Republican Ray LaHood offered Transportation Secretary - Page 2 - Jets Insider.com Forums

Warfish · 12-18-2008, 03:23 PM

[QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2918845]Metaphor:

Pronunciation: \ˈme-tə-ˌfȯr also -fər\
Function: noun

a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money)[/QUOTE]

I'm curious Plum....do you REALLY think I needed to be told the definition of Metaphor?

PlumberKhan · 12-18-2008, 03:26 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;2918891]I'm curious Plum....do you REALLY think I needed to be told the definition of Metaphor?[/QUOTE]

My metaphor public awareness campaign is part of my community service :P

[IMG]http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/nbc_the_more_you_know.jpg[/IMG]

RutgersJetFan · 12-18-2008, 04:09 PM

[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2918615]I see your point, but I think Prop 8 is really the last gasp of the anti-gay movement, and I think most gay and lesbian activists, as well as folks like me and you who are sympathetic to their cause, realize this on some level.

The exit polls from that vote show that basically nobody under 45 voted for it. The opposition to this stuff will literally die off. Its a generational thing and it is inevitable, literally set in stone.

Warren, despite his opposition to prop 8, has been a fairly positive figure in other regards, playing a role in pushing religious conservatives to look beyond abortion and gay rights when they consider how aspects of their faith play out in politics. That's a very positive contribution, both actually and politically, when you consider it undoes so much of what Falwell et al built.

And I'm not sure that there's a religious conservative of equal stature he could have tapped for this. Warren is really pretty big.[/QUOTE]

Meh, agree to disagree then I guess. I think it's a tragic scenario enacted by a man who's run on a platform of social progression. In theory it should be a day that should be able to be enjoyed by all, yet the GLT community now gets to have it prefaced by one of the most recognizable faces of the most impactful voting referendum in their movement for equality. I completely understand the politics behind it, I just don't support it. There's other ways to get the job done rather than trying to create a perception that isn't reality, especially when it constitutes civil insensitivity.

Warfish · 12-18-2008, 04:23 PM

[QUOTE=RutgersJetFan;2918963]Meh, agree to disagree then I guess. I think it's a tragic scenario enacted by a man who's run on a platform of social progression. In theory it should be a day that should be able to be enjoyed by all, yet the GLT community now gets to have it prefaced by one of the most recognizable faces of the most impactful voting referendum in their movement for equality. I completely understand the politics behind it, I just don't support it. There's other ways to get the job done rather than trying to create a perception that isn't reality, especially when it constitutes civil insensitivity.[/QUOTE]

If Obama had instead chosen a Gay Preacher, or even say....Rev. Wright....would you feel the same way?

And if thats the case, who COULD he choose that would, in such a scenario, offend or bother no-one at all? Is that even possible?

RutgersJetFan · 12-18-2008, 04:28 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;2918986]If Obama had instead chosen a Gay Preacher, or even say....Rev. Wright....would you feel the same way? [/QUOTE]
Absolutely, yes.
[QUOTE]
And if thats the case, who COULD he choose that would, in such a scenario, offend or bother no-one at all? Is that even possible?[/QUOTE]
In terms of specifics? No clue, however finding a speaker to please conservatives that wasn't a figurehead against what's become the new civil rights movement is certainly something reasonable that could have been done.

Warfish · 12-18-2008, 04:55 PM

[QUOTE=RutgersJetFan;2918996]Absolutely, yes.

In terms of specifics? No clue, however finding a speaker to please conservatives that wasn't a figurehead against what's become the new civil rights movement is certainly something reasonable that could have been done.[/QUOTE]

You think? I'd be interested to see this Pro-Gay Preacher that also is beloved by Conservatives.

And with respect, Gay Rights =/= Civil Rights. Not even close, not even int he same state, much less the same ballpark. Sorry, I support Gay Rights, but comparing it in ANY form to the Civil Rights movement is blasphemy IMO.

RutgersJetFan · 12-18-2008, 05:00 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;2919050]You think? I'd be interested to see this Pro-Gay Preacher that also is beloved by Conservatives.

