or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The "Ex-gay" movement.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The "Ex-gay" movement. - Page 3

post #81 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Yes it is. Hitler was against marriage between jews and non-jews - it is all part and parcel of the same thing. You have a piece of hate in your heart that makes you a watered down version of Hitler - just like everyone else who is anti-gay marriage.

Are you joking?
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #82 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Are you joking?

No - just because persecution is an accepted normal behaviour in a society does not make it right.

I can understand being against abortion or polygamy, because innocents are hurt. Gay marriage is not hurting anyone, and if you are against it then you are a bigot (varying in degree, not in kind, from the guys who shovelled the jews, blacks and homosexuals into the ovens).

There are varying degrees of evil - anti homosexual bias ranges from the extreme (killing them) to the mild (voting against gay marriage), but it is all evil. You might have 1 degree of evil in you, where Hitler had a million degrees, but it is still the same stuff.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #83 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
The republican party is all about interferring in other peoples business. Poking your nose into other peoples lives, and interferring with their freedom if they do things you don't agree with.

I had to chuckle when I read that. Many Republicans would swear that theirs is the party that tries to interfere least in the lives of US citizens. Anti-big bad government and all that. Truth is, I guess, that any political party can't help but test the limits of its power until they get their hands slapped at the polls (or their heads chopped off at the guillotine).
post #84 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Gay marriage is not hurting anyone, and if you are against it then you are a bigot............. it is all evil.

Would you say that having homosexuality in DSM was 'evil'?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #85 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Would you say that having homosexuality in DSM was 'evil'?

what is DSM?
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #86 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
what is DSM?

It's the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; homosexuality was listed until about 1970.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #87 of 204
Oh that's what DSM stands for. I thought it was something that dmz listed in his personal ads under "interests."
post #88 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
You have a piece of hate in your heart that makes you a watered down version of Hitler - just like everyone else who is anti-gay marriage.

It is clear that rational discussion has come to and end.

( there must be something in the air...what is it with all of the Nazi hyperbole all over the place these days...is making outrageous Nazi comparisons the "new pink"? )



Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
The republican party is all about interferring in other peoples business. Poking your nose into other peoples lives, and interferring with their freedom if they do things you don't agree with.

Of course. But the democtratic party isn't about interfering in other people's lives at all.

Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
In the case of homosexuals, what you don't agree with is their entire existance, so your treatment of them amounts to persecution.

Nope. I am not (nor is anyone else I know) treating homosexuals in any particular way.

Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
In fact, most of the country is persecuted by the religious right in some way or other - I just wish that you guys would mind your own business and stop pushing for legislation that tries to make everyone else just like you.



You don't even recognize how ridiculous your statement is.

Okay...I'll admit it. The Big Bad Christians(tm) are in league to suppress everyone.

Do you actually even know any real Christians...or do you simply get your impressions from CNN and skipping by the televangalists?
post #89 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Do you actually even know any real Christians...or do you simply get your impressions from CNN and skipping by the televangalists?

I live in North Carolina - most people I know are christians.

Gay people getting married does not hurt anyone. If you want to stop them from doing it, you are being oppressive. The democrats are oppressive in different ways, I agree (I am neither a democrat nor a republican).

and dmz - I would say that having it under the mental disorder list was evil. However, opposing gay marriage is more evil, at least the people who put homosexuality on the list can plead ignorance - it is hard to do that today.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #90 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
and dmz - I would say that having it under the mental disorder list was evil.

So the history of the APA was 'ignorant'?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #91 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
So the history of the APA was 'ignorant'?

In that particular case, yes. If you look at the history of medicine, you can find plenty of ignorance that was later replaced by more clear thinking.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #92 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Gay people getting married does not hurt anyone. If you want to stop them from doing it, you are being oppressive.

First, it is your belief/opinion that "gay people getting married does not hurt anyone". You may well be right. And you may well be wrong.

Second, I am not trying to stop anyone from doing anything.

