JerrySeinfeld

Good - you're starting to get the idea

"Tolerance training". Sounds like something out of a sci-fi movie about a tyranical regime. "This one's still got his own opinions. better get him down to the sludge dungeon for some "tolerance training""

Good for you. You think I'm offended? Not. I don't buy into that victimology crap the rest of the profesional ethnic grievance mongers would have you think is important. Try someone else - no bait takers here.

The thing most left wingers with short memories doen't realze is that Obama's "strategy" isn't a new one. It reprresents going backward in time to the same useless shit that hasn't worked for decades. The brilliance of President Bush was in his ability to shatter the illusion of peace and that "talks" are the way to bring change to the backward barbaric countries in the middle east. The thugs in power over there are all breathing a mssive sigh of relief, because after the hell years of Bush breathing down their necks and actualy creating meaningful change, democracy and human rights to the region, Obama is going back to the Carter years of simply talking but not really accomplishing anything, which means the heat is off and the thugs can get on with their programs.

good one. but i never said i understand it...it's the left that has claim on that one

No. I led you down the garden path so that the point would be made more clearly. For the unintelligent, the best way to make them understand something is for them to experience it first hand. If you had some trouble following the fashion in which I have mopped the floor with you, that's your issue. However the issue at hadn still applies and you can't red-herring your lack of retort by trying to attack my methods instead of actually making an argument. The key issue here is that I should have the right to say things, even unpopular things, about gays or any other "distinct group". That's how the thread started. And it was a perfect launching pad for the discussion. I know it may have been a bit complex for you. As long as I'm anonymous on a web forum, I'm safe. And I appreciate that you are "allowing" (lol) me to speak freely. But you can't make the argument that our country is a safe place for people of all beliefs to speak freely, because in actual real world examples, people are being punished for speaking their minds by contradicting left wing dogma. THAT is fascism.

I love it when logical midgets try to use animals as a "shining example" of normalcy. Lots of animals eat poo too. Then again, so do gays. ok. point taken

Oh so Obama isn't mainstream. Wasn't that about his margin of victory? You don't seem to understand that speech and freedom are the crux of the issue. Can we agree then that hauling someone before a kangaroo court BCHRT is a tyranican trampling upon freedom? There is a famous saying: the true test of true freedom of speech is if you allow someone to say things that absolutely disgust you, but still allow them to be said. If you truly think that I hadn't thought about the tribunals, that I only brought them up because I "backed into a corner" you haven't fully considered that perhaps I said the things I said in the original post to make the precise point of the above sentiment, and that in fact it is you who has been backed into the corner by me, and are now trying to somehow marginalize my very true statements by stating that my view 1. isn't mainstream and that 2. the human rights tribunals aren't at the very heart of this matter. Answer the question.

As I have stated several times already in the thread, the issue is not to "allow" gays to be gay. The issue relates to my ability to talk about them without being shut up by kangaroo courts. A comedian is being hauled in front of the BC human rights tribunals right now. This is extremely tyranical and borders on fascism. Even if the complainant isn't successful, the way these courts are structured, the complainant bears no expense, while the defendant is forced to foot his own legals costs. What this amounts to is that no financially resposible person would dare try to voice his/her opinions about gays in public ever again, for fear of being hauled out on the carpet in an expensive attempt to defend his or her right to free speech in this country. That is borderline fascism and it's wrong. Look. If I say "I don't thinkk gay is normal" and some lefty says "I think you're wrong", THAT is healthy public discourse. But if you introduce a government speech police making it expremely onerous and expensive to defend your right to that discourse, you're shutting down debate and not allowing people to express themselves freely. That's not a free society. That is left a left wing, state sponsored stranglehold on the "proper" use of language. Thats fascism.

Oh really? Maybe you should replace "intellectually" with "politically" in the above statement. Why? Because when greater than 50% of your citizenry are dependant upon the government for health care, employment benefits, retirement pensions or even just a job, then government intervention isn't up for debate anymore. Everyone just goes to the ballot box to vote themselves more lollipops from the next version of socialist government while the rest of us still stupid enough to go out and actually produce something in the private sector are left to cry foul on political forums while being shouted down by said government teet suckers (no names named here battletoad & sir bandelot). But you're right abobut the "annhilated" part. When you're in the minority who gives more than he gets from the massive bloated public sector, it's a very tough row to hoe. The US is going through this transformation under Obama right now, and by the next election he's gonna make damn sure that government teet suckers are up over the 50% barrier to ensure he's a two (maybe three?) termer.

Your logic is flawed because of a lack of intelligence or (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) you haven't been following the news. In a real world example ... the playing field isn't as equal as you're pretending it is in your post. The left not only has the right to speak freely by branding people bigots for espousing perfectly mainstream views, but also carries with it the full weight of government "quasi" kangaroo courts, set up entirely to shut down debate, to shut up dissenters and to crush freedom of speech in this country. You missed it. Unlike your thin skinned pals in the above link, unable to take a bit of criticism without unleashing government thought police on someone, I can take criticism. I'm not "offended at being accused of abnormal discourse" - rather I'm appalled that the left has such a stranglehold on language that they've actually enlisted a "speech police" to make anyone who doesn't talk like they do pay the price. It's tyranny and it's wrong.