And with respect, Gay Rights =/= Civil Rights. Not even close, not even int he same state, much less the same ballpark. Sorry, I support Gay Rights, but comparing it in ANY form to the Civil Rights movement is blasphemy IMO.[/QUOTE]

Fish, Gay Rights absolutely fall under the terminology that is Civil Rights. By every definition of Civil Rights in this country, it most certainly does. You're mistaking the overall category for one specific movement within it.

Warfish · 12-18-2008, 05:06 PM

[QUOTE=RutgersJetFan;2919060]Fish, Gay Rights absolutely fall under the terminology that is Civil Rights. By every definition of Civil Rights in this country, it most certainly does. You're mistaking the overall category for one specific movement within it.[/QUOTE]

With respect, I disagree.

Untill proven otherwise, homosexuallity is a choice. And IMO you CAN and SHOULD be permitted to descriminate against someone for a CHOICE.

I don't personally, and I support their desire for equal rights, personally. But I also rsupport the right of the individual to freedom of thought and action, the right to to descriminate against them for choosing a lifestyle they believe is deviant. Tolerance does not =/= forced acceptance of a choice IMO.

No African American ever had a choice. Gays do. Well, they do right up till the second someone somewhere proves, scientificly, that it's NOT a choice.

nuu faaola · 12-18-2008, 05:11 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;2919078]With respect, I disagree.

Untill proven otherwise, homosexuallity is a choice. And IMO you CAN and SHOULD be permitted to descriminate against someone for a CHOICE.

I don't personally, and I support their desire for equal rights, personally. But I also rsupport the right of the individual to freedom of thought and action, the right to to descriminate against them for choosing a lifestyle they believe is deviant. Tolerance does not =/= forced acceptance of a choice IMO.

No African American ever had a choice. Gays do. Well, they do right up till the second someone somewhere proves, scientificly, that it's NOT a choice.[/QUOTE]

Why is "choice" the default?

RutgersJetFan · 12-18-2008, 05:35 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;2919078]With respect, I disagree.

Untill proven otherwise, homosexuallity is a choice. And IMO you CAN and SHOULD be permitted to descriminate against someone for a CHOICE.

I don't personally, and I support their desire for equal rights, personally. But I also rsupport the right of the individual to freedom of thought and action, the right to to descriminate against them for choosing a lifestyle they believe is deviant. Tolerance does not =/= forced acceptance of a choice IMO.

No African American ever had a choice. Gays do. Well, they do right up till the second someone somewhere proves, scientificly, that it's NOT a choice.[/QUOTE]
First, by your definition and same logic towards choice, religious discrimination should be tolerated by law and the government. Second, choice or genetics have nothing to do with anything. Governmental discrimination against someone based on sexual orientation is most certainly a civil rights issue by any theological or legal definition out there.

Tyler Durden · 12-18-2008, 05:50 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;2919078]With respect, I disagree.

Untill proven otherwise, homosexuallity is a choice. And IMO you CAN and SHOULD be permitted to descriminate against someone for a CHOICE.

I don't personally, and I support their desire for equal rights, personally. But I also rsupport the right of the individual to freedom of thought and action, the right to to descriminate against them for choosing a lifestyle they believe is deviant. Tolerance does not =/= forced acceptance of a choice IMO.

No African American ever had a choice. Gays do. Well, they do right up till the second someone somewhere proves, scientificly, that it's NOT a choice.[/QUOTE]

So by your standards, I can discriminate against any religion? You think your bull**** will hold up in court?

BrooklynBound · 12-18-2008, 05:51 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;2919078]With respect, I disagree.

Untill proven otherwise, homosexuallity is a choice. And IMO you CAN and SHOULD be permitted to descriminate against someone for a CHOICE.

I don't personally, and I support their desire for equal rights, personally. But I also rsupport the right of the individual to freedom of thought and action, the right to to descriminate against them for choosing a lifestyle they believe is deviant. Tolerance does not =/= forced acceptance of a choice IMO.

No African American ever had a choice. Gays do. Well, they do right up till the second someone somewhere proves, scientificly, that it's NOT a choice.[/QUOTE]

Why does the government have a right to discriminate against gays?

fukushimajin · 12-18-2008, 06:10 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;2918717]There is no false equivalence here.

