I made a factual observation, not a denunciation, in support of the idea that there would be a certain social impact in ramming complete acceptance down everyone's throats.
You had spoken before of the social impact and I recognized that point. But also contained in that sentence was your tacit acceptance that homosexuality is, in fact, repugnant, that you found it repugnant, and that it is appropriate for people to find it repugnant. That is not a denunciation? Sorry, Neo, but that is way, way south of acceptance to my eye.
I explicitly said that I did not teach my son contempt of homosexuals
Nor did you say you disabused him of it. I took your statement to mean that his contempt was instinctive rather than something he had learned from you, but when he expressed it, you counseled him not to express it. You did not say you disabused him of it, only that you advised him not to express it, so I concluded that you did only what you said. I think my interpretation is reasonable, but I am not prepared to go to the mat on it.
I noted that I had no personal problem with homosexuals
Yes, but a sophisticated guy like you and one with such a command of the language surely recognized how much that sounds like the laffer, "some of my best friends are black."
I would also think that a sophisticated and articulate and civil guy like you would recognize how stinging such words as repugnant and deviant and revulsion and abnormal and immoral are when used to describe the group in question and would tone that down a bit were you not, in fact, contemptuous of them.
I brought this up not to attack you but to provide a mirror. You can do with my mirror whatever you will. As always, you're entitled to your opinion whatever it is. I very much appreciate your sharing it with me as I always find what you have to say interesting and this was even more interesting than usual. I won't mention it again unless you want to discuss it further.
Do you think it is a grave insult to the immigrant community that the Constitution requires that the President be native born?
No. I understand the point you are trying to make. We agree that it's OK to exclude people if there is a valid reason. What we don't agree on is whether there is a valid reason in the case of homosexual unions. You seem to think an inherent repugnancy is a good reason and I see it as something to not only avoid expressing but to outgrow. |
