Jauronimo Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 It's interesting how society has changed. The overwhelming support even in this thread is proof that the battle is being won. I'm sure there's hundreds of people that have read this thread that disagree with Michael Sam's lifestyle and are afraid to comment. This is proof that change isn't coming - it's here. The tolerance has been achieved - because even those that disagree won't voice their opinion and have been silenced. It is no longer acceptable in the USA to object the gay lifestyle. You poor thing. Do you feel marginalized?
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 People generally tolerate a lot of things, but do they ever really accept them? Not usually. People also don’t like being told what to think or what to say. This is America bro.. Michael Sam sticks his penis into another man’s anal canal for gratification, and the fact that this visual would be grotesque to MOST men seems like a foreign almost unimaginable response when speaking to the left rhetorical machine. It’s laughable to an extreme level of ignorance. Why do straight men tolerate lesbian sex---à gee I have no idea.. None at all, do you? I see no evolutionary advantage to homosexual behavior, NONE zero zilch. I think it's just got to be pointed out how much time people who seem to be repulsed by something spend contemplating it. It's interesting how society has changed. The overwhelming support even in this thread is proof that the battle is being won. I'm sure there's hundreds of people that have read this thread that disagree with Michael Sam's lifestyle and are afraid to comment. This is proof that change isn't coming - it's here. The tolerance has been achieved - because even those that disagree won't voice their opinion and have been silenced. It is no longer acceptable in the USA to object the gay lifestyle. One significant distinction I'd like to make is that many people view it not as a "lifestyle" which, to me, amounts to aspects of life like choosing to / not to drink, living by the coast, using lots of resources or using few by choice, driving, biking, exercising rigorously, being sedentary. The rhetoric is off, IMO. Most gay people will tell you that it is not this kind of choice that they feel free to make. It is the way they are wired. Approving or disapproving of it would be like disapproving of my hazel eyes, or of a blonde person's hair. People surely make different sexual choices that are considered more or less acceptable in society, but most people are incapable of changing their attractions. Once this is realized it becomes a lot harder to vilify people for their sexual orientation. I think people spend way too much freaking time on it. Look at the person. The other stuff is secondary. Michael Sam is an extraordinary individual, and his orientation is far down the list of reasons why -- but it should not be a hindrance to his ability to excel at what he is good at. That's all his supporters are saying. If people want to express their disdain for something Sam has little control over, they're free to. Honestly. I am free to call that way of thinking narrow-minded, but at the end of the day I'm just sad for people who want to limit their friendships or experiences based on this single characteristic that has nothing to do with one's day-to-day experience of a person.
Mickey Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Hey Mick, judging by your sigline you appear to be a flaming liberal so I’ll give you only some limited time, as mine is very valuable being a capitalist and all. Oh, and aren’t you a fan of football and I assume sports in general? Strange that you would scoff at the owners of professional sports teams as an after-thought. Heck, maybe we should let Joe down the street own the team. It’s not fair that he only makes $10 an hour.. Everyone should own a team.. LOL obvious silliness aside.. As to Sam, my comments are a real perception of just how things went down. Not the media or Sam version but how I envisioned it actually happened. You can disagree all you like, heck I encourage it. Whether or not a gay person wants to hide in the closest is his or her own choice. No one is forcing it on them, no one is beating them in the streets despite media reports that get attention it simply does not happen; and if they want to do this or that but can’t come out in fear of not being able to do this or that, then it speaks volumes to their real character. The polarization of views on a number of political matters is a glaring elephant in the room right now in this nation. Being led, (which the word “led” is almost oxymoronic in this syntax) by the President, emboldened by a totally complicit media is amusing. Alarming that some here cannot see it, it begs several questions as to the true health of our nation, but I digress… Gays have made significant progress in just the last ten years, but I warn you that this bullying tactic, screaming homophobe, and bigot at the very hint of distaste of gay issues, is a façade. It only serves to prop up a phony sense of tolerance. People generally tolerate a lot of things, but do they ever really accept them? Not usually. People also don’t like being told what to think or what to say. This is America bro.. Michael Sam sticks his penis into another man’s anal canal for gratification, and the fact that this visual would be grotesque to MOST men seems like a foreign