There is you, discussing your desire to kill Conservativism in language you have never used in discussion of our national enemies and how to approach them.

You can make excuses for why your vitriol is excused, or legitimate, but it will be for each poster to determine how they feel about that.

Personally, I am not suprised in any form. If I had you in a moment of total honesty, I would bet you would say Conservatives are more evil, more dangerous, more worthy of destruction than any Islamic Fundamentalist, and that Islamic Fundamentalism is just the fault of Conservativism anyway.

You hard-leftist are nothing, if not predictable.[/QUOTE]

Not so. Not even close to how I feel. I do think Conservatism, especially the religious brand, is the worst thing going in the US of A. I think the movement has led us to all but wrack and ruin and I am happy to stick a metaphorical shiv in the back of the movement to fix what I think are obvious shortcomings in our national policy. Conservatives, especially the religious kind, have shown an avid willingness to do the same to my movement for far stupider objectives. On one level political competition is sport -- on another level it is as serious as life and death -- hence the lingo. The fact that you draw from my views that I reserve true hatred for my fellow citizens and that I consider them worse than Islamic Fundamentalists [B]speaks only to your own biases[/B] and possibly the fact that you listen to far too much republican talk radio. I can tell you that I have never said, thought or even heard a serious person decry conservatives as worse than our foreign enemies. The closest thing I can recall is the analogy between the religious rules of the Taliban and those of the amorphus "religious right". Which, like all analogies has grains of truth separated by wide gaps of degree. I can state unequivocally that I'd like Islamic Fundamentalists eliminated from the face of the earth along with all other fundamentalists who believe violence against innocents is a tool to achieve their political goals. It is my liberalism that commands me to oppose such evil.

So I suggest you rethink your career as a mind-reader and try to be less sensitive when reading a football blog about politics.

Maury77 · 12-18-2008, 07:19 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;2919078]With respect, I disagree.

Untill proven otherwise, homosexuallity is a choice. [B]And IMO you CAN and SHOULD be permitted to descriminate against someone for a CHOICE.
[/B]
I don't personally, and I support their desire for equal rights, personally. But I also rsupport the right of the individual to freedom of thought and action, the right to to descriminate against them for choosing a lifestyle they believe is deviant. Tolerance does not =/= forced acceptance of a choice IMO.

No African American ever had a choice. Gays do. Well, they do right up till the second someone somewhere proves, scientificly, that it's NOT a choice.[/QUOTE]

What is the choice that we should be permitted to discriminate against? The choice to prefer having sex with someone of the same sex or the choice to actually engage in it? While I concede that it is a choice to actually engage in a sexual act, do you really think that people choose to prefer being gay to being straight?

doggin94it · 12-19-2008, 09:44 AM

[quote=Warfish;2919078]With respect, I disagree.

[B]Untill proven otherwise, homosexuallity is a choice. And IMO you CAN and SHOULD be permitted to descriminate against someone for a CHOICE.[/B]

I don't personally, and I support their desire for equal rights, personally. But I also rsupport the right of the individual to freedom of thought and action, the right to to descriminate against them for choosing a lifestyle they believe is deviant. Tolerance does not =/= forced acceptance of a choice IMO.

No African American ever had a choice. Gays do. Well, they do right up till the second someone somewhere proves, scientificly, that it's NOT a choice.[/quote]

So you approve of discrimination based on religion?

Not the Hitler "born a jew always a jew" but "hey, that guy's orthodox rather than catholic so he can't shop in our store"?

"Hey, that guy's a practicing muslim and we don't like muslims, so we won't hire you"?

"Sorry, athiests aren't allowed to eat here"?

Warfish · 12-19-2008, 12:01 PM

Well, seems I have hit a nerve, eh? Well, rather than waste my time trying to explain myself, I'll just surrender to the torch-wielding masses. Guess I'm just a hateful bigot, there, now I am sure you all are happy. Another dissenter rightfully pigeonholed.

None of you really want to know what I think. You just saw politcally correct blood in the water, and jumped on it like the sharks you are.

Think what you like.

