Bigotry -DWYP Safe-

[Digital Watches]

I think Marthmaster just needs some good old fashioned guy on guy action. I mean, don't knock it until you try it, right?

And you would discriminate against an entire class of people because their views differ from yours, that's bigotry right there.

Far be it from me to question that immaculate logic.

big·ot /ˈbɪgət/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[big-uht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Darkness is right, Marthmaster is a bigot. Then again, 99% of gay rights activists are as well, them being intolerant of the belief that homosexuality is morally wrong, a belief that I wholly disagree with myself.

Bigot is a loaded word, and the wrong one to use here.

EDIT: Oh sh-t. Sorry CK, I didn't read your post until after I posted this. Delete it if it's just more spam.

 

[sheepyman]

Far be it from me to question that immaculate logic.



Darkness is right, Marthmaster is a bigot. Then again, 99% of gay rights activists are as well, them being intolerant of the belief that homosexuality is morally wrong, a belief that I wholly disagree with myself.

Bigot is a loaded word, and the wrong one to use here.

EDIT: Oh sh-t. Sorry CK, I didn't read your post until after I posted this. Delete it if it's just more spam.

I think you're confusing bigotry with taking offense. Generally, if I tell liking women is morally wrong, and you're going to hell for it, you take some sort of offense, or try to argue against it.

It's the bigots that start the mess, and the homosexuals in this case are just in the unlucky position of having to fight back. That doesn't make them bigots.

 

[Digital Watches]

I think you're confusing bigotry with taking offense. Generally, if I tell liking women is morally wrong, and you're going to hell for it, you take some sort of offense, or try to argue against it.

It's the bigots that start the mess, and the homosexuals in this case are just in the unlucky position of having to fight back. That doesn't make them bigots.

Now look at how you constructed that last paragraph: You use words like "unlucky" and carefully construct it in such a way that CLEARLY establishes a victim and an antagonist. The very act of doing so is indicative of a strong position. Regardless of whether you're right or wrong, the intolerance of the opposite perspective is bigotry. I never said that was a bad thing, but that's what it is.

 

[DoH]

But bigotry has a clear implication that the bigot has a sense of moral authority (it's rumored to have come from the German beigott [by God]), and rarely one sees a homosexual argue moral authority over a hetero

And most gay people aren't intolerant of heteroculture...heterophobia is such a myth.

 

[Digital Watches]

But bigotry has a clear implication that the bigot has a sense of moral authority (it's rumored to have come from the German beigott [by God]), and rarely one sees a homosexual argue moral authority over a hetero

And most gay people aren't intolerant of heteroculture...heterophobia is such a myth.

To use the term "authority" is a bit stilted once again, since you're implying that not condoning homosexuality is any more bigotry than not condoning a belief. Now percieved moral superiority is something that I agree that the word implies, but now we're once again in the realm of things of which both sides of the debate are equally guilty.

Now I consider homophobia to be a form of intolerance that doesn't make much sense, but not tolerating even those opinions is in and of itself bigotry. You can argue that bigotry is not necessarily bad, but you can't argue that you are not, by definition, just as guilty of it for being intolerant of Marthmaster's beliefs, as is certainly demonstrated by screaming "bigot" for using what seemed to be fairly standard arguments on the opposite side of the debate you were involved in.

 

[sheepyman]

Now look at how you constructed that last paragraph: You use words like "unlucky" and carefully construct it in such a way that CLEARLY establishes a victim and an antagonist. The very act of doing so is indicative of a strong position. Regardless of whether you're right or wrong, the intolerance of the opposite perspective is bigotry. I never said that was a bad thing, but that's what it is.

What I'm saying is, intolerance does not imply bigotry unless the intolerance is unwarranted. Otherwise you're saying lawyers and judges are bigots because they're intolerant of killers.

And, quite frankly, the hetero/homo debate is a very antagonist/victim oriented debate.

In no case is the homosexual claming any sort of superiority over the heterosexual, but rather requesting equal rights.

And like I said, black people in the early 1800s are not bigots for hating the slave owners. They're just normal.


bigot - n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Homosexuals aren't intolerant of non-homosexuals, they just aspire to have equal rights. However, some heterosexuals ARE intolerant of non-heterosexuals, making them bigots.

Calling me biased? Sure, call me biased. The fact is that you're not a bigot if you're being discriminated against and want discrimination to end. You're a bigot if you cause the discrimination.

