Disagreement Is Not Hate, Despite What the Left Says
Last week, I made a short video about how the media and the Southern Poverty Law Center were getting “hate” wrong, slandering good groups such as the Family Research Council and Alliance Defending Freedom by calling them hate groups.
Liberal activist groups do this because they disagree with conservatives on marriage and gender identity. But it’s wrong to think every disagreement is the result of hate.
Anti-gay bigotry exists. It’s wrong. And we should condemn it.
But support for marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t anti-gay. Believing the truth about marriage—that it unites a man and woman as husband and wife in an act that makes them one flesh—isn’t anti-anything.
Believing that men and women aren’t interchangeable, and that mothers and fathers aren’t replaceable, that children deserve both a mom and a dad—that’s not hate. It’s truth. And even if you disagree, you should acknowledge that it’s motivated by love, not hate.
Anti-trans bigotry is real—and it’s wrong. And we shouldn’t tolerate it.
But biology isn’t bigotry. The best biology, psychology, and philosophy conclude that sex is a biological reality and that gender is the social expression of that reality. And it’s entirely reasonable to have concerns about privacy and safety when males who identify as women can go into the ladies’ and girls’ bathroom and locker room.
Likewise, having concerns about giving children puberty blockers, or performing sex reassignment surgery on adults, isn’t anti-trans. It’s a disagreement about medicine.
The most helpful therapies for gender dysphoria focus not on achieving the impossible—changing bodies to conform to thoughts and feelings—but on helping people accept and even embrace the truth about their bodies and reality.
These are difficult questions. We need to be able to disagree about them without smearing our opponents, on either side. https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/ryan-t-anderson/disagreement-not-hate-despite-what-left-says
Liberal activist groups do this because they disagree with conservatives on marriage and gender identity. But it’s wrong to think every disagreement is the result of hate.
Anti-gay bigotry exists. It’s wrong. And we should condemn it.
But support for marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t anti-gay. Believing the truth about marriage—that it unites a man and woman as husband and wife in an act that makes them one flesh—isn’t anti-anything.
Believing that men and women aren’t interchangeable, and that mothers and fathers aren’t replaceable, that children deserve both a mom and a dad—that’s not hate. It’s truth. And even if you disagree, you should acknowledge that it’s motivated by love, not hate.
Anti-trans bigotry is real—and it’s wrong. And we shouldn’t tolerate it.
But biology isn’t bigotry. The best biology, psychology, and philosophy conclude that sex is a biological reality and that gender is the social expression of that reality. And it’s entirely reasonable to have concerns about privacy and safety when males who identify as women can go into the ladies’ and girls’ bathroom and locker room.
Likewise, having concerns about giving children puberty blockers, or performing sex reassignment surgery on adults, isn’t anti-trans. It’s a disagreement about medicine.
The most helpful therapies for gender dysphoria focus not on achieving the impossible—changing bodies to conform to thoughts and feelings—but on helping people accept and even embrace the truth about their bodies and reality.
These are difficult questions. We need to be able to disagree about them without smearing our opponents, on either side. https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/ryan-t-anderson/disagreement-not-hate-despite-what-left-says
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
72 visitors
Of course disagreement isn't hate. But when you try to extend your disagreement so far as to prohibit others from having the same rights as you, negatively affecting their lives, that's hate. Funny that you never seem to realize that what you do goes beyond disagreeing. You go so far as to try to force others to live by your beliefs. Disagreement is "You like chocolate ice cream, but I think vanilla is better." What you're doing is trying to outlaw chocolate ice cream, because you like vanilla.
And as a woman, I really don't care who is peeing in the stall next to me. It's a bit ridiculous that you think anyone who plans harm would be stopped by an unlocked restroom door, anyway.
@sandy-2021492 :
You go so far as to try to force others to live by your beliefs.
Catch22 !
What you're doing is trying to outlaw chocolate ice cream, because you like vanilla.ve by your beliefs.
The ice cream thing was a bit ridicules.
So is the premise of this article. I'm adjusting the content of my posts to suit.
