heretic888
Senior Master
loki09789 said:
No. I have to acknolwedge that Separation of Church and State precludes any privileged position in regards to religious ceremonies and legal rights is wrong. Period.
When did same-gender relations become "wrong"?
- Thread starter Bob Hubbard
- Start date
No. I have to acknolwedge that Separation of Church and State precludes any privileged position in regards to religious ceremonies and legal rights is wrong. Period.
Well, you can ignore the census registration box checking statistics (for those that choose to answer at all) or other polling/data collecting tools if you want....heretic888 said:
But, I agree with you that there should be no priviledge simply because someone is 'different' as long as that difference doesn't pose a threat to my personal/family or community safety.
It does seem to be ridiculous that churches/religious groups are less worried about allowing alcoholics, addicts, adulterers, thieves.... than they are about homosexuals.
You don't hear this much hullaballoo around 'that alcoholic having the gaul to take communion.' But, God forbid (PUN!
), a known gay were to do so. The hissing and whispering that would be heard and seen......As I said, It isn't so much the 'rightousness' that allows 'religious' people to cause others pain by being judgemental/hostile/bigotous, but the damage they do to themselves in the long run that folks of 'faith' should really be worried about.
There are SOOOOO many cautionary tales about the importance of hospitallity to strangers or 'others' in and out of Christianity that people should really pay attention to more than all the 'this line says that I can hate Blacks, gays, Jews.....who ever I want to hate but need a justified excuse to hate....'
Respect for diversity is not a new trend by any means. In all those tales, the price of not being hospitible is usually something like the "you could have had this, but you were a jerk when you thought this Angel was just a leper" or actual cursing with ailment/pain or tragedy.
Flatlander
Grandmaster
IMO, this quote neatly sums up an answer to the original question. When did homosexuality become "wrong"? As soon as it was not in the realm of the majority position.
When did it become "right"? When individual humans became enlightened to the fact that individual choices can be made in the name of personal freedom, yet not conflict with the rights of others.
Tolerance and acceptance are two very different things; intolerance, however, sits firmly in opposition to both. In my opinion, intolerance of sexual preference is directly counter to the freedom of expression that all "progressive" societies claim to hold so dear. What frightens me is that the crusade to control the choices of the population is a subtle declaration of war on individual freedoms, and I have yet to see a position of disclusion that does not use a foundation of hypocrisy as a foundation for its argument.
M
Melissa426
Guest
I must respectfully disagree with your first comments. I think it depends upon the church. For instance, as a non-Catholic, I am not allowed to take mass (communion) in a Catholic church. My argument is and has always been that Jesus ate with known sinners, tax collectors, and prostitutes. Why am I less worthy than they, because I don't follow Catholic teachings?loki09789 said:It does seem to be ridiculous that churches/religious groups are less worried about allowing alcoholics, addicts, adulterers, thieves.... than they are about homosexuals.
You don't hear this much hullaballoo around 'that alcoholic having the gaul to take communion.' But, God forbid (PUN!
There are SOOOOO many cautionary tales about the importance of hospitallity to strangers or 'others' in and out of Christianity that people should really pay attention to more than all the 'this line says that I can hate Blacks, gays, Jews.....who ever I want to hate but need a justified excuse to hate....'
Respect for diversity is not a new trend by any means. In all those tales, the price of not being hospitible is usually something like the "you could have had this, but you were a jerk when you thought this Angel was just a leper" or actual cursing with ailment/pain or tragedy.
I live in a small town (where every knows everyone else, and their business
). It's largely Catholic and I know several gay men and women who regularly participate in mass, with no objections from the priests.My sister is a deputy prosecutor in a large midwestern Big Ten college town. She knows who the theives, rapists, drug addicts, alcoholics and other convicted felons are. I think, knowing her as I do, she probably does prefer to welcome gays and lesbians to her church more than some of the others who show up.
The only time she has ever objected to anyone participating in any church activity is when a convicted child molester was volunteering to be part of a children's group.The verses I think you are referring to are from Matthew 25: 35-46.
Peace,
Melissa
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Same question as always: AS A MATTER OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, why would anybody think it was OK to tell practicing, devout Christians who honestly believed themselves to be leading Christian lives and who attended a Christian church that said the same, that they were in any way wrong, evil or condemned for being gay?
loki09789 said:
Isn't it rather judgmental to deny a homosexual their chance to express their love in the eyes of god with a vow of marriage?
Isn't it rather judgemental to deny a homosexual who feels a spiritual calling to preach the Word of Jesus by denying their ability to become ordained?
