When tolerance is tested

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Well, if he wins, the Senate has to seat him. They can immeditely call for a vote and expel him, but they do have to seat him first.

 

[Slyhunter]

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...

You voted for Trump, who made clear his hatred of immigrants and Muslims, who promised to appoint justices to the Supreme Court hostile to the equal protection rights of gay Americans and the privacy rights of women – clearly you wouldn’t have voted for someone unless you agreed with and supported his hateful agenda hostile to the freedom of all the American people.

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'?

Allowing men who are not attracted to women to use women's restrooms means you have to allow men who are attractive to women to use those same bathrooms or you are discriminating. It's not like they have a sign identifying whom they are attracted to.

 

[Slyhunter]

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

The solution is public washrooms open to everyone with individual stalls and no urinals.

 

[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.

Well, if he wins, the Senate has to seat him. They can immeditely call for a vote and expel him, but they do have to seat him first.

Do they?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Well, if he wins, the Senate has to seat him. They can immeditely call for a vote and expel him, but they do have to seat him first.

Do they?

As far as I understand the rules, yes.

 

[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.

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

The worst haters are usually also the adamant deniers that they are.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When Chamberlain 'tolerated' Hitler, it was labeled appeasement.

Why should we appease the bigots on the Right?

 

[Lastamender]

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.

The worst haters are usually also the adamant deniers that they are.

Do you deny being a hater?

 

[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.

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

The worst haters are usually also the adamant deniers that they are.

Do you deny being a hater?

I hate all sorts of things.

 

[Lastamender]

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.

The worst haters are usually also the adamant deniers that they are.

Do you deny being a hater?

I hate all sorts of things.

We know.

 

[bendog]

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. Namely Donald Trump.

But you can 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 its 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. With 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...

I don't recall any LGBT attacks against the log cabin republicans. In fact, given Trump's "campaign" against Transgender folks in the military, it seems the LC folks were right in not endorsing Trump.

If a LGBT republican takes a position that somehow argues against rights for LGBT people, shouldn't he/she be opposed? Or are you trying to make some kind of J.C. Watts argument here?