almost unimaginable response when speaking to the left rhetorical machine. It’s laughable to an extreme level of ignorance. Why do straight men tolerate lesbian sex---à gee I have no idea.. None at all, do you? I see no evolutionary advantage to homosexual behavior, NONE zero zilch. I see NO evidence credible or otherwise invented, to suggest that homosexuality is a condition of one’s genetic disposition, yet, like a religion in the twilight zone we are all supposed to just shut up and not point it out. Long term societal ramifications be damned. As to those ramifications of an accepting and completely tolerant society of sexual behavior.. I can think of a few, and I can point to evidence already available to suggest the correlations are real, but perhaps another discussion. This is a sports forum mostly and I very rarely delve into the PPP forums. I do that on other forums. I come here to talk sports.. A sport I love.. Cheers to you, and have a wonderful, glorious day! Tim- "No one is forcing it on them, no one is beating them in the streets despite media reports that get attention it simply does not happen" If you don't mind, despite your vast and detailed knowledge of the experiences of LGBT persons, I will instead rely on the Crime Statistics as reported by the FBI (a known "flaming liberal" law enforcement agency) which show that in 2012, there were 1,376 crimes perpetrated against gay and bisexual Americans which were motivated solely because of their sexual orientation. In 2011, there were 1,572. In 2010, there were 1,528. In 2009, there were 1,482. The FBI doesn't track hate crimes against people who are trans though will start doing so in their next report. There have been 12 trans people murdered in this state. These numbers only include cases where federal charges were brought. The majority of such crimes never get reported to the FBI and are prosecuted by the state. The most frequently reported bias motivating hate crimes against people in NY in 2012 was sexual orientation (26.4%). New York also does not collect data regarding violence against people who are trans. However, Islan Nettles was murdered in NYC last summer. She was standing on the street with some of her friends, all students at a fashion institute when some young men passing by realized she was trans and proceeded to beat her to death in the street. But according to you, that never happened so I guess we have nothing to worry about. Nor did all those thousands of other reported crimes. Given how off you are on the danger faced by gay people and that you got there without even a cursory effort at obtaining the facts, there is clearly no need to further cloud your bubble with 21st century thought.
Deranged Rhino Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 I think it's just got to be pointed out how much time people who seem to be repulsed by something spend contemplating it. One significant distinction I'd like to make is that many people view it not as a "lifestyle" which, to me, amounts to aspects of life like choosing to / not to drink, living by the coast, using lots of resources or using few by choice, driving, biking, exercising rigorously, being sedentary. The rhetoric is off, IMO. Most gay people will tell you that it is not this kind of choice that they feel free to make. It is the way they are wired. Approving or disapproving of it would be like disapproving of my hazel eyes, or of a blonde person's hair. People surely make different sexual choices that are considered more or less acceptable in society, but most people are incapable of changing their attractions. Once this is realized it becomes a lot harder to vilify people for their sexual orientation. I think people spend way too much freaking time on it. Look at the person. The other stuff is secondary. Michael Sam is an extraordinary individual, and his orientation is far down the list of reasons why -- but it should not be a hindrance to his ability to excel at what he is good at. That's all his supporters are saying. If people want to express their disdain for something Sam has little control over, they're free to. Honestly. I am free to call that way of thinking narrow-minded, but at the end of the day I'm just sad for people who want to limit their friendships or experiences based on this single characteristic that has nothing to do with one's day-to-day experience of a person.
vorpma Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 No it's because he is openly gay...you are lying to yourself Intelligent, adult response!! Now we have the national soap opera known as the NFL.
NoSaint Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 I'll again suggest googling D521646 before getting too deep into this debate with him, for the newcomers to this topic
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 I'll again suggest googling D521646 before getting too deep into this debate with him, for the newcomers to this topic Good point.
thronethinker Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) WTF does who you are sleeping with have to do with playing in the NFL? So will one of the pre draft questions be " Do you sleep with men, women, both, donkeys, etc, etc, etc..? Edited May 12, 2014 by thronethinker
Mickey Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 I'll again suggest googling D521646 before getting too deep into this debate with him, for the newcomers to this topic Oh good god, thanks for the tip.