Yes... but people (and/or religious institutions/organizations) have reserved that right - to believe what they believe.upnorthkyosa said:
Where I feel it is judgmental - and violating the rights of homosexual or bisexual folks - is when these become civic "beliefs" - i.e. gay couples cannot have a civil union, cannot adopt, cannot... whatever.
7starmantis said:
I think that it does because if you are willing to bend the opposite sex rules in that circumstance, then you are not as "straight" as you once thought.
7starmantis said:
Watching can be participation. Pornography is popular because of the fantasy involved. These fantasies are a sort of mental participation, wouldn't you say?
7starmantis said:
In order to have sex with (much less love another person) you've got to first find something attractive in that person. Whether that is in a physical sense, emotional or spiritual...the ability to notice another person of the same sex "attractiveness" is a step away from the "straight ideal" on the continuum I described.
I don't think your analogy works in this situation. Lets replace a few nouns..."I like to look at men, but I don't consider myself homosexual." I would agree with that statement, but I would have to add that the proclivity is there and that is what I'm talking about.
A continuum.
7starmantis said:
I think the distinction is more of a social thing...being "Gay" makes you part of group and you can be proud of that. Yet it might not describe all of the idiosyncracies of actually being gay.
7starmantis said:
I am saying that our labels of "gay" or "straight" are inadequate to describe human sexuality. I believe that all people are a mix of both "gay" and "straight" and that we are trying to label proportions that are different in everyone. Now that is tough.
7starmantis said:
I'm not so sure they would. There only a few people I've ever met that thought themselves to be totally "gay" and I believe that if people were more open we would find the inverse to be true.
Feisty Mouse said:
Being and avowed Christian, how do you balance these principles? Isn't it like a stunted shrub in your beautiful forest? :asian:
lol - what a simile!upnorthkyosa said:
That was fabulous.I do not personally believe that homosexuality is wrong. My church does not encourage same-sex sexual relationships, however. In that point, we are not simpatico. For the majority of issues, we are.
Coming from a heavily traditional branch of Christianity, I can try to understand why these feelings are there in the church. Some, because founding fathers of the church, who gave us some good things, also had serious problems with homosexuality. Some also ranted against Jews. That doesn't mean I'm anti-Semetic, and it doesn't mean I think being biased against gay folks is right, either. We always have the option to disagree (without name-calling and foaming at the mouth!).
I can look at what I know about gay people, about my friends who are gay or bisexual, and evaluate "them". Some are monogamous - some are promiscuous. Kind of like my hetero friends, and people I know. Some are really kind-hearted and good people, some are jackasses. Also, like the heteros I know.
Does that mean I think I know what God wants? No. No, I don't. I'm trying to figure it out as best I can - both with the Church, and with my own experiences of the world, and how my parents raised me. So far, to me, that means accepting other people, as long as they are not hurting others, and also tolerate others. I tend to try to be less judgemental - since, as someone posted earlier, it is foolhardy, I think, to judge others. We do it, sure, but we can try not to quite so vehemently or rashly.
Honestly, I think gay folks are being honest - being honest with who they are, who they want to have sexual/romantic relationships with. To me, that does not make sense as an abomination. It certainly challenges the traditional view of what "the family" should look like. It certainly challenges gender roles (and people in different faiths are often given specific gender role messages, whether negative or positive). It certainly doesn't make it "easier" for heteros out there, necessarily.
But it's not someone else's job to make my, or yours, or their, perceptions of the world easier.
I think people who are anti-gay might have a little more sympathy if they ever really got to know a gay person, befriended them, and stayed up late with them as they poured their heart out over a heartbreak. When people think of sexual orientation, they may think of SEXSEXSEX, and promiscuity. But each person is much more than that, and, like most (but scarcely all) heterosexuals, most of the gay/bi people I know are looking for a relationship where they can love and be loved in return.
But that's just my limited experience.