The so-called 'bigotry' on the part of the victim group is the result of bigotry on the part of the assailant group. It's not bigotry if it's a natural, and completely rational reaction.

Furthermore, if you want to get technical, homosexual rights activists aren't partial to themselves; they claim no superiority, although it could be argued that they're intolerant to those who disagree. However, you have to fit both bills to make the cut, so to speak.

EDIT: Yeah, move these posts into a pretty new thread .

Sweet, we're getting new threads (pun).

 

[The Mad Hatter]

big·ot·ry /ˈbɪgətri/ [big-uh-tree] –noun, plural -ries.
1. Stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

As everyone knows, there is an on-going argument over bigotry.

Homosexuality is the subject at hand.

-Editing to come-

 

[sheepyman]

Now look at how you constructed that last paragraph: You use words like "unlucky" and carefully construct it in such a way that CLEARLY establishes a victim and an antagonist. The very act of doing so is indicative of a strong position. Regardless of whether you're right or wrong, the intolerance of the opposite perspective is bigotry. I never said that was a bad thing, but that's what it is.

What I'm saying is, intolerance does not imply bigotry unless the intolerance is unwarranted. Otherwise you're saying lawyers and judges are bigots because they're intolerant of killers.

And, quite frankly, the hetero/homo debate is a very antagonist/victim oriented debate.

In no case is the homosexual claming any sort of superiority over the heterosexual, but rather requesting equal rights.

And like I said, black people in the early 1800s are not bigots for hating the slave owners. They're just normal.


bigot - n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Most homosexuals aren't intolerant of non-homosexuals, they just aspire to have equal rights. However, some heterosexuals ARE intolerant of non-heterosexuals, making them bigots.

Calling me biased? Sure, call me biased. The fact is that you're not a bigot if you're being discriminated against and want discrimination to end. You're a bigot if you cause the discrimination.

The so-called 'bigotry' on the part of the victim group is the result of bigotry on the part of the assailant group. It's not bigotry if it's a natural, and completely rational reaction.

Furthermore, if you want to get technical, homosexual rights activists aren't partial to themselves; they claim no superiority, although it could be argued that they're intolerant to those who disagree. However, you have to fit both bills to make the cut, so to speak.

Sweet, we got new threads (pun).

By the way, American Heritage Dictionary is more credible than Dictionary.com unabridged.

 

[Digital Watches]

What I'm saying is, intolerance does not imply bigotry unless the intolerance is unwarranted. Otherwise you're saying lawyers and judges are bigots because they're intolerant of killers.

And, quite frankly, the hetero/homo debate is a very antagonist/victim oriented debate.

In no case is the homosexual claming any sort of superiority over the heterosexual, but rather requesting equal rights.

And like I said, black people in the early 1800s are not bigots for hating the slave owners. They're just normal.


bigot - n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Homosexuals aren't intolerant of non-homosexuals, they just aspire to have equal rights. However, some heterosexuals ARE intolerant of non-heterosexuals, making them bigots.

Calling me biased? Sure, call me biased. The fact is that you're not a bigot if you're being discriminated against and want discrimination to end. You're a bigot if you cause the discrimination.

The so-called 'bigotry' on the part of the victim group is the result of bigotry on the part of the assailant group. It's not bigotry if it's a natural, and completely rational reaction.

Furthermore, if you want to get technical, homosexual rights activists aren't partial to themselves; they claim no superiority, although it could be argued that they're intolerant to those who disagree. However, you have to fit both bills to make the cut, so to speak.

EDIT: Yeah, move these posts into a pretty new thread .

Sweet, we're getting new threads (pun).

It is entirely obvious that you're defining the term's parameters as they would benefit your side of any given dispute. Bigotry is intolerance of ideas or opinions, not any race or sexual orientation. What it also is is a very convenient word to throw around if you want to make the other guy look bad. It's similar to claiming circular logic. Almost everyone knows it's generally considered a bad thing, and maybe half those people (and that's generous) know what it actually means. And guess what: It gets thrown all over the place in heated debates. The fact of the matter is, you can't escape the definition of the term, and by being intolerant of any opinion whatsoever, even ones that are highly prejudiced, not societally acceptable, or even outright ludicrous, it is bigotry, and I'm not saying you should stop disagreeing with people, or even fully rejecting their opinions if you like, but throwing the word "bigot" around is the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Digital Watches]

What I'm saying is, intolerance does not imply bigotry unless the intolerance is unwarranted. Otherwise you're saying lawyers and judges are bigots because they're intolerant of killers.

