I strongly disagree.
1. For the third time, attraction does not equal desire and neither include action.
2. The phrase "gay agenda" is no more "inflammatory" than the phrase "nigger lovers".
My point being, that people were just as disparaging towards advocates of 'equal rights for blacks' as they now are toward people who have views of sexuality which differ from their own.
I have not directed any derogatory phrase towards anyone, nor have I been profane with my speech. If think that using the phrase "gay agenda" is acceptable, but "nigger lover" (in this specific context) is not, then we obviously disagree.
Sort of makes me wonder if have any idea what they're making kids read in high school these days.
1. For the third time, attraction does not equal desire and neither include action.
2. The phrase "gay agenda" is no more "inflammatory" than the phrase "nigger lovers".
My point being, that people were just as disparaging towards advocates of 'equal rights for blacks' as they now are toward people who have views of sexuality which differ from their own.
I have not directed any derogatory phrase towards anyone, nor have I been profane with my speech. If think that using the phrase "gay agenda" is acceptable, but "nigger lover" (in this specific context) is not, then we obviously disagree.
Sort of makes me wonder if have any idea what they're making kids read in high school these days.
Tell you what, go to Camden, Detroit, Watts or any other similar district and tell the people living there the term gay agenda is equally disparaging as the term n-lover. You won't because you know your argument is abysmally and pathetically wrong.