Ah, well I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. Having spent many years of my childhood and junior high days translating many books (proverbs being one of them) from Hebrew to english and back again (many times) it never refers to "wisdom" as a deity. It does use "female" terms but so do sailors referring to their boats.heretic888 said:
Bend what opposite sex rules? Are there rules about the opposite sex that are written down somewhere? ItÂ’s this thinking that gives way to the homophobic mindset that is prevalent today.upnorthkyosa said:
True, but then watching porn is cheating on your wife or significant other and is a whole other thread in itself. What I said though, was that liking the idea, or being "turned on" by two women doesn't make you gay or bisexual in any manner. Again, this thinking gives way to stereotypes and generalities.upnorthkyosa said:
Again, here we go with that mindset again. So you can rate people as a 76% gay or 13% bisexual? ThatÂ’s ridiculous, finding someone of the same sex as attractive or "good looking" brings you no closer to being gay or bisexual than eating a hamburger makes you a hunter.upnorthkyosa said:
You can think that all day, but are you gay or bisexual? Because most all of my friends who are gay agree with me, in fact, they are who really got me to thinking this way. Its not about being part of a group, thatÂ’s another distortion to what being gay is. In fact, it would offend me to hear you generalize being gay that way if I were gay...wait, it offends me now. ThatÂ’s just not open-minded enough for me.upnorthkyosa said:
Ok, call it what you like, but its not about "being part of a group" or thinking Jenna Jameson and Silvia Saint together is hot. YouÂ’re only scratching the surface of what being gay or bisexual is about. I see your point about being gay and straight, but then you have to define what gay or straight is.upnorthkyosa said:
7sm
Kembudo-Kai Kempoka
Senior Master
Biological imperative = "The drive to reproduce, and pass on ones genes to future generations."
Ummmm. Does anybody see the problem here about asserting that same-gender preference is genetically determined? Like nectar birds with short beaks living on islands with long flowers, it would only be a matter of time until this environmentally defunct adaptation weaned itself right out of the gene pool.
D.
Ummmm. Does anybody see the problem here about asserting that same-gender preference is genetically determined? Like nectar birds with short beaks living on islands with long flowers, it would only be a matter of time until this environmentally defunct adaptation weaned itself right out of the gene pool.
D.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Warning: I am opening myself up for a crotch kick with this post...
Yet, I see a trend here that I find disturbing.
I am a gay rights advocate, and I see a major problem with my 'peers' here.
Why is it that for gay rights advocates, the mentality is that you MUST personally agree with homosexual lifestyles on a moral level in order to support gay rights?
Who's insisting on conformity now?
It doesn't make sense. You can support for the rights of individuals to persue their own lifestyles and relationships (as long as they don't infringe on others safety or rights) without having to morally agree with those lifestyles and relationships. That's what tolerance is about.
What I am finding is that many gay rights advocates don't want tolerance...they want moral conformity, but of a different brand and breed then christian-rightism. And it is wanting this conformity and argueing from such a position that propigates the moral division of America. This behavior sends those with judeo-christian values running to their ministers and conservative politicians where they can be played like puppets; end
results - electing people who truely do not make decisions that is best for the american people.
If anyone wants to know why the democrates have been losing elections lately, then they should read this thread. If you want to see "the moral majority" act in a tolerant way and not fight against gay marriage, then be tolerant of their beliefs and rights to personally disagree with gay lifestyles first. If you don't want the "moral majority" to discredit your beliefs, then don't discredit their rights to theirs. And, if you don't want to be stereotyped with words like "liberals", then don't behave in ways that fit those negative stereotypes.
I am a gay rights advocate, and I proudly voted in favor of gay marriage despite the overwhleming opposition by my church, some of my family, and my community...
Yet, I think that tolerance should be bi-sexual, in that it should go both ways...
Paul
Yet, I see a trend here that I find disturbing.
I am a gay rights advocate, and I see a major problem with my 'peers' here.
Why is it that for gay rights advocates, the mentality is that you MUST personally agree with homosexual lifestyles on a moral level in order to support gay rights?
Who's insisting on conformity now?
It doesn't make sense. You can support for the rights of individuals to persue their own lifestyles and relationships (as long as they don't infringe on others safety or rights) without having to morally agree with those lifestyles and relationships. That's what tolerance is about.
What I am finding is that many gay rights advocates don't want tolerance...they want moral conformity, but of a different brand and breed then christian-rightism. And it is wanting this conformity and argueing from such a position that propigates the moral division of America. This behavior sends those with judeo-christian values running to their ministers and conservative politicians where they can be played like puppets; end
results - electing people who truely do not make decisions that is best for the american people.
If anyone wants to know why the democrates have been losing elections lately, then they should read this thread. If you want to see "the moral majority" act in a tolerant way and not fight against gay marriage, then be tolerant of their beliefs and rights to personally disagree with gay lifestyles first. If you don't want the "moral majority" to discredit your beliefs, then don't discredit their rights to theirs. And, if you don't want to be stereotyped with words like "liberals", then don't behave in ways that fit those negative stereotypes.
