As the U.S. becomes ‘browner’ and ‘gayer’ are we becoming better? Dems, what do you have in mind for America’s future?

[Correll]

Gays represent .00000000000000000001 of the population but somehow they are some kind of threat.

So, answer the question. If the nation becoming gayer, america becoming "Better" and if so, please explain your reasoning.

Why does it have to be "better" as a result? Do you think it's "worse" that people are more comfortable being their true selves and more are coming out?

I think that ALL liberal complaints about such issues are false. That they only use such issues as weapons, when they are useful and don't really care about them. The way that feminists rallied around Bill Clinton, sexual harasser professional, is the archetypal example.


And as the "gaying" has been a part of that, yes, I certainly do think it is a bad thing, having been part of the division that is killing this country.


Do you have personal opinion on the OP question?

People being gay are "part of the division that is killing this country"? Come on, do you even hear yourself?

Yes, I have a personal opinion about the OP. I think he's a racist piece of shit. You like him though don't you?

1. The way the gay activists advanced their agenda is part of the division.

2. I asked you your opinion on the op question. It is a valid question. The way you answered a question I did not ask? That is you admitting that you know the change is for the worse.

1. Ah, I see...fighting for rights causes “division”. You don’t see the people fighting against equal rights as divisive, just the people seeking them.

2. Since the OP is a serious racist piece of shit, his opening post has zero credibility.

1. I was clearly referencing their methods, not their goals. Try again.

2. It is taboo to admit that the change is a change for the worse. YOu know it is. I know it is. That you called the op wacist, is irrelevant to that.

1. What “method” do you object to? What “method” should people employ to fight for equality?

2. Well, I don’t believe that diversity makes us “worse”. The OP is a straight up racist. That’s all that needs be

1. The bit where they pretended that "marriage" was always about any random two people getting married. That turned anyone who did not immediately concede to their demands, into a "bigot" and a "phobe". That was divisive and unfair and made them part of the problem.


2. Interesting. Nothing in the op or my repeating of the question, limited it to "diversity" so, that was a dodge on your part.

I understand. We all know that the change is for the worse but it is taboo to say it. You, being a liberal, have a lot of self image invested in conforming with such.... dogma.

Saying "wacist", sorry, that does not make the case that teh change is for the good.

1. Sorry, but it is a simple fact that opposition to civil marriage equality comes from a bigoted place. It is true of opposition to interracial marriage and it is true of opposition to gay marriage.

2. The OP has ever made a valid point in his life. Everything he posts is either racist or xenophobic. There is no value in discussing anything that he posits.

1. Gay Marriage was an expansion of an existing institution. For such a change, those wanting the change should explain why it is a good thing. Instead, they just called anyone that did not agree a bigot. Thus, divisive.


2. So, explain why you can't explicitly answer the question. Cause, I think that is the point.

1. Those wanting the change DID explain, quite convincingly, why marriage equality was a "good thing". It's why the issue won in the judicial courts and the court of public opinion. The people that were called bigots...WERE bigots.

2. That's funny you thought there was a question in the OPs racist post. What is it you perceive this question to be? What do you want answered?

1. Nope. Their argument was that they already had the Right, not that the expansion of the institution was a good thing. Anyone that disagree was labeled a bigot. That was the whole point. To justify smearing and dividing out, and marginalizing your enemies. Hence division.

2. Weak dodge, based on fear of violating the taboo, as was my point.

1. It wasn’t the job of marriage equality proponents to make you feel good about them getting equal rights. Maybe you should be asking yourself why it made you feel bad. 99.9% of opposition comes from a bigoted place.

2. You don’t know what the question is either do you.

1. I did not oppose gay marriage. I did oppose their tactics. Marriage was an institution between one man, one woman. They wanted to expand it. They should have made their case based on the merits of the change they wanted. Instead their primary goal seemed to be to smear their enemies and marginalize those who did not conform properly.


2. You are afraid to answer it, because you know that change is for the worse, but it is taboo to say that.

 

[Correll]

Not trying to be coy here, but just checking. YOu still have not answered the op question, right?


Why is that?

My answer?

For the most part, mutts are healthier and smarter than pure breeds.

How's that for an answer?

I can see that you are trying to imply your answer. Why are you afraid to be explicit?

Better or worse, and then explain why.

 

[Mr Natural]

I can see that you are trying to imply your answer. Why are you afraid to be explicit?

Better or worse, and then explain why.

America is the greatest country in the world due to our diversity in culture and race.

Explicit enough for you ?

 

[Correll]

Are we trying to become better or worse?
As Democrats continue to encourage, manifest and foster a browner gayer nation are they sure they are pushing our nation on the right trajectory given the data?

L

Account Suspended

View attachment 364618

I thought we had the best economy under trump even with that many brown and gay people, no?