12-18-2008, 04:09 PM	#23
RutgersJetFan Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 29,953	[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2918615]I see your point, but I think Prop 8 is really the last gasp of the anti-gay movement, and I think most gay and lesbian activists, as well as folks like me and you who are sympathetic to their cause, realize this on some level. The exit polls from that vote show that basically nobody under 45 voted for it. The opposition to this stuff will literally die off. Its a generational thing and it is inevitable, literally set in stone. Warren, despite his opposition to prop 8, has been a fairly positive figure in other regards, playing a role in pushing religious conservatives to look beyond abortion and gay rights when they consider how aspects of their faith play out in politics. That's a very positive contribution, both actually and politically, when you consider it undoes so much of what Falwell et al built. And I'm not sure that there's a religious conservative of equal stature he could have tapped for this. Warren is really pretty big.[/QUOTE] Meh, agree to disagree then I guess. I think it's a tragic scenario enacted by a man who's run on a platform of social progression. In theory it should be a day that should be able to be enjoyed by all, yet the GLT community now gets to have it prefaced by one of the most recognizable faces of the most impactful voting referendum in their movement for equality. I completely understand the politics behind it, I just don't support it. There's other ways to get the job done rather than trying to create a perception that isn't reality, especially when it constitutes civil insensitivity. Last edited by RutgersJetFan; 12-18-2008 at 04:15 PM.

12-18-2008, 03:23 PM	#21
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2918845]Metaphor: Pronunciation: \ˈme-tə-ˌfȯr also -fər\ Function: noun a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money)[/QUOTE] I'm curious Plum....do you REALLY think I needed to be told the definition of Metaphor?

12-18-2008, 03:26 PM	#22
PlumberKhan BRACE YOURSELVES FOR 12... Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Van down by the river Posts: 21,029	[QUOTE=Warfish;2918891]I'm curious Plum....do you REALLY think I needed to be told the definition of Metaphor?[/QUOTE] My metaphor public awareness campaign is part of my community service :P [IMG]http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/nbc_the_more_you_know.jpg[/IMG]

12-18-2008, 04:23 PM	#24
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=RutgersJetFan;2918963]Meh, agree to disagree then I guess. I think it's a tragic scenario enacted by a man who's run on a platform of social progression. In theory it should be a day that should be able to be enjoyed by all, yet the GLT community now gets to have it prefaced by one of the most recognizable faces of the most impactful voting referendum in their movement for equality. I completely understand the politics behind it, I just don't support it. There's other ways to get the job done rather than trying to create a perception that isn't reality, especially when it constitutes civil insensitivity.[/QUOTE] If Obama had instead chosen a Gay Preacher, or even say....Rev. Wright....would you feel the same way? And if thats the case, who COULD he choose that would, in such a scenario, offend or bother no-one at all? Is that even possible?

12-18-2008, 04:28 PM	#25
RutgersJetFan Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 29,953	[QUOTE=Warfish;2918986]If Obama had instead chosen a Gay Preacher, or even say....Rev. Wright....would you feel the same way? [/QUOTE] Absolutely, yes. [QUOTE] And if thats the case, who COULD he choose that would, in such a scenario, offend or bother no-one at all? Is that even possible?[/QUOTE] In terms of specifics? No clue, however finding a speaker to please conservatives that wasn't a figurehead against what's become the new civil rights movement is certainly something reasonable that could have been done.

12-18-2008, 04:55 PM	#26
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=RutgersJetFan;2918996]Absolutely, yes. In terms of specifics? No clue, however finding a speaker to please conservatives that wasn't a figurehead against what's become the new civil rights movement is certainly something reasonable that could have been done.[/QUOTE] You think? I'd be interested to see this Pro-Gay Preacher that also is beloved by Conservatives. And with respect, Gay Rights =/= Civil Rights. Not even close, not even int he same state, much less the same ballpark. Sorry, I support Gay Rights, but comparing it in ANY form to the Civil Rights movement is blasphemy IMO.

12-18-2008, 05:00 PM	#27
RutgersJetFan Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 29,953	[QUOTE=Warfish;2919050]You think? I'd be interested to see this Pro-Gay Preacher that also is beloved by Conservatives. And with respect, Gay Rights =/= Civil Rights. Not even close, not even int he same state, much less the same ballpark. Sorry, I support Gay Rights, but comparing it in ANY form to the Civil Rights movement is blasphemy IMO.[/QUOTE] Fish, Gay Rights absolutely fall under the terminology that is Civil Rights. By every definition of Civil Rights in this country, it most certainly does. You're mistaking the overall category for one specific movement within it.

