Whatever are you talking about?
[sub]It’s he, BTW**
freedom
I’m not sure what you meant by your quotes. But you don’t seem to have clarified just what you think is “intolerant” about anyone (in this case, goboy) expressing their opinion that a certain view of homosexuality is repugnant.
The intolerant attitudes towards homosexuals leads to unprovoked physical attacks. What you call the intolerant attitudes of homosexuals does not lead physical attacks, but it is just saying their intolerance is unacceptable because it provides justification for physical violence.
Can you not see the difference?
Which intolerant views? Do you consider Commish’s views to be intolerant?
I have read that a bunch of times, and I’m not sure if I am reading your point correctly.
Are you saying that I am claiming that homosexuals are to blame for “gay-bashing.”
I’m going to let you come back and clarify that before I go off half-cocked.
IzzyR
I think both Gogoy’s and Hastur’s views expressed in this thread at least border on intolerance. I understand that there are tons of people who are intolerant towards homosexuals, but that does not justify their feelings in return towards people with moderate beliefs.
I don’t see Goboy expressing tolerance when he calls the views of Commish “repugnant.” Nor do I see Hastur’s call for re-education of Commish (and me) to be an example of tolerance.
Why not? They seem to be tolerating you. They are merely expressing their opinion (in goboy’s case), and wishing you would change your’s (in Hastur’s)
I dont want to drag TWTCommish’s views into this. He seems to have accepted that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. That’s not an easy thing to do.
NO, I was responding to:
If they find homosexual behavior abhorent, they should not practice homosexual behavior. But it’s not their opinions that really bother me, it’s the actions that result.
Freedom2 says I am being intolerant because I find Commish’s views repugnant. He apparently thinks tolerance means an unqualified and total acceptance of other’s views. There are many opinions I find appalling; for example, the beleif of white supremacists that blacks are an inferior race. I would be the first to defend the rights of racists to publish their views, but at the same time, I would also do my best to persuade them that their opinions are wrong.
The same goes for Commish. When he calls my sexual orientation, my capacity to love and be loved, or even have wild monkey sex, with same-sex partners a sin, he is branding me as inferior. I defend his right to publish his beliefs, but I will also do my best to show him that he is dead wrong.
What particularly gets under my skin is the idea that **
Commish’s** and mine are equivalent. I don’t tell Christians that their emotions, their love, and the poeple they care for are evil. When you call homosexuality a sin,
you’re calling it intrinsically wrong. I don’t support legislation that would deny Right-wing Christians [RWCs) equal protection under the law, but that’s what RWCs do to us. I don’t contribute to an atmosphere of intolerance that makes it unsafe to be visibly Christian, but that’s what RWC pastors do when they denounce homosexuals as ungodly ad inferior.
I never said you and the Commish needed reeducation. You chose to read that in to what I said. But, you seem to do that quite often, especially when people disagree with you or use a word that is more than three syllables.
I do think that you are intolerant in forcing your specific brand of tolerance. In fact, I find you a ludicrous spokesperson for tolerance when you are critical and at times hostile towards anyone who disagrees with your staunch Republican views and hero worship of the Shrub.
I find straight people preaching to gay people about tolerance about as accurate as white people trying to tell black people that they need to be more tolerant of the bigotry they have to deal with.
Goboy:
Hi. I ask you, and others reading this post, to read it very carefully, attribute nothing to me that is not explicit in it, and then react in a debaterly manner, rather than in anger.
It is possible to make statements regarding what the Bible has to say about homosexual activity that class it as “sinful” without therefore targeting you and other gay people as “inferior” – but those who do such things are few and far between.
In the Christian view, “we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” I know I have: I do not love each and every other person as I love myself all the time. There are some judgmental jerks out there that tick me off, and I have a hard time dealing with them.
I personally don’t have any problem with your sexuality – not that my opinion matters; it’s between you and God, not me, Jerry Falwell, Troy Perry, or anybody else having any say in the subject. And I think you can love another man in accord with what He has to say about it. Though every time I try to debate a conservative Christian on the subject, one of two things happens: either he quits posting to the thread, or he quotes the Scripture as though how he reads it is the only possible way to understand it.
However, be that as it may, it is possible to say, “Hey, goboy, having wild monkey sex with a different partner every night is sinful, not what God gave you a sex drive for – which is to physically express your love for your life mate, be that man or woman” and not be saying “you as a gay man are an inferior and not fully human person.”
Typically, of course, people who are expressing this sort of view are pulling down the verses of Scripture we both know as proof-texts against “homosexuality” – nobody ever draws the line between orientation, act, person, and abstract concept in these cases! – and will carefully explain to you that you’re bound for Hell unless you give up that aspect of your self. (Of course, for them to give up heterosexuality and live celibately is not necessary; God approves of that, on their POV!) The fact that Jesus was inclined to forgive any sexual peccadillo and judge harshly those who sat in judgment over others – especially if they were guilty of the same thing – seems to escape them.