That those numbers exist even in a good economy, makes teh numbers worse, not better.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Are we trying to become better or worse?
As Democrats continue to encourage, manifest and foster a browner gayer nation are they sure they are pushing our nation on the right trajectory given the data?

L

Account Suspended

View attachment 364618

I thought we had the best economy under trump even with that many brown and gay people, no?

Productive Caucasians are still able to carry this nation with ease while under good direction and policy.

 

[Lesh]

Are we trying to become better or worse?
As Democrats continue to encourage, manifest and foster a browner gayer nation are they sure they are pushing our nation on the right trajectory given the data?

L

Account Suspended

View attachment 364618

I thought we had the best economy under trump even with that many brown and gay people, no?

Productive Caucasians are still able to carry this nation with ease while under good direction and policy.

Like in Texas...right?

 

[BrokeLoser]

Are we trying to become better or worse?
As Democrats continue to encourage, manifest and foster a browner gayer nation are they sure they are pushing our nation on the right trajectory given the data?

L

Account Suspended

View attachment 364618

I thought we had the best economy under trump even with that many brown and gay people, no?

Productive Caucasians are still able to carry this nation with ease while under good direction and policy.

Like in Texas...right?

Woke white guilt whackos are fucking it up aren’t they?

 

[Seawytch]

Gays represent .00000000000000000001 of the population but somehow they are some kind of threat.

So, answer the question. If the nation becoming gayer, america becoming "Better" and if so, please explain your reasoning.

Why does it have to be "better" as a result? Do you think it's "worse" that people are more comfortable being their true selves and more are coming out?

I think that ALL liberal complaints about such issues are false. That they only use such issues as weapons, when they are useful and don't really care about them. The way that feminists rallied around Bill Clinton, sexual harasser professional, is the archetypal example.


And as the "gaying" has been a part of that, yes, I certainly do think it is a bad thing, having been part of the division that is killing this country.


Do you have personal opinion on the OP question?

People being gay are "part of the division that is killing this country"? Come on, do you even hear yourself?

Yes, I have a personal opinion about the OP. I think he's a racist piece of shit. You like him though don't you?

1. The way the gay activists advanced their agenda is part of the division.

2. I asked you your opinion on the op question. It is a valid question. The way you answered a question I did not ask? That is you admitting that you know the change is for the worse.

1. Ah, I see...fighting for rights causes “division”. You don’t see the people fighting against equal rights as divisive, just the people seeking them.

2. Since the OP is a serious racist piece of shit, his opening post has zero credibility.

1. I was clearly referencing their methods, not their goals. Try again.

2. It is taboo to admit that the change is a change for the worse. YOu know it is. I know it is. That you called the op wacist, is irrelevant to that.

1. What “method” do you object to? What “method” should people employ to fight for equality?

2. Well, I don’t believe that diversity makes us “worse”. The OP is a straight up racist. That’s all that needs be

1. The bit where they pretended that "marriage" was always about any random two people getting married. That turned anyone who did not immediately concede to their demands, into a "bigot" and a "phobe". That was divisive and unfair and made them part of the problem.


2. Interesting. Nothing in the op or my repeating of the question, limited it to "diversity" so, that was a dodge on your part.

I understand. We all know that the change is for the worse but it is taboo to say it. You, being a liberal, have a lot of self image invested in conforming with such.... dogma.

Saying "wacist", sorry, that does not make the case that teh change is for the good.

1. Sorry, but it is a simple fact that opposition to civil marriage equality comes from a bigoted place. It is true of opposition to interracial marriage and it is true of opposition to gay marriage.

2. The OP has ever made a valid point in his life. Everything he posts is either racist or xenophobic. There is no value in discussing anything that he posits.

1. Gay Marriage was an expansion of an existing institution. For such a change, those wanting the change should explain why it is a good thing. Instead, they just called anyone that did not agree a bigot. Thus, divisive.


2. So, explain why you can't explicitly answer the question. Cause, I think that is the point.

1. Those wanting the change DID explain, quite convincingly, why marriage equality was a "good thing". It's why the issue won in the judicial courts and the court of public opinion. The people that were called bigots...WERE bigots.

2. That's funny you thought there was a question in the OPs racist post. What is it you perceive this question to be? What do you want answered?

1. Nope. Their argument was that they already had the Right, not that the expansion of the institution was a good thing. Anyone that disagree was labeled a bigot. That was the whole point. To justify smearing and dividing out, and marginalizing your enemies. Hence division.

2. Weak dodge, based on fear of violating the taboo, as was my point.

1. It wasn’t the job of marriage equality proponents to make you feel good about them getting equal rights. Maybe you should be asking yourself why it made you feel bad. 99.9% of opposition comes from a bigoted place.

