Tonka Trucks
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- RedCents
- 20¢
Re: Let's talk about politics
Repeating myself since you're too drunk to read.Myself said:
-
You've discovered RedGuides 📕 an EverQuest multi-boxing community 🛡️🧙🗡️. We want you to play several EQ characters at once, come join us and say hello! 👋 -
IS THIS SITE UGLY? Change the look. To dismiss this notice, click the X --->
Political Bullshit (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Cade
- Start date
Tonka Trucks
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- RedCents
- 20¢
Re: Let's talk about politics
No, you've made this a true debate about freedom of speech and civil rights combined and stating that homosexuals should be condemned for admitting their sexuality publicly. That about sums it up.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c269.htm
No, you've made this a true debate about freedom of speech and civil rights combined and stating that homosexuals should be condemned for admitting their sexuality publicly. That about sums it up.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c269.htm
Re: Let's talk about politics
Condemned in the regard that it is "wrong" to launch demonstrations with signs and banners decribing what you like sexually. As I stated before, it's my opinion that it's to be viewed as wrong...not just for gay people...straight people who do that as well fall into the category.
At the same time, you're trying to pick my sentences apart once again from a post that describes overall that such demonstrations divert the issue from what it should be (a citizen's rights). I think in addition to it being a private issue (sexual desires) and having no place in politics, I think it works against gay people to parade with that arguement rather than the fact that they are entitled as citizens and the fact that by doing so they are hurting their own cause by diverting the issue, it should be condemned also by those who are actually sincere about results. Both gay and straight people should be able to have legal civil unions.
TurkReno said:
Condemned in the regard that it is "wrong" to launch demonstrations with signs and banners decribing what you like sexually. As I stated before, it's my opinion that it's to be viewed as wrong...not just for gay people...straight people who do that as well fall into the category.
At the same time, you're trying to pick my sentences apart once again from a post that describes overall that such demonstrations divert the issue from what it should be (a citizen's rights). I think in addition to it being a private issue (sexual desires) and having no place in politics, I think it works against gay people to parade with that arguement rather than the fact that they are entitled as citizens and the fact that by doing so they are hurting their own cause by diverting the issue, it should be condemned also by those who are actually sincere about results. Both gay and straight people should be able to have legal civil unions.
Tonka Trucks
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- RedCents
- 20¢
Re: Let's talk about politics
Netherlands, Spain...other countries have accepted this as a citizens' rights. The USA has not because its "iky" and because people should not be allowed to talk about it, thus the whole "Don't ask, don't tell" policy amongst the military. Simple enough for you again?
As an addendum:
Is it indecent to put an adult video store advertising XXX videos or is it just culturally accepted? I'm sure there's all types of sexual acts of videos in there that define and make a person who they are...Again, freedom of speech.
Netherlands, Spain...other countries have accepted this as a citizens' rights. The USA has not because its "iky" and because people should not be allowed to talk about it, thus the whole "Don't ask, don't tell" policy amongst the military. Simple enough for you again?
As an addendum:
Is it indecent to put an adult video store advertising XXX videos or is it just culturally accepted? I'm sure there's all types of sexual acts of videos in there that define and make a person who they are...Again, freedom of speech.
Last edited:
Re: Let's talk about politics
For whatever reason the USA has not accepted civil unions for all, is really a non issue. The point is, whether it's because they are gay, staright, blue, purple, tall, fat, skinny, hairy or otherwise...
ALL AMERICANS should have the same and equal rights as all other americans. This happens to not exactly be the case at the moment and THAT is what should be protested...not that the goverment should endorse a certain sexual preference.
TurkReno said:
For whatever reason the USA has not accepted civil unions for all, is really a non issue. The point is, whether it's because they are gay, staright, blue, purple, tall, fat, skinny, hairy or otherwise...
ALL AMERICANS should have the same and equal rights as all other americans. This happens to not exactly be the case at the moment and THAT is what should be protested...not that the goverment should endorse a certain sexual preference.
Tonka Trucks
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- RedCents
- 20¢
Re: Let's talk about politics
Again, you're going back to IRC chat. It wasn't about endorsing it, it was about acknowledging it. Rights have to be determined as to what right is being violated. Homosexuals as a couple do not have equal rights as a Heterosexual couple and that is what the debate is. It is IMPLIED that if two men or two women wanted a "Civil Union" that they'd either want a tax break or they were gay and in love! Stay on topic.