I am a gay rights advocate, and I proudly voted in favor of gay marriage despite the overwhleming opposition by my church, some of my family, and my community...
Yet, I think that tolerance should be bi-sexual, in that it should go both ways...
Paul
Paul, your post is a very interesting one. I must ask - what exactly does the word "lifestyle" mean when we are talking about sexual preference?
To me, a "lifestyle" is how one lives one's life - either they appreciate wine, ale or liquor, they either procure these items and enjoy them in the home or they bar hop or seek wine tasting events regularly or perhaps take the limo to the wineries. Frequenting backroom bars is a lifestyle that is practiced amongst all sexual persuasions. So are furtive, casual sexual liaisons in public places. Hugh Hefner lives a lifestyle which includes extravagance and partying and open sexuality, but he is not gay and he pursues his sexuality in a particular way which is conducive to his lifestyle.
So we talk about approving of or not approving of "The Gay Lifestyle." What the hell is that supposed to mean, really?? Is there a handbook? Did I miss an e-mail?
We use this word as a euphemism for something we perceive homosexuals do - whatever that means in our uninformed minds. And what exactly does it mean to "agree with the gay lifestyle?" Does this mean I think it rocks or that I agree with the acts some folks associate with homosexual behavior? And still - what does that even mean?? Am I to decide to agree with male-to-male sodomy or female-to-female ***********? Agree??? with a sex act???? Does anyone else see the conflict of terms here? If I agree with a sex act, I'd better be asked to have it, not give permission for someone else to do so!:ultracool
To me, a lifestyle is indicative of how a person spends their money, manages their resources, recreates, strategizes their life, pays their bills, and seeks avenues for pleasure - not the pleasure itself.
So, I support gay rights. I only care about my sister's lifestyle because I care about her and she's family.
Does any of this make sense to anybody else??
To me, a "lifestyle" is how one lives one's life - either they appreciate wine, ale or liquor, they either procure these items and enjoy them in the home or they bar hop or seek wine tasting events regularly or perhaps take the limo to the wineries. Frequenting backroom bars is a lifestyle that is practiced amongst all sexual persuasions. So are furtive, casual sexual liaisons in public places. Hugh Hefner lives a lifestyle which includes extravagance and partying and open sexuality, but he is not gay and he pursues his sexuality in a particular way which is conducive to his lifestyle.
So we talk about approving of or not approving of "The Gay Lifestyle." What the hell is that supposed to mean, really?? Is there a handbook? Did I miss an e-mail?
We use this word as a euphemism for something we perceive homosexuals do - whatever that means in our uninformed minds. And what exactly does it mean to "agree with the gay lifestyle?" Does this mean I think it rocks or that I agree with the acts some folks associate with homosexual behavior? And still - what does that even mean?? Am I to decide to agree with male-to-male sodomy or female-to-female ***********? Agree??? with a sex act???? Does anyone else see the conflict of terms here? If I agree with a sex act, I'd better be asked to have it, not give permission for someone else to do so!:ultracool
To me, a lifestyle is indicative of how a person spends their money, manages their resources, recreates, strategizes their life, pays their bills, and seeks avenues for pleasure - not the pleasure itself.
So, I support gay rights. I only care about my sister's lifestyle because I care about her and she's family.
Does any of this make sense to anybody else??
Tgace
Grandmaster
If somebody dosent "like" something they arent going to be made to "like" it no matter what you argue, I too think theres a difference between "rights" and "acceptance". Like Paul, Id just be satisfied with everybody having equal rights just because we are Americans and we are all free to do what we want as long as it dosent infringe on somebody elses rights. The whole "you must accept" argument isnt going to reach very far downrange...
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Tgace is getting what I am saying here.
I wouldn't get too caught up with the words "gay lifestyle" in my post; I could of used any term from "homosexuals", to "homosexual behavior", to "gay relationships", to whatever. It really doesn't matter; any term I use will piss you off if you disagree with me, and any term could backfire into a semantics arguement.
"lifestyle" in this case basically means any consistant behavior that impacts ones life. Relationships in general impact ones life; so when discussing social relationships you could use the term "social lifestyle." When discussing martial arts and behavior that is broadly consistant with martial artists, you could say "martial arts lifestyle." And so on. So for hetorsexual behavior you could use the term "hetrosexual lifestyle," and for homosexual behavior you could use the term "gay lifestyle." It's just simple semantics. Yet, no matter what I say, one who disagrees can turn it into a semantics arguement.