2. You don’t know what the question is either do you.

1. I did not oppose gay marriage. I did oppose their tactics. Marriage was an institution between one man, one woman. They wanted to expand it. They should have made their case based on the merits of the change they wanted. Instead their primary goal seemed to be to smear their enemies and marginalize those who did not conform properly.


2. You are afraid to answer it, because you know that change is for the worse, but it is taboo to say that.

1. The case was made on its merits. It’s why they won, duh. Gay marriage was WAY more popular when the SCOTUS ruled on it than interracial marriage was when the SCOTUS ruled on it.

2. Answer what? No, I don’t think that America is worse off (worse off than what) because it includes brown people, gay people or brown gay people.

 

[Correll]

Gays represent .00000000000000000001 of the population but somehow they are some kind of threat.

So, answer the question. If the nation becoming gayer, america becoming "Better" and if so, please explain your reasoning.

Why does it have to be "better" as a result? Do you think it's "worse" that people are more comfortable being their true selves and more are coming out?

I think that ALL liberal complaints about such issues are false. That they only use such issues as weapons, when they are useful and don't really care about them. The way that feminists rallied around Bill Clinton, sexual harasser professional, is the archetypal example.


And as the "gaying" has been a part of that, yes, I certainly do think it is a bad thing, having been part of the division that is killing this country.


Do you have personal opinion on the OP question?

People being gay are "part of the division that is killing this country"? Come on, do you even hear yourself?

Yes, I have a personal opinion about the OP. I think he's a racist piece of shit. You like him though don't you?

1. The way the gay activists advanced their agenda is part of the division.

2. I asked you your opinion on the op question. It is a valid question. The way you answered a question I did not ask? That is you admitting that you know the change is for the worse.

1. Ah, I see...fighting for rights causes “division”. You don’t see the people fighting against equal rights as divisive, just the people seeking them.

2. Since the OP is a serious racist piece of shit, his opening post has zero credibility.

1. I was clearly referencing their methods, not their goals. Try again.

2. It is taboo to admit that the change is a change for the worse. YOu know it is. I know it is. That you called the op wacist, is irrelevant to that.

1. What “method” do you object to? What “method” should people employ to fight for equality?

2. Well, I don’t believe that diversity makes us “worse”. The OP is a straight up racist. That’s all that needs be

1. The bit where they pretended that "marriage" was always about any random two people getting married. That turned anyone who did not immediately concede to their demands, into a "bigot" and a "phobe". That was divisive and unfair and made them part of the problem.


2. Interesting. Nothing in the op or my repeating of the question, limited it to "diversity" so, that was a dodge on your part.

I understand. We all know that the change is for the worse but it is taboo to say it. You, being a liberal, have a lot of self image invested in conforming with such.... dogma.

Saying "wacist", sorry, that does not make the case that teh change is for the good.

1. Sorry, but it is a simple fact that opposition to civil marriage equality comes from a bigoted place. It is true of opposition to interracial marriage and it is true of opposition to gay marriage.

2. The OP has ever made a valid point in his life. Everything he posts is either racist or xenophobic. There is no value in discussing anything that he posits.

1. Gay Marriage was an expansion of an existing institution. For such a change, those wanting the change should explain why it is a good thing. Instead, they just called anyone that did not agree a bigot. Thus, divisive.


2. So, explain why you can't explicitly answer the question. Cause, I think that is the point.

1. Those wanting the change DID explain, quite convincingly, why marriage equality was a "good thing". It's why the issue won in the judicial courts and the court of public opinion. The people that were called bigots...WERE bigots.

2. That's funny you thought there was a question in the OPs racist post. What is it you perceive this question to be? What do you want answered?

1. Nope. Their argument was that they already had the Right, not that the expansion of the institution was a good thing. Anyone that disagree was labeled a bigot. That was the whole point. To justify smearing and dividing out, and marginalizing your enemies. Hence division.

2. Weak dodge, based on fear of violating the taboo, as was my point.

1. It wasn’t the job of marriage equality proponents to make you feel good about them getting equal rights. Maybe you should be asking yourself why it made you feel bad. 99.9% of opposition comes from a bigoted place.

2. You don’t know what the question is either do you.

1. I did not oppose gay marriage. I did oppose their tactics. Marriage was an institution between one man, one woman. They wanted to expand it. They should have made their case based on the merits of the change they wanted. Instead their primary goal seemed to be to smear their enemies and marginalize those who did not conform properly.


2. You are afraid to answer it, because you know that change is for the worse, but it is taboo to say that.

1. The case was made on its merits. It’s why they won, duh. Gay marriage was WAY more popular when the SCOTUS ruled on it than interracial marriage was when the SCOTUS ruled on it.