Again, you're going back to IRC chat. It wasn't about endorsing it, it was about acknowledging it. Rights have to be determined as to what right is being violated. Homosexuals as a couple do not have equal rights as a Heterosexual couple and that is what the debate is. It is IMPLIED that if two men or two women wanted a "Civil Union" that they'd either want a tax break or they were gay and in love! Stay on topic.
Tonka Trucks
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- RedCents
- 20¢
Re: Let's talk about politics
And don't give me that equal citizen crap either because I didn't write the laws and I didn't vote for my senator or the senators 40 years ago who have just exacerbated the issues at hand. You're also deviating from social norms and adding your own opinion to it. This is an issue about MONEY and about what is right or wrong in the eyes of some religious burecratic zealot.
And don't give me that equal citizen crap either because I didn't write the laws and I didn't vote for my senator or the senators 40 years ago who have just exacerbated the issues at hand. You're also deviating from social norms and adding your own opinion to it. This is an issue about MONEY and about what is right or wrong in the eyes of some religious burecratic zealot.
Re: Let's talk about politics
Reading over this quickly, I'm too tired to respond to each conversation. but this struck me.
imo, TeachersPet is 100% correct.
Yes they have rights, yes they should be treated fairly.
Though, SOME of <them> are hipocritical. The one's who bitch, moan, and whine in Massachusets ( i forgot the city name.. it's popular for gay marriages and gay relations ) are harrassing the "heterosexuals" calling them names like " breeders " and " straights "..
It's bullcrap for them being hipocritical.
oh well,
imo. TP = 100% correct.
suki suki fy dolla?
TeachersPet said:
Reading over this quickly, I'm too tired to respond to each conversation. but this struck me.
imo, TeachersPet is 100% correct.
Yes they have rights, yes they should be treated fairly.
Though, SOME of <them> are hipocritical. The one's who bitch, moan, and whine in Massachusets ( i forgot the city name.. it's popular for gay marriages and gay relations ) are harrassing the "heterosexuals" calling them names like " breeders " and " straights "..
It's bullcrap for them being hipocritical.
oh well,
imo. TP = 100% correct.
suki suki fy dolla?
Re: Let's talk about politics
"Homosexual rights" are not being violated...Civil Rights are. As citizens of the United States, all Americans, both gay and straight should be entitled to the same rights. Since both gay and straight people are not treated equally as americans, then AS AMERICANS they should protest for their equal rights based on the fact that they are american and not being afforded all of their rights.
To protest under the banner of being gay means nothing...that only describes what you enjoy in the sack. Period. Being gay doesn't not entitle you to shit...being an american does. That is not an opinion, it's a fact.
TurkReno said:
"Homosexual rights" are not being violated...Civil Rights are. As citizens of the United States, all Americans, both gay and straight should be entitled to the same rights. Since both gay and straight people are not treated equally as americans, then AS AMERICANS they should protest for their equal rights based on the fact that they are american and not being afforded all of their rights.
To protest under the banner of being gay means nothing...that only describes what you enjoy in the sack. Period. Being gay doesn't not entitle you to shit...being an american does. That is not an opinion, it's a fact.
Re: Let's talk about politics
Probably due to the fact we don't have so many religious bigots in th UK as the US, we now have this:
Civil Partnerships
The Civil Partnership Act 2004 came into force on 5 December 2005 and enables same-sex couples to obtain legal recognition of their relationship. Couples who form a civil partnership will have a new legal status, that of ‘civil partner’.
Civil partners have equal treatment in a wide range of legal matters with married couples, including:
tax, including inheritance tax
employment Benefits
most state and occupational pension benefits
income related benefits, tax credits and child support
duty to provide reasonable maintenance for your civil partners and any children of the family
ability to apply for parental responsibility for your civil partner’s child
inheritance of a tenancy agreement
recognition under intestacy rules
access to fatal accidents compensation
protection from domestic violence
recognition from immigration and nationality purposes
Since civil partnerships have been introduced there have been important changes affecting same-sex couples who claim income related benefits, regardless of whether the couple decide to form a civil partnership.
In order to form a civil partnership you must first give notice. A civil partnership can be formed in England and Wales at a register office or an approved premise.
The next to last paragraph is important because, due to the years of gay rights fighting for it, they have also achieved a result for non gay couples living together (2 sisters for example), who forfeited many rights as well.
