No, Gays and ‘Transgenders’ Are Not Being Bullied. They Are The Bullies.

Loading

Matt Walsh:

This week, Gov. Phil Bryant of Mississippi signed a religious liberty bill protecting businesses and individuals from being forced to participate in gay marriages.

The legislation also fortifies the rights of business owners to keep their bathrooms segregated by sex, as all business owners have done up until 4.5 seconds ago. Meanwhile, a few weeks earlier, North Carolina signed a now infamous bill that will require men to pee in rooms with other men, and women in rooms with other women. Again in keeping with the reasonable and totally normal policies that have been in place everywhere in America for the entirety of your life and your grandparents’ lives.

These two laws indicate that, apparently, not everyone in the nation is on board with liberalism’s designs to turn our civilization into a debauched, androgynous dystopia where gays and “transgenders” occupy the highest position in the social and legal hierarchy. But the left is not accustomed to being disobeyed in such a manner, which explains the utterly shocked and stunned reaction from leftists across the country to these two pieces of legislation. While the vicious attacks against Mississippi over their bill are just beginning, the outrage over the “anti-trans” law in North Carolina has reached apocalyptic volumes.

Immediately upon the bill’s passage, the internet was clogged like a constipated bowel with thinkpieces somberly explaining how “transgenders” will kill themselves if they are forced to endure 98 seconds in a bathroom that correlates with their biological sex. “Transgender” people are now gravely at risk, they shrieked. Cross-dressing men will be subjected to violence and other forms of torment, they insisted. Liberals cried that laws protecting the safety and security of women and children are ”shameful,” “horrific,” “deplorable,” “insane,” “dangerous,” and “embarrassing.”

A man tweeted an image of himself wearing fake breasts and women’s clothes standing in a men’s room, accompanied by the caption: “According to North Carolina law, this is the bathroom I belong in. So I ask you, who’s the one in danger?” The tweet went viral with thousands of comments and retweets, but nobody on the Internet thought to suggest the obvious solution: take off the girl costume and maybe you won’t be so uncomfortable in the men’s restroom.

It seems a bit contradictory to go through the herculean effort to doll yourself up to look like some cartoonish caricature of a woman, only to complain that other people are making you feel ridiculous. That’s like covering yourself in red paint and running through a shopping mall nude while yodeling into a megaphone and then reacting with indignation and alarm when people cast sideways glances at you. If you don’t want to feel ridiculous, stop doing ridiculous things. Easy solution. Let’s try that.

Anyway, the next step in this North Carolina “controversy” was inevitable. Dozens of massive corporation began putting pressure on North Carolina to scrap the law. Mayors of major American cities banned travel to the state, prohibiting people from going to a place in order to protest North Carolina’s attempt to prohibit people from going to a place. The federal government got into the extortion game, threatening to pull federal funds if North Carolina continues its unthinkable persecution of men who wear skirts in public. Even the state’s attorney general refuses to defend the law, claiming it’s “unconstitutional.” Predictably, Mississippi is starting to feel a similar backlash.

Now, there’s plenty to be said in support of laws like these, but considering how Christians and conservatives are constantly lectured for their alleged lack of “compassion” and “tolerance” and so on, I think it must be noted that these laws would not be needed if compassion and tolerance, along with humility and prudence, were traits commonly found in the “LGBT community.” It is the seemingly total lack of kindness, magnanimity, and rationality displayed by many in their camp that necessitates this sort of legislation. If gays would simply respect the beliefs of Christian business owners, and if “transgenders” would simply respect the privacy of women and children, there would be no need for laws forcing the matter. But here we are. And it’s not the fault of Christians and conservatives that we arrived here. On the contrary, it’s the fault of the very people now whining about being persecuted.

Here’s the reality: gays and “transgenders” are not being victimized, nor are they are being martyred, oppressed, bullied or otherwise put upon. You can walk through Mississippi and find nary a business with a “We Won’t Serve Gays” sign hanging in the window. You can travel down to North Carolina and not find a single instance where a government agent showed up at a so-called transgender’s house and instructed him to take off his wig and blouse. For the most part, these people are free to do what they want and be who they are — or, in the case of “transgenders,” who they aren’t.

The only caveat is that the half dozen “transgenders” in North Carolina have to do what every other human in North Carolina has to do, and what most humans in the civilized world have to do, and share public restrooms with people who share their anatomy. In Mississippi, gays can get married, as per the royal decree of the Supreme Court, but if they happen to stumble upon a baker or photographer who’d rather not participate in the event, they simply must find someone else. That’s it. In other words, they are just being asked, and now being forced, to display the faintest modicum of tolerance and respect for their fellow citizens.