White Linen Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 (edited) I think it's just got to be pointed out how much time people who seem to be repulsed by something spend contemplating it. One significant distinction I'd like to make is that many people view it not as a "lifestyle" which, to me, amounts to aspects of life like choosing to / not to drink, living by the coast, using lots of resources or using few by choice, driving, biking, exercising rigorously, being sedentary. The rhetoric is off, IMO. Most gay people will tell you that it is not this kind of choice that they feel free to make. It is the way they are wired. Approving or disapproving of it would be like disapproving of my hazel eyes, or of a blonde person's hair. People surely make different sexual choices that are considered more or less acceptable in society, but most people are incapable of changing their attractions. Once this is realized it becomes a lot harder to vilify people for their sexual orientation. I think people spend way too much freaking time on it. Look at the person. The other stuff is secondary. Michael Sam is an extraordinary individual, and his orientation is far down the list of reasons why -- but it should not be a hindrance to his ability to excel at what he is good at. That's all his supporters are saying. If people want to express their disdain for something Sam has little control over, they're free to. Honestly. I am free to call that way of thinking narrow-minded, but at the end of the day I'm just sad for people who want to limit their friendships or experiences based on this single characteristic that has nothing to do with one's day-to-day experience of a person. Yes you are correct the distinction is the question of choice. The contrary opinion is that everything is a choice and the basis of that opinion is obviously from a Christian point of view on this topic. Obviously if two people are having a discussion about this and one has a Christian background and the other doesn't believe in God it becomes very difficult to understand each others point of view. My point was that the opposing view doesn't have to be based on hate and should be able to be freely given without being labeled homophobic etc. I absolutely am against hating anyone and feel that he should be free to pursue anything he chooses. Where it becomes difficult for people with a similar view as myself is to get other people to understand that you can have the opinion of the prior sentence and believe that being gay is a choice that is against our belief system. Edited May 13, 2014 by Triple Threat
White Linen Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 You poor thing. Do you feel marginalized? Do you think gay people have felt marginalized? So as long as it's the opposite view of yours it's ok?
Mikie2times Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 People generally tolerate a lot of things, but do they ever really accept them? Not usually. People also don’t like being told what to think or what to say. This is America bro.. Michael Sam sticks his penis into another man’s anal canal for gratification, and the fact that this visual would be grotesque to MOST men seems like a foreign almost unimaginable response when speaking to the left rhetorical machine. It’s laughable to an extreme level of ignorance. Why do straight men tolerate lesbian sex---à gee I have no idea.. None at all, do you? I see no evolutionary advantage to homosexual behavior, NONE zero zilch. I see NO evidence credible or otherwise invented, to suggest that homosexuality is a condition of one’s genetic disposition, yet, like a religion in the twilight zone we are all supposed to just shut up and not point it out. Long term societal ramifications be damned. As to those ramifications of an accepting and completely tolerant society of sexual behavior.. I can think of a few, and I can point to evidence already available to suggest the correlations are real, but perhaps another discussion. This is a sports forum mostly and I very rarely delve into the PPP forums. I do that on other forums. I come here to talk sports.. A sport I love.. Most people don't picture gay people having sex when they think of gay people. No it is not a pleasant thought for most straight men, but again, it generally isn't thought about by straight men. If I meet a gay person, he/she, is well, sort of just a person. I tend not to visualize penises going into any cavities. That's sort of messed up that you think about that stuff. I'm really not trying to be a prick, my mind just doesn't go to that place. I really don't give a fug about Sam being gay or not. Glad we didn't draft him, only from the standpoint that I don't want our team distracted with media. Which is a possibility. If the talent was high enough I wouldn't care. It would be worth the media risk, but the talent just wasn't high enough. As far as me not giving a fug, it's just because I don't care if people are gay or straight. Sexual orientation really isn't a choice for the overwhelming majority of people. I recognize this as a step in the correct direction of society, not nearly as strong as Jackie Robinson, but similar in it's circumstance. Unfortunately, 60+ years post Robinson and I still feel a lot of racism, at least behind closed doors. The unfortunate thing about the less tolerant is they seem to breed faster.