Probably due to the fact we don't have so many religious bigots in th UK as the US, we now have this:
Civil Partnerships
The Civil Partnership Act 2004 came into force on 5 December 2005 and enables same-sex couples to obtain legal recognition of their relationship. Couples who form a civil partnership will have a new legal status, that of ‘civil partner’.
Civil partners have equal treatment in a wide range of legal matters with married couples, including:
tax, including inheritance tax
employment Benefits
most state and occupational pension benefits
income related benefits, tax credits and child support
duty to provide reasonable maintenance for your civil partners and any children of the family
ability to apply for parental responsibility for your civil partner’s child
inheritance of a tenancy agreement
recognition under intestacy rules
access to fatal accidents compensation
protection from domestic violence
recognition from immigration and nationality purposes
Since civil partnerships have been introduced there have been important changes affecting same-sex couples who claim income related benefits, regardless of whether the couple decide to form a civil partnership.
In order to form a civil partnership you must first give notice. A civil partnership can be formed in England and Wales at a register office or an approved premise.
The next to last paragraph is important because, due to the years of gay rights fighting for it, they have also achieved a result for non gay couples living together (2 sisters for example), who forfeited many rights as well.
Re: Let's talk about politics
It's all very well in theory to say that guns don't kill people, people do. However, in reality we have too many idiots around, and with liberal access to guns, tend to abuse the right, to say the least. Unfortunately, abuse with a gun usually has horrific consequences. So, in my opinion, until the human race is deemed wise enough NOT to abuse weapons, we should make every effort to keep them from civilians.
It's all very well in theory to say that guns don't kill people, people do. However, in reality we have too many idiots around, and with liberal access to guns, tend to abuse the right, to say the least. Unfortunately, abuse with a gun usually has horrific consequences. So, in my opinion, until the human race is deemed wise enough NOT to abuse weapons, we should make every effort to keep them from civilians.
someoneorsomething
Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2005
- RedCents
- 0¢
Re: Let's talk about politics
Wasnt the tax breaks made so that married couples would have enough money to have/raise kids. If they want to be know as a couple, then more power to em. But i dont want my tax dollars suporting them. So no tax breaks. But it doesnt matter what any of us think cause the goverment isnt out for the people anymore
Wasnt the tax breaks made so that married couples would have enough money to have/raise kids. If they want to be know as a couple, then more power to em. But i dont want my tax dollars suporting them. So no tax breaks. But it doesnt matter what any of us think cause the goverment isnt out for the people anymore
Re: Let's talk about politics
No, there are no tax breaks for being married, same sex or different sex. All this act did was to give same sex couples equal rights, not extra ones. We all get tax credits for having kids (depending on income) but that's regardless of being married or not.
someoneorsomething said:
No, there are no tax breaks for being married, same sex or different sex. All this act did was to give same sex couples equal rights, not extra ones. We all get tax credits for having kids (depending on income) but that's regardless of being married or not.
Tonka Trucks
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- RedCents
- 20¢
Re: Let's talk about politics
Correct, but there are states that specifically deny this priviliage.BadPuss said:
Re: Let's talk about politics
I was talking just about the UK, but I was aware that some states didn't do this. Not up to speed on which ones, as I don't live in the US. You'd think something like this would be the same across the whole country though, wouldn't you?
TurkReno said:
I was talking just about the UK, but I was aware that some states didn't do this. Not up to speed on which ones, as I don't live in the US. You'd think something like this would be the same across the whole country though, wouldn't you?
Re: Let's talk about politics
Aye, you would "think". I was under the impression that tax relief for having children was something that trickled from the federal government, thus being in every state in some form or another. Still waiting on a reply from Cade =).
Aye, you would "think". I was under the impression that tax relief for having children was something that trickled from the federal government, thus being in every state in some form or another. Still waiting on a reply from Cade =).
Tonka Trucks
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- RedCents
- 20¢
Re: Let's talk about politics
Kraze, you're so dim-witted at this point. You had a good point, but now you're just being a thread troll. Your opinion does not superceed that of anyone elses since this is a political discussion, nor does your opinion do anything other than categorize all homosexuals as people who march in the street and hold banners. Diversity is what the whole movement is about, so the citizens thing, sure..whatever. You being a troll, no, quit.