Now, do you have a reason to deny equal rights to others that makes it not hateful?
What did you adjust to expand an argument, or MOVE the goal post ?
No, I'm not moving goal posts.
The author is against same-sex marriage equality. That is hate. Disagreement would be "I don't think same-sex couples should marry, but it's nothing to do with me, so I'll do me and let them do them." Hate is "I think I have the right to deny others a right that I have just because I don't think they should have it, no matter that them having that right does me no harm, and them NOT having that right causes them significant harm."
Capiche?
The author is against same-sex marriage equality. That is hate.
Does that mean everything "I" don't like, makes me a flat out hater ?
I think putting something into a place that is only made for dirty things to come out of, is not quite right. Does that mean I hate ?
Does that mean everything "I" don't like, makes me a flat out hater ?
Nope. But if you try to deny someone equal rights because they're doing something that you don't like, that doesn't harm you or anybody else, then yes.
Passing moral judgment based on your likes and dislikes, rather than harm done or not done, well, I'd call that hate, too.
Nope. But if you try to deny someone equal rights because they're doing something that you don't like, that doesn't harm you or anybody else, then yes.
Equal Rights is now a made up, where the wind blows, thing. If what you say is true, ISIS should be granted equal rights because they think differently than the NORM ! Murder is just another cog in their existence. We wouldn't want to mess up someone's weird cog now, would we ?
Catch22 is all this New and Disproved whiney Equal Rights crap has accomplished. I suppose, you were sooooo happy when a Monkey was granted limited Human Rights too, huh !
I do not have to accept someone's right to marry and screw a tree, do I ?
After all, Plants are living things too, But I digress I suppose !
I've heard that Human/animal love is a wonderful thing too.
Learn the concept of consent. Animals do not consent. Trees do not consent.
As far as ISIS, I'm not aware that they are seeking any rights in the US.
Animals do not consent.
Dogs are mans best friend. They, if trained right, will do anything you tell them to do.
As far as ISIS, I'm not aware that they are seeking any rights in the US.
You haven't been paying attention, have you. They, DAESH, want rights ALL OVER THE WORLD !
Learn the concept of consent. Animals do not consent. Trees do not consent.
Consent is irrelevant to mental health. Something doesn't become sane just because two loons agree to do it.
Did Barack Obama hate homosexuals until 2012? And you would agree that every person who voted for him in 2008 supported someone who hates homosexuals, given his stance, right?
Do the doctors "hate" everybody in the asylum?
Is there anybody in the asylum who is not there because they're a danger to themselves or others?
Not usually.
Are transgenders or homosexuals a danger to themselves or others, just because they're transgender or homosexual?
No.
Is there anybody in the asylum who is not there because they're a danger to themselves or others?
They still don't hate them. You use "hate" to describe opposing views and, in so doing, make the word meaningless.
I think his expressed views were unfortunate, although I'm not sure they were actually his views. He had to deal with a nation that still hated gays, you know.
So he either hated gays or incited hatred of gays for his own political gain.
Quite a hate filled monster that 70 million Americans voted for.
Incited hatred? Not really. Agreed with the hatred that was already there, because it was the popular view at the time? Yeah, probably, although I doubt he saw it that way any more than the people here think that denying rights is hatred. He just learned the lesson a little more quickly than some.
His opponent also opposed gay marriage, I believe. So what was there to choose between them on that issue?
Agreed with the hatred that was already there, because it was the popular view at the time? Yeah, probabl
So if he agreed with hatred towards gays, then he did in fact hate gays.
His opponent also opposed gay marriage, I believe
What does that matter? Whatever Romney said, under your standard Obama hated gays.
I just want to clear so your standard of what constitutes hate can be judged accordingly. Anyone who thinks its reasonable to believe that Barack Obama literally hated gays is free to follow your definition.
He held what I feel was an incorrect position. He doesn't hold it now. Would he have felt that it was hatred? I'm sure he wouldn't. Neither do most who have held the same position. In the 90s, I also opposed same-sex marriage, but I came to realize that my position was wrong, and based on hate instilled in me during my days as a fundamentalist Christian.
