The church has spoken...

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Lebowski can't criticize them because he doesn't want to be viewed as racist. So instead he cannibalizes his own.

Weak.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

No, I am in denial that every thing that happens relative to gays is part of a vast, evil conspiracy. I think the term "gay agenda" is a cheap prop used by the wacko religious right to demonize gays and to promote fear-mongering.

Well, that's a nice little bit of straw man hyperbole.

The truth of the matter is, gay advocacy groups have for a long time angrily and loudly forced their way into the political conversation of the country. The use terms like "intolerance" and "bigotry" as vicious weapons to lash out at anyone who opposes their agenda, whether on legitimate grounds or not. They file lawsuits. They flaunt the will of the people. They threaten companies. They get in your face.

Whatever "cheap props" have been handed to the "wacko religious right" were purchased on credit by the gay lobby. It's not my fault that your anger and bitterness blinds you to the truth of their aggression.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Well, that's a nice little bit of straw man hyperbole.

Sweet irony.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Well, that's a nice little bit of straw man hyperbole.

The truth of the matter is, gay advocacy groups have for a long time angrily and loudly forced their way into the political conversation of the country. The use terms like "intolerance" and "bigotry" as vicious weapons to lash out at anyone who opposes their agenda, whether on legitimate grounds or not. They file lawsuits. They flaunt the will of the people. They threaten companies. They get in your face.

Whatever "cheap props" have been handed to the "wacko religious right" were purchased on credit by the gay lobby. It's not my fault that your anger and bitterness blinds you to the truth of their aggression.

Are there gay advocacy groups? Yes. Do they have a political agenda? Yes. Are they the spawn of Satan? No. Do political advocacy groups use cheap tricks? Yes. Do they engage in hyperbole? Yes.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Are there gay advocacy groups? Yes. Do they have a political agenda? Yes. Are they the spawn of Satan? No. Do political advocacy groups use cheap tricks? Yes. Do they engage in hyperbole? Yes.

I agree they aren't the "spawn of Satan" and certainly there are those on pro-marriage side who overreact. But to pretend there's no militant gay movement is just ostrich-head-in-sand stuff.

Gay Days at Disneyland, 1997
Dale vs. Boy Scouts, 2000
MA Supreme Court overturns gay ban, 2003
Gavin Newsome flaunts state law, 2004
CA Supreme Court overturns gay ban, 2008

And those are just the ones off the top of my head. Don't tell me there isn't a planned, concerted effort to force gay lifestyles into the mainstream.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I agree they aren't the "spawn of Satan" and certainly there are those on pro-marriage side who overreact. But to pretend there's no militant gay movement is just ostrich-head-in-sand stuff.

Gay Days at Disneyland, 1997
Dale vs. Boy Scouts, 2000
MA Supreme Court overturns gay ban, 2003
Gavin Newsome flaunts state law, 2004
CA Supreme Court overturns gay ban, 2008

And those are just the ones off the top of my head. Don't tell me there isn't a planned, concerted effort to force gay lifestyles into the mainstream.

Hyperbole alert.

Force it into the mainstream? No, but I would admit the gay advocacy groups seek to gain legitimacy for gay orientation and to normalize those relationships in terms of our culture.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Hyperbole alert.

Force it into the mainstream? No, but I would admit the gay advocacy groups seek to gain legitimacy for gay orientation and to normalize those relationships in terms of our culture.

Legitimacy, normalization, mainstream. Whatever. All say the same thing to me.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Originally Posted by Tex

Gavin Newsome flaunts state law, 2004.

I don't mean to be snarky, but as you're usually precise in your selection of words, I'd point out that Newsom flouted state law in 2004, and flaunted state law following the court decision in 2008. Class dismissed.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar

I don't mean to be snarky, but as you're usually precise in your selection of words, I'd point out that Newsom flouted state law in 2004, and flaunted state law following the court decision in 2008. Class dismissed.

That'd be a first. Now you're mocking Tex. Flaunting your superior knowledge, you flout his post. How dare you!

[Rickomatic]

Didn't the majority of the people (not just Mormons) who cared to vote in California decide they wanted a marriage to be between a man and a woman (for the second time). Isn't that enough, or does the minority decide?