And, quite frankly, the hetero/homo debate is a very antagonist/victim oriented debate.

In no case is the homosexual claming any sort of superiority over the heterosexual, but rather requesting equal rights.

And like I said, black people in the early 1800s are not bigots for hating the slave owners. They're just normal.


bigot - n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Most homosexuals aren't intolerant of non-homosexuals, they just aspire to have equal rights. However, some heterosexuals ARE intolerant of non-heterosexuals, making them bigots.

Calling me biased? Sure, call me biased. The fact is that you're not a bigot if you're being discriminated against and want discrimination to end. You're a bigot if you cause the discrimination.

The so-called 'bigotry' on the part of the victim group is the result of bigotry on the part of the assailant group. It's not bigotry if it's a natural, and completely rational reaction.

Furthermore, if you want to get technical, homosexual rights activists aren't partial to themselves; they claim no superiority, although it could be argued that they're intolerant to those who disagree. However, you have to fit both bills to make the cut, so to speak.

Sweet, we got new threads (pun).

By the way, American Heritage Dictionary is more credible than Dictionary.com unabridged.

It is entirely obvious that you're defining the term's parameters as they would benefit your side of any given dispute. Bigotry is intolerance of ideas or opinions, not any race or sexual orientation. What it also is is a very convenient word to throw around if you want to make the other guy look bad. It's similar to claiming circular logic. Almost everyone knows it's generally considered a bad thing, and maybe half those people (and that's generous) know what it actually means. And guess what: It gets thrown all over the place in heated debates. The fact of the matter is, you can't escape the definition of the term, and by being intolerant of any opinion whatsoever, even ones that are highly prejudiced, not societally acceptable, or even outright ludicrous, it is bigotry, and I'm not saying you should stop disagreeing with people, or even fully rejecting their opinions if you like, but throwing the word "bigot" around is the pot calling the kettle black.

EDIT: As far as dictionary definitions go, inasmuch as it has become an issue, gay rights are unavoidably a political debate now. I never argued that homosexuals are intolerant of heterosexuals. I argued that those for gay rights are pretty much uniformly intolerant of opinions against gay rights, which is only natural. However, it certainly is bigotry, even within the definition you've presented, as it quite easily falls within the realm of "politics."

 

[DoH]

People who are for gay rights aren't intolerant of people who are against gay rights' beliefs - your own definition says complete intolerance. People who are for gay rights aren't actively trying pass legislation against people who discriminate against gay people, do they? Against their actions, such as hate crimes of course, but that's an act of violence, but this is speech and action.

We're not intolerant of their beliefs - we recognize that they exist and generally try to prove them wrong through our actions, showing that we deserve equal rights. Intolerence would be a specific denial of someone elses beliefs, insofar as they would be excluded.

intolerant - adj - Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background. - AHD

Proponents of gay rights don't oppose the participation of people who are against gay rights, where as opponents of gays actively seek to exclude gays and are obviously bigots. Because proponents of gay rights seek to actively include (rather than exclude) a sect of the population, they're not intolerant and therefore can't be bigots under your own interpretation.

The only exlusion of opinion that gay rights activists advocate is the exlusion of religious/moral rational in respect to legal reasoning - because this exclusion occurs under the legal framework where such warrants for legislation or negative action are generally invalid in any court of law, it's not bigotry. One's religion has no place interferring with other people's civil rights because that itself would be bigotry.

Also, your blind adherence to a dictionary definiton ignores the connotations that come along with words - cross apply my moral authority argument from the other thread. Most people who are against gay rights feel that their mission to oppress homosexuals has a sort of moral backing to it. People who defend gay rights never really claim a sort of moral backing to their argument, and remember they're not actively seeking to exclude their opposition; you never hear political attack ads where people have voted for legislation against gay people, but you always hear it when people have supported gay rights.

Also, when you use such a strict interpretation as only what the dictionary says, you ignore the fluidity of language and its ability to create and shape reality, insofar as much as how words and their multiple meanings have become pretty arbitrary and personally and regionally definable, thus denying words and language their own inherent power to advance outside of the confines of Merriam-Webster. This means that under your interpretation, language would become stagnant and never evolve, which would presumably have a negative impact upon our culture.

That's just my 2 cents.