In the context of the time, his opinion was much more liberal than that of most. Remember that it wasn't too uncommon then for gay or trans people to be killed for being gay or trans. Compared to that, denial of rights certainly doesn't seem like hate. But yeah, it was.
Did men who opposed women's suffrage believe that they hated their wives and daughters? I'm sure that the vast majority of them would have said they loved their wives and daughters. And yet, they saw them as inferior. They had no problem denying them equal rights and opportunities, on the basis of "that's how it's always been", or "this is god-ordained". They believed they had to right to assault their wives physically and sexually, in many cases. And yet, many of them would have killed to protect those same wives and daughters if necessary, and counted it an honor to die defending them if that were necessary.
Hate is seldom unmixed with more benevolent feelings, in my experience. I know people who have black friends, and truly seem to ejnoy their company, but have no problem laughing at racist jokes when not in their presence. I'm sure there was many a rich southern child who loved her "mammy", but thought that blacks were less than human and belonged in subjugation.
So, was oppression of gays hate? Yes. But Obama was ahead of the curve on recognizing and overcoming his hate.
We likely all have some buried hate for some groups somewhere in our psyches. Do we work to overcome it, or do we let it fester? I know which path has been healthier and happier for me, and some of the comments on this article have only served to reinforce that opinion.
Bullseye and another BraVO! for you Sandy.
Of course disagreement isn't hate. But when you try to extend your disagreement so far as to prohibit others from having the same rights as you,
Thanks Sandy! Does that mean conservative speakers have the right to not have their speeches stopped by people's violence as has happened all too often?
Of course it does.
And of course that works both ways. Groups, conservative or otherwise, ought not to show up to rallies they've claimed are peaceful armed to intimidate others into silence. Nor should they surround synagogues to terrorize those meeting inside them.
And of course that works both ways.
It should but it doesn't! Conservatives are silenced by the violent left. Then the left defends the violence in the name of "high moral ground".
There was no violence in Charlottesville until antifa leftists who brought weapons attacked. The left went into high dudgeon over "equivalency" in order to defend the violence their side brought to Charlottesville. It takes two to have a fight doesn't it?
So which is it? Do you condemn the violence of the left and right or do you condone the left's violence while condemning the rights?
This is America and everyone gets to speak their mind. Disagree with the words all you want but don't attempt to silence it because you disagree with it.
There was no violence in Charlottesville until antifa leftists who brought weapons attacked.
That's not the account I've heard. I've heard of peaceful student protesters being attacked. A synagogue being surrounded so that those inside were afraid to leave. I'm not sure we'll ever know who started the violence first - you'll likely believe the accounts which support your position, and I'll believe the accounts which support mine.
But one group planned from the get-go to show up armed for a fight, and not for the first time. That's an intimidation tactic, and it's wrong. There's a reason for laws against making threats, and brandishing weapons, even if those threats aren't carried out and no shot is fired. And shirts wrapped around brass knuckles don't make them ok.
And as much as you claim the left was violent, Heather Heyer was the only one killed. By a Nazi idolizer who was under no threat from her, and who rammed his car into a peaceful group of people. There is no defending that.
Not sure where the confusion is. Violence is one of antifa's main "go to" tactics. Nearly everywhere they go violence erupts. The same can not be said for many other protesting groups.
You can be pretty sure that in one form or another, they started the violence.
But one group planned from the get-go to show up armed for a fight
Two groups showed up for a fight. antifi brought weapons as well but they get a pass from the left that supports them. Go into high outrage when Trump calls out the violence of both sides. Damn that Trump for condemning left wing violence. Doesn't he know that it's ok for the left to be violent?
Do you support antifa?
Do you support antifa?
Only when they either remain nonviolent, or only become violent in retaliation to violence.
Do you support intimidation tactics? Surrounding nonviolent protesters with torches and weapons? Is that ok with you?
Only when they either remain nonviolent, or only become violent in retaliation to violence.