Finally, my view of "marriage" is like this...to me God defines what "marriage" is or is not. Not the government or society. In that regard I do not believe that two people of the same gender will/can ever be "married" (by God's definition of it). We may well (and probably will in short order) craft something akin to "marriage" in our country that allows two people of the same gender to be "married". But, in my view (a view that I believe to be informed by my understanding of the Bible), this would not be a "marriage".

Now you can disagree. No problemo.

The problem arises when you start calling people "Hitler" and persectutors (dare I say, you have no idea what persecution really is). The problem also arises when you dimiss my (or other's) view(s) as unimportant and decide that I really shouldn't even express it/them. This is the worse kind of intolerance.

I understand your belief/opinion/position on this issue. I don't agree with it, but you have every right to voice it (even vehemently). But try not to act like you have a corner of the market on "rightness" about this (or any other issue). You hold an opinion...remember that.

( why am I even talking to a guy that just called me a "little Hitler"? I'm out. )
post #93 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Finally, my view of "marriage" is like this...to me God defines what "marriage" is or is not.

As long as that is all you care about, fine. But that is not what the Republican party postion is.

The marriage that I am talking about is the legal union provided by the government. Maybe we need to stop calling that marriage and let everyone (including gay people) have civil unions.

And as long as you want to stop that from happening, you are oppressing gay people, and are evil.

The various religions can discriminate as they like, but when you try to move that into government discrimination, then we have a problem.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #94 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
In that particular case, yes. If you look at the history of medicine, you can find plenty of ignorance that was later replaced by more clear thinking.

You're mixing your metaphors, on the one hand you want to use the term "evil" but on the other, you are equally ready to disallow the medical community from any such distinctions? This is starting to sound like a game of intent, rather than evidence. In fact, by your reckoning, the APA could be completely in error at this moment, and could legitimatley reverse itself at any time.

What is this definition of 'evil' that you are using, and by what authority do you foist it upon the rest of us? And more pointedly, how does your definition differ substantially from the 'statement of the rights of man' from 1789, and how does your definition safeguard anyone from the same outcomes?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #95 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
As long as that is all you care about, fine. But that is not what the Republican party postion is.

Whatever. I don't speak for the Republican party.

Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
And as long as you want to stop that from happening, you are oppressing gay people, and are evil.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
The various religions can discriminate as they like, but when you try to move that into government discrimination, then we have a problem.

You fail to recognize that governments discriminate on all sorts of things all the time. Contrary to the popular expression "you can't legislate morality"...governments can...and DO...all the time. It's just that the morality that they legislate may not align with your own.
post #96 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
OK - find some argument in the USA against gay marriage that does not have a religious basis. You won't find one - hence Christians are persecuting gay people.

In particular, Christian Republicans are persecuting gay people - I haven't heard many Christian Democrats (or athiest Republicans) who are against gay marriage.

Being against something != persecution

But making it law is, which is what the whole big problem is and has been. No one cares if you are "against" homosexuality, they care about people like you trying to misuse law to force your religion on others.
Quote:
How are Christians(tm) persecuting homosexuals?

Creating and supporting laws that impose religious beliefs on their lives.
Quote:
You fail to recognize that governments discriminate on all sorts of things all the time.

But governments that impose the purely religious beliefs of one group on another group that strongly disagrees with them is oppressive. Life partnerships are not and have never been universally heterosexual. Preventing life-long same-sex couples the same rights (health care, etc) as life-long heterosexual couples is asinine, poor policy and persecution (persecute: "to oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs." or "cause to suffer")
post #97 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
But governments that impose the purely religious beliefs of one group on another group that strongly disagrees with them is oppressive.

It's all just a matter of the vantage point.

Laws are moral instruments. The only question is the source of the morality that informs them. That is it. Period.

Some people believe that there is nothing wrong with X, where another believes that X is wrong.

You act like this is entirely objective. While there may be some objective aspects...it is most certainly subjective...and perhaps mostly subjective.

You think it is "wrong" to dis-allow people of the same gender to marry one other. Others believe that it is wrong that they do.