 

[Digital Watches]

The only problem with that is that you're arguing for a definition of tolerance as applied to people, not beliefs or ideas. One doesn't have to be intolerant of those with an opinion to be completely intolerant of such opinions.

tol·er·ate /ˈtɒləˌreɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tol-uh-reyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -at·ed, -at·ing.
1. to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.
2. to endure without repugnance; put up with;.

I think it's irrefutable that almost anyone debating with strong opinions on such an emotional issue will be adamantly intolerant, as per definition two of tolerance, of the opposing ideals, not necessarily the person expressing them, and looking over the debate Marthmaster was in, it's fairly obvious that both parties were equally intolerant of the opposite perspective, in the sense that they both expressed dismissal of the beliefs of the opposing side. Let me again stress that there's NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS, but it does exactly fit the definition of intolerance, which in turn fits quite well with the definition of bigotry.

But of course, you're all about connotation here, so using dictionary definitions is not going to convince you. So let's examine the connotation of "Bigotry." It's a word that's long been associated with opposition of nearly any movement that a historical perspective considers to be progressive. It's a word that to many people implies racist, sexist, and intolerant of just about anything new. It is used to represent an entity that is an enemy of all that is good, which makes it, like I've already said, a HORRIBLY convenient word to pin to any person who might disagree with any given perspective, especially the liberal perspective. So if you'd like to use the horridly loaded emotion-heavy buzzword that "bigotry" has become, largely due to the vague-at-best knowledge that the general public has of what it actually means, then be my guest, but I prefer a concise definition if we're going to be using the word at all.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

But of course, you're all about connotation here, so using dictionary definitions is not going to convince you.

Which ever side you are arguing you can always find a definition to support your cause.

Short and sweet, I feel we are all guilty of being bigots at some point. When you feel strongly about something its easy to disregard any information contradicting your belief.

Becoming "open minded" is the ultimate goal of our society.

 

[McCloud]

What a silly debate.

You're a bigot if your beliefs intentionally discriminate against the unalienable rights of man. End of story.

/libertarianism

 

[Deleted member]

I think it's hilarious that Marthmaster is okay with the lesbians giving him a show, but two men? Ugh.

sickening.

Digital Watches, you are nitpicking and arguing the silliest of semantics.

 

[sheepyman]

bigot - n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Furthermore, if you want to get technical, homosexual rights activists aren't partial to themselves; they claim no superiority, although it could be argued that they're intolerant to those who disagree. However, you have to fit both bills to make the cut, so to speak.

Hey, stop getting onto me about "selecting things that support my side of the debate". That's part of debating. That's like me asking you to "please stop supporting your side with arguments because that's biased against my side". Doesn't make much sense, does it? And start reading everything before you argue that I don't mess with definitions.

Going back to DOH's definition of intolerant:

intolerant - adj - Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background. - AHD

How exactly do homosexual activists oppose the inclusion or participation of those against gay rights? They don't. It's the other way around, homosexual activists are fighting for something we can easily consider lost ground.
Roget's New Millenium Dictionary
Main Entry: bigotry
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: prejudice
Synonyms: Jim Crowism*, bias, discrimination, dogmatism, fanaticism, ignorance, injustice, mindlessness, narrow-mindedness, partiality, provincialism, racialism, racism, sectarianism, sexism, unfairness

EDIT: Wait, you attempt to discredit my dictionary definition, and then give me a MADE UP one? ARE YOU SERIOUS?

 

[Crimson King]

Merge'd

Have fun debating this one. Also, anyone who participated in DWYP can participate.

 

[McCloud]

silliest of semantics.

What a silly debate.

*high fives Delorted*

All I see in here is a bunch of interpretation and wordplay that does nothing but establish a bias/counter-bias bias game that ultimately leads to nowhere.

I think I'll demonstrate it.

Say we're on a playground.

"You're wearing red. I don't like red."

"Yeah well, you're discriminating against me because I'm wearing red."

"Yeah well, you're discriminating against me by wearing red."

ad nauseum.

 

[Digital Watches]

What a silly debate.

You're a bigot if your beliefs intentionally discriminate against the unalienable rights of man. End of story.

/libertarianism

That doesn't make you a bigot, that makes you PATRIOTIC (as long as we're using words solely for their emotional appeal, why not use the conservative buzzwords as well?)

I think it's hilarious that Marthmaster is okay with the lesbians giving him a show, but two men? Ugh

I guess women get all the breaks.

Digital Watches, you are nitpicking and arguing the silliest of semantics.

