The New Totalitarians

[kalm]

You compared. I asked a stupid question. I have to try and and do better.

Accuracy.

Of course it was a stupid question. It was an attempt to follow your logic.

(CID, again, context is your friend here)

[Baldy]

Accuracy.

Of course it was a stupid question. It was an attempt to follow your logic.

(CID, again, context is your friend here)

Apparently my logic is just a little above your pay grade.

[JohnStOnge]

I have never met one homosexual that thinks their orientation is "normal"
they are reminded every single day that it is not and I don't know any who are confused by that

I don't know if it was a homosexual but I have had people on this very board try to use that "it's like blue eyes vs. brown eyes" argument when homosexuality has come up. The "it is normal" assertion is very common. You can see it, for instance, on the web page at http://www.aglp.org/gap/4_psychotherapy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; :

Since 1973, the American Psychiatric Association has not considered homosexuality to be a mental disorder. Implicit in this position is the belief that homosexuality is a normal variant of sexual expression.

Whether they actually have convinced themselves or not, I think it's very reasonable to believe that the primary motivation behind the homosexual marriage thing was to be treated as though their relationships are normal...just as "normal" as heterosexual relationships. If the society had said, "OK we are going to arrange a status where homosexuals in pair relationships can have ALL of the same privileges and benefits that heterosexuals in marriage do" that would not have satisfied them. They'd have still been pushing for "marriage equality." Heck, even the fact that they framed the issue as "marriage equality" shows that they wanted two things that are not equal to be perceived as equal.

[CID1990]

Accuracy.

Of course it was a stupid question. It was an attempt to follow your logic.

(CID, again, context is your friend here)

You made a clumsy attempt with a dumb question

try to spin it if you must - I put it to bed already

[kalm]

Of course it was a stupid question. It was an attempt to follow your logic.

(CID, again, context is your friend here)

You made a clumsy attempt with a dumb question

try to spin it if you must - I put it to bed already

So in your never ending quest to put things to bed did you ask yourself the question of whether there's a difference between a judge refusing to marry gay people and a doctor refusing to perform an abortion on religious principles?

Just checking.

Thanks.

[CID1990]

You made a clumsy attempt with a dumb question

try to spin it if you must - I put it to bed already

So in your never ending quest to put things to bed did you ask yourself the question of whether there's a difference between a judge refusing to marry gay people and a doctor refusing to perform an abortion on religious principles?

Just checking.

Thanks.

I said nothing about abortion

I was responding to your dumb attempt to draw equivalence between marrying gays and letting them die

now youre just reinventing the conversation apparently

[kalm]

So in your never ending quest to put things to bed did you ask yourself the question of whether there's a difference between a judge refusing to marry gay people and a doctor refusing to perform an abortion on religious principles?

Just checking.

Thanks.

I said nothing about abortion

I was responding to your dumb attempt to draw equivalence between marrying gays and letting them die

now youre just reinventing the conversation apparently

No shit???

Why do you think I suggested applying some context? I knew what you were replying to with your "gotcha" response. Or what you thought you were replying to.

You're becoming the TMZ of CS.com.

[CID1990]

I said nothing about abortion

I was responding to your dumb attempt to draw equivalence between marrying gays and letting them die

now youre just reinventing the conversation apparently

No ****???

Why do you think I suggested applying some context? I knew what you were replying to with your "gotcha" response. Or what you thought you were replying to.

You're becoming the TMZ of CS.com.

There is no "context", Hillary.

You drew an equivalence between two things that doesn't exist. Own it.

[kalm]

No ****???

Why do you think I suggested applying some context? I knew what you were replying to with your "gotcha" response. Or what you thought you were replying to.

You're becoming the TMZ of CS.com.

There is no "context", Hillary.

You drew an equivalence between two things that doesn't exist. Own it.

I wasn't satirically replying to Baldy's equivalence between a judge refusing to perform a gay wedding and a doctor performing an abortion.

Nope.

Not all.

It's ok to admit when you're wrong, BDK. No one will think the less of you for it.

[CID1990]

There is no "context", Hillary.

You drew an equivalence between two things that doesn't exist. Own it.

I wasn't satirically replying to Baldy's equivalence between a judge refusing to perform a gay wedding and a doctor performing an abortion.

Nope.

Not all.

It's ok to admit when you're wrong, BDK. No one will think the less of you for it.

I see "context" is the new "nuance".

[kalm]

I wasn't satirically replying to Baldy's equivalence between a judge refusing to perform a gay wedding and a doctor performing an abortion.

Nope.

Not all.

It's ok to admit when you're wrong, BDK. No one will think the less of you for it.

I see "context" is the new "nuance".

No, they're different. You just suck at understanding both.

[Baldy]

There is no "context", Hillary.

You drew an equivalence between two things that doesn't exist. Own it.

I wasn't satirically replying to Baldy's equivalence between a judge refusing to perform a gay wedding and a doctor performing an abortion.

Nope.

Not all.

It's ok to admit when you're wrong, BDK. No one will think the less of you for it.

Backpedaling is not your friend.

Own your mistake and move on.

[CID1990]

I see "context" is the new "nuance".

No, they're different. You just suck at understanding both.

In your book they mean precisely the same thing - an attempt to back away from a goofy post

[kalm]

The gist is, he wasn't intolerant. The judge wished them well and helped get another judge to marry the chicks. I don't care what your man crush says, there is a difference between intolerance and a simple disagreement.
#newtotalitarianklam

It is no different than a doctor refusing to perform an abortion due to his moral or religious beliefs. #freedomofassociation

It's different on several levels.

Should a doctor refuse to save a gay life based on his religion?

Here you two go. Better luck the 2nd time.