OCinBuffalo Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 (edited) My brief prior response was a (failed) attempt to not involve myself in something that is clearly a crusade to you. In an effort to prevent this freight train of misrepresentation from going further off the tracks and have you cast yet further aspersions on my character... Regarding the "self-unaware irony" comment, I was quite aware of what I was writing, to the extent that I debated altering the phraseology to "frat boy mentality" as it might have been less likely to provoke a response such as yours, which was not the intent. The point you contort, however, is that I am directing this at fraternities, instead of at the NFL. Changing the order of the words to "stupid frat boy" changes the meaning, a fact that I suspect you realized given your clearly extensive grasp of the language. You then continue to bludgeon the reader with this sentiment so as to insinuate that I think all fraternity brothers are stupid. My intent was to invoke the "frat boy stereotype" (thus the word stereotypical and the quotation marks) as an example of behavior that is permeating the NFL, instead of having to walk the reader through every recent example of it. By way of disclosure, I have never been a member of a fraternity. I have many friends who pledged and joined fraternities when we were in college, and I'm sure that if I asked any one of them what the stereotype of a "frat boy" was, I would get a description that closely resembles the chauvinist, intolerant brothers depicted in Animal House, Revenge of the Nerds, or countless other movies. They probably also wouldn't be offended by my acknowledgement that there, in fact, is a stereotype unless I conveyed that that was my impression of my friends, specifically, or of fraternities, in general, which it is not. Unfortunately, with examples as recent as this offseason with Incognito, hazing and other personal abuses which I would associate with that STEREOTYPE are prevalent in the NFL. To the point about "right to acceptance," this is your agenda, not mine. My intent was to point out that the media was going out of their way to accept Michael Sam, and recognize the courage it took to go through this whole process as an openly gay male, and not just tolerate his existence, thus the extensive coverage. I was also pointing out that many outside of the sporting world regard this as a step that needed to be taken, and that even ESPN was appropriately cognizant of the significance of the moment. Let me be clear; I am aware of how I phrased that, and I did mean to take a shot at ESPN. I agree that the coverage was over the top, but no more so than what regularly occurs for the combine or draft itself, which is of less social importance, in my opinion. Regarding all of the other flattering and colorful language you've thrown my way, read through both of our posts on the matter. Which of us is more clearly defined by all of those terms that you so nicely offered to explain to me. If there was one thing I would change in my initial response, it would be the "It says something when even ESPN understands the significance of the moment," as on re-reading it could be construed as me taking a personal shot at jboyst, which was not my intent. I see. Your ignorance, and, yeah self-unawareness, is far more responsible for these silly posts than any sort of agenda. Ok. I'll spend more time on you then. Crusade? No. If you recall, this began with me replying to you. IF correcting idiocy, shaming ignorance, and calling out phonies...can be called a crusade? Then yeah, that's what I do here at TSW. You simply have no idea how obtuse/inconsistent/contradictory your posts are. That's because: you didn't think this through, did you? It's either that, or this is the very best thinking we can expect from you. Well, that's fine. But, it doesn't mean we should let it slide. See the trouble for you here is: I did think this through. Let me help you out: What you "meant to say" is much worse than what you said. Rather than "stupid", you meant to say: evil. Evil, as in: given 100 opportunities to bully someone/disparage gay people....most "frat boys", and by extension NFL players, will choose the affirmative 100 times. Think it through: You don't know that. You have NOTHING to back this up....other than your micro sample of, apparently, a-hole friends, who do make these decisions 100 out of 100 times, and are where your assessment comes from, since they both do, and do not, represent "frat boys" for you. Well, whatever is convenient at the time, right? The irony remains, whether you would have it or not, and you calling this "stereotypical" doesn't make it so. Absurd is the better description of your thinking here. IF I were to take your awful logic, and re-apply it with different parameters? That = me saying: "All gay people are going to be inappropriate and flamboyant in a locker room, because that's their stereotype". Both that argument, and yours, are = ridiculous, for the same reason: they presuppose behavior, and base that supposition on nothing. Oh, and you don't think my words are 100% applicable to your posts? You want an example of obtuse? Here you go: They probably also wouldn't be offended by my acknowledgement that there, in fact, is a stereotype unless I conveyed that that was my impression of my friends, specifically, or of fraternities, in general, which it is not. This is the Webster's definition of "obtuse". According to you: the "frat boys" you know are fine. It's the "fat boys", in general, that are the problem. (Holy 1960s, idiotic, "Southern moderate", argument, Batman!) And if we asked the "frat boys" you know, they would be pissed at you if you applied your idiotic stereotype to them, but pefectly okay if you applied it to their brothers, or other "frat boys" they know. Or is it: the ones they don't know? And of course my favorite: there is stereotypical behavior for fraternities(which you predicate on hard data like Revenge of the Nerds), but that stereotype doesn't apply: "in general"? What in the Sam Hell are you on to? Stereotypical behavior that doesn't apply "in general"? Is there any doubt left as to why I have called your posts "pseudo-intellectual"? Yeah, that's precisely the argument you are making....and that's precisely how obtuse it is. You keep saying "let me be clear/my intent" etc. It's more than clear: your problem isn't language. Your problem is you can't be who you think you are, and who you actually are, at the same time. This is called: cognitive dissonance, and you are riddled with it. The good news? At least you are trying, but failing, to be a good person. Edited May 13, 2014 by OCinBuffalo