There is no real burden being put on these people. They are not being asked to make a sacrifice of any kind. They are not even being asked to change their behavior, even if their behavior is morally outrageous and self-destructive. They are not being asked to do anything, really. They are not being imposed upon. They are simply being told they cannot impose themselves on others.

Whether they like it or not, many women are not comfortable unchanging or using the toilet in the same room as penis-bearing males. I believe this is quite reasonable, but even if you don’t think it’s reasonable, it is nonetheless how the majority of women feel. Likewise, a small minority of especially devout Christians would sacrifice income and business in order to avoid taking part in something they (and billions of other people) find sinful and perverse. Liberals can tsk-tsk at these women and these Christians all they want, but they are real, they exist, and they have rights. And all they want to do is claim what belongs to them.

To be clear, the Christian’s business belongs to him. The woman’s privacy belongs to her. The Christian should, and in some states does, have domain over that which belongs to him when he is conducting his business in his own establishment, just as the woman should, and in some states does, have a guarantee that her privacy will be respected when she is “conducting her business” in a private room built and intended for use by females. Again, neither group is asking to take anything away from anyone. They simply want what is theirs and what was intended for them. That’s it. That’s all.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
31 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2016/04/04/gay-man-targeted-in-south-beach-burger-king-brawl-speaks-out/

So you’re in a bar, in an area you don’t know, and you say to your buddy “Hey Eric, let’s start making out and watch the locals freak out!”

If I go somewhere with my girlfriend, we don’t enact a PDA. Because it’s rude and offensive.
These two knew that, but they thought it would be fun to offend people. It’s this kind of deliberate behaviour that pisses people off.
They were so full of what they wanted that they didn’t consider where they were.
They weren’t in their private preserve anymore.
But they got to return home with bragging rights among their oh-so-socially-concious friends,
so I guess they got something out of it.

Your sexual preference is like your sexual organ.
It’s great that you have one. I really don’t care.
But don’t whip it out and wave it around in public.
And don’t try to force it down my throat.

Liberals are like children always pushing the limits, til finally the adult has to put a stop to the bad behavior. Its past time to correct them.

@kitt:

To further your definition – “and only have the false courage to act out against those they know won’t really punish them…as you hear the deafening silence on the.murder of homosexuals in muslim-controlled countries.”

@Pete: I certainly dont understand why liberals scream Islamaphobia, with the facts so clearly infront of them.

@ Petercat, Kitt and Pete:

As a gay conservative, I can assure you that the bullying I experienced over the first 60 years of my life had nothing to do with my political affiliation. I hid as deeply in my closet as I could squeeze and had no gay friends that I knew of, but people could evidently sense my sexual orientation, and they wasted no opportunity to harass me for it.

I’m not trying to shove anything down anyone’s throat (thanks for the phallic imagery, Petercat) and I encourage religious freedom legislation to protect the civil rights of people who object to gay rights on religious grounds. But I also appreciate the pent-up hostility of a class of people who have been hounded and persecuted most of their lives, and I understand their desire to pay back the favor. And I think that dragging Islam into the discussion is pretty lame, considering the advisability of cleaning up your own dirt before obsessing over someone else’s. Thanks for THAT irrelevant dig, Pete.

@George Wells: Is it too much to ask that people behave normally. Not hide nor advertise their sexual preference. It seems a bit nutz to have to march in a parade to declare you are proud of the attraction to the same gender. I do believe its a mental defect to deny your birth gender, There are certain mental health professionals that assert it is child abuse to encourage a gender confused child, as they will grow out of it.
I am sorry you were harassed, you know that comes from fear of the unknown, the different. It would be easier for the phobic if the gay community would have started with “civil union” shown that caused no harm. (All the rights of marriage) To call it marriage, for some, was to far too fast, then to start suing people for stupid shit. Find a different photographer a different baker. Now some are on a steamroller and will ruin the progress it took many years to gain.
We need to quit stereotyping not all Gays are democrats. Not all Women will vote Hillary.

#16:

“Is it too much to ask that people behave normally?”

Acting “normally” for a heterosexual is simply telling the truth, walking down the street holding the hands of your lover or spouse or placing a picture of them on your desk at work. But when a gay person does these same things, he’s being “obvious,” or shoving his orientation down someone else’s throat. You are asking him to lie about himself, to hide the truth from others. I can’t see that that’s fair.