2. Answer what? No, I don’t think that America is worse off (worse off than what) because it includes brown people, gay people or brown gay people.

1. My point about their tactics stands. Do you want to address it?

2. Why did it take to post 348, before you would clearly answer?

 

[Seawytch]

Gays represent .00000000000000000001 of the population but somehow they are some kind of threat.

So, answer the question. If the nation becoming gayer, america becoming "Better" and if so, please explain your reasoning.

Why does it have to be "better" as a result? Do you think it's "worse" that people are more comfortable being their true selves and more are coming out?

I think that ALL liberal complaints about such issues are false. That they only use such issues as weapons, when they are useful and don't really care about them. The way that feminists rallied around Bill Clinton, sexual harasser professional, is the archetypal example.


And as the "gaying" has been a part of that, yes, I certainly do think it is a bad thing, having been part of the division that is killing this country.


Do you have personal opinion on the OP question?

People being gay are "part of the division that is killing this country"? Come on, do you even hear yourself?

Yes, I have a personal opinion about the OP. I think he's a racist piece of shit. You like him though don't you?

1. The way the gay activists advanced their agenda is part of the division.

2. I asked you your opinion on the op question. It is a valid question. The way you answered a question I did not ask? That is you admitting that you know the change is for the worse.

1. Ah, I see...fighting for rights causes “division”. You don’t see the people fighting against equal rights as divisive, just the people seeking them.

2. Since the OP is a serious racist piece of shit, his opening post has zero credibility.

1. I was clearly referencing their methods, not their goals. Try again.

2. It is taboo to admit that the change is a change for the worse. YOu know it is. I know it is. That you called the op wacist, is irrelevant to that.

1. What “method” do you object to? What “method” should people employ to fight for equality?

2. Well, I don’t believe that diversity makes us “worse”. The OP is a straight up racist. That’s all that needs be

1. The bit where they pretended that "marriage" was always about any random two people getting married. That turned anyone who did not immediately concede to their demands, into a "bigot" and a "phobe". That was divisive and unfair and made them part of the problem.


2. Interesting. Nothing in the op or my repeating of the question, limited it to "diversity" so, that was a dodge on your part.

I understand. We all know that the change is for the worse but it is taboo to say it. You, being a liberal, have a lot of self image invested in conforming with such.... dogma.

Saying "wacist", sorry, that does not make the case that teh change is for the good.

1. Sorry, but it is a simple fact that opposition to civil marriage equality comes from a bigoted place. It is true of opposition to interracial marriage and it is true of opposition to gay marriage.

2. The OP has ever made a valid point in his life. Everything he posts is either racist or xenophobic. There is no value in discussing anything that he posits.

1. Gay Marriage was an expansion of an existing institution. For such a change, those wanting the change should explain why it is a good thing. Instead, they just called anyone that did not agree a bigot. Thus, divisive.


2. So, explain why you can't explicitly answer the question. Cause, I think that is the point.

1. Those wanting the change DID explain, quite convincingly, why marriage equality was a "good thing". It's why the issue won in the judicial courts and the court of public opinion. The people that were called bigots...WERE bigots.

2. That's funny you thought there was a question in the OPs racist post. What is it you perceive this question to be? What do you want answered?

1. Nope. Their argument was that they already had the Right, not that the expansion of the institution was a good thing. Anyone that disagree was labeled a bigot. That was the whole point. To justify smearing and dividing out, and marginalizing your enemies. Hence division.

2. Weak dodge, based on fear of violating the taboo, as was my point.

1. It wasn’t the job of marriage equality proponents to make you feel good about them getting equal rights. Maybe you should be asking yourself why it made you feel bad. 99.9% of opposition comes from a bigoted place.

2. You don’t know what the question is either do you.

1. I did not oppose gay marriage. I did oppose their tactics. Marriage was an institution between one man, one woman. They wanted to expand it. They should have made their case based on the merits of the change they wanted. Instead their primary goal seemed to be to smear their enemies and marginalize those who did not conform properly.


2. You are afraid to answer it, because you know that change is for the worse, but it is taboo to say that.

1. The case was made on its merits. It’s why they won, duh. Gay marriage was WAY more popular when the SCOTUS ruled on it than interracial marriage was when the SCOTUS ruled on it.

2. Answer what? No, I don’t think that America is worse off (worse off than what) because it includes brown people, gay people or brown gay people.

1. My point about their tactics stands. Do you want to address it?

2. Why did it take to post 348, before you would clearly answer?

1. No, it doesn't stand. I reject it. It wasn't gays, fighting for equality, that were divisive, it was the bigots fighting against them...and yes, they were bigots. Same as the bigots that opposed interracial marriage. You do agree that people who opposed interracial marriage, even on religious grounds, were bigots, right? Have no problem calling them bigots?

