You're a liar, there are myriad examples all over this forum of me criticizing the behavior of gays -- starting with my criticism of your behavior. Do I think you house gays are pure? The fact that I'm arguing with you disproves your own argument. All people are fallible, so what? The point is whether people, fallible or not, deserve basic civil rights and equal protection. They do.
This whole liar thing is old. It's inflammatory and unnecessary. You're trying to get a rise out of me by using strong accusations. Try again.
You are against gays on this site, but you have never, that I've seen, sided against any gay in the media.
TroyAthlete saidThere is also a difference between acknowledging homophobia and blindly supporting homosexuals. The difference is iluminated by facts.Blind support is not the issue, right vs. wrong and true vs. false is the issue. In the mall example, the facts showed the mall was wrong, as the mall later admitted. You ignored the facts and jumped to several false assumptions in defense of homophobia. Why?
Exactly. At the time there was very little information released, and it was difficult to say. I still think that was more a political move, but you'll disagree. You, idiotically too, believe that straight people have/never will be kicked out because of excessive PDAs, regardless of all the people who claimed to have regularly observed otherwise.
TroyAthlete saidBecause you are too worried about being seen as a "blind supporter of homosexuals" (and what's wrong with that, by the way?). If you had simply looked at the facts, you wouldn't have ended up on the wrong side, on the side of homophobia. Saying you are "not always" on the side of gays is like saying bin Laden was "not always" on the side of America. Instead of worrying about supporting gays too much, you should worry about being "on the side" of the facts, then you would end up on the RIGHT side because the facts almost never support those who seek to deny liberty and equality to others.
Blind support of anything is bad. It's called religion, and makes you a blithering idiot.
That is exactly what I strive for. The fact is, in most cases that we've clashed, the facts were in short supply. Yet you insisted that the homosexuals involved could do no wrong, while I suggested that there may bet more to it and the fault may lie with them. It some cases, it does too.
TroyAthlete saidHaving been called out for your slavish defenses of bigotry, you now want to try to pretend you might not "believe" what you're posting. I don't buy it, because it's not that difficult. 9/11 was a tragedy -- what is the alternative viewpoint? Jim Crow was wrong -- and the alternative view is hat?
Go back and read them all again. They're unedited. I even mention in those threads that they were suggestions not, a point you seem to constantly gloss over. A point you seem to often miss in your sycophantic defense.
TroyAthlete saidGays deserve liberty and equal rights. Period. There is no valid alternative view. Freedom is not rocket science. It doesn't require reading between the lines. So no, I'm not going to read nonsense closer. If it's nonsense, it should be called nonsense, and your suggestion that the mall was right in kicking out gays for kissing was nonsense.
I could not agree more. I look forward to the day we are equals, and resent that we are often a special group given special treatment for political reasons. It des set us back, it brews animosity, and only widens the divide between us and those we are attempting to convince. I want to see us maturely deal with issues separate from sexuality, because it should be a nonissue, and stop whistle blowing every time something comes up. Every time something occurs involving a homosexual doesn't mean it happened because s/he was a homosexual.
TroyAthlete saidAs to me not admitting when gays are wrong, you're lying again: in the thread about the gay guy being beat up by police, I came down on the side of the police. That's just the latest example. So perhaps it's you who needs to "read closer."
You did at the beginning. I'll recognize that. However, you quickly changed face and attacked my posts several times with the exact opposite stance, so I don't think you can refer to that example effectively.