We're arguing over the specific use of a word, any argument will be
A. Nitpicking
B. Semantic by nature
C. Silly

 

[Digital Watches]

*high fives Delorted*

All I see in here is a bunch of interpretation and wordplay that does nothing but establish a bias/counter-bias bias game that ultimately leads to nowhere.

I think I'll demonstrate it.

Say we're on a playground.

"You're wearing red. I don't like red."

"Yeah well, you're discriminating against me because I'm wearing red."

"Yeah well, you're discriminating against me by wearing red."

ad nauseum.

Oh, give us more credit. It's more like

"You're wearing red. I don't like red."

"Yeah well, you're discriminating against me because I'm wearing red."

"Yeah well, you're discriminating against me because I don't like red."

"Yeah well, you're discriminating against me because I don't like the fact that you don't like red."

"Yeah well, if you look at the word 'red,' you must admit that there's a lot of room for interpretation, after all, red is defined as a color at the low-frequency side of the visible spectrum, and-"

"No wait, red is actually a color that occurs if you take the blue out of purple, an easy mistake, I know, but when you look at it that way, it becomes quite clear that-"

"But you're forgetting that in today's society, there's a clear CONNOTATION to the word red, which implies communism, which clearly changes one's perspective on the ramifications of"

"Oh man, wasn't it hilarious how that guy would accept women wearing red panties, but if a guy wore a red shirt, ugh."

 

[Digital Watches]

Doesn't make much sense, does it? And start reading everything before you argue that I don't mess with definitions.

If you're talking about what I think you're talking about, that comment was directed at DoH

EDIT: Wait, you attempt to discredit my dictionary definition, and then give me a MADE UP one? ARE YOU SERIOUS?

To discredit your definition would leave us squabbling over whose dictionary is better, which would be childish and inane. If you'll look carefully, arguing that one is discriminating on the basis of politics was one of the principal arguments I made, and this was intentionally used to work within your stated definition of the term, not a "made-up one."

 

[The Mad Hatter]

I think it's hilarious that Marthmaster is okay with the lesbians giving him a show, but two men? Ugh.

Did I really miss this statement? If this was really said that would make him a hypocrite, not a bigot.

 

[DoH]

First, you don't have an argument against the exclusion arguement - that you have to exclude to be intolerant, and gay rights activists don't actively exclude and therefore cannot be accused of overt bigotry.

Language's fluidity can not be bound by a single book.

We're arguing over the specific use of a word, any argument will be
A. Nitpicking
B. Semantic by nature
C. Silly

Except your argument has no impact. Does it matter whether both sides can be accused of bigotry? No. There's nothing that can be achieved by winning this debate, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing (or to pass time while judges judge) or to just show off that you can make arbitrary delineations.

This debate is pointless.

 

[Deleted member]

Did I really miss this statement? If this was really said that would make him a hypocrite, not a bigot.

And I don't know about you, but the idea of 2 men/women (especially men in my opinion) having sex is just plain sickening to me.

Yeah, lol.

 

[Digital Watches]

Except your argument has no impact. Does it matter whether both sides can be accused of bigotry? No. There's nothing that can be achieved by winning this debate, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing (or to pass time while judges judge) or to just show off that you can make arbitrary delineations.

This debate is pointless.

First off: Yes. You are absolutely right. In fact, if you'll look back at earlier posts, I've never been of the position that this bigotry is of any detriment to anyone's case, read: significant.

Are we arguing about the term bigot, or are we arguing about whether what we're arguing about is important, because I'll agree with you on the latter: It really isn't.

EDIT: May as well address this too:

First, you don't have an argument against the exclusion arguement - that you have to exclude to be intolerant, and gay rights activists don't actively exclude and therefore cannot be accused of overt bigotry.

If by "don't have an argument," you mean "brought up a definition of 'tolerance,' which you used extensively, so as to bring a holistic perspective to the argument, then argued my point from there," then I agree with you.

Language's fluidity can not be bound by a single book.

Are you arguing against all dictionaries or just the one I used? I assume the former, and I've already addressed that point. It's a buzzword, connotations vary depending on how educated people are as to the actual definition, it's quickly becoming a universal way to slander the opposing perspective, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

DoH- I dont think you know how to give your "2 cents" worth. It's more like $50 worth. LOL And I was curious, do you really talk the way you post, cause if you do I would love to talk to you in person cause I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "Lanuage's fluididty can not be bound by a single book." If you really talk like that, then I have to have a real conversation with you, it can be over the phone or whatever.