12-18-2008, 05:06 PM	#28
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=RutgersJetFan;2919060]Fish, Gay Rights absolutely fall under the terminology that is Civil Rights. By every definition of Civil Rights in this country, it most certainly does. You're mistaking the overall category for one specific movement within it.[/QUOTE] With respect, I disagree. Untill proven otherwise, homosexuallity is a choice. And IMO you CAN and SHOULD be permitted to descriminate against someone for a CHOICE. I don't personally, and I support their desire for equal rights, personally. But I also rsupport the right of the individual to freedom of thought and action, the right to to descriminate against them for choosing a lifestyle they believe is deviant. Tolerance does not =/= forced acceptance of a choice IMO. No African American ever had a choice. Gays do. Well, they do right up till the second someone somewhere proves, scientificly, that it's NOT a choice.

12-18-2008, 05:11 PM	#29
nuu faaola All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,253	[QUOTE=Warfish;2919078]With respect, I disagree. Untill proven otherwise, homosexuallity is a choice. And IMO you CAN and SHOULD be permitted to descriminate against someone for a CHOICE. I don't personally, and I support their desire for equal rights, personally. But I also rsupport the right of the individual to freedom of thought and action, the right to to descriminate against them for choosing a lifestyle they believe is deviant. Tolerance does not =/= forced acceptance of a choice IMO. No African American ever had a choice. Gays do. Well, they do right up till the second someone somewhere proves, scientificly, that it's NOT a choice.[/QUOTE] Why is "choice" the default?

12-18-2008, 05:35 PM	#30
RutgersJetFan Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 29,953	[QUOTE=Warfish;2919078]With respect, I disagree. Untill proven otherwise, homosexuallity is a choice. And IMO you CAN and SHOULD be permitted to descriminate against someone for a CHOICE. I don't personally, and I support their desire for equal rights, personally. But I also rsupport the right of the individual to freedom of thought and action, the right to to descriminate against them for choosing a lifestyle they believe is deviant. Tolerance does not =/= forced acceptance of a choice IMO. No African American ever had a choice. Gays do. Well, they do right up till the second someone somewhere proves, scientificly, that it's NOT a choice.[/QUOTE] First, by your definition and same logic towards choice, religious discrimination should be tolerated by law and the government. Second, choice or genetics have nothing to do with anything. Governmental discrimination against someone based on sexual orientation is most certainly a civil rights issue by any theological or legal definition out there.

12-18-2008, 05:50 PM	#31
Tyler Durden Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 31,171	[QUOTE=Warfish;2919078]With respect, I disagree. Untill proven otherwise, homosexuallity is a choice. And IMO you CAN and SHOULD be permitted to descriminate against someone for a CHOICE. I don't personally, and I support their desire for equal rights, personally. But I also rsupport the right of the individual to freedom of thought and action, the right to to descriminate against them for choosing a lifestyle they believe is deviant. Tolerance does not =/= forced acceptance of a choice IMO. No African American ever had a choice. Gays do. Well, they do right up till the second someone somewhere proves, scientificly, that it's NOT a choice.[/QUOTE] So by your standards, I can discriminate against any religion? You think your bull**** will hold up in court?

12-18-2008, 05:51 PM	#32
BrooklynBound Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 15,550	[QUOTE=Warfish;2919078]With respect, I disagree. Untill proven otherwise, homosexuallity is a choice. And IMO you CAN and SHOULD be permitted to descriminate against someone for a CHOICE. I don't personally, and I support their desire for equal rights, personally. But I also rsupport the right of the individual to freedom of thought and action, the right to to descriminate against them for choosing a lifestyle they believe is deviant. Tolerance does not =/= forced acceptance of a choice IMO. No African American ever had a choice. Gays do. Well, they do right up till the second someone somewhere proves, scientificly, that it's NOT a choice.[/QUOTE] Why does the government have a right to discriminate against gays?