The key point is the language of public discourse and the left's stranglehold upon this language. Keep in mind I never once said anything about not allowing people to be gay. I said I don't have to like it and I should be free to say so without being branded a bigot. The left has such a stranglehold on language that it has made it next to impossible to open up a conversation about anything, to be critical of any kind of behavior or religion without being told to basically shut up. Since when is expressing one's opinion so bad? You have the right not to like my opinion, yes I accept that. But you don't have the right to tell me to shut up. In a truly free society, gays can be gays, I can say it's not normal and you can say you disagree. And no one gets hauled out in front of a "human rights" commission. As a conservative I am standing up against this tyranny.

I agree with the above. It's not normal.

Well, you're entitled tto your opinion, as am I.

You statement is telling. This is an ideology that haqs never en masse apologized for what happened on 9-11 or reached out in any significant way. To go to them now is inappropriate ion my opinion - but that's just my opinion.\ The fact of the matter is that it's very obvious the world is becoming a more dangerous place under Obama, largely because the thugs realize that he is a talker not a doer, and that they are doers. Kim Jong Ils actions are a very clear statement: we know there are no consequences. You don't have to tell me what Obama is trying to do - it's very apparent. But just because it's different doesn't make it better. It seems to be making it worse thus far. I guess time will tell, but "extending a hand" to those who consistenyl, without interruption and explicitly consider you to be satan and dance in the streets at the death of your innocent citizenz is the wrong message...IN MY OPINION. Bush was very successful. Obama, we will see.

Oh really? When a society's fundamental construction flies in the face of virtually every tenet that your society holds dear, playing nice usually doesn't end well. Their motivations are different than ours. Just ask Chamberlain how the "obama" strategy plays out. Under Bush, Libya gave up their weapons plans. Iraq became a relatively peaceful democracy. The taliban was ousted from their murderous mysoginist rule in Afghanistan. SO far under Obama, we have Iran marching toward a nuke, North Korea detonating nukes, firing rockets and testing short range missiles. And he wants to give speeches. "The great orator" is getting a good lesson in the difference between talking and doing. He talks. They do.

Yay another white house lawn photo op while Iran gets on with it. Carter in spades.

The very idea of the concept of "training" is actually a fascist concept. Think about it. Progressivism at it's very core is the idea of accepting all just for the sake of it. No attention is paid to the issue or morals, right and wrong or values. Morals and values in the new world have somehow been made out to be "bad". That's the stranglehold the left has over the use of language. If someone brings up morals, they are dismissed. It's disgusting, really. And dangerous. There is such a thing as right and wrong. And the fact that you have chosen to take this thread and mark it as solely relating to homsexuality is telling. It's about people being oveersensitive all over the place - gays are just one example. Again, there is such a thing as right and wrong. Beating your wife, believing in polygamy or forcing women to wear a mask covering their face is wrong. There is no "cultural nuance" we're all missing because we haven't been enlightened by some brain dead aceademic. It's wrong, pure and simple.

Haha, and around we go. But all I'm asking for is to be left to my own beliefs. You're asking to force me to do something and think a certain way. These days, it's not enough for a religion, race or lifestyle choice to be legal and enjoy all the luxuries of a democratic society...now we all have to like it too, or we're branded. Dangerously close to fascism.

Actually you're right. Apparently in the US there are many gay academics at the forefront of "queer theory" who actually oppose the concept of gay marriage on the principle that "true" gays should not and do not wish to emulate the hetero lifestyle, but rather have their own distinct lifestyle which doesn't fit the normal or "typical" married way. It's a filthy lifestyle, but they have a point. That is the point: why try to change the definition of a word "marriage" for optics when you could carve out your own definitions and traditions. That would be the sign of a truly confident lifestyle choice.

The gays try to make this an issue about human rights. It's not. Marriage is not a human right. Most reports fail to mention the court upheld the laws extending all benefits of domestic partnerships to gay couples including hospital visitation etc. So their rights have not been trampled on, they've been upheld. This isn't about rights, it's about labels and definitions. Call it something else. Or shall we change to definition of "heterosexual" too?

But I'm not "picking on them" I'm glad you said this, because that's the true issue of this thread. Since when is stating your opinion such a bad thing. Dialogue shoulod be a good thing. This thread highlights something: The left has done such a fantastic and stealth job of taking control of language and dialogue/debate that basically any opinion other than theirs is considered outside the limits of normal discourse. That's unhealthy. Even more unhealthy than a crusty olf fart like me expressing my viewpoints on a particular lifestyle. Tolerance means tolerating opinions you don't like, doesn't it? N'est pas?

One time a friend of mine was sitting on the throne in a public washroom in a mall, and some guy passes a note under the stall saying "please don't flush the toilet - I want to eat your shit" Yea. Gay is sooooo normal.

haha. but seriously, since you brought it up, I know about gays' public washroom habits because when I was in university there was a big controversy about how gay's were caught using one particular washroom as a a place to...ahem..."connect". comeplete with holes in the walls between stalls at...waiste level. nice lifestyle. and the most hiarious part was that the gay contingent on campus was crying foul saying that the entire campus wide discussion on the topic was homophobic and hateful. GIVE ME A BREAK

No but they do.