2. It was a stupid, racist question. Why are you so insistent on people answering a stupid, racist question?

 

[Correll]

Gays represent .00000000000000000001 of the population but somehow they are some kind of threat.

So, answer the question. If the nation becoming gayer, america becoming "Better" and if so, please explain your reasoning.

Why does it have to be "better" as a result? Do you think it's "worse" that people are more comfortable being their true selves and more are coming out?

I think that ALL liberal complaints about such issues are false. That they only use such issues as weapons, when they are useful and don't really care about them. The way that feminists rallied around Bill Clinton, sexual harasser professional, is the archetypal example.


And as the "gaying" has been a part of that, yes, I certainly do think it is a bad thing, having been part of the division that is killing this country.


Do you have personal opinion on the OP question?

People being gay are "part of the division that is killing this country"? Come on, do you even hear yourself?

Yes, I have a personal opinion about the OP. I think he's a racist piece of shit. You like him though don't you?

1. The way the gay activists advanced their agenda is part of the division.

2. I asked you your opinion on the op question. It is a valid question. The way you answered a question I did not ask? That is you admitting that you know the change is for the worse.

1. Ah, I see...fighting for rights causes “division”. You don’t see the people fighting against equal rights as divisive, just the people seeking them.

2. Since the OP is a serious racist piece of shit, his opening post has zero credibility.

1. I was clearly referencing their methods, not their goals. Try again.

2. It is taboo to admit that the change is a change for the worse. YOu know it is. I know it is. That you called the op wacist, is irrelevant to that.

1. What “method” do you object to? What “method” should people employ to fight for equality?

2. Well, I don’t believe that diversity makes us “worse”. The OP is a straight up racist. That’s all that needs be

1. The bit where they pretended that "marriage" was always about any random two people getting married. That turned anyone who did not immediately concede to their demands, into a "bigot" and a "phobe". That was divisive and unfair and made them part of the problem.


2. Interesting. Nothing in the op or my repeating of the question, limited it to "diversity" so, that was a dodge on your part.

I understand. We all know that the change is for the worse but it is taboo to say it. You, being a liberal, have a lot of self image invested in conforming with such.... dogma.

Saying "wacist", sorry, that does not make the case that teh change is for the good.

1. Sorry, but it is a simple fact that opposition to civil marriage equality comes from a bigoted place. It is true of opposition to interracial marriage and it is true of opposition to gay marriage.

2. The OP has ever made a valid point in his life. Everything he posts is either racist or xenophobic. There is no value in discussing anything that he posits.

1. Gay Marriage was an expansion of an existing institution. For such a change, those wanting the change should explain why it is a good thing. Instead, they just called anyone that did not agree a bigot. Thus, divisive.


2. So, explain why you can't explicitly answer the question. Cause, I think that is the point.

1. Those wanting the change DID explain, quite convincingly, why marriage equality was a "good thing". It's why the issue won in the judicial courts and the court of public opinion. The people that were called bigots...WERE bigots.

2. That's funny you thought there was a question in the OPs racist post. What is it you perceive this question to be? What do you want answered?

1. Nope. Their argument was that they already had the Right, not that the expansion of the institution was a good thing. Anyone that disagree was labeled a bigot. That was the whole point. To justify smearing and dividing out, and marginalizing your enemies. Hence division.

2. Weak dodge, based on fear of violating the taboo, as was my point.

1. It wasn’t the job of marriage equality proponents to make you feel good about them getting equal rights. Maybe you should be asking yourself why it made you feel bad. 99.9% of opposition comes from a bigoted place.

2. You don’t know what the question is either do you.

1. I did not oppose gay marriage. I did oppose their tactics. Marriage was an institution between one man, one woman. They wanted to expand it. They should have made their case based on the merits of the change they wanted. Instead their primary goal seemed to be to smear their enemies and marginalize those who did not conform properly.


2. You are afraid to answer it, because you know that change is for the worse, but it is taboo to say that.

1. The case was made on its merits. It’s why they won, duh. Gay marriage was WAY more popular when the SCOTUS ruled on it than interracial marriage was when the SCOTUS ruled on it.

2. Answer what? No, I don’t think that America is worse off (worse off than what) because it includes brown people, gay people or brown gay people.

1. My point about their tactics stands. Do you want to address it?

2. Why did it take to post 348, before you would clearly answer?

1. No, it doesn't stand. I reject it. It wasn't gays, fighting for equality, that were divisive, it was the bigots fighting against them...and yes, they were bigots. Same as the bigots that opposed interracial marriage. You do agree that people who opposed interracial marriage, even on religious grounds, were bigots, right? Have no problem calling them bigots?

