Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
Very well written and thought out on your part.
I did write that a person may have those personal beliefs that gays are a pervertion or that a class of people (let's call them poor people on welfare - as I am assuming (dangerous, I know) that is what the poster meant - do have a lot of children for the welfare benefits. Even if someone has those personal beliefs, they ARE NOT going to be saying them face to face to those examples I gave as The Rainbow Coalition or The Wildwood Soup Kitchen. So, they are not statements that belong on the forum. They can be said, maybe in somewhat of a softened way such as: I do not believe in gay marriage as it is taught in my church to be a sin. If a person does not accept gays or gay marriage, that is their personal right - just as it the right of other to do so. I am not mocking anyone.
You do have to admit a lot of the language regarding Ferguson was racist in nature. Both sides went a little crazy and off topic many times. Should not have done that.
I am very glad to hear you are not racist at all. That is how we all should strive to be in the 21st century.
Maybe we all can be a little kinder and gentler. Have a good evening.
|
Dear Guest: I began this thread and based on comments such as yours believe perhaps I failed in my communication. First what you and other members are commenting about is called "political correctness" that is not what I define as a troll.
A troll to me is a poster who's clear and only intent is create chaos by making outrageous comments that are irrational and have no value to the topic at hand.
Back to your points. Political correctness is wrong because civil discourse is not allowed to continue. Free speech by its nature is going to offend someone and what I believe is that liberals do not understand or ignore the limits to nature. So addressing one's believe as to sex, God is not trolling. You may disagree and you may be offended but it is not trolling
So you would demand that gay marriage means that people must accept that two people of the same sex have the legal right to marry. Yet you would deny a claim by others that gay marriage is an oxymoron and that it is by nature scientifically an impossibility.
Having said that if you pursue a conversation with an opponent ,you will find that what many traditionalist want is a preservation of the meaning of a man and a woman. The LGBT by its very being intends to destroy it. I am not against gay unions to preserve their constitutional rights. I would not be that presumptious . However I am against the Supreme Court, this country redefining the civilized worlds definition of marriage since the beginnning of time to be anything but a union between one man one woman. Because once that definition is breached you are going to have irrational people making claim to all sort of sexual rights.
Personal Best Regards: