> MikeyWhoa wrote:
>> longhornsk57 wrote:
> |>> I'm not getting into specifics here, we can talk specifics for sure, but first
> |>> that it is an aberration and not some new forward thinking human evolution that
> |>> need to push down "those bigots'" throats.
>> I see your point here, but assuming you are right, if it's being called a bigot
>> bothers you when you feel you're not, then perhaps you could empathize with the
>> of a transgendered person on some level?
>> An "aberration" implies something that is unwelcome. Perhaps anomaly would be
>> apropos? Unless you purposefully want them to feel unwelcome. In which case, it
>> off as sort of bigoted.
> J don't mind being called a bigot at all.
> I think it's unproductive to just label and write off someone who who posits the
> idea that this is something to be solved and not glorified.
> As long as that's not happening you can call me whatever you want.
> As for them feeling unwelcome or whatever. Bottom line I have gay friends. I like
> them and hang out and would help them in need, I do not feel uncomfortable around
> them. But their being gay is in my opinion is not something I would glorify. It
> doesn't mean their freaks or anything, we have mutual respect, but it's not conducive
> towards survival as species.
I disagree about the "conducive towards survival as a species." With the ever growing world population, and the negative effect that people have on our natural resources, I think people who can't/won't conceive children are actually benefiting the species.
But I've steered us too off topic as it is.
Could someone perhaps explain why banning the words "vulnerable" "diversity" and "fetus" is helpful? Or why they were harmful to begin with?