Does that apply to only left wing groups or all groups?
Do you support intimidation tactics? Surrounding nonviolent protesters with torches and weapons? Is that ok with you?
Only when they remain nonviolent or only become violent in retaliation to violence.
Two groups showed up for a fight. antifi brought weapons as well but they get a pass from the left that supports them. Go into high outrage when Trump calls out the violence of both sides. Damn that Trump for condemning left wing violence. Doesn't he know that it's ok for the left to be violent?
Some perspective; I posted in a previous comment, the mission statement of Black Lives Matter and ANTIFA … and asked rhetorically for the mission statement of the Neo-Nazis, the ALT-RIGHT, the KKK, White Supremacists, etc. … no responses, no surprise.
The NAZIs, etc. …
• CAME TO CHARLOTTESVILLE ARMED
• TERRORIZED BUSINESSES, A BLACK CHURCH and a JEWISH SYNAGOGUE
• MURDERED AN INNOCENT WOMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Charlottesville police did an inadequate job and in at least one case, stood by as the NAZIS beat an elderly man!
SO, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ANTIFA, WHO RESISTS A MOB OF ASSHOLES REPRESENTING AND CARRYING OUT THIS IDEOLOGY?
WHO?
It's a basic phenomenon in the Cosmos and in the interactions of humanity …
FOR EVERY ACTION THERE'S AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION!
If there were no NAZIS … THERE'D BE NO ANTIFA!
I think there's some confusion about the groups involved. Antifa started in Europe a long time ago. As near as I can tell, it believes that the main reason Hitler was able to take over Germany is because he took over the streets. In order to ensure that Nazis can't repeat taking over the streets, antifa seems to have as its core objective taking over the streets itself and driving Nazis away. In this country, antifa (understandably) lumps the Nazis and white supremacists together and attacks them both. White supremacists are attracted by the confederate symbols of white supremacy and, when they gather in support of confederate statues, it attracts antifa to confront them (with violence).
Somewhere along the line, antifa singled out Trump rallies as a white supremacists gathering place and attacked Trump supporters. The militias are also attracted to Trump rallies but have no connection to white supremacists and were probably unaware of antifa. The militias saw antifa as terrorists opposed to free speech and apparently decided to confront them wherever they can find them.
In Charlottesville, all three groups came together: white supremacists who seemed to have intended a peaceful but loathesome parade in support of racism; antifa, who came looking to confront racists; and the militias, who came looking to confront antifa. That was a powder keg.
I'll guess that antifa started the confrontation (since that's what they do) and the other two groups fought back (for different reasons).
It takes two to have a fight doesn't it?
I guess that depends on your definition of fight. There was violence, but Heather Heyer wasn't participating in it. It just took one Nazi sympathizer - there was no violence against him from several blocks away.
I guess that depends on your definition of fight.
Then you just showed your position. You accept the violence of the left. I don't support violence of either side.
I support the ACLU method of diminishing the racist fools. That method does not include violence.
Then you just showed your position. You accept the violence of the left.
No, you're dishonestly choosing to interpret it that way.
I haven't seen you denounce the slaying of Heather Heyer or the injuries done to the other peaceful, nonfighting protesters. I just see you calling that a "fight". One does not "fight" those who have not attacked one from several blocks away using a car as a weapon.
You say you don't support violence, but calling that a "fight" sure makes it look like you do.
You say you don't support violence, but calling that a "fight" sure makes it look like you do.
I don't support any political violence from anyone. You on the other hand are willing to condone the violence of the left if you feel they were justified.
Again, that's a dishonest interpretation on your part. I've stated elsewhere that I do.
Are you in favor of intimidation tactics?
Still think a car vs. a group of peaceful protesters is a "fight" that takes two?
Are you in favor of intimidation tactics?
How do you define intimidation. Trying to break down a door I would oppose. Exercising free speech that I find offensive isn't.
How many cars were used as weapons? One. The fool will get his just rewards as well. Since I already condemned violence for political purposes that condemnation includes using cars as weapons.