The problem usually isn't with the semantics in these arguements; the problem is when illogical assumptions are made from certian labels. If I assumed, for instance, that "gay lifestyle" meant promiscuity, orgies, child rape, and drugs at techno clubs, then I would be making illogical assumptions from a label. I did nothing of the sort in my previous post.
What I am saying is that if homosexuality is against someones moral or religious beliefs, then it is their right to disagree with "gay lifestyles" or "same gender relationships." They can "love the sinner but hate the sin" as the saying goes, and no, it is NOT a cop out to do so. How many of you have had a child or family member or friend who has done something that you despised, yet, you love them anyways? Was it a cop out for you to dislike the behavior but still love the person? I think not.
People have the rights to disagree with behaviors and "lifestyles," (so long as those disagreements don't hinder the freedom of others) and that is what makes us American. People also have the rights to persue whatever kind of "lifestyle" they want (so long as that lifestyle doesn't hinder the freedom of others) , and that is also what makes us American.
Many gay rights advocates are wrongly disrespectful to the fact that it is an individuals right to morally/religiously disagree with "homosexual lifestyles;" this gave the christian-rightwinged-nutcases plenty of ammo, and that is a major reason why WE (I say WE because I am a gay rights advocate and I voted AGAINST the gay marriage Ban like many of you) have been losing the battle on the gay rights issue.
Think about it....
Paul
I wouldn't get too caught up with the words "gay lifestyle" in my post; I could of used any term from "homosexuals", to "homosexual behavior", to "gay relationships", to whatever. It really doesn't matter; any term I use will piss you off if you disagree with me, and any term could backfire into a semantics arguement.
"lifestyle" in this case basically means any consistant behavior that impacts ones life. Relationships in general impact ones life; so when discussing social relationships you could use the term "social lifestyle." When discussing martial arts and behavior that is broadly consistant with martial artists, you could say "martial arts lifestyle." And so on. So for hetorsexual behavior you could use the term "hetrosexual lifestyle," and for homosexual behavior you could use the term "gay lifestyle." It's just simple semantics. Yet, no matter what I say, one who disagrees can turn it into a semantics arguement.
The problem usually isn't with the semantics in these arguements; the problem is when illogical assumptions are made from certian labels. If I assumed, for instance, that "gay lifestyle" meant promiscuity, orgies, child rape, and drugs at techno clubs, then I would be making illogical assumptions from a label. I did nothing of the sort in my previous post.
What I am saying is that if homosexuality is against someones moral or religious beliefs, then it is their right to disagree with "gay lifestyles" or "same gender relationships." They can "love the sinner but hate the sin" as the saying goes, and no, it is NOT a cop out to do so. How many of you have had a child or family member or friend who has done something that you despised, yet, you love them anyways? Was it a cop out for you to dislike the behavior but still love the person? I think not.
People have the rights to disagree with behaviors and "lifestyles," (so long as those disagreements don't hinder the freedom of others) and that is what makes us American. People also have the rights to persue whatever kind of "lifestyle" they want (so long as that lifestyle doesn't hinder the freedom of others) , and that is also what makes us American.
Many gay rights advocates are wrongly disrespectful to the fact that it is an individuals right to morally/religiously disagree with "homosexual lifestyles;" this gave the christian-rightwinged-nutcases plenty of ammo, and that is a major reason why WE (I say WE because I am a gay rights advocate and I voted AGAINST the gay marriage Ban like many of you) have been losing the battle on the gay rights issue.
Think about it....
Paul
modarnis
Purple Belt
Tulisan said:
Paul and TGace both get it. The drive from the left and some self labeled centrists toward cultural homogeneity is a huge problem. If one does not buy in to the whole of the cause, they are coveniently labeled (warmonger, homophobe, racist, right wing christian or whatever) and dismissed. For a frightening look at this assault on free speexh that exists in our popular and political culture read The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds. Before any of the left of center types jump on me for this, the author Tammy Bruce was the former president of the LA chapter of the National Organization for Women and a former NOW national board member.
Anyone who values the bill of rights, regardless of their political views should be sickened by this book
First off, I apologize if I've offended you. We may have to agree to disagree on this since there is absolutely no way to determine who is correct. I am okay with that.
For clarification, "opposite sex rule" describes what I was trying to get at better then the plural typo. You and I are on the same page on this. There are no rules. I believe that it is fallacious to think that a man can only love a woman and vice versa. Perhaps a better way to think about my position is to veiw it in terms of different gradations of love rather then sex.