“It seems a bit nutz to have to march in a parade to declare you are proud of the attraction to the same gender.”

I think you’re saying that it’s “nutz” to exercise your rights of assembly and free speech. That sounds a bit extreme, doesn’t it?

“It would be easier for the phobic if the gay community would have started with “civil unions””

I wish I had a nickel for every time I have reminded folks here that phobic Republicans fought tooth and nail to stop civil unions in each and every state where they were sought. So did the Catholic Church and the Church of the Latter Day Saints. By the time gay marriage became the goal, no state except liberal Vermont had achieved civil unions, and the fight had gone on for decades. The folks who had started the effort were growing old and gray, and dying, while people who wanted no gay rights kept piling on. Nobody except gays and their supporters wanted gays to have equal rights, whether in every way or in all ways EXCEPT in name. So don’t imply that gays just suddenly skipped over a reasonable compromise – we started with one and it was rejected. That ship has now sailed, and you have the intransigence of the phobic to thank for that, not gay people.

“for some, was too far too fast”

For some, any progress at all, no matter how slow, was too fast. Regrettably, they can’t be accommodated, not only because, in constitutional law, a right given is a thousand times more difficult to take away, but also because, like in war, once having lost the fight, they have now also lost forever the leverage they once had to sue for peace.

@George Wells: Easy there trigger, now you are being phobic and stereotyping me. Just because I think something is nutty does not mean I would take your right to put on a spiked dog collar and chaps and prance with a purple feather boa down the blvd. I have also seen the ballot worded in such a way that if you were ok with gay unions you would vote No on the ballot. I try to understand both sides and am perfectly fine with, you do as you will, as long as it does not infringe on my rights. Get off the steam roller dude.

Gays and transgendered are the bullies ???
Curt has gone straight into the BIZZARO universe with that one

#8:
Hey, I have been arguing to the gay activists to temper their aggression long enough to CONSOLIDATE their gains instead of encouraging a backlash – something they seem eager to invite. But I’m not my brothers’ keeper, and NOBODY listens to me.

Regarding the wording of those civil union ballot questions, who do you think set those measures up to fail? Gays certainly didn’t have a reason to piss in that well. SURE a lot of those ballot questions were worded misleadingly, especially California’s Prop. 9 question. But that’s all water under the bridge.

It WOULD be nice if everyone would just put down their pitch-forks and torches and play nice for a change, but I’m afraid that’s not about to happen. Not with all of the foaming at the mouth over what is and what isn’t “normal,” as if normalcy was a special condition of civil rights. Not with all of the pressure to make people bake cakes who don’t WANT to bake cakes. It’s a roiled up world, and this issue isn’t going to calm things down. That kind of makes it “normal,” doesn’t it?

@John #9:
Curt’s stoking the flames BECAUSE he wants the war to continue. He’s not REALLY offering solutions:

“If gays would simply respect the beliefs of Christian business owners, and if “transgenders” would simply respect the privacy of women and children, there would be no need for laws forcing the matter.”

If gays would simply respect the beliefs of SOME Christians, they’d eat $hit and die. If ALL gays did that, “there would be no need for laws forcing the matter.”

Notice how the bathroom part of these laws get 99% of the attention because almost everybody has bathroom issues left over from having been potty-trained. The bathroom part screws with a handful of transgendered people, who easily enough could be accommodated by installing a single-seater in public facilities expressly for them. That’ll probably be the courts’ solution to this issue, once it finally works its way through. But the more insidious parts of the laws are the ones that legalize most forms of discrimination against ANYONE if the discriminator elects to declare a religious objection against them. It could potentially mean anyone at all, if “free” religious belief – and expression of such – trumps all other constitutionally protected freedoms.
That’s not a “slippery-slope” argument. That puts you there. No rights at all if your very existence offends someone’s religious beliefs.

@George Wells: I was not suggesting the GAYS worded it misleadingly. I find good reasons for legally recognizing a union. When a couple is all in then one passes away the family of the other can take away everything. Denied access in hospitals, and other inhumane actions. Women collecting spousal support after leaving man for another woman, the list goes on. Take care it sounded much like you are arguing with someone who may agree with you.
These things are new to many and certain issues need to be ironed out, in a civilized manner.
The islam thing, I would like discourage those that would chuck you or your loved one off a tall building.

#12:

“I find good reasons for legally recognizing a union.”