12-18-2008, 06:10 PM	#33
fukushimajin All Pro Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,130	[QUOTE=Warfish;2918717]There is no false equivalence here. There is you, discussing your desire to kill Conservativism in language you have never used in discussion of our national enemies and how to approach them. You can make excuses for why your vitriol is excused, or legitimate, but it will be for each poster to determine how they feel about that. Personally, I am not suprised in any form. If I had you in a moment of total honesty, I would bet you would say Conservatives are more evil, more dangerous, more worthy of destruction than any Islamic Fundamentalist, and that Islamic Fundamentalism is just the fault of Conservativism anyway. You hard-leftist are nothing, if not predictable.[/QUOTE] Not so. Not even close to how I feel. I do think Conservatism, especially the religious brand, is the worst thing going in the US of A. I think the movement has led us to all but wrack and ruin and I am happy to stick a metaphorical shiv in the back of the movement to fix what I think are obvious shortcomings in our national policy. Conservatives, especially the religious kind, have shown an avid willingness to do the same to my movement for far stupider objectives. On one level political competition is sport -- on another level it is as serious as life and death -- hence the lingo. The fact that you draw from my views that I reserve true hatred for my fellow citizens and that I consider them worse than Islamic Fundamentalists [B]speaks only to your own biases[/B] and possibly the fact that you listen to far too much republican talk radio. I can tell you that I have never said, thought or even heard a serious person decry conservatives as worse than our foreign enemies. The closest thing I can recall is the analogy between the religious rules of the Taliban and those of the amorphus "religious right". Which, like all analogies has grains of truth separated by wide gaps of degree. I can state unequivocally that I'd like Islamic Fundamentalists eliminated from the face of the earth along with all other fundamentalists who believe violence against innocents is a tool to achieve their political goals. It is my liberalism that commands me to oppose such evil. So I suggest you rethink your career as a mind-reader and try to be less sensitive when reading a football blog about politics.

12-18-2008, 07:19 PM	#34
Maury77 Veteran Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,087	[QUOTE=Warfish;2919078]With respect, I disagree. Untill proven otherwise, homosexuallity is a choice. [B]And IMO you CAN and SHOULD be permitted to descriminate against someone for a CHOICE. [/B] I don't personally, and I support their desire for equal rights, personally. But I also rsupport the right of the individual to freedom of thought and action, the right to to descriminate against them for choosing a lifestyle they believe is deviant. Tolerance does not =/= forced acceptance of a choice IMO. No African American ever had a choice. Gays do. Well, they do right up till the second someone somewhere proves, scientificly, that it's NOT a choice.[/QUOTE] What is the choice that we should be permitted to discriminate against? The choice to prefer having sex with someone of the same sex or the choice to actually engage in it? While I concede that it is a choice to actually engage in a sexual act, do you really think that people choose to prefer being gay to being straight?

12-19-2008, 09:44 AM	#35
doggin94it Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,432	[quote=Warfish;2919078]With respect, I disagree. [B]Untill proven otherwise, homosexuallity is a choice. And IMO you CAN and SHOULD be permitted to descriminate against someone for a CHOICE.[/B] I don't personally, and I support their desire for equal rights, personally. But I also rsupport the right of the individual to freedom of thought and action, the right to to descriminate against them for choosing a lifestyle they believe is deviant. Tolerance does not =/= forced acceptance of a choice IMO. No African American ever had a choice. Gays do. Well, they do right up till the second someone somewhere proves, scientificly, that it's NOT a choice.[/quote] So you approve of discrimination based on religion? Not the Hitler "born a jew always a jew" but "hey, that guy's orthodox rather than catholic so he can't shop in our store"? "Hey, that guy's a practicing muslim and we don't like muslims, so we won't hire you"? "Sorry, athiests aren't allowed to eat here"?

12-19-2008, 12:01 PM	#36
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	Well, seems I have hit a nerve, eh? Well, rather than waste my time trying to explain myself, I'll just surrender to the torch-wielding masses. Guess I'm just a hateful bigot, there, now I am sure you all are happy. Another dissenter rightfully pigeonholed. None of you really want to know what I think. You just saw politcally correct blood in the water, and jumped on it like the sharks you are. Think what you like.