The arguement is really pointless. I love the red shirt analysis, McCloud and Digital Watches.

 

[Digital Watches]

The aruguement is really pointless. I love the red shirt analysis, McCloud and Digital Watches.

I aims to please?

 

[Tera253]

some moron told me to come here, so I did. I might be PART bigot. so what?
Now, certainly, if you have a certain quality that a person/group is against, you can be against them right? (for me: anti-Mormons)
now, on the Mormon topic, I am so not agianst everyone who's not Mormon, otherwise, I'd hate 99.98% (13 milliion is .02% of 6.5 billion) fo thwe world, and, needless to say, I'm not that intolerant.
I have a huge tendency to not give a crap about what people think, particularly about me.
I can give insults, and I can take them too.
Tera253 is cool, and she likes pies.

the verdict: Tera likes pie.
~Tera253~

 

[The Mad Hatter]

I might be PART bigot. so what?

That would be a sin.
Sinner.

 

[Crimson King]

some moron told me to come here, so I did. I might be PART bigot. so what?
Now, certainly, if you have a certain quality that a person/group is against, you can be against them right? (for me: anti-Mormons)
now, on the Mormon topic, I am so not agianst everyone who's not Mormon, otherwise, I'd hate 99.98% (13 milliion is .02% of 6.5 billion) fo thwe world, and, needless to say, I'm not that intolerant.
I have a huge tendency to not give a crap about what people think, particularly about me.
I can give insults, and I can take them too.
Tera253 is cool, and she likes pies.

the verdict: Tera likes pie.
~Tera253~

So rather than defend your obvious ignorance and bigotry, you embrace it. Well, I guess that will make life work extremely well for you.

 

[Digital Watches]

I might be PART bigot.

Is it genetic?

Did you have bigoted father... and an irish mother?

Are you part cherokee too?

 

[Tera253]

So rather than defend your obvious ignorance and bigotry, you embrace it. Well, I guess that will make life work extremely well for you.

Indeed. you all have made me see the truth.
I'm proud to be everything that I am, and refuse to change. how's that for stubborn?
oh, and DW, my ancestors came from Denmark (ma) and the Canary Islands (that's off of Spain) (pa) if you REALLLLLLYYY want to know.

the verdict: Tera is stubborn, and hard to move. Congrats on showing her the light
the problem: which light did Tera see?
~Tera253~

(cool, 1st, 2nd and 3rd person)

 

[Digital Watches]

Indeed. you all have made me see the truth.
I'm proud to be everything that I am, and refuse to change. how's that for stubborn?

Congratulations. I'm sure you're quite proud of your utter lack of a basic grasp of concepts such as logic and equity as well, given the thus-otherwise-unexplained reasons for various positions taken.

oh, and DW, my ancestors came from Denmark (ma) and the Canary Islands (that's off of Spain) (pa) if you REALLLLLLYYY want to know.

Watch, and be amazed as humor once again whizzes over the head of the religious right.

 

[Tera253]

Congratulations. I'm sure you're quite proud of your utter lack of a basic grasp of concepts such as logic and equity as well, given the thus-otherwise-unexplained reasons for various positions taken.

Watch, and be amazed as humor once again whizzes over the head of the religious right.

Just because you say it's logic, doesn't mean it is. on the contrary, it's the opposite.
~Tera253~

 

[Mediocre]

Congratulations. I'm sure you're quite proud of your utter lack of a basic grasp of concepts such as logic and equity as well, given the thus-otherwise-unexplained reasons for various positions taken.

No, it seems to me that she understands that her positions fly in the face of logic, equality and common sense. She just doesn't seem to care.

Which, in my view, is one of the stupidest things a person can do. To know they're wrong, and still cling doggedly to their preconceptions and prejudices. It's kind of sad, really.

 

[KishPrime]

Becoming "open minded" is the ultimate goal of our society.

Sorry, I just had to come in and bash this like crazy.

I would hope that the ultimate goal of our society is love for our fellow man. Loving has nothing to do with open-mindedness. Open-mindedness is a joke, a cover-up to avoid deciding on issues where there is a right and a wrong. Are you open-minded towards murder? Towards ****? Of such things, no one can say that we should tolerate. Rather, most people choose a selective definition of open-minded that suits their needs, and paint themselves in a gracious and understanding light while truly accomplishing nothing.