I don't think so. In fact, I think this type of thinking does away with stereotypes and generalities by giving human sexuality and love an individualized character. For instance, I know some men who do not like watching to women have sex and I know some that do. On the Homo/Hetero spectrum this clearly is a step toward Homo and there is nothing wrong with that.
Yes, it does, because when one is appraising another man's attractiveness one is doing so based on what YOU think is attractive in men (or women). You really cannot get inside another person's head or understand societies norms of attractiveness without personally feeling them. Does this make a person Gay? Maybe, maybe not. Again we come up against the limitations of our language to describe human sexuality. The bottom line is that thinking like this brings out the homosexual thoughts that everyone has. It shows that they are normal.
You can't have tight labels to describe human sexuality. It is just to individual in nature. For instance, my feelings toward the opposite sex and toward the same sex are a mix that just can't be easily pegged. From people I've talked to, this is the case across the board. Letting people be who they want without trying to fit there square peg into the round hole of a label is perhaps the MOST open minded you could be about this.
Also being "gay" can make you part of a group if you want to. GLBT is an organization where GAY is a political statement. There is nothing offensive about this and it doesn't make what a person is any less. In fact, acknowledging that you are part of a group allows a person to fellowship with other who are "like" them. It also gives an individual political power in our society and there is nothing offensive about that.
Yet, within that group you will have people who like one thing and do not like another. Some who will like women, but are still attracted to other men and then there will be some who only like the same sex and literally have no clue about the other. This is clearly a spectrum. There is no better way to describe this difference.
I don't have to define it. I'm saying that you may be who you are. Our language does not describe reality and I think that understanding the "homo" or "hetero" in us all really gets to the heart of who we are as individuals. We are beautiful beings who love a variety of different things. Why bind that beauty with a label?
7starmantis said:
For clarification, "opposite sex rule" describes what I was trying to get at better then the plural typo. You and I are on the same page on this. There are no rules. I believe that it is fallacious to think that a man can only love a woman and vice versa. Perhaps a better way to think about my position is to veiw it in terms of different gradations of love rather then sex.
7starmantis said:
I don't think so. In fact, I think this type of thinking does away with stereotypes and generalities by giving human sexuality and love an individualized character. For instance, I know some men who do not like watching to women have sex and I know some that do. On the Homo/Hetero spectrum this clearly is a step toward Homo and there is nothing wrong with that.
7starmantis said:
Yes, it does, because when one is appraising another man's attractiveness one is doing so based on what YOU think is attractive in men (or women). You really cannot get inside another person's head or understand societies norms of attractiveness without personally feeling them. Does this make a person Gay? Maybe, maybe not. Again we come up against the limitations of our language to describe human sexuality. The bottom line is that thinking like this brings out the homosexual thoughts that everyone has. It shows that they are normal.
7starmantis said:
You can't have tight labels to describe human sexuality. It is just to individual in nature. For instance, my feelings toward the opposite sex and toward the same sex are a mix that just can't be easily pegged. From people I've talked to, this is the case across the board. Letting people be who they want without trying to fit there square peg into the round hole of a label is perhaps the MOST open minded you could be about this.
Also being "gay" can make you part of a group if you want to. GLBT is an organization where GAY is a political statement. There is nothing offensive about this and it doesn't make what a person is any less. In fact, acknowledging that you are part of a group allows a person to fellowship with other who are "like" them. It also gives an individual political power in our society and there is nothing offensive about that.
Yet, within that group you will have people who like one thing and do not like another. Some who will like women, but are still attracted to other men and then there will be some who only like the same sex and literally have no clue about the other. This is clearly a spectrum. There is no better way to describe this difference.
7starmantis said:
I don't have to define it. I'm saying that you may be who you are. Our language does not describe reality and I think that understanding the "homo" or "hetero" in us all really gets to the heart of who we are as individuals. We are beautiful beings who love a variety of different things. Why bind that beauty with a label?
Tulisan said:Yet, I think that tolerance should be bi-sexual, in that it should go both ways...
Paul, I don't think that is possible. We have one set of beliefs that is in direct conflict with another. This situation is very reminiscent of the civil rights movement. Bigotry somehow got wrapped up in religion and it took a whole heck of a social movement to unravel that mess. Rosa Parks want to sit in the front of the bus. How can she combine her right to do so with the belief that she should sit in the back? I think that the belief on the Left is that homosexuals should be able to sit anywhere on the bus and that forcing them to the back is wrong? If that message frightens some people, so be it. The struggles for equality never go smoothly and fear always plays a part.
