Do you ever admit that you are wrong in these forums founditt? Do you refuse to believe that some of what you post here may not be correct? Are you above admitting that some of your ideas and critisisms are wrong and not truthful? I have never seen you once admit that something you have said on this board was wrong or faulty...

I refuse to believe the gay rights movement can be compared to the civil rights movement at all.

Clinton lied under oath to a Grand Jury and it was not about war. Bush is not under oath talking to a grand jury and is at war. His sworn duty is to protect the American people. How he does that is his business. I don't care if he has to lie to the pope to get it done.

Sure. If I see myself make a mistake, then I admit it.


I'm curious how many of my posts you have read then.
Because I distinctly remember a couple of times where I apologized to Felicity on YOUR BOARD for mis-stating something.

But on the flip side, I can say the same thing about you, although I also haven't read all of your posts.

Jaaaman? There was a post I read on your board when I first got there about your assessment of gays not needing "rights" with regards to medical visitation rights and the like. I believe you posted that post.
It was followed up with somebody who EXPLICITLY detailed his story about how he couldn't visit his partner, and was denied crucial information because he wasn't married to his partner.
Was that you who posted the initial post?
And if it was, did you ever correct your assessment?


You refuse to BELIEVE...
BELIEVE being the key-word.

And I admit that my BELIEF that the analogy is sound is also a belief.

It was about sex. Something people lie about on a daily basis.

And if you don't see how lying about WAR is MORE SERIOUS than lying about sex, then you are deluding yourself.


Wow! Just Wow!
So you would weasel out of a lie just because you weren't under oath?

Over and over again, I am shocked by your low morals. Clinton lying about "not inhaling" bugs me, and that wasn't under oath either.


You don't care how many morals are sacrificed...
Predictable.

And no. How he does that is the Business of AMERICANS EVERYWHERE.
It is funny how some people insist on more openness from the private citizens, and less openness in government.

It doesn't matter if he lied about sex. Lying to a grand jury about anything is a crime. If you think my morals are low, I just have to consider the source and laugh.

Wow.
So you would find some excuse to ignore the morality of the LIE, like the fact that it wasn't to a "grand jury"?

You just hunt for excuses to ignore the immorality of your actions, don't you...


And that would be another excuse.

Even if somebody who I had no respect for pointed out that I was doing something wrong, I wouldn't use the "source" as an excuse to ignore my own wrong-doing...

Your refusal to believe that the comparison is valid is pointless and illogical. The comparison is totally valid, and instead of pretending it isn't, you should be explaining the harms of gay rights.

Don't believe that comparing gay rights to black rights is valid? Why not? There are plenty of similarities:

Both issues deal with civil rights. If you say "gay marriage is not a civil right", then you don't know what a civil right is. A civil right is anything the government might allow people do to. Even murder is a civil right. People should not have every civil right.

Both issues involve minority groups strugging to change the law to "equal themselves" to the majority group.

Both issues involves removing traditional taboos from law, and replacing them with freedom. In one case, it involved removing the traditional law of racing not mingling. In the other it involves removing the traditional laws against homosexuality.

Both issues go against the will of the majority.

Because these similarities exist, making a comparison of gay rights to black rights is completely logical. Because you pretend that it isn't logical, you responded with a logical fallacy, providing your own "refusal" to believe in logic as your only justification. Don't do that: use logic.

Let's imagine that I compare legalizing murder to black rights. How would you argue against me? I might say, "People should be free, and murder is a freedom. I know the majority doesn't support murder, but the majority once didn't support giving blacks the right to vote. The majority was wrong then, and it's wrong now."

To debate me, you can't simply say "How dare you make such a comparison!!" That's a logical fallacy. You've got to explain how murder is different from black people voting: murder is harmful. So say, "Murder should not be legalized because it takes the life of the victim against the will of the victim. Black people voting does not do that."

In my example, you explained that in murder is harmful: people are killed against their will. So how is homosexuality harmful?

I am not a bigot because I refuse to vote for sexually depraved individuals running for senate seats and higher offices. I don't believe they make good elected officials and therefore they will not receive my vote. End of story.

And you are FREE to choose that. You have that RIGHT as an American.

But isn't it interesting that the gay/lesbian community wants to take that freedom and that right away from you?

Yes... it's interesting and inferiorating at the same time.