OCinBuffalo Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 (edited) The rhetoric is off, IMO.... ....Most gay people will tell you that it is not this kind of choice that they feel free to make. It is the way they are wired. And I would be 100% behind this "wired" rhetoric(which is what it is...as it is not science, nor is it logic, as I will soon demonstrate).... ....if bisexual people didn't exist, and weren't demanding the same right to be "wired": to make a choice between sexes, routinely, they feel free to make. You can't have it both ways: if we are saying "some people are just wired the opposite", that's fine, that's out of their control, "they have no choice". But, if we are saying "people are wired however they say they are wired"? Then, that cannot be anything other than a choice. If we have no standard/it's all make up whatever you want, and then proceed to call that "having no choice"? Specious. Period. Again, I don't personally care, I just detest specious arguments, and that is a specious argument. We need better arguments than this, to fix this problem. With "fix this problem" = ensuring that no one is made inferior, by losing out on rights/equal protection. It's the same thing I've demonstrated with the pseudo-intellectual above: you can't put people like transient, who can't even get out of their own paragraph without confusion/contradiciton, in charge of this problem. EDIT: I am not behind doing anything about people that "feel inferior". I couldn't care less how people feel, because how they feel is literally their choice. Micheal Sam can choose to feel a number of different ways: happy to be drafted, pissed he didn't go earlier, etc., and that choice is 100% on him, and is not our responsibility. There's great power in the realization: how you feel is in 100% in your control. But, few people attain that realization. Most end up carrying a stupid set of feelings with them for most of their lives, not realizing that they can free themselves of them at any time. If people want to express their disdain for something Sam has little control over, they're free to. Honestly. I am free to call that way of thinking narrow-minded ....Look at the person. The other stuff is secondary. That's all his supporters are saying. Yeah, and that's the end of it. But then, no, that is not ALL what many supporters, including some in this thread, are the saying. You are not free to start excoriating "those with disdain", by boycotting them, personally attack them, their job, their business...that is...if you ever want to have any hope of convincing them of anything. Apparently it is impossible for some to imagine: that "those with disdain", have that disdain, due to conscience and thoughful cosideration, and not merely becaue they are backward/unthinking/hateful. These dearly held religious beliefs are auto-inferior to secular/gay beliefs? Horsecrap. That is merely a value judgement, and therefore, by definiton, has nothing to do with morality. That is what "acceptance" can ONLY be about. You cannot FORCE acceptance. Only a Totalitarian (Fascist/Communist) thinks this is possible, and they delude themselves. We need to deal with everyone's beliefs on = terms, and form an argument that everyone can get behind. Each person must make the individual choice to accept Sam, or any gay person, all by themselves, and not because some tool is going to cause them harm if they don't. And, I should hope that: yeah, we are not accepting people because they are gay. Rather, we are refusing to not accept people because they are gay. I don't have to accept an a-hole, whether he is gay or not, and you cannot force me to do so. That's what we are are striving for here: the "a-hole standard". Accept the cool people, screw the a-holes... ...oh.... wait. (See? What a fine example of: having difficulty with what I "mean to say". ) Edited May 13, 2014 by OCinBuffalo
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 Yes you are correct the distinction is the question of choice. The contrary opinion is that everything is a choice and the basis of that opinion is obviously from a Christian point of view on this topic. Obviously if two people are having a discussion about this and one has a Christian background and the other doesn't believe in God it becomes very difficult to understand each others point of view. I don't know that it's that simple, exactly, as I know plenty of people who believe in God but reject the idea of damnation (Universalists) or are agnostics. I tend to fall into both categories. Anyway, this discussion will be headed for PPP waters if I continue on that thread! There's great power in the realization: how you feel is in 100% in your control. But, few people attain that realization. Most end up carrying a stupid set of feelings with them for most of their lives, not realizing that they can free themselves of them at any time. I think there are a lot of people with depression (diagnosed or not) who would disagree with that statement. It's very easy to project this attitude without walking a mile in someone else's shoes.
