lower price. That you approve of.

I'm good with Nuclear, which is cheaper and cleaner. I'm good with oil. I'm good with natural gas. None of these are as dirty as coal or as dangerous.

The reality is, though, is that coal usage is declining... has been for a while now.

Thats irrelevant to the scientific question. Governments change for the better and worse. Our govt also errs on killing life before birth. What other species kills itself intentionally before it is born?

Wow, nothing like a crazy anti-abortionist to brighten up my morning.

Here's the thing. Most other species reproduce at the expectation of a high mortality rate. A bug lays hundreds of eggs because only a few few will hit adulthood. Since we've wiped out everything that kills humans except other humans, we need to get our population growth down as a matter of survival.

this isn't complicated.

There's nothing crazy about preserving life. Only left wing radicals think this.

 

[SeaGal]

I hate freedom? Explain how. Did anyone read the post or did they just cherrypick it?

Aaaaand this is why I don't post here more often than I do...

If it's any consolation, the swifter the kneejerk reaction, the louder the wailing - the rawer the nerve you've hit.

There is a special kind of hatred reserved for those who dare step out of their assigned color/gender/race boxes. It's a hatred best left to stew in its own juices.

Thank you for posting the video - it took courage on the Gina's part to make it.

 

[Lastamender]

Lesbians and gays have always been on the fringe. That has nothing to do with hatred and bigotry. It actually is antithetical to Darwinism and natural selection. Of course I do have problems with the lack of transitional fossils in stratum but thats another topic.

How can you say homosexuality is antithetical to Darwinism when entire species of animals can change their gender when necessary?

Is not a species one purpose but to replicate itself? Why would a species choose to remove itself?

If homosexuality were the predominant sexuality you'd have a point and an argument. It's not so you don't.

No it is not the predominant sexuality or the world population would depend on 3 to 4% of the people living to replenish it. In short, we as a species would have died out.

No shit, Sherlock...do ursine mammals also evacuate in sylvan environments?

You just reiterated my point.

Do I care? We are talking about people. I do not see a squirrel trying to use the men's room.

 

[Slyhunter]

Roy Moore believes gay sex should be criminalized, and yet you can be almost certain the Republican senate will agree to seat him if he wins that election.

That is my message to gays who choose to be Republicans. You're defined to a great degree by who your friends are.

And that is why you can never be taken seriously on the issue of tolerance and acceptance. When you define and classify people, you aren't tolerating them, you are alienating them. That which goes against the very premise and platform of your liberal beliefs. Yet it is equality in ridicule, not in rights or opinion.

You defeated your own argument. Congratulations.

1. Do you dispute that Roy Moore believes gay sex should be criminalized?
2. Do you dispute that Roy Moore is a Republican?
3. Do you dispute the likelihood that the Senate will vote to seat him if he wins the election?

The Senate won't seat him.
His interview with Hannity sunk him.