2. It was a stupid, racist question. Why are you so insistent on people answering a stupid, racist question?

1. The idea that anyone that does not immediately agree with you is a "bigot" is divisive. It turns ANY discussion into a bitter hate match. That is divisive. You just demonstrated my point for me.

2. And again we see that anyone that does not immediately agree with the liberal, is a "wacist". Even asking a question is "Wacist".


Tell me again how it was TRUMP that was divisive.

LOL!!!

 

[Seawytch]

Gays represent .00000000000000000001 of the population but somehow they are some kind of threat.

So, answer the question. If the nation becoming gayer, america becoming "Better" and if so, please explain your reasoning.

Why does it have to be "better" as a result? Do you think it's "worse" that people are more comfortable being their true selves and more are coming out?

I think that ALL liberal complaints about such issues are false. That they only use such issues as weapons, when they are useful and don't really care about them. The way that feminists rallied around Bill Clinton, sexual harasser professional, is the archetypal example.


And as the "gaying" has been a part of that, yes, I certainly do think it is a bad thing, having been part of the division that is killing this country.


Do you have personal opinion on the OP question?

People being gay are "part of the division that is killing this country"? Come on, do you even hear yourself?

Yes, I have a personal opinion about the OP. I think he's a racist piece of shit. You like him though don't you?

1. The way the gay activists advanced their agenda is part of the division.

2. I asked you your opinion on the op question. It is a valid question. The way you answered a question I did not ask? That is you admitting that you know the change is for the worse.

1. Ah, I see...fighting for rights causes “division”. You don’t see the people fighting against equal rights as divisive, just the people seeking them.

2. Since the OP is a serious racist piece of shit, his opening post has zero credibility.

1. I was clearly referencing their methods, not their goals. Try again.

2. It is taboo to admit that the change is a change for the worse. YOu know it is. I know it is. That you called the op wacist, is irrelevant to that.

1. What “method” do you object to? What “method” should people employ to fight for equality?

2. Well, I don’t believe that diversity makes us “worse”. The OP is a straight up racist. That’s all that needs be

1. The bit where they pretended that "marriage" was always about any random two people getting married. That turned anyone who did not immediately concede to their demands, into a "bigot" and a "phobe". That was divisive and unfair and made them part of the problem.


2. Interesting. Nothing in the op or my repeating of the question, limited it to "diversity" so, that was a dodge on your part.

I understand. We all know that the change is for the worse but it is taboo to say it. You, being a liberal, have a lot of self image invested in conforming with such.... dogma.

Saying "wacist", sorry, that does not make the case that teh change is for the good.

1. Sorry, but it is a simple fact that opposition to civil marriage equality comes from a bigoted place. It is true of opposition to interracial marriage and it is true of opposition to gay marriage.

2. The OP has ever made a valid point in his life. Everything he posts is either racist or xenophobic. There is no value in discussing anything that he posits.

1. Gay Marriage was an expansion of an existing institution. For such a change, those wanting the change should explain why it is a good thing. Instead, they just called anyone that did not agree a bigot. Thus, divisive.


2. So, explain why you can't explicitly answer the question. Cause, I think that is the point.

1. Those wanting the change DID explain, quite convincingly, why marriage equality was a "good thing". It's why the issue won in the judicial courts and the court of public opinion. The people that were called bigots...WERE bigots.

2. That's funny you thought there was a question in the OPs racist post. What is it you perceive this question to be? What do you want answered?

1. Nope. Their argument was that they already had the Right, not that the expansion of the institution was a good thing. Anyone that disagree was labeled a bigot. That was the whole point. To justify smearing and dividing out, and marginalizing your enemies. Hence division.

2. Weak dodge, based on fear of violating the taboo, as was my point.

1. It wasn’t the job of marriage equality proponents to make you feel good about them getting equal rights. Maybe you should be asking yourself why it made you feel bad. 99.9% of opposition comes from a bigoted place.

2. You don’t know what the question is either do you.

1. I did not oppose gay marriage. I did oppose their tactics. Marriage was an institution between one man, one woman. They wanted to expand it. They should have made their case based on the merits of the change they wanted. Instead their primary goal seemed to be to smear their enemies and marginalize those who did not conform properly.


2. You are afraid to answer it, because you know that change is for the worse, but it is taboo to say that.

1. The case was made on its merits. It’s why they won, duh. Gay marriage was WAY more popular when the SCOTUS ruled on it than interracial marriage was when the SCOTUS ruled on it.

2. Answer what? No, I don’t think that America is worse off (worse off than what) because it includes brown people, gay people or brown gay people.

1. My point about their tactics stands. Do you want to address it?

2. Why did it take to post 348, before you would clearly answer?

1. No, it doesn't stand. I reject it. It wasn't gays, fighting for equality, that were divisive, it was the bigots fighting against them...and yes, they were bigots. Same as the bigots that opposed interracial marriage. You do agree that people who opposed interracial marriage, even on religious grounds, were bigots, right? Have no problem calling them bigots?

