You continually paint all gun owners as “bubba” and “redneck,” so while you might not believe all gun owners are gun nuts, you certainly do nothing to prove or back that point other than stating it.
Much like someone who says, “I’m not racist,” and then contends that there’s never been a successful black country because they’re black.
Infringement, obviously.
You hold that as an article of faith, and that’s fine.
I on the other hand, don’t care. Because choices (like religion) are protected, so should the choice to be homosexual – there’s no question that it can be a choice, whether it’s always a choice or not is irrelevant entirely.
While it’s important for you to have the distinction of whether or not it’s a choice, it’s not important for me. Why? Because something doesn’t have to be a genetic thing (or “soul based” thing) in order to be protected.
Tree-huggers? You mean those people who love their trees so much they sleep in them at night? The ones that can’t get real women so they stick their tiny dicks in little knot-holes to make them feel more manly? The cowards that never leave the tree for fear a chainsaw will kill it?
See. It’s no big deal at all, is it? Nothing will happen to you. You won’t get warned. There’s no special dispensation for anybody. No one’s going to get all huffy and butthurt. You’re completely within the rules, and you’ve just demolished your own complaint.
I didn’t say you were infringing me, or my rights. Please go back and read the post, in its entirety. Just because I responded to you, doesn’t mean that the statement is about you.
You asked me a question, “protected from what,” and I responded.
Me: I say this because it doesn’t matter whether it’s a choice or not. Religion is a choice, and it’s protected. Sexuality is a choice, and it should be protected. The language you speak is a choice, and it is (or should be, if it isn’t) protected.
You: Protected from what?
Me: Infringement, obviously.
They aren’t “about” anyone, they were in response to your question. Perhaps if you go back and follow the entire thread of the conversation, you’ll understand better. It’s not all that difficult a concept to grasp.
I said that some things should be protected, you asked from what, I told you, and you got confused. Clear things up a bit?
If they’re so inane, they should be relatively simple to dispel.
I anxiously await your response to an easily dispelled question on your “objective fact.” I always remain a skeptic, until there’s sufficient evidence. I have no opinion on sexuality, one way or the other (despite the ambiguity of my OP) until there’s evidence that points in one direction or the other – I assume you have an overwhelmingly large amount if it’s an objective fact.
Your initial comment - that gun owners Deserve protection" was addressed to me. Since I never argued otherwise, it was a non-sequitur with regards to anything I has said so I asked for elaboration.
Your question regarding sexual orientation has already gotten all the response it deserves, but really it’s as simple as asking yourself when you chose your own sexual orientation.
No, I guess your’re right again! Now I’ll just wander off to a board where forest conservancy is a frequent topic and post that same shit in every thread that brings it up.
Jethro is a disparaging term used to describe an unsophisticated, uneducated white from poor rural areas. If you think it’s OK to refer to people with this term, by the same logic, you must think it’s OK to refer to poor, uneducated, and unsophisticated blacks as “Sambo”.