At the root of your morality is the idea that no one should impose their beliefs/values/opinions/morals onto another person (or group). Yet...this is what all laws in fact do. It just happens to be that some well all agree on. Others we do not.
post #98 of 204
At least have the courage to admit you're persecuting homosexuals, along with a majority of Christians in this country.
post #99 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
At least have the courage to admit you're persecuting homosexuals, along with a majority of Christians in this country.

But I am not. I am not doing anything but stating my beliefs. That is not persecution...no matter how you cut it.
post #100 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
But I am not. I am not doing anything but stating my beliefs. That is not persecution...no matter how you cut it.

Then I'm glad to hear you don't support laws that discriminate against gays' marriage rights. Are you willing to actively support equal marriage rights for gays?
post #101 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Laws are moral instruments. The only question is the source of the morality that informs them. That is it. Period.



It's immoral for me to go 5 MPH over the speed limit, or to park longer at the parking meter than my deposited quarters allow?

It's immoral for an 18 year old kid to drink, or for a 16 year old kid to smoke? But not immoral for a 21 year old to drink, or for an 18 year old to smoke?

Laws are not there for the enforcement of "morality," which is (obviously) totally relative. Their primary purpose is to maintain safety and order.

Your claim of laws for morality's sake only increases the appearance of hypocrisy.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #102 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Are you willing to actively support equal marriage rights for gays?

No.
post #103 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
It's the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; homosexuality was listed until about 1970.

Wow! Is it just me or is this some of the most offensive thing said on these boards in a while?

What is your position on women's right to vote? It was once reserved for men. Less then a hundred years ago in fact. Segregation? There is a lot of ignorance and unjustice in how we have treated people up trough history. From 1939 and 1951, over 18,000 lobotomies were performed in the US.

Luckily we progressed. But obvioulsy not because of people like you.
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #104 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
It's all just a matter of the vantage point.

Laws are moral instruments.

Insider trading isn't illegal because it's "wrong," it's illegal because it screws up the efficient operation of the greater system. Laws prohibiting murder, theft, etc are likewise not due to some abstract morality, they are there to have society function.
Quote:
The only question is the source of the morality that informs them. That is it. Period.

Wrong. You might be guided by some abstract morality, but don't assume everything that opposes or contradicts aspects of you moral system is a result of a comparable opposing moral system. Your belief that "morality" is the core of this issue is exactly what the problem is.
Quote:
You think it is "wrong" to dis-allow people of the same gender to marry one other.

Don't make the mistake of projecting your way of thinking on to others or presuming what I think. No abstract or religious morality need be invoked at all.
Quote:
At the root of your morality is the idea that no one should impose their beliefs/values/opinions/morals onto another person (or group).

It's not about morality. Virtually all of the arguments in favor of same-sex marriage are civil and have nothing to do with morality: health care, medical decisions, pension sharing, etc. The greater ideas about freedom from religious oppression are fundamental features of this country that have made it function better than any other country in history.

I could go on, but instead I'll just let you sit back and let it sink in that this isn't about dueling moral systems. It's about one group with certain religious beliefs misusing law to oppress others into following them.
post #105 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by New
Wow! Is it just me or is this some of the most offensive thing said on these boards in a while?

What is your position on women's right to vote? It was once reserved for men. Less then a hundred years ago in fact. Segregation? There is a lot of ignorance and unjustice in how we have treated people up trough history. From 1939 and 1951, over 18,000 lobotomies were performed in the US.

Luckily we progressed. But obvioulsy not because of people like you.

Then maybe you need to field the question I put to e1618978:
Quote:
Originally posted by me
You're mixing your metaphors, on the one hand you want to use the term "evil" but on the other, you are equally ready to disallow the medical community from any such distinctions? This is starting to sound like a game of intent, rather than evidence. In fact, by your reckoning, the APA could be completely in error at this moment, and could legitimatley reverse itself at any time.

What is this definition of 'evil' that you are using, and by what authority do you foist it upon the rest of us? And more pointedly, how does your definition differ substantially from the 'statement of the rights of man' from 1789, and how does your definition safeguard anyone from the same outcomes?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #106 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
It's immoral for me to go 5 MPH over the speed limit, or to park longer at the parking meter than my deposited quarters allow?

