Well, I looked through several threads where I found issues that you brought up and in about half of the ones I looked in I found that instances that I construed as you being pretty closeminded and several others where you were being surprisingly openminded. (Even more so than the majority of the general populace.) I know what I said was wrong to you but then I realized you are just arguing the other side. It would be clearer to me as well as a few (possibly more) others if you stated what you are doing at the time of the post. This confusion about arguing on both sides in my opinion is one of the reasons that you left originally. I missed your comments then as I would miss them now if you left. I don’t want to confuse the “personal you” with the “argue for the case of arguing you”. I know that is a sign of a good lawyer (being able to argue both sides of a given case) and I don’t doubt your abilities there. Thank you.
I know that if something bad happens to you and your husband (GODS forbid) that your children will go and live with a gay couple whose religion I believe is different than yours. That in itself is highly commendable, not that you are willing to let your children live with these people whom you view would make good parents, but the fact that these people were evaluated on an even basis.
You don’t understand how people generally look on gay individuals. You may claim that your children’s biracial characteristics may give them insight into this fact and that the possibility of your seeing prejudices towards them effects you. It does; however, it is completely different on the inside looking out. With gay people we don’t have to worry just about one group hating us, we have to worry about many groups and a lot of potential violence.
In the Boy Scouts thread it was argued that they were either public or private. That is fine. Neither of us truly has the authority to say which one it is. I say it is public because it gets public funds, uses public facilities (oftentimes without paying), and recruits in public schools. Well, religions don’t do any of those things and we all agree that they are private and thus able to freely discriminate. I agree that a private institution has the right to discriminate against anyone they want at will regardless of the potential emotional (physical in some cases like the snake handlers) harm to the individual (excommunications from a friend who is an excommunicated Mormon are like an emotional rape). Is it right to do this? No. Is it right to do this to children who are simply being themselves? Most definately not but I agree that a private institution may have that right. Anyway, the basis of your argument is that they are a private institution. Fine then, make them pay for the use of public facilities (like school meeting halls), don’t allow them to collect public funds unless their bias policy ends, and don’t let them recruit in schools. If they truly want to only find “morally straight students” only let them recruit in Sunday School while the parents are also present. Until this happens, in my opinion, they are a public institution.
I have to say that the other side of the coin makes sense. If they are a private institution, they don’t collect public monies, they don’t use public facilities without paying, and they don’t recruit in schools. Then they can be free to destroy gay and athiest children who attempt to join.
As I said earlier, neither of us has the authority to call it either. We both believe what we believe for different reasons but I don’t take back my stance on the issue.
Before I get to your points below I am stating that in the past several weeks I have felt like a troll to you. It seems that about 75% of your postings have irked me as I am sure about the same have irked you. To continue, I (in your lawyer term) retract my comment about your personal life. I had no right to take this argument to this level. Arguing with emotions can be destructive even if the original intent was not to do that. Again, I had no right to take this debate onto a personal level. I believe, looking back, that my opinions have as much validity as yours and as any persons but I allowed them to be clouded by an emotional outburst that both harmed your image (on a superficial level) and my image on a larger scale.
Please accept my written apology. I look forward to having more debates.
HUGS!
Sqrl
Gasoline: As an accompaniement to cereal it made a refreshing change. Glen Baxter