So do I. I think that much of the resistance encountered by the civil union idea was that many on the “Right” didn’t want the full package of benefits to be granted to gays who were “united.” They understood that if they excepted the whole thing instead of some sort of “marriage-lite,” the next logical argument was going to be “If it’s the same thing as marriage, why not CALL it marriage?” They did have a good point. And at the same time, most gays didn’t like the idea of accepting just a few crumbs when they’d already fought for decades and were finally within reach of the gold ring.

I haven’t really been arguing with you, have I? I like to think of it as explaining myself. After so many years with zero protections (the love of my life was excluded from my trip to the ER for a kidney stone once, while I’ve been allowed in with a sick friend when she went in for shortness of breath and stupor) it’s no wonder I’m a bit excitable.

Regarding Islam, if Muslims WANTED our advice on homosexuality, they’d ask for it. We’ve already pissed them off big time by insinuating our cultural values and our commercialism – and by supporting Israel – so far into their society that they are now fervently committed to bringing jihad to OUR shores. There are 1.6 billion or so Muslims, and I’m not about to pick a fight with all of them. Neither would The Donald be able to “negotiate” with them. They don’t think like we do. And like I said before, it’s rather disingenuous to be squawking about someone else’s problems when you still haven’t cleaned up your own act. Good habits start at home, and there’s a lot to be said for making a good example of yourself for others to emulate.

Thanks for the support.

@George Wells: Full agreement except why the jihad, since 600 ad they have been slaughtering humans for their beliefs. It has nothing what so ever to do with anything modern. Being shunned or discriminated against or bullied is a far cry from being killed with impunity and praise for the murderer.
Absolutely correct about good habits starting at home.

#14:

“why the jihad”

Not certain.

Do understand that Islam has been periodically targeted by Christians (especially insulting from their perspective) and their argument with Judaism is understandable, so their issue with Western Civilization makes some sense.

Also understand that Islam is split on its position on the Iraq War. Most Muslims worldwide accept that Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein, and most of them agree that what happened on 9-11 was a crime against American humanity, but most Muslims were and remain infuriated by the American adventure into Iraq. This schizophrenic set of conflicting values ultimately led Tony Blair to conclude that removing Saddam Hussein led directly to the surge of Islamic extremism and the rapid growth of ISIS, and his opinion is shared by most observers. The principle debate in Western circles centers on the politically charged speculation over whether or not Bush and Obama could have actually secured a stable and lasting peace in the region… and an Iraqi administration that could have prevented terrorists from gaining so much IN IRAQ. (Note that most EXPERTS acknowledge that once the offending invasion had been prosecuted, there was little that could have been done to prevent the likes of ISIS from popping up elsewhere.)

Yes, jihad is in the Muslim tradition, but there has always been one target or another for jihadists to focus on, and GW Bush certainly provided the terrorists with a fine big target. Also understand that doing the Teddy Roosevelt thing with the “BIG STICK” isn’t the answer. It would just make more of the same. The Middle East is like the “Tar Baby” that’s best not to get stuck in. We poked that Tar Baby, and now we’re finding out how hard and how messy it is to un-poke it.

Like you said, they’ve been murdering all sorts of people for ages, and that isn’t about to stop. I’m not at all happy about it, but I’m realistic enough to know that I can’t do anything about it short of embarking on the extermination of 1.6 billion Muslims, and I’m not taking that trip.

Not in favor of genocide. I find it very difficult to call it a religion seems to be a death cult,

#16″

“very difficult to call it a religion… seems to be a death cult”

No argument there, excepting that what seems like a death cult to us might well seem to them to be a nice little religion. Remember the difference.

Here’s a good one copied from a headline in a Christian paper:
“Most Americans Don’t Believe a ‘Good Christian’ Can Support Abortion or Gay Marriage”
Seeing how most Americans aren’t “good Christians,” it wouldn’t seem to matter much, now would it?

@John: Actually if you had any brain cells, you would see Curt just posted an article by Matt Walsh to create discussion. But then again, you would have to have 2 brain cells to understand that.

@John #18:

Randy’s post wasn’t a knee-jerk response, it was a simply a jerk response.

@George Wells: Actually, it was an accurate response. We all know who the jerk is!

@Curt: I wonder if the liberals ever actually read the post before they start commenting on them.