Kraze, you're so dim-witted at this point. You had a good point, but now you're just being a thread troll. Your opinion does not superceed that of anyone elses since this is a political discussion, nor does your opinion do anything other than categorize all homosexuals as people who march in the street and hold banners. Diversity is what the whole movement is about, so the citizens thing, sure..whatever. You being a troll, no, quit.
Re: Let's talk about politics
I asked a question to Cade about whether or not he was sure about the states he named specifically being states that didn't provide tax relief for having children...gay, straight, or even sexually prone to animals. The question was one about taxes and where they apply.
So, dim-witted? Thread troll? I suppose those terms best describe you since you can't seem to read or even understand what you do read when you actually manage.
PS - I won't even respond to the gay remarks in your flame post because a.) if you're not gonna post constructively and on point...then you're not worth debating with further and b.) we debated this for hours and hours and there is not much that would be covered in new conversation other than repeating ourselves...my previous posts on the topic speak for my position on the issue.
cheers! =)
TurkReno said:
I asked a question to Cade about whether or not he was sure about the states he named specifically being states that didn't provide tax relief for having children...gay, straight, or even sexually prone to animals. The question was one about taxes and where they apply.
So, dim-witted? Thread troll? I suppose those terms best describe you since you can't seem to read or even understand what you do read when you actually manage.
PS - I won't even respond to the gay remarks in your flame post because a.) if you're not gonna post constructively and on point...then you're not worth debating with further and b.) we debated this for hours and hours and there is not much that would be covered in new conversation other than repeating ourselves...my previous posts on the topic speak for my position on the issue.
cheers! =)
Tonka Trucks
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- RedCents
- 20¢
Re: Let's talk about politics
This is just you admitting defeat since you have no strong basis for an arguement after using terms like "condemning" and removing rights for freedom of expression and freedom of speech.Kraze said:I asked a question to Cade about whether or not he was sure about the states he named specifically being states that didn't provide tax relief for having children...gay, straight, or even sexually prone to animals. The question was one about taxes and where they apply.
So, dim-witted? Thread troll? I suppose those terms best describe you since you can't seem to read or even understand what you do read when you actually manage.
PS - I won't even respond to the gay remarks in your flame post because a.) if you're not gonna post constructively and on point...then you're not worth debating with further and b.) we debated this for hours and hours and there is not much that would be covered in new conversation other than repeating ourselves...my previous posts on the topic speak for my position on the issue.
Last edited:
Re: Let's talk about politics
So, while reading some past threads.. POOF.. an idea comes to mind.
beastiality and other things like trying to marry animals = DarkRed
IMO, Beastiality is wrong. Animals shouldn't have to do sexual acts if they don't want to...
:judge
So, while reading some past threads.. POOF.. an idea comes to mind.
beastiality and other things like trying to marry animals = DarkRed
IMO, Beastiality is wrong. Animals shouldn't have to do sexual acts if they don't want to...
:judge
Re: Let's talk about politics
Nice try on keeping it going, as I said before though, my previous posts speak for my position. You can read whatever into it you'd like, and while I'll continue to believe that you're seriously misguided, I'll respect that you're able to feel the same about me...everyone will draw from our posts what they will /shrug.
As I also stated before, what I "admitted" was that there was no longer a debate between you and I since you lack the ability to post constructively, while at the same time becoming increasingly unable to stay on point. You've also sank to childish flaming - which can be fun at times, I'm just not interested right now, thanks for the offer! =)
Cheers!
TurkReno said:
Nice try on keeping it going, as I said before though, my previous posts speak for my position. You can read whatever into it you'd like, and while I'll continue to believe that you're seriously misguided, I'll respect that you're able to feel the same about me...everyone will draw from our posts what they will /shrug.
As I also stated before, what I "admitted" was that there was no longer a debate between you and I since you lack the ability to post constructively, while at the same time becoming increasingly unable to stay on point. You've also sank to childish flaming - which can be fun at times, I'm just not interested right now, thanks for the offer! =)
Cheers!
Re: Let's talk about politics
You compained about some gays marching in the streets with banners, it may be somewhat annoying to the general public, but in the UK and other countries, it achieved their aims. The same could be said for women's suffrage in the early 20th century. Anti apartheid marches. The list is long. If enough people feel strongly about certain rights, at least WE in the west allow them to campaign for it, and allow them hope that, in the end they may achieve their aim. Some countries are NOT so fortunate, Tianeman Square anyone remember?