Love, on the other hand, challenges when one is going the wrong direction, when one is on the path to destruction. It does not condemn the person, but it does condemn the actions that lead one to injure themselves. If a person is stabbing himself in the leg repeatedly because he believes it is making the pain stop, is it not more loving to restrain and bandage him? Love is the ultimate goal of society, because love pushes us to be everything that we can be, and to raise everyone else up with you.

The same concepts apply to lifestyles. Yes, I believe in homosexuality as a sin, but one no greater than any other sin. One man has a tendancy toward violence, one burns with heterosexual lust, another with homosexual. As Christians, we are called to love the person, and hate the sin. Is this intolerance? Perhaps. But I can honestly say that I hold no contempt for homosexual persons, I merely believe that their lives would be better if they turned from their sin. It is like the man stabbing himself in the leg, though perhaps not as dramatic. I would have them stop, but they have their own free will. The Christian belief is that God designs rules for our benefit, not for His, and blesses us with the choice to be able to follow those rules. These are my beliefs. I do not believe it is bigotry, but many would apply that label to me.

 

[Tera253]

No, it seems to me that she understands that her positions fly in the face of logic, equality and common sense. She just doesn't seem to care.

Which, in my view, is one of the stupidest things a person can do. To know they're wrong, and still cling doggedly to their preconceptions and prejudices. It's kind of sad, really.

Where am I wrong?
~Tera253~

 

[DoH]

Ok, so I'm gay and Jewish. So I think I have a unique take on this.

Being queer is not about a right to privacy; it is about the freedom to be public, to just be who we are. It means everyday fighting oppression; homophobia, racism, misogyny, the bigotry of religious hypocrites and our own self-hatred. (We have been carefully taught to hate ourselves.) And now of course it means fighting a virus as well.

Everyone of us is a world of infinite possibility. We are an army because we have to be. We are an army because we are so powerful. (We have so
much to fight for; we are the most precious of endangered species.) And we are an army of lovers because it is we who know what love is. We come out of the closet, face the rejection of society, face firing squads, just to love each other!

“My only regret about being gay is that I repressed it for so long. I surrendered my youth to the people I feared when I could have been out there loving someone. Don't make that mistake yourself. Life's too **** short.” - Armistead Maupin

You preach a doctrine of loving the sinner and hating the sin - however it is at this point that you begin to hate love itself, even if it is a different kind of love that you have been cultivated to. You cannot hate and love at the same time. It is that bitter and sweet water that should not flow from the same fountain that James 3:10 talks about. You may say you love someone but your actions are the bitter or sweet water (blessing and cursing) that prove your words.

Pointing the finger at another person and saying you hate what they are doing is never neutralized by saying, `but I luv' ya.' Give me a break. G-d is love, not condemnation. Life has to be reflected off that love to be effective.

If you really love someone, you don't make a big deal about what they are doing. Homosexuals are the most hated and feared group of people on earth.

G-d loves us, not because of what we do but because he sees something in you and me that is worth loving. That something isn't Jesus because under your interpretation, G-d sent Jesus because he already loved us. What he sees is his own spirit, which he breathed into mankind on the day of creation (ensoulment). That spirit never dies.

The best thing I can do is to love others with a pure heart, fervently, and mind my own business. It is not my business what someone else is doing. It seems that judging others makes many people feel self-righteous. If this is all they want, fine. I say leave them to it.

Paul said he wasn't able to judge himself much less others. If we could all have that attitude, it would be easier for us to hear G-d when he speaks to us. Any thought that rises up inside a person and makes them feel hopeless, lost or unworthy is not from G-d. I also do not want to be the source of condemnation to someone else. I want to rise above pettiness and hatred.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

Homosexuals are the most hated and feared group of people on earth.

Um... I'm going to have to disagree with this statement. As of right now, I dont think that homosexuals are even close to the most hated or feared group of people on earth. This is a far cry from reality. You may feel this way because of the prejudice you receive from others, but it doesn't make it true. My sister is gay, and I know she doesn't agree with this statement.

I'm not sure who really "fears" homosexuals. I think maybe more radical groups like Al Qauda, the KKK, Nazis, or even communists (North Korea) are much more feared than homosexuals. Homosexuals do not actually pose a real threat to any society, except to ignorant people that think homosexuals are on a mission to turn everyone gay so the world will end. These other groups I mentioned above actually have caused much harm to many different people all across the world. It would be crazy to put them in a group with homosexuals. The only real "fight" they have is one of equality.

