They'd Rather Die
I listened to debate between Rev. HerebyUnnamed and Ron Sims. It made my blood boil and I wish that Robert Mak had chosen to do a more structured debate if it would have meant that Unnamed would stop asking questions, then interrupting RS in order to answer them himself.
RS landed some really good points, but also got caught off guard at times and a bit dodgy like a good politician. Actually, Rev. Unnamed started to make a few good points too - but every time he did, I thought, "right, so you agree that same-sex marriage should be all good then, " but he'd flip it around and thump out some hate. Wait - he didn't even have anything to base some of those thumps off, so maybe he was whacking it out.
Sick. It's like he had the beginnings of intelligent arguments that degraded into really immature excuses to hate people and enforce institutional discrimination upon them. BTW, the most ri-GD-cock-u-lous argument he made was about God discriminating. "I believe in biblical discrimination," he said. Effing, what does that mean? He was trying to say "I discriminate between peas and carrots. God discriminates who goes to heaven and hell. I don't like carrots. God doesn't like gays. All decisions are the same as institutionalized discrimination."
Excuse me, but the choice you make between peas and carrots may be based on your personal taste or hate for carrots, but this does not institutionally contribute to an increased level of poverty, drug use, sexual and economical exploitation, poor sexual health education, diminished mental health, pea on carrot hate crimes or lack of access to social and economic institutions. Peas and carrots are not people and neither, by the way are animals, so STOP COMPARING HUMAN SEXUAL ENCOUNTERS WITH BESTIALITY because you wouldn't like it if I said, "Slippery slope! You have sex with your wife - you might as well go do it with your young daughter, because she has a vagina too."
But "moral" values aside (or included), let's not institutionalize your religiously based hate.
I don't care what you call it, or think it is. What really matters are the detrimental consequences of writing your religious concept of what's right and wrong into law.
It is hateful institutional discrimination; a full on "ism."And those people who want that kind of hate in their lives, in this country, they are "ists."
RS landed some really good points, but also got caught off guard at times and a bit dodgy like a good politician. Actually, Rev. Unnamed started to make a few good points too - but every time he did, I thought, "right, so you agree that same-sex marriage should be all good then, " but he'd flip it around and thump out some hate. Wait - he didn't even have anything to base some of those thumps off, so maybe he was whacking it out.
Sick. It's like he had the beginnings of intelligent arguments that degraded into really immature excuses to hate people and enforce institutional discrimination upon them. BTW, the most ri-GD-cock-u-lous argument he made was about God discriminating. "I believe in biblical discrimination," he said. Effing, what does that mean? He was trying to say "I discriminate between peas and carrots. God discriminates who goes to heaven and hell. I don't like carrots. God doesn't like gays. All decisions are the same as institutionalized discrimination."
Excuse me, but the choice you make between peas and carrots may be based on your personal taste or hate for carrots, but this does not institutionally contribute to an increased level of poverty, drug use, sexual and economical exploitation, poor sexual health education, diminished mental health, pea on carrot hate crimes or lack of access to social and economic institutions. Peas and carrots are not people and neither, by the way are animals, so STOP COMPARING HUMAN SEXUAL ENCOUNTERS WITH BESTIALITY because you wouldn't like it if I said, "Slippery slope! You have sex with your wife - you might as well go do it with your young daughter, because she has a vagina too."
But "moral" values aside (or included), let's not institutionalize your religiously based hate.
I don't care what you call it, or think it is. What really matters are the detrimental consequences of writing your religious concept of what's right and wrong into law.
It is hateful institutional discrimination; a full on "ism."And those people who want that kind of hate in their lives, in this country, they are "ists."
1 Comments:
amen sister!! i don't think i would've made it through that debate...would've gotten way too POed... but i like your point...whatever you think is fine, as long as you don't use it to dictate the way everyone else lives their (private) lives.
Post a Comment
<< Home