Ralonzo Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 Michael Sam is an extraordinary individual, and his orientation is far down the list of reasons why Really? Literally, the only things I know about the guy are 1) plays football, 2) has sex with men. but it should not be a hindrance to his ability to excel at what he is good at. That's all his supporters are saying. And all anyone else is saying is, if that is the case, then why this cavalcade of hullaballoo? The contradiction is maintaining simultaneously the positions: 1) it makes no difference that he is gay, and 2) it's the biggest story in the nation that he is gay. The gay thing is the non-story here - the media circus is the story, as they portray with equal and untoward fervor both prepositions, with the implication that those who don't see this Obvious Truth™ are horrible people (see: Don Jones). Sam is no victim or bystander - he is perfectly willing to use the media in his self-interest and self-promotion and as an inoculation against his own deficiencies (see: "I should have been picked by Day 2"). That's fine, but it's his own doing that he reduces himself to simply "that gay football guy."
Jauronimo Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 Do you think gay people have felt marginalized? So as long as it's the opposite view of yours it's ok? Even if you defined every "it's" in that sentence it doesn't even begin to make sense. Your fear of being made fun for voicing your enlightened views about which lifestyles are objectionable is not indicative of a lack of tolerance. Perhaps if your house starts getting tagged, or you get spat on while walking down the sidewalk, or beat up in the street, or dragged behind a car for your views we can talk intolerance on a relative scale.
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 Really? Literally, the only things I know about the guy are 1) plays football, 2) has sex with men. Then that's really too bad because people who have bothered to take the time know that he had a terrifically difficult childhood and family history that has zero to do with his sexuality. Also, reducing a person's existence to the sex acts he may or may not commit is something that rarely happens with straight people. Just saying. It will ultimately make no difference, and that shift towards that opinion is ultimately the story.
White Linen Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 Your fear of being made fun for voicing your enlightened views about which lifestyles are objectionable is not indicative of a lack of tolerance. Perhaps if your house starts getting tagged, or you get spat on while walking down the sidewalk, or beat up in the street, or dragged behind a car for your views we can talk intolerance on a relative scale. This sentence is where my argument is pointing. I think we are on our way to this happening. We aren't getting better as a society we're just changing what is tolerable. In my parents day if you supported people being gay you were ostracized, today it's shifting in the other direction. Christians are feeling their rights are being stripped on a daily basis but people like you don't care because the shift is happening towards your point of view. We aren't becoming more tolerant we're changing what's tolerated. Before you use the "poor you" card again, understand that this is something that we're fully aware would happen based on the scriptures. I'm merely pointing out that it's here.
Jauronimo Posted May 13, 2014 Posted May 13, 2014 This sentence is where my argument is pointing. I think we are on our way to this happening. We aren't getting better as a society we're just changing what is tolerable. In my parents day if you supported people being gay you were ostracized, today it's shifting in the other direction. Christians are feeling their rights are being stripped on a daily basis but people like you don't care because the shift is happening towards your point of view. We aren't becoming more tolerant we're changing what's tolerated. Before you use the "poor you" card again, understand that this is something that we're fully aware would happen based on the scriptures. I'm merely pointing out that it's here. Oh, you're nuttier than I thought. Maybe you should find that part of the book that talks about compassion for all mankind. Not sure your views toward an estimated 10% of the population are all that Christian, brother Triple.
Recommended Posts