Think homosexuality is a sin against God? Keep your mouth shut in the UK.....

[tombogan03884]

The current uproar in Az indicates that FQ is, as usual on politics, talking out his pelosi.

[fightingquaker13]

I fior one am glad you did not throw your usual - and hypocritical - "I'm a born-again Christian" into that litany of who and what you are. Else I would have had to remind you to read your Bible, especially the prohibitions contained therein. Not to mention the fact we are not instructed to just "deal with it".

Two points Path. I was not Christian at the time, so the looking for sex and rock and roll (I'd already given up drugs for the Army)? Not a big issue at the time. The conversion hapened later, in grad school when I was 25. Secondly, stop doubting my faith beause of my politics. My politics are informed by my faith and that does include tolerance for gays. I haven't questioned your faith, even though I do raise an eyebrow at some of the positions you and Rastus put forward. Evangelicals and Episcopalians have always disagreed, and probably always will.
FQ13

[fullautovalmet76]

Not a guilt complex. Just a lack of understanding. Honestly, its not so much about claiming moral superiority (except in regards to the self righteous whiners who paint themselves as victims part). Thing is, that cuts across the spectrum. Everyone from gays, to conservatives to blacks, to the KKK, to women all pull the victim card. I call BS and say HTFU to all of them. Where I plead ignorance is the anti-gay thing. I just don't get it. I'd never had an out of the closet gay classmate until I got to college. I was straight, a virgin, and hell bent on fixing that the minute my dad left. I was a basic middle class suburban redneck. My roomate though was the son of Dutch diplomats who spent his life between Holland and Indonesia. He was total Euro-trash, looked like he'd escaped from "Sprockets" on SNL, wore nothing but black, put up posters of Grace Jones, listened to experimental classical music and made money (I swear to God) as a "hair model". When he wasn't doing that, he made cash as a pianist and he was scary (as in turned down a slot at Julliard to get a real degree) good.  He could not have been more gay if he tried to be.
Thing is though, we got along just fine. He was all about art, fashion and cutting edge classical music and kissed people on the cheek (just once with me, before we discussed that). Me, I was a redneck/ROTC/classic rock and country and folk guy. After we both agreed to wear headphones for our music, we were good roomates. He tolerated my girlfriend, I tolerated his boyfriends and even though we could not have been more different the year passed without a single argument (except about when his tarantula got loose, but that sort of thing just happens and I was going to break up with her anyway ). I guess the point of all this is to make this simple point. I'd never met, much less been in close proximity to a gay guy before. The first one I run up against is my first ever roommate (only child) and could not have been more different than me. Guess what? Despite living in close quarters with me for a year, it was never a problem. If I can deal with it, why can't everyone else? It would have been the same if he'd been black or a muslim or for that matter a woman. You just take people as they come and move on.
FQ13

Quaker,
I really can't take issue with anything you said on this response (I bet you're shocked!  ). For me tolerance doesn't have to equate to agreement. And I think you get my main point about the original post in that we need to be steadfast in protecting the rights of all even if we don't agree with them.

In the UK it's the Christian preacher, tomorrow it might be the Liberal Democrat (actual party there). It's the same situation here: today it's the gays, tomorrow it will be the Christians, etc....I try to remind myself the genius of the Bill of Rights is that its strength lies in its depth and breadth.....

[fightingquaker13]

Quoth  FullAuto:
"Quaker,
I really can't take issue with anything you said on this response (I bet you're shocked!  ). For me tolerance doesn't have to equate to agreement. And I think you get my main point about the original post in that we need to be steadfast in protecting the rights of all even if we don't agree with them. "

And here we agree completly. F them if they can't take a joke. I have the right to mock them and I have a corresponding duty to accept mockery. Rule one of being a Libertarian is Lassiez Faire. Keep your hands off. That applies to me as much as thee. I don't have to approve of it, but unless its intruding on my life, its not my business. This is something you and I understand. Path is hopefully getting there.
FQ13