@Randy #22:

Look at the post title. I mean READ it. Now think about how likely it is to be true.
No, really, think about it.
1% of the population is “bullying” the other 99%?
(Or 3% is bullying the other 97%?)
Either way, doesn’t that sound a bit absurd?
Isn’t that exactly the opposite of what you have EVER encountered before?
Why are you abandoning your common sense and letting something as nonsensical as that title get your teats in an uproar?
Or is it really that it’s not the 1% (or 3%) that’s doing the bullying, but instead the MAJORITY on the Supreme Court and the MAJORITY of Americans who are turning against you on the issue of gay rights?
THAT is something that you can legitimately worry about.
Not some tiny minority.
Scaredy-cat!

@George Wells: My statement was that Curt did not write the article, Matt Walsh did. You need to learn to read and comprehend if you are to be taken seriously!

@Randy #24:
I know what you said.
I’ve spoken with Matt Walsh directly on a number of occasions, and only stopped when it became obvious that he had nothing in his arsenal more potent than tired reiterations of already rejected or disproven theories. Matt fails to acknowledge any human right that anyone has, other than the right – no, the responsibility – to believe in God (HIS God, not anyone else’s), and he consistently places freedom of religion – and the “religious freedom” that it implies – above all other constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. For someone who claims an association with Harvard University, Matt’s intellectual integrity leaves something to be desired.

I read the article, and I did so before commenting on it AND before responding to you. I reject the crap it spews, and I started my attack on it by ATTEMPTING to reveal the absurdity of the very title with which it announces itself. That should be clear from my #23, which did NOT state that you OR Curt wrote the article.
I CAN call you attention to something that YOU evidently missed, can’t I?

@George Wells: I didn’t miss any thing. I only commented on the comment that blamed Curt for writing the article. You on the other hand by calling me a jerk for pointing that out are actually showing some of the symptoms that Matt Walsh described. You do not seem to be able to distinguish fact from opinion can you? You may have a right to be angered by the article, but you do not have the right to call people names for pointing an undisputable fact. Are you not able to control your anger if others point something out that differs from your opinion.

The fact was that Matt Walsh wrote the article and not Curt. NOW, dispute that fact!

@Randy #26:

“The fact was that Matt Walsh wrote the article and not Curt. NOW, dispute that fact!”

I don’t believe that anyone has disputed that fact. I certainly did not. Why would you want me to try?

“You on the other hand by calling me a jerk…”

Ummm… I went back and looked for where I called you a jerk, and I didn’t find it.
What I DID find was this from you to John:

“Actually if you had any brain cells, you would see Curt just posted an article by Matt Walsh to create discussion. But then again, you would have to have 2 brain cells to understand that.”

To which I said to John:

“Randy’s post wasn’t a knee-jerk response, it was a simply a jerk response.”

I stand behind that assessment. It WAS a “jerk response,” not fact or conjecture, but instead pure insult. Only a jerk would STOOP to such sloppy personal attacks in the course of argument, and if the shoe fits, wear it.

Then, you said:

“@George Wells: Actually, it was an accurate response. We all know who the jerk is!”

which can only mean that you agree that identifying jerks here at FA IS appropriate, so what are you getting your feathers all ruffled over?

“you do not have the right to call people names”

“I’m not angry with you, or with anyone else. But I DO have a right to free speech ,in spite of your apparent desire to limit it.

Are you sure that you have correctly identified WHO is angry?

@George Wells: #5
Since you chose to address your comment in part to me, I shall respond:

George, I don’t care.
I don’t care about your religion, I don’t care about your sexual orientation, I don’t care about your skin color, I don’t care about your choice of underwear.
As long as you don’t use it as a reason to hurt the innocent.
As long as you don’t use it to demand special protections or privileges.
As long as you don’t use it as an excuse to lie about me, or my beliefs and choices.
As long as you don’t try to shove it in my face, or down my throat.

Yes, I have friends who are gay. Yes, I have friends of different races and religions. You know why? Because I don’t care.
They are my friends because I enjoy the company of people of good character.

What chaps my cheeks are the people who claim that whatever they prefer is not a choice, but they’re proud of it anyway. How can you be proud of something that you didn’t choose to do or to be?
Am I proud of my height? Of my hair color? Of my birthplace? No. I’m proud of my accomplishments.
I’m proud of the fact that I can pick up a camera and find beauty anywhere. I’m proud of the fact that I’ve taught myself to find beauty anywhere.
But I’m not proud of the fact that I prefer to love women instead of men, because that’s just the way that it is. It’s not something that I chose, so it’s nothing that I can be proud of.