2. It was a stupid, racist question. Why are you so insistent on people answering a stupid, racist question?

1. The idea that anyone that does not immediately agree with you is a "bigot" is divisive. It turns ANY discussion into a bitter hate match. That is divisive. You just demonstrated my point for me.

2. And again we see that anyone that does not immediately agree with the liberal, is a "wacist". Even asking a question is "Wacist".


Tell me again how it was TRUMP that was divisive.

LOL!!!

1. We label anyone opposed to interracial marriage as a bigot. Where is the difference?

2. No, the OP IS a racist. It has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with the straight up racist things that spew from his vile mouth.

3. ‘Divisive’ isn’t the best word to describe Trump

 

[Correll]

Gays represent .00000000000000000001 of the population but somehow they are some kind of threat.

So, answer the question. If the nation becoming gayer, america becoming "Better" and if so, please explain your reasoning.

Why does it have to be "better" as a result? Do you think it's "worse" that people are more comfortable being their true selves and more are coming out?

I think that ALL liberal complaints about such issues are false. That they only use such issues as weapons, when they are useful and don't really care about them. The way that feminists rallied around Bill Clinton, sexual harasser professional, is the archetypal example.


And as the "gaying" has been a part of that, yes, I certainly do think it is a bad thing, having been part of the division that is killing this country.


Do you have personal opinion on the OP question?

People being gay are "part of the division that is killing this country"? Come on, do you even hear yourself?

Yes, I have a personal opinion about the OP. I think he's a racist piece of shit. You like him though don't you?

1. The way the gay activists advanced their agenda is part of the division.

2. I asked you your opinion on the op question. It is a valid question. The way you answered a question I did not ask? That is you admitting that you know the change is for the worse.

1. Ah, I see...fighting for rights causes “division”. You don’t see the people fighting against equal rights as divisive, just the people seeking them.

2. Since the OP is a serious racist piece of shit, his opening post has zero credibility.

1. I was clearly referencing their methods, not their goals. Try again.

2. It is taboo to admit that the change is a change for the worse. YOu know it is. I know it is. That you called the op wacist, is irrelevant to that.

1. What “method” do you object to? What “method” should people employ to fight for equality?

2. Well, I don’t believe that diversity makes us “worse”. The OP is a straight up racist. That’s all that needs be

1. The bit where they pretended that "marriage" was always about any random two people getting married. That turned anyone who did not immediately concede to their demands, into a "bigot" and a "phobe". That was divisive and unfair and made them part of the problem.


2. Interesting. Nothing in the op or my repeating of the question, limited it to "diversity" so, that was a dodge on your part.

I understand. We all know that the change is for the worse but it is taboo to say it. You, being a liberal, have a lot of self image invested in conforming with such.... dogma.

Saying "wacist", sorry, that does not make the case that teh change is for the good.

1. Sorry, but it is a simple fact that opposition to civil marriage equality comes from a bigoted place. It is true of opposition to interracial marriage and it is true of opposition to gay marriage.

2. The OP has ever made a valid point in his life. Everything he posts is either racist or xenophobic. There is no value in discussing anything that he posits.

1. Gay Marriage was an expansion of an existing institution. For such a change, those wanting the change should explain why it is a good thing. Instead, they just called anyone that did not agree a bigot. Thus, divisive.


2. So, explain why you can't explicitly answer the question. Cause, I think that is the point.

1. Those wanting the change DID explain, quite convincingly, why marriage equality was a "good thing". It's why the issue won in the judicial courts and the court of public opinion. The people that were called bigots...WERE bigots.

2. That's funny you thought there was a question in the OPs racist post. What is it you perceive this question to be? What do you want answered?

1. Nope. Their argument was that they already had the Right, not that the expansion of the institution was a good thing. Anyone that disagree was labeled a bigot. That was the whole point. To justify smearing and dividing out, and marginalizing your enemies. Hence division.

2. Weak dodge, based on fear of violating the taboo, as was my point.

1. It wasn’t the job of marriage equality proponents to make you feel good about them getting equal rights. Maybe you should be asking yourself why it made you feel bad. 99.9% of opposition comes from a bigoted place.

2. You don’t know what the question is either do you.

1. I did not oppose gay marriage. I did oppose their tactics. Marriage was an institution between one man, one woman. They wanted to expand it. They should have made their case based on the merits of the change they wanted. Instead their primary goal seemed to be to smear their enemies and marginalize those who did not conform properly.


2. You are afraid to answer it, because you know that change is for the worse, but it is taboo to say that.

1. The case was made on its merits. It’s why they won, duh. Gay marriage was WAY more popular when the SCOTUS ruled on it than interracial marriage was when the SCOTUS ruled on it.