So far your condemnation of the left's violence seems squishy. You keep bringing up things I have already condemned in an attempt to justify the left's violence.
Transgenderism is a mental disorder because gender can't be crossed. They can chop off and add parts but it doesn't change their gender because chromosomes can't be changed. This is all a bunch of ridiculous nonsense by homosexuals who are so deluded that they think they actually are the opposite gender. I'm really sick of hearing how they think they're being discriminated against because they can't bend the whole fucking world to accommodate their delusion.
Calling somebody mentally ill because you don't agree with them is hate.
I re-read the article. I don't see where it says that anyone is outlawing same sex marriage or even lobbying to do that. The article is about the difference between disagreement and hate and how hate is being used when groups of people disagree with others.
Any personal animosity you have with the seeder should probably be addressed to him via the IM Chat function.
The article wasn't written in a vacuum. Do you deny that there are conservatives who have tried to deny same-sex couples the right to marry?
As for personal animosity, you're reading more into my comments than is there. I simply disagree with him. That isn't animosity. Unless you disagree with the title of the article?
It is a mental disorder and, sometimes, encouraged by the caregiver.
Liberals are so busy concocting their next protest to save the world that they, actually, don't do anything constructive to save the world. I wonder when is the first or last time these people gave that amount of time to do charitable work.
Except that they won civil rights for blacks, even in the south.
And rights for women.
And child labor laws.
Transgenderism is a mental health issue, not an immutable characteristic like race, gender, and age. They should be banding together to demand treatment not civil rights.
They do fight for treatment.
Why do you oppose civil rights for anyone?
What harm is done to you by them gaining civil rights?
None.
But you would have them harmed by denying them civil rights.
That's hate.
Why do you oppose civil rights for anyone?
They don't have a civil right to force me to accept a mental delusion. Pretend at home.
What harm is done to you by them gaining civil rights?
Because it makes the world as insane as they are and I don't like that.
But you would have them harmed by denying them civil rights.
Living sane is not harmful.
That's hate.
They hate sanity. We're even.
I see. It doesn't harm you at all. You just want to make irrational claims that it does, and claim that they're the haters.
Sad. It must be a hard life, being so worried about what's in other people's pants.
Sandy, there are a couple people here who will carry on "debate" about transgenders from here to eternity. It is a bottomless pit on this site.
Sad. It must be a hard life, being so worried about what's in other people's pants.
I'm still sane enough to tell men from women and I hope one day you're able to do that too.
I'm still sane enough to tell men from women
Except that you're not, as you have readily admitted right here.
I'm still sane enough to tell men from women
Except that you're not, as you have readily admitted right here.
I haven't made a mistake yet when it counted. You may be a mistake but you don't count.
It is a mental disorder and, sometimes, encouraged by the caregiver.
Bruce Jenner can claim that he was born to be a lesbian and these fools would compound that insanity by making him woman of the year, clapping like seals as they determine that the best woman is actually a man. What's really funny is watching these fake women compete against real women in sports and beat them. Sooner or later, sports will be all male again.
I think he likes to play dress up having been surrounded by women most of his life. He still has sex with women and the woman he is having sex with is having sex with a man who dresses up.
But, hey, whatever turns him on!
That's it. Keep showing the hate dressed up as "morality." That's always what the self appointed moral hypocrites do.
Calling somebody mentally ill because you don't agree with them is hate.
They're still crazy.
Consider the source:
cnsnews.com
THE RIGHT NEWS. RIGHT NOW.
Right! /s
News for the Right Wing Nut Jobs is the ultimate in FAKE NEWS.
Consider the source, and then just pass it on by.
Exactly who is it that says …
Disagreement Is Not Hate, Despite What The Left Says
WHO?
WHO?
Of all the entertaining absurdities from the rightwing (and they are myriad), their putting their words into imaginary leftist mouths is the most fun. Psychiatrists call it "projection." It's a symptom and with the rightwing it's a feature, not a bug.
