> Allow me to state this argument, or my view of it, in point form.
>
> If you are replying, and don't agree with the premise I put forward,
>
> ... <snip> ...
>
> This is the premise that I'm going with before going further with my
> point. Because if we can't agree on the above, it doesn't make sense
> discussing the matter much past this.
I for one don't agree with your "premise" as it is merely a tactic for
you to simplify the issue it to dissect-able points in order for you to
later re-aggregate to an out of context conclusion. This
simplification is just plain rude to homosexuals. With your point
dissection above you (IMO) imply that:
1: Gays can have equal rights because they are people, but
2: are still too vile to be regarded at a the same level as the rest of "us"
I find that offensive. Lets go back to the pre-civil rights days and to
Monique's assertion the the use of the word "colored" is offensive. I
agree completely - it implies a different and named level of worth (or
less worth) to a person or set of persons who are (or should be) just
equally different. I liken the idea of letting gays have the rights but
not the label to the idea of giving African Americas the same rights as
White people, but still making it socially acceptable (and legally
proclaimed) to refer to them as "colored" or even worse "N...". While
the former does not have such a clear "red flag" impact as the latter
its the same concept. It says, legally you're the same but different.
And not different in an equal way, but different in a lesser way.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