2. Answer what? No, I don’t think that America is worse off (worse off than what) because it includes brown people, gay people or brown gay people.

1. My point about their tactics stands. Do you want to address it?

2. Why did it take to post 348, before you would clearly answer?

1. No, it doesn't stand. I reject it. It wasn't gays, fighting for equality, that were divisive, it was the bigots fighting against them...and yes, they were bigots. Same as the bigots that opposed interracial marriage. You do agree that people who opposed interracial marriage, even on religious grounds, were bigots, right? Have no problem calling them bigots?

2. It was a stupid, racist question. Why are you so insistent on people answering a stupid, racist question?

1. The idea that anyone that does not immediately agree with you is a "bigot" is divisive. It turns ANY discussion into a bitter hate match. That is divisive. You just demonstrated my point for me.

2. And again we see that anyone that does not immediately agree with the liberal, is a "wacist". Even asking a question is "Wacist".


Tell me again how it was TRUMP that was divisive.

LOL!!!

1. We label anyone opposed to interracial marriage as a bigot. Where is the difference?

2. No, the OP IS a racist. It has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with the straight up racist things that spew from his vile mouth.

3. ‘Divisive’ isn’t the best word to describe Trump

1. Got it. Any discussion, you win it by calling the other sides names. And that is divisive, like I said.

2. Are all questions that might put liberal policies in a bad light "Wacist"?

 

[AMart]

Are we trying to become better or worse?
As Democrats continue to encourage, manifest and foster a browner gayer nation are they sure they are pushing our nation on the right trajectory given the data?

L

Account Suspended

View attachment 364618

Browner and gayer = more violence, lower IQs, degenerate behavior, more people in prisons.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Are we trying to become better or worse?
As Democrats continue to encourage, manifest and foster a browner gayer nation are they sure they are pushing our nation on the right trajectory given the data?

L

Account Suspended

View attachment 364618

Browner and gayer = more violence, lower IQs, degenerate behavior, more people in prisons.

Simple shit..right?
Weird that not a single Lefty here has been able to trust the facts and "FOLLOW THE SCIENCE".

 

[22lcidw]

I can see that you are trying to imply your answer. Why are you afraid to be explicit?

Better or worse, and then explain why.

America is the greatest country in the world due to our diversity in culture and race.

Explicit enough for you ?

Would we survive an economic decline from a disaster or a collapse in some way with the same things our current culture we staying the same? You have turned people into enemies of the United States. You promote tolerance and you are not tolerant and people are being destroyed. I know what will happen if the worse happened and it does when you least expect it or comes gradually. Listening to you means nothing when reviewing history is the reality.

 

[Issa]

Are we trying to become better or worse?
As Democrats continue to encourage, manifest and foster a browner gayer nation are they sure they are pushing our nation on the right trajectory given the data?

L

Account Suspended

View attachment 364618

I thought we had the best economy under trump even with that many brown and gay people, no?

Productive Caucasians are still able to carry this nation with ease while under good direction and policy.

You can't even reproduce to stay afloat. Boy you are a sicko!!!

 

[Correll]

Are we trying to become better or worse?
As Democrats continue to encourage, manifest and foster a browner gayer nation are they sure they are pushing our nation on the right trajectory given the data?

L

Account Suspended

View attachment 364618

I thought we had the best economy under trump even with that many brown and gay people, no?

Productive Caucasians are still able to carry this nation with ease while under good direction and policy.

You can't even reproduce to stay afloat. Boy you are a sicko!!!

A stabile population used to be a goal of hte left. Now it's a weakness? You guys really just talk shit, don't yah?

 

[LuckyDuck]

Whether the United States gets browner or not, is irrelevant. What matters is if the United States, stays a nation of the individual freedoms listed in our Bill of Rights. This nation has been a beacon of liberty for millions and in so doing, has lifted millions out of poverty, via creating a middle-class and the opportunity to succeed at various levels.

“Whether the United States gets browner or not, is irrelevant.”
Is that what the current data suggests or are you pretending it’s “irrelevant” to protect your FEELZ?
You obviously don’t believe it is the quality of THE PEOPLE who make a quality nation...Am I right?

Are you suggesting that because the US is getting browner, it is becoming less in quality? Sounds a bit racist to me.

 

[danielpalos]

Are we trying to become better or worse?
As Democrats continue to encourage, manifest and foster a browner gayer nation are they sure they are pushing our nation on the right trajectory given the data?

L

Account Suspended

View attachment 364618

Browner and gayer = more violence, lower IQs, degenerate behavior, more people in prisons.

Yet, it is right wingers who tend to love their guns the most and have no problem being rebels without a Cause against the Union.