Yes, it is possible to be gay and religious, but...

It is, occasionaly, trying.

http://www.local6.com/money/6164127/detail.html

Sigh.

You want to tell me I'm living a sinful life? Fine, knock yourself out. You're free to do that.

You wanna stand outside a funeral and mock the dead for being a "faggot"? Fine. It makes you a royal asshole, but again, knock yourself out.

Now, you want to denounce gay marriage? Ok, fine, I'm cool with that. I wasn't planning on getting married anyhow. It says something about your character, but fine, I can live with that. I can at least, if nothing else, see your logic. You have some valid points, even if I disagree with them, they are at least points of a sort.

But dangit, boycotting an entire company that employs a hojillion people because they won't be biggoted? Did you sleep through sunday school, you kumquat-brained halfwits?

On the other hand, as a consumer, I treat being boycotted by some group like the AFA as a positive point for a company - it means they must have done something right.

It's bigotry to oppose new laws that don't make any sense? It's already illegal to not hire someone based on their sexual preference. There's no need for new laws specifically targetted at homosexuals.

Next we will make laws that say that it's not acceptable to not hire someone because they're addicted to drugs. Then the drug addicts will call anyone that doesn't support that law a bigot. What a future.

I was going to reply there, but I saw the username just in time...

Sorry... Reductio ad absurdum, and I don't accept it as a valid arguement.

Seriously, I wouldn't bother.

You should avoid labeling people that don't see things the same way that you do as "bigots". It's pretty lame.

Hahaha, of course you wouldn't. You would have no chance.

Boy, you really need go back to highschool and take a debate class.

Or, learn to read, maybe. Since I never said anything of the sort.

Are you done here, or do you want to try for strike three?

Per the norm, Stank, your'e talking out of your ass without bothering to do your homework. Washington state law currently does NOT have any provision in which sexual preference is protected from discrimination in the workplace.

As your argument has thusly collapsed, I can only assume that you support this measure.

Perhaps you are the one that needs to learn how to read.

The link you posted seems to confirm what I said. Maybe you meant to link to something else?

I don't believe in any of those lame laws. If a business owner doesn't want to hire someone, whatever the reason, that should be their right. They own their business. The government shouldn't force businesses to hire certain people that they don't want to hire. That's lame.

No, I'll stick with you do.

Or, you need to learn what words mean, anyhow.

I'm not labeling everyone who disagrees with my a bigot.

I believe under the rules of baseball, you are now "out".

Ok let's review this.

First off you say:



then I point you to the official Washinton Government website, which says:

"The legislature hereby finds and declares that practices of discrimination against any of its inhabitants because of race, creed, color, national origin, families with children, sex, marital status, age, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a disabled person are a matter of state concern"

which does NOT include anything about sexual preference.

At this point, your entire argument is based on an incorrect statemnet. In the common parlence of our time, at this point you're pwnd.

Instead, you come back with with a new opinion to be against this... So the pattern is

You "A!"
Me "But A isn't true and here is the proof"
You "B!"

I am attempting to illustrate why it is very frustrating to debate with you, Stank. You never concede a point or admit to being wrong about something; you instead continue your views while ignoring that previous points were based on faulty 'facts'.

yup

Actually, you did.

*edited*

That is just fucking wrong dude.

Who is creating laws that discriminate against groups of people? Marriage has always meant 1 man and 1 woman. The new additions to the constitution that people sometimes hope for would just make that more clear for the entire country. The people that want to invent new laws are the ones that want to change existing laws, not the people trying to keep the laws the way they are.

*edited*

Abuse reported.

Hahaha, typical. "Oh no, I've been owned again. I must tell teacher!!"

You just said that gay people have a mental illness. That falls under the:

"1. Intolerance
Combating intolerance is a cornerstone of Second Life's Community Standards. Actions that marginalize, belittle, or defame individuals or groups inhibit the satisfying exchange of ideas and diminish the Second Life community as whole. The use of derogatory or demeaning language or images in reference to another Resident's race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation is never allowed in Second Life."

Show me where?