As for "hated," I can say that again, those groups I mentioned above are much more "hated" than homosexuals. I know that many people "dislike" homosexuals, but they, as a group, are not the "most hated."

Actually, I would go as far to say that women who get abortions are more "hated" than homosexuals. Anytime any women goes to an abortion clinic, they have to deal with protestors, who call them names and spit on them. They have to go through security just for a medical operation that is there legal right. I do not see "active" protestors around the U.S. "picketing" agianst gay people. I'm not saying there aren't anti-gay protestors, but there just aren't as many, and aren't as radical as anti-abortion protestors. Doctors have been killed for performing LEGAL operations for women. This may be debatable. I have not heard of too many gay clubs being bombed. Maybe I just don't watch enough of the news.

Pedophiles, Murderers, Rapists, Drug Dealers, and Pimps are also more "hated" and "feared" than homosexuals. I really just can't see them being feared, maybe hated, but not the most.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Sorry, I just had to come in and bash this like crazy.

Allow me to retort.

I would hope that the ultimate goal of our society is love for our fellow man.

I'm trying to think in terms of realism. Maybe love is the ultimate goal, but it will never happen. Would you be so naive to believe an entire world loving each other?

Loving has nothing to do with open-mindedness. Open-mindedness is a joke, a cover-up to avoid deciding on issues where there is a right and a wrong.

In order to be all loving you would have to be open minded to some extent. How could you love something without understanding both sides?

Are you open-minded towards murder? Towards ****? Of such things, no one can say that we should tolerate.

The difference between murder/**** and homosexuality is substantial. But to humor you lets take a look at an example. Let’s say a person has a mental disability. (Lennie from Of Mice and Men comes to mind) That person commits murder. If you are not open minded to the issue you can only see it as murder and nothing more. I think we know how the book ended.

**** is an even greater difference, but we won’t delve into that.

Rather, most people choose a selective definition of open-minded that suits their needs, and paint themselves in a gracious and understanding light while truly accomplishing nothing.

Open Minded o•pen-mind•ed /ˈoʊpənˈmaɪndɪd/
–adjective
1. Unprejudiced; unbigoted; impartial. (dictionary.com)
2. Having or showing a mind receptive to new ideas or arguments.

Unbigoted sums it up nicely. It’s the point of this debate. It’s the point I'm trying to get across. What definition are you referring to? How could you accomplish nothing by being open minded? Open mindedness is not a cause any one is pushing, it’s an understanding.

Love, on the other hand, challenges when one is going the wrong direction, when one is on the path to destruction. It does not condemn the person, but it does condemn the actions that lead one to injure themselves. If a person is stabbing himself in the leg repeatedly because he believes it is making the pain stop, is it not more loving to restrain and bandage him?

First of all, you don't have to love someone in order to help them.

If you are making a comparison between homosexuality and person stabbing themselves, there are some major differences. (other than the obvious) A man with delusions who stabs himself is in need of medical treatment. A homosexual is fully aware of his/her actions (in most cases) and can receive no medical treatment. Blah Blah Blah, I'm going way off the topic of this post.

The same concepts apply to lifestyles. Yes, I believe in homosexuality as a sin, but one no greater than any other sin. One man has a tendancy toward violence, one burns with heterosexual lust, another with homosexual. As Christians, we are called to love the person, and hate the sin.

This is once again getting away form the original "open minded" issue. If everyone felt this way there would be no bigotry. Unfortunately not everybody feels this way, which is why we are having his debate. Would you not consider your thoughts a form of being open minded? You are being fair, unprejudiced, and civil.

It is like the man stabbing himself in the leg, though perhaps not as dramatic. I would have them stop, but they have their own free will.

Wait a sec.

If a person is stabbing himself in the leg repeatedly because he believes it is making the pain stop, is it not more loving to restrain and bandage him?

A man has the free will to cut himself as well as have homosexual relations. If your loving race would stop a man form harming himself with a knife, why would they not stop the man harming himself with moral issues?

The Christian belief is that God designs rules for our benefit, not for His, and blesses us with the choice to be able to follow those rules. These are my beliefs. I do not believe it is bigotry, but many would apply that label to me.

I truly don't think of you as a bigot. Many Christians are, and I have met many.


I believe open minded is our only true hope. An entire world loving each is too far fetched for anybody to believe. It’s like the boy who wants to be an astronaut but is unable to understand math. He must come to realize that his goal is not within his capabilities.
You say love is our only hope, I believe we can coexist with less.