You compained about some gays marching in the streets with banners, it may be somewhat annoying to the general public, but in the UK and other countries, it achieved their aims. The same could be said for women's suffrage in the early 20th century. Anti apartheid marches. The list is long. If enough people feel strongly about certain rights, at least WE in the west allow them to campaign for it, and allow them hope that, in the end they may achieve their aim. Some countries are NOT so fortunate, Tianeman Square anyone remember?
Re: Let's talk about politics
Okay, I'll make one attempt to re-ecco what I actually said, which I was hoping to avoid cause it'll likely just bring TurkReno back on patrol, but here goes...
My issue with the protesting had nothing to do with the fact that they actually were protesting. In fact, I stated many times that I think they they SHOULD indeed protest and fight for the rights they SHOULD have. What I disagreed about, was their method in which they protest...in many cases because of what is actually on those signs and banners.
To stand on public streets and proclaim "I'm gay and I'm proud" is an exact duplicate of a man saying "I like dick, and I'm proud of it" or a woman doing the same about pussy. In this subject, GAY references their sexual choice in life, which has nothing to do with the "real" debate. To exclaim those messages on public streets is, in my opinion, inappropriate and not worthy of positive attention.
I think it would better serve the gay community and their cause to protest constructively rather than destructively making a spectacal of themselves. The signs should read something like "My civil rights are being violated" or "I'm an american citizen and demand EQUAL rights as other americans get". To proclaim that they are gay does nothing for the debate...just makes the rally of gay people feel better and get things off their chest, I suppose? A group of straight men in the streets with signs about how much they love pussy would indeed be just as silly...just not as entertaining.
PS - There will probably always be some kind of descrimination on the part of individuals, but where the government is concerned:
Women fought for EQUAL RIGHTS....they got em...
Blacks/Minorities fought for EQUAL RIGHTS....they got em...
If gays are just fighting to be GAY AND PROUD and look like circus shows in the streets of america....bam, they have already won.
They SHOULD be fighting for EQUAL RIGHTS - IMO.
/cheers
BadPuss said:
Okay, I'll make one attempt to re-ecco what I actually said, which I was hoping to avoid cause it'll likely just bring TurkReno back on patrol, but here goes...
My issue with the protesting had nothing to do with the fact that they actually were protesting. In fact, I stated many times that I think they they SHOULD indeed protest and fight for the rights they SHOULD have. What I disagreed about, was their method in which they protest...in many cases because of what is actually on those signs and banners.
To stand on public streets and proclaim "I'm gay and I'm proud" is an exact duplicate of a man saying "I like dick, and I'm proud of it" or a woman doing the same about pussy. In this subject, GAY references their sexual choice in life, which has nothing to do with the "real" debate. To exclaim those messages on public streets is, in my opinion, inappropriate and not worthy of positive attention.
I think it would better serve the gay community and their cause to protest constructively rather than destructively making a spectacal of themselves. The signs should read something like "My civil rights are being violated" or "I'm an american citizen and demand EQUAL rights as other americans get". To proclaim that they are gay does nothing for the debate...just makes the rally of gay people feel better and get things off their chest, I suppose? A group of straight men in the streets with signs about how much they love pussy would indeed be just as silly...just not as entertaining.
PS - There will probably always be some kind of descrimination on the part of individuals, but where the government is concerned:
Women fought for EQUAL RIGHTS....they got em...
Blacks/Minorities fought for EQUAL RIGHTS....they got em...
If gays are just fighting to be GAY AND PROUD and look like circus shows in the streets of america....bam, they have already won.
They SHOULD be fighting for EQUAL RIGHTS - IMO.
/cheers
Tonka Trucks
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- RedCents
- 20¢
Re: Let's talk about politics
Still, you've made statements that those people should be condemned, however, that's the only change instance that I see that you've made. The spectacle thing, that's irrelevant. You could call many things a spectacle and to others it has very signifigant value. The idea of this being a spectical is your opinion and the media's focus on what makes certain extremists in these marches "spectacles" - NOT the real, true messages that can come from true protests. This is about supporting diversity within our government, so its drag queens and regular "straight-acting" homosexuals combined - full spectrum. They all deserve the rights regardless of how much you'd like to personally degrade them with your own 2 cent opinion. If you have a relevant point of view, then you really should consider how people can achieve their goals while still supporting the fact of homosexuality being a factor inside the law, none of this "We deserve it because we're JUST citizens". You have your opinion, and granted, you're very much so entitled to it. However, your point of view is nothing but destructive and helps no one achieve anything other than evolving the hate towards a certain action rather than learning diversity and teaching others how to be tolerant.