It's immoral for an 18 year old kid to drink, or for a 16 year old kid to smoke? But not immoral for a 21 year old to drink, or for an 18 year old to smoke?

Yes. Yes. Our society has decided that these things are wrong for one reason or another. It's not really that hard to see.

Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Laws are not there for the enforcement of "morality,"

Of course they are.

Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
"morality," which is (obviously) totally relative.

Or (obviously) not.



Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Their primary purpose is to maintain safety and order.

Which is a moral choice...that safety and order matter. But the laws also go well beyond mere safety and order". Affirmative action? Discrimination laws? What about laws regarding fraud, theft and deception? What about laws related to protection of children?

All of these are moral choices that are constantly being made as a society. Some things we deem to be "right" and others "wrong" ("thou shalt not discriminate in hiring based on gender or race", etc.)

Obviously some of these things aren't nearly so controversial (spitting on the sidewalk). But they are still moral decisions.

As a society we are constantly making choices about what is right and wrong in how we relate to and live with one another and we codify these as law...and even sometimes go to the trouble of enforcing them with actions designed to punish wrongdoers and (possibly) deter others from doing wrong.
post #107 of 204
Quote:
Which is a moral choice...that safety and order matter. But the laws also go well beyond mere safety and order". Affirmative action? Discrimination laws? .... What about laws related to protection of children?

Apparently our parents were immoral, as they did not have these laws in place 40 years ago.

And 150 years ago, it was "moral" to prevent women from voting, and to allow one human to own another as property (as long as the owner was white and the property was black).

But morality is NOT relative, right?

eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #108 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Then maybe you need to field the question I put to e1618978

Between the lines of your question I read that you don't the change in thinking of medical community in the last 40 years as progression. Is this right?
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #109 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by New
Between the lines of your question I read that you don't the change in thinking of medical community in the last 40 years as progression. Is this right?

New, I'm asking questions and not getting any answers -- if I can't ask questions and get answers then I've failed at some point, either asking the wrong people or asking the wrong questions.

I'll 'stand pat' on my original question.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #110 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Apparently our parents were immoral, as they did not have these laws in place 40 years ago.

And 150 years ago, it was "moral" to prevent women from voting, and to allow one human to own another as property (as long as the owner was white and the property was black).

But morality is NOT relative, right?


I didn't say that all laws were encoding good morality...merely that they are, in fact, moral choices. Sometimes they are even bad moral choices.

Let me ask you this...was it ever right for this country to deny women the opportunity to vote (or pick whatever thing you want)...let's say same-gender marriage...is it ever right for people to be denied the opportunity to marry someone of the same gender?
post #111 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
New, I'm asking questions and not getting any answers -- if I can't ask questions and get answers then I've failed at some point, either asking the wrong people or asking the wrong questions.

I'll 'stand pat' on my original question.

And I asked you a question. Will you answer it? Do you consider it progress?
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #112 of 204
The problem, Chris, is that your statements regarding this issue indicate a lack of awareness of the history and foundations of ethical philosophy, including notions such as the distinction between normative and descriptive ethics, as well as the relationship of ethics to codified and case law, both of which have a whole range of influences beyond simple ethical considerations. However, the fact that you are forcing the discussion into an pseudo-esoteric discussion of the nature of law and ethics is just more evidence that you'd rather muddle the discussion than face the fact of what you advocate: misusing the law to oppress others into living by your religious beliefs.
post #113 of 204
Chris has said that he's only stating his opinion. I take that to mean he doesn't support any laws that discriminate against gays, like the hetero-only marriage laws. Right Chris?
post #114 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
The problem, Chris, is that your statements regarding this issue indicate a lack of awareness of the history and foundations of ethical philosophy, including notions such as the distinction between normative and descriptive ethics, as well as the relationship of ethics to codified and case law, both of which have a whole range of influences beyond simple ethical considerations. However, the fact that you are forcing the discussion into an pseudo-esoteric discussion of the nature of law and ethics is just more evidence that you'd rather muddle the discussion than face the fact of what you advocate: misusing the law to oppress others into living by your religious beliefs.



