Quote: unrestrained id said: So once again..... do you think it's acceptable to require gays to label themselves publicly and in a negative way. Do you find this Christian Coalition guy um.... sane? fair? bigoted? A Nazi?
I'd like to hear that point being adressed.
And i'd have to add, it's rather sad if not telling that this question wasn't answered immediately and resoundingly over 24 hours ago.
I answered that question, but i guess you don't care. You'd rather assume that the neocon conspiracy is tellingly silent on this issue. Of course it's not acceptable to make anyone wear identifying labels like that.
He may have missed your post. I haven't been able to see the newest posts on this thread for some reason & missed yours myself. I was kinda wondering the same thing as Unrestrained myself. Not that I can seriously see anybody on this board saying "yeah, let's brand them!" Even the guy in the article that brings up the cigs are bad for you & so is homosexuality comparison says he wasn't for gays somehow being marked. He does however want everybody to know it's bad to be gay. His reasoning is f-ed up obviously. He sights one study (produced by an extremely biased group). Then speaks of homosexuals & doesn't acknowledge that about half our population includes women. Lesbians have one of the lowest rates of infection (if not the lowest) These type of things bug me anyway because it avoids the simple fact that people who don't value or like themselves tend to indulge in lots of sex & risky behavior. The answer isn't to try to turn back the clock. You might be able to get rid of the Pride parades & benefits for same sex partners but gay people would still be there. And a gay son or daughter would surely be less likely to speak of their homosexuality to the folks.
