[eeky]

How do you know I'm not right? Do you provide any evidence? Also what is your obsession with calling me a bigot, when I'm open to dialogue. You are the one who is glad that I'm a "dying breed", so I would say you're the bigot. Also, if you want to talk about literally being a dying breed, I would think homosexuals who do not have children fit that definition better. Also, I'm 19 years old. Much how there was a reactionary swing to the left in the 1960/70's, there could very well be a reactionary swing back to the right that is emerging. (I'm using the archaic "left/right" metaphors just for sake of argument)

[jlgreco]

I am not calling for your execution in the streets, I am merely expressing glee at the fact that the American Taliban are dying of old age and heart disease faster than you can replenish your ranks.

If you think that makes me a bigot, then consider Karl Popper:

" Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. [...] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

You should crack a book or two. You're only 19, your brain isn't fully formed yet. There is still hope that the damage is not irreversible.

On second thought...

> "Also, if you want to talk about literally being a dying breed, I would think homosexuals who do not have children fit that definition better."

Words cannot express how shocked I am by this comment. I thought people as stupid as you were hyperbolic strawmen... Christ.

[Karunamon]

>You are the one who is glad that I'm a "dying breed", so I would say you're the bigot.

Ah, the old "tolerance means accepting intolerance" card. Nope, totally haven't heard that tired old fallacy from the far right ever before.

>Also, if you want to talk about literally being a dying breed, I would think homosexuals who do not have children fit that definition better.

Irrelevant. If your grounds for opposing marriage equality are on purely biological grounds, you must also oppose all forms of birth control and support compulsory reproduction for married couples.

I had a more conciliatory message here a moment ago. I'm just now noticing that you're not even bothering to respond to the messages that completely disprove your points (i.e. "traditional marriage" is a nebulous term that means whatever its speaker is advocating for), so it is my full belief that you are just a troll.

[eeky]

>"tolerance means accepting intolerance"

That is not at all what I said. He suggested that he supports me going away and dying out, and I think shouting out your opposition is intolerant.

>Irrelevant. If your grounds for opposing marriage equality are on purely biological grounds, you must also oppose all forms of birth control and support compulsory reproduction for married couples.

I agree it's not relevant. I was responding to an equally irrelevant comment.

>I'm justice noticing that you're not even bothering to respond to the messages that completely disprove your points

I'm responding very frequently.

>"traditional marriage" is a nebulous term

Somewhat. But I have a webster's dictionary from the 60's and the definition of marriage quite clearly reads between a man and woman. Marriage having that meaning dates back centuries (millenia even?), back to its original conception. So it's pretty obvious that the "traditional" meaning is the original and longest standing one.

[salgernon]

You know, there's something I've been thinking about in relation to people like you. As part of my job, from time to time I'm asked to look at resumes of people fresh out of college (for software engineering jobs), and sometimes they'll list extra-cirricular activities like band or whatever, and I've lately seen resumes where the candidate explicitly and proudly lists gay-and-lesbian related advocacy groups.

I've never seen a resume where the candidate listed anti-gay or anti-gay marriage advocacy groups.

So I wonder, if you were involved in such a group, say, the Prop 8 group in California, would you advertise that fact?

If not, why not?

[jlgreco]

When "in" members of the Phelps family attend universities, by all accounts I have heard they present themselves as regular people. Sure they don't party, but for the most part they pretend to be regular well adjusted people.

Bigots hide what they are when it is advantageous.

[eeky]

>I've never seen a resume where the candidate listed anti-gay or anti-gay marriage advocacy groups.

This very fact should concern people. You rarely see people advertising their support for traditional marriage (especially in california/new york. There is a common misconception that supporting gay marriage is somehow a proud rebellious cause against the status quo. But the reality couldn't be further from the truth - virtually the entire media and up to the president support gay marriage. Organizations supporting traditional marriage will immediately be called "intolerant, bigoted, hate groups" and shouted out of the debate. There is something seriously wrong with that.

So no, I would not put any political organizations on my resume for a software engineering job. I rarely discuss politics/religion at work. I hope you wouldn't hire such people who jump on the bandwagon issue de jour.

[jackmaney]

By the same idiotic line of reasoning, there should hardly be any infertile people alive at all! Oh, wait...

[jlgreco]

Where do Nuns come from if they don't have babies?!?! /s