We're going in circles here.

Expressing beliefs != oppression or persecution

People (obviously) differ on their beliefs regarding the rightness/wrongness of same-gender marriage

Morality is always being defined through governmental action (law)

Nothing earth-shattering here. But, evidentally, not very obvious to some.

post #115 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla

A bit of a consensus seems to be forming concerning what very little sense of personal responsibility you seem to feel towards your actions regarding gay rights. Yet, it's not perplexing why you feel that way. Not to me, at least. :Let me explain. Your (arguably bigoted) social conscience is concerned with restricting gay rights to uphold strictly heterosexual marriage. Yet the word "persecute" is a bit too loaded for you to accept. "A good Christian would never persecute anyone! Gosh, they themselves were persecuted." But.... that's what you're doing. I'm not sure how many times someone has to point this out to you in order for you to respond, but you *do* vote for candidates with explicitly anti-gay rights platforms. The whole "marriage between man and women" deal. You are certainly complicit in persecution by voting for those candidates. So am I.
post #116 of 204
EDIT: Nevermind. It's not worth the hassle any longer.
post #117 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
We're going in circles here.

Let's see why:
Quote:
Expressing beliefs != oppression or persecution

See posts above. Many Christians are doing more than "expressing beliefs," they are misusing law to oppress others into living by those religious beliefs.
Quote:
People (obviously) differ on their beliefs regarding the rightness/wrongness of same-gender marriage

See posts above. I'm not interested in the "rightness/wrongness" of same-sex marriage, you are.
Quote:
Morality is always being defined through governmental action (law)

See posts above. The fields of law and ethics are far, far more complex than you are apparently aware of.
Quote:
Nothing earth-shattering here. But, evidentally, not very obvious to some.

What's obvious is that you keep hammering out the same handful of statements based on false premises and just ignore everything else.
post #118 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by The Very Model of Persistence
I'm not sure how many times someone has to point this out to you in order for you to respond, but you *do* vote for candidates with explicitly anti-gay rights platforms.

Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
EDIT: Nevermind. It's not worth the hassle any longer.

*Cough*

The mental contortions required to absolve yourself of personal responsibility here is indeed, "not worth the hassle."
post #119 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
You're mixing your metaphors, on the one hand you want to use the term "evil" but on the other, you are equally ready to disallow the medical community from any such distinctions? This is starting to sound like a game of intent, rather than evidence. In fact, by your reckoning, the APA could be completely in error at this moment, and could legitimatley reverse itself at any time.

What is this definition of 'evil' that you are using, and by what authority do you foist it upon the rest of us? And more pointedly, how does your definition differ substantially from the 'statement of the rights of man' from 1789, and how does your definition safeguard anyone from the same outcomes?


I am giving the medical community the benefit of the doubt, because I see progress towards equal treatment of people, and away from the darkness of the past.

I am not "foisting" anything on you, I am asking you to stop foisting your ideas on everyone else via the legaslature. You and chris are evil because you vote for people that persecute gays.

It is not an arbitrary definition of evil. If two adults want to get married, they are not hurting anyone else, and you should not be interferring with them. If I voted for somebody who wanted to prohibit you from going to church, that would be the moral equivalent - I would be interferring in your life and I would be evil myself.

But the only busybodies here are christians - and if I believed in hell, I would say that you are all headed there for your evil actions.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #120 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
You and chris are evil because you vote for people that persecute gays.

How do you know who is voting for what and whom? And even if someone does/did vote for a person that happens to support (say) a consistutional amendment to ban same-gender marriage...it doesn't also mean that the voter holds that same position. You have turned voting into a simplistic one-issue exercise. Perhaps you vote that way. I certainly do not.

Why do you (and ShawnJ and others) insist on asserting as fact things you do not know? Is this a normal indication of your argumentative approach. Declare as fact that which you wish (or assume) to be true and then argue from there? Apparently.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The "Ex-gay" movement.