Of all the entertaining absurdities from the rightwing (and they are myriad), their putting their words into imaginary leftist mouths is the most fun. Psychiatrists call it "projection." It's a symptom and with the rightwing it's a feature, not a bug.
Lets clean this up for ya....
Of all the entertaining absurdities from the leftwing (and they are myriad), their putting their words into imaginary rightist mouths is the most fun. Psychiatrists call it "projection." It's a symptom and with the leftwing it's a feature, not a bug.
Nice paintjob!
one question...
Is that brush broad enough to cover everyone, as I just pointed out, or do you specifically limit it to the rightwing as a demonstration of the point the article is making?
Is that brush broad enough to cover everyone, as I just pointed out, or do you specifically limit it to the rightwing as a demonstration of the point the article is making?
Allow me to generalize regarding which (i.e.) political dogmas and ideologies IN GENERAL … tend to generalize about the others.
EVERY F'N ONE!
Generalizing and broad-brush painting, stereotyping, scapegoating, ethnocentrism, etc. … ARE ALL EXCELLENT WAYS TO TAKE BOTH THE INHERENT SLOPPINESS AND REALITY OUT OF THAT INSECURE PLACE CALLED …
… REALITY!
Yes my friend, that is the practical nature of politics and political debate. Cast as wide a net as possible to vilify as many as one can.
Reality has nothing to do with it.
The real problem is those amongst us that paint over reality with that broad brush.
WE both know the truth of that, don't we.
I just love how this article was supposed to try to make the case that the rightwing religious creeps weren't anything about "hate." And yet they show up and spew away. Comment removed for skirting the CoC [ph]
I just love how this article was supposed to try to make the case that the rightwing religious creeps weren't anything about "hate." And yet they show up and spew away. Poor seeder. He steps in it every time.
So everyone (very broad brush here) who disagrees with your position is a rightwing religious creep? The article makes the case of exactly what you are demonstrating with your last two postings.
How bout all those liberal social justice warrior creeps that just show up and spew away also? And your not about "Hate" as you claim the other side is?
By trying to justify your position you only reinforce the articles point.
Seems to me that you stepped in it.
How bout all those liberal social justice warrior creeps that just show up and spew away also?
How many of them are advocating for treating anybody as a second-class citizen?
None, that I've seen.
Oh yes, need I explain what a "deplorable" is and how such appellation was applied to over half the population to raucous cheers and applause?
Your smarter than that to deny reality.
over half the population
Wow. Someone can't math.
Is calling those who are "deplorable", well, deplorable, when so many of them work so hard to earn the description, denying them any rights at all? Did they lose the right to vote? Were they arrested for shouting "lock her up", or even when they called for Hillary Clinton to face a firing squad? Blockaded out of their churches?
No.
They were called a name. They were described to a "t", in many cases. They're all for "telling it like it is", until someone isn't PC enough in regards to themselves.
But not a one of them has been treated differently under the law, and most of them have been treated by Clinton much better than they have treated her. I didn't hear her call for anybody to face a firing squad.
They certainly weren't treated as second-class citizens.
In lieu of facing the reality about the man they elected, the most unqualified president in the nation's history, they obsess about Hillary Clinton, transgenders and 'snowflake' political correctness.
No wonder the world laughs at us.
Yes John, it is all about Trump. Couldn't possibly be about anything else.....
Thank you for proving my point with a PERFECT example of what the article is about.
The last time you proved a point Betty White was a baby.
The last time you proved a point Betty White was a baby.
She went crazy and self-identified as a baby last week so NWM is current /s.
In lieu of facing the reality about the man they elected, the most unqualified president in the nation's history, they obsess about Hillary Clinton, transgenders and 'snowflake' political correctness.
No wonder the world laughs at us.
Both parties are a joke. One side gives us Trump, a buffoon. The other offers Hillary (a notorious liar), hideouts called sanctuary cities, political correctness, and gender chameleons.
Sandy;
Sure we are every day, every time someone calls us something we aren't.
Your argument in defense proves that better than anything I could say.