I don’t hate you because you are homosexual. I might take an intense dislike to you, however, if you choose to demand things of me just because you are homosexual. Do you see the difference?

Don’t demand that I care about your loves or lifestyle, because I don’t!

@Petercat #28:

Thanks for your belated response to my post #5.
I checked post #5 to see if I could find what it was that you were upset enough to respond to, and although I DID address something you said, I don’t think that I did it in a disrespectful way.

I DO find the choice of SOME opponents of gay rights to refer to what we do when we ask, petition or demonstrate for equal rights as “shoving something down the throats of heterosexuals” somewhat unfortunate. It is an unmistakably phallic suggestion, consciously or otherwise. Every time that ugly metaphor gets tossed our way, we bristle, and everybody knows it full well. So if and when you get called on the offense, don’t get all huffy. Nobody’s buying it.

Now, I WILL agree with just about everything else you wrote. Now, you MIGHT take a moment and look to see if you can find a single place where I have demanded ANYTHING. I don’t. I don’t EVER use the word. I know some people do, but “demands” rarely achieve their goals without going to war over them, and I’m not interested in war, cultural or otherwise. If you have read my posts throughout FA, you’d know this to be true.

“As long as you don’t try to shove it in my face, or down my throat.”

Ahhhhh… THAT phrase again. Are you SURE you’re not making a phallic reference? And if you genuinely AREN’T, then what, exactly, is it that you don’t want “shoved” at or INTO you? (REALLY not phallic????)
I ask this because the answer is rather important, so indirectly says the SCOTUS. The point is made in their majority opinion that the REAL world is replete with the imagery of heterosexuality, and if heterosexuals have the right such imagery, so do homosexuals. (It was the equivalent dignity issue.) Photos of a spouse on your desk at work; you BRING your spouse to a party at work or otherwise; commercial advertising is full of togetherness and love which, until quite recently, EXCLUSIVELY portrayed heterosexuals, as if homosexuals did not exist. This artificial construct of excluding homosexual imagery may have made an insecure majority more comfortable, but I’m not certain that it was fair or reasonable for heterosexuals to expect or DEMAND that they be spared seeing these potentially disturbing images of happy homosexuals. There is some measure of “shoving” sexual orientation into the faces of others whenever depictions of EITHER sexual orientation are displayed in public. Can you not see this?

Oh, and I’d be cautious about how many times you claim to “not care.”
It makes you sound like you’re a very UN-caring person…

@George Wells: #29
“It makes you sound like you’re a very UN-caring person…”
Only if you ignore the rest of my post. You’re way out there in offended wonderland, aren’t you?
Anyway, you continue to to either ignore or misconstrue the valid points that I’ve made.
I’ve said my piece, and that’s enough. Interpret through the window of your own biases as you wish, you can change neither my words nor my intent. Neither, apparently, are you capable of understanding them.

@Petercat #30:
“Only if you ignore the rest of my post.”
Ummmm… I said:
“Now, I WILL agree with just about everything else you wrote.”
Does that sound like I ignored the rest of what you said?
No. I AGREED with you.
DIDN’T I?
I didn’t ignore your valid points. I didn’t comment on them because, since we were already in agreement on them, there was no point to revisit them.
The ONLY part of your post that I addressed was your nonsense about things being shoved in your face and down your throat. THAT part sounded unnecessarily phallic, which is out of place in a civil discussion.
Then I went on to TRY to explain to you how the world isn’t orientation-blind, and how it is understandably biased AGAINST gays. I’m taking that you still don’t see my point. I’m sorry that I failed.

Neither you nor your opinions offend me.
I showed you respect by answering the comments you addressed to me.
I went back and re-read my #29, attempting to locate whatever it was that has upset you, but I can’t find it.
You refuse to answer the questions I direct to you, and instead you load your replys with insults: I am in “offended wonderland” and I am incapable of understanding your words.
I haven’t attacked you personally, and you didn’t need to attack me that way. I have to assume that you chose to start that because you didn’t want to – or couldn’t – respond to my questions. Fine. Like you said, you “said your piece, and that’s enough.” Evidently, you didn’t want to have a conversation with me after all.

So you are angry about something, but it isn’t something that I said, or you’d have quoted me and explained what it was that you objected to. You didn’t. So next time you feel the need to express hostility toward a general class of people, don’t address your comments to just one of them, address them all. That way, those of us who DON’T object to religious freedom measures, for instance, will understand that you don’t mean us. We are not all the same.