We've been over the legal, dictionary, and opinionated definition and it all centers around you still taking the point of view that you A.) Agree that Gay Rights should be possible B.) That you basically don't want to see the methods of their doing so.
I'm going to do some research and then I'm going to get back to you on this one. In the mean time, try to use less profane words when you're fighting this arguement. It doesn't help your case any more with that type of verbage.
You're right about being back on "patrol". This arguement still has no basis because there is no other way to argue it other than stating that the person must fight for their rights as a "citizen" and not what makes up their uniqueness - in this case being homosexual.Kraze said:Okay, I'll make one attempt to re-ecco what I actually said, which I was hoping to avoid cause it'll likely just bring TurkReno back on patrol, but here goes...
My issue with the protesting had nothing to do with the fact that they actually were protesting. In fact, I stated many times that I think they they SHOULD indeed protest and fight for the rights they SHOULD have. What I disagreed about, was their method in which they protest...in many cases because of what is actually on those signs and banners.
To stand on public streets and proclaim "I'm gay and I'm proud" is an exact duplicate of a man saying "I like dick, and I'm proud of it" or a woman doing the same about pussy. In this subject, GAY references their sexual choice in life, which has nothing to do with the "real" debate. To exclaim those messages on public streets is, in my opinion, inappropriate and not worthy of positive attention.
I think it would better serve the gay community and their cause to protest constructively rather than destructively making a spectacal of themselves. The signs should read something like "My civil rights are being violated" or "I'm an american citizen and demand EQUAL rights as other americans get". To proclaim that they are gay does nothing for the debate...just makes the rally of gay people feel better and get things off their chest, I suppose? A group of straight men in the streets with signs about how much they love pussy would indeed be just as silly...just not as entertaining.
PS - There will probably always be some kind of descrimination on the part of individuals, but where the government is concerned:
Women fought for EQUAL RIGHTS....they got em...
Blacks/Minorities fought for EQUAL RIGHTS....they got em...
If gays are just fighting to be GAY AND PROUD and look like circus shows in the streets of america....bam, they have already won.
They SHOULD be fighting for EQUAL RIGHTS - IMO.
/cheers
Still, you've made statements that those people should be condemned, however, that's the only change instance that I see that you've made. The spectacle thing, that's irrelevant. You could call many things a spectacle and to others it has very signifigant value. The idea of this being a spectical is your opinion and the media's focus on what makes certain extremists in these marches "spectacles" - NOT the real, true messages that can come from true protests. This is about supporting diversity within our government, so its drag queens and regular "straight-acting" homosexuals combined - full spectrum. They all deserve the rights regardless of how much you'd like to personally degrade them with your own 2 cent opinion. If you have a relevant point of view, then you really should consider how people can achieve their goals while still supporting the fact of homosexuality being a factor inside the law, none of this "We deserve it because we're JUST citizens". You have your opinion, and granted, you're very much so entitled to it. However, your point of view is nothing but destructive and helps no one achieve anything other than evolving the hate towards a certain action rather than learning diversity and teaching others how to be tolerant.
We've been over the legal, dictionary, and opinionated definition and it all centers around you still taking the point of view that you A.) Agree that Gay Rights should be possible B.) That you basically don't want to see the methods of their doing so.
I'm going to do some research and then I'm going to get back to you on this one. In the mean time, try to use less profane words when you're fighting this arguement. It doesn't help your case any more with that type of verbage.
Re: Let's talk about politics
I hope you two relize your not arguing. You both belive that homosextuals deserve the same cival rights and that they have the right to protest. The only differance is that one of you thinks they should be protesting in a different manner. The arguments that lead to flames are always the ones with small purposes, this one.
I just want you two to think about what your arguing about...the strategy inwhich homosextuals should go about to gain equality.I agree that the media concentrates on the more extreme protests, but it doesn't matter because you both essentially agree.
I hope you two relize your not arguing. You both belive that homosextuals deserve the same cival rights and that they have the right to protest. The only differance is that one of you thinks they should be protesting in a different manner. The arguments that lead to flames are always the ones with small purposes, this one.
I just want you two to think about what your arguing about...the strategy inwhich homosextuals should go about to gain equality.I agree that the media concentrates on the more extreme protests, but it doesn't matter because you both essentially agree.