It is exactly the same thing you claim transgenders or any other favorite demographic group suffers.
Pot meet kettle.
I say take the log out of your own eye before you take the splinter out of mine.
Although I know you will reject such, willful blindness equals willful ignorance.
All sides suffer from that affliction.
If you don't behave deplorably, then you aren't in the basket, now are you?
Deplorable is a description of their behavior. Are we not allowed to call things what they are? Why is that ok for only one side of the aisle?
Gays don't seek to harm anyone by being gay.
Transgenders don't seek to harm anyone by being transgender.
Racists do. Religious bigots do.
And there's the difference. Sorry you can't see it.
Gays don't seek to harm anyone by being gay.
Transgenders don't seek to harm anyone by being transgender.
There's a homeless woman who sits outside my office building every day. Her name is Lauren. At times she says she works for NASA or says she's working undercover. She pretends she's talking to agents and periodically advises me who I should steer clear of because that person's under her surveillance. She's harmless and a very nice person. However, she really is crazy and I'm not going to go crazy with her by joining her in a delusion.
However, she really is crazy and I'm not going to go crazy with her by joining her in a delusion.
Whoa....hold on a sec. Are you telling us that you're worried about being "turned gay" if you're around too many gay people (or would it only take one)? Please, please do elaborate. And, follow up with letting us know if you still think being gay is a psychiatric condition. Include letting us know what century you're living in.
Whoa....hold on a sec. Are you telling us that you're worried about being "turned gay" if you're around too many gay people (or would it only take one)? Please, please do elaborate.
I'll clarify with an example. If she thought she were cleopatra, I don't feel compelled to agree with her just because she's nice and harmless. The comment is in response to a statement that homosexuals and transgenders are harmless and thspat it has some bearing on accepting their behavior. And, no, I'm not interested in reading a litany of bullshit telling me that this is normal.
And, follow up with letting us know if you still think being gay is a psychiatric condition.
It is abnormal.
Include letting us know what century you're living in.
Same century but it just seems different because I'm still sane.
Disagreement=hate. Thanks for the verification of that statement.
Since homosexuality isn't a choice and there is no gay gene, that makes homosexuality epigenetic. Identical twin studies indicate that. The genes are correct but they don't chemically communicate with cells causing several genetic issues. Autism is another epigenetic one. Epigenetics is a new field of study. Only about 50 years old. The cures are coming for a lot of genetic issues!
Will there be a cure for your condescending bigotry? One can only hope.
Will there be a cure for your condescending bigotry? One can only hope.
If you become sane, his condescending bigotry will evaporate as though it was never there.
There's a terminal stupidity drug study somewhere with your name on it.
Let me help.... Although I think he's the wrong demographic if he's a white male. We got enough of them - although not many have sticks that glow......
We got enough of them - although not many have sticks that glow......
Stop fantasizing about my stick.
There's a terminal stupidity drug study somewhere with your name on it.
Your misplaced coloring book is not a study.
Everyone back off the insults; generic warning.
None, that I've seen.
Then you are not looking or you agree with the behavior.
Links to specific examples? Are you losing voting rights? Marriage rights? Being discriminated against in hiring or education? Worried that if you look too masculine or feminine, you'll be punched for going to the restroom?
What, exactly, is the problem?
"rightwing religious creeps"
speaking of haters...hard to tell from here..pot? kettle?
I call haters what they earned. And you people call liberals "snowflakes." Standard rightwing pyschologic projection. The real moaners and whiners are on the right.
08/24/17 05:32:50PM @sandy-2021492:
If you don't behave deplorably, then you aren't in the basket, now are you?
Deplorable is a description of their behavior. Are we not allowed to call things what they are? Why is that ok for only one side of the aisle?
Gays don't seek to harm anyone by being gay.
Transgenders don't seek to harm anyone by being transgender.
Racists do. Religious bigots do.
And there's the difference. Sorry you can't see it.
Self delusions, are not a " cure ".
What does the CDC say about " High Risk " and when less then 1% Generate over 78% of Pathogens, what is that classified as?