[Aerich]

Well, Magness, if I've made a wrong assumption, I apologize. I was sure I'd seen something you said about hatred of gays, but perhaps I took your meaning the wrong way. Part of the problem is that you have not fully explained your opinion of why gay marriage is wrong, but have so far restricted yourself to a line or two on the subject. That makes it very easy to assume that you have no logical basis for your opposition, although I recognize that there are valid and well-reasoned arguments that do support your position. You just haven't shared them, but put "wrong" in caps and made reference to evilness (in the gay marriage thread).

Another part of the problem is that you have given the impression that the "gay lobby" is some kind of exceptional thing.

First off, I support the idea of gay marriage/union because our countries have made the verbal commitment to full functional equality; the real commitment has often been something less. I also don't buy the argument that "gay marriage" challenges traditional marriage in any way, or pollutes the nature of the word marriage. That argument was much stronger in the context of divorce. As certain people would say, it's just semantics. The point is that I and many others support it (fairly quietly, not in a "rah-rah" way) because we think it is just, not because we have bought into the sometimes radical and illogical views of the "gay lobby."

Second, such lobby as there is, is no more offensive than all the other lobbies; industry, environmental, human rights, etc. They all have their own views and their own pet issues. The fact is, lobbies are unfortunately an integral part of how our respective countries are run.

Third, the "right" is also equally guilty of demonization and categorization. Pinko, socialist, liberal, etc. You use "liberal" as if it's a dirty word, but in the historical sense, it means a very different thing than the context you put on it. I personally don't label myself, as I occupy a more-or-less centrist position on the spectrum, although I swing left on some things (environment) and right on others (importance of self-support, crime prevention). But if I had to label myself, it would be as "liberal."

I see your point about the word homophobia (which you will note I have not used until now). I agree that some members of the gay and non-gay communities are too quick to throw that word around and use it as a pressure tactic. But I would point something else out. From what I've observed, spiteful, petty, and inflammatory are words that are well-suited to describe the attitude of some members of our society toward gays. There have been some high-profile beatings and killings of gays over the last number of years, so the term does have a legitimate application.

If a word is used that you have had enough of, go right ahead and argue about it. But do so in a manner that is less antagonistic and personal.

If you wish to call me "Yoda" to illustrate my way of thought, analysis and questioning, that's fine by me, and I'd rather be called that than many other things. I take it as a compliment, and it's been said before.

I would also suggest that the threat of banishment hanging over your head is not because of your "right-wing" opinions and refusal to play the word games, but because your posts are baiting (see your recent challenge to the mods) and you seem intent on ramming some of your views down everyone's throat. Additionally, your choice of words leaves a lot to be desired and is against forum rules. You can call it directness if you wish, but it is also rude. If you ease off on the cusses and the personal tone of your posts, I'm sure it'll be fine.

I agree that a few people may veil hatred with subtlety, but just because a person is subtle doesn't mean that they also hide hatred beneath it. And "compassion" is often truly felt; how do you distinguish between hypocrites and those who honestly feel that way?

With regard to diplomacy and passion, I am trying to be respectful and to get my point across at the same time. Does the fact that I'm not cussing and using caps mean that I don't care? Maybe, but I'm pretty laid back anyway, so I wouldn't do it often. In reality, this discussion isn't all that important to me, except in the manner in which it has been conducted; the issues itself don't noticeably affect me. I couldn't care less about how American taxes are assessed, and I'm not gay or anti-gay, so that issue isn't personal either. I have a few gay friends and acquaintances, and I think they should have the same rights and opportunities as I have, but that's about it. Now am I untrustworthy and subtly dishonest because I'm not as passionate as some people are about these things? While I would like other people to come around to my way of thinking, it's not a goal of my existence.