But I just wanted to stress that a good Christian could say, “I’m a sinner; so are you; and only through Jesus are we entitled to God’s grace,” and not be putting you down in particular for your so-called " gay lifestyle" – another word that it seems hard to pin down a conservative Christian about the meaning of.
This is not my particular cup of tea; the God I serve is more interested in love than in earmarking sins and checking out whether you’ve gone through the proper process for conversion. But I felt it deserved the case being made for it – since I know there are some good Christians who think like that and are not judging you (or at least not as harshly as they judge themselves).
OK? Did I avoid sounding recriminatory on anybody?
Let me say this another way. I think this is as worthless and relevant an arguement as someone throwing around cites about child molestation to prove homosexuals are evil.
While I can’t say for sure if you would lump me in to the group you label as “intolerant,” you surely did say that you think intolerant people require re-education. You also think I “force” my brand of tolerance upon others.
I admit that I tend to use hyperbole and exaggeration in my posts, but then, you may recognize the style from your own replies.
Current example being:
You may be surprised to find out I do not worship the shrub, I do not readily self-identify with Republicans and the only person I can remember being openly hostile to was Stoidela, and that was not because she merely “disagreed” with my views.
Hopefully Polycarp, being a much less polarizing figure on the board, will have better luck expressing the idea I was trying to get across.
Taking my personality out of it, do you have any specific complaints with the scenario he presented?
That is such crap. It has been proven through research that the majority of child molesters are HETEROSEXUAL.
From http://www.allaboutcounseling.com/sexual_abuse.htm
“The most commonly reported perpetrators are fathers and stepfathers. Brothers, sisters, mothers, baby-sitters, and uncles, are also among the most common abusers.”
My cite on hate crimes against gays was not erroneous. You comparing those statistics to a myth that gay people are child molesters IS. Not only is it erroneous, but it perpetuates a false hood.
I think they require diversity training. They need to realize that others have a right to live in peace without harassment or fear of physical harm because someone doesn’t like who they are.
I don’t know if you are playing devil’s advocate, or if you really lack the ability to understand what is being discussed. It amazes me that some people who are not minorities cannot grasp what it is like to be perjured for one’s sexuality, race, or gender. And it disgusts me to see people fight for intolerance under the guise of tolerance.
Your facts may be correct, but your cite does nothing to prove it.
Regardless of who the molestor is, the relevant factors are the sex of the victim and the sex of the molestor.
If the father molested his daughter, then it would be a heterosexual molestation.
If the uncle molested his nephew, it would be a homosexual molestation.
Your cite does not even address the question you have twisted it into the answer of.
FWIW…
I could care less if 90% of molestations were committed by homosexuals. Only a person who commits a specific crime is guilty, not a whole class of people who could possibly be identified with them.
Which brings me over here:
Maybe we are argueing two seperate and distinct things. I am willing to allow that we may have both dug our heels in, so let me be the first to try and step back.
If anyone, anywhere, thinks that they have the right to harrass, attack or wage a war of intimidation, then I do not think they need diversity training, I think they need to be in jail. Not one sentence that I have posted about tolerance was directed at this type of person.
The point of view I am talking about would be the one that polycarp so kindly and calmly spelled out. So, allowing that we agree with the extreme cases, how do you stand on the more moderate views on homosexuality?
**
Darn it, Polycarp, leave it to you to spoil a good argument by injecting reason and common sense into the discussion! 
From that perspective, I can peacefully disagree with a Christian in a spirit of mutual respect. However, your reason, compassion, and desire to understand another person’s POV makes you an anomaly among Christians. I find most RWCs to be hateful, intolerant, smugly literal-minded oafs who seem to think that God personally appointed them as judges over mankind. “God says it, I believe it, that settles it” doesn’t leave a lot of room for debate. The whole Matthew 7:1 “judge not, lest ye be judged” bit seems to escape them.
FYI, I DON"T have wild monkey sex with different partners every night. We don’t all live like the characters on Queer As Folk, you know. Besides the obvious health issues, making like a bunny with every warm body one sees strikes me as tacky, so I don’t do it. However, I reserve the right to act like Messalina on a binge if I choose to do so. I live my life by my own moral axioms, not on the say-so of some imaginary sky-spirit.
[A short hijack: Someone in another thread posted, “I’m proud to be a Christian.” That makes no sense to me. From the strict Christian perspective, we are all in peril of eternal damnation and saved only by grace, so you might as well say, “I’m proud to be rescued from a burning building.”
[End of hijack]
Do you have examples of Christians “running around and killing” gay men etc. due to religion? Or just bigots who happen to be “self identified Christians”? If the latter, I don’t think your comparison is valid.
Chrisitans do no such thing of course. However, the degree to which Christian antigay bias encourages gaybashing should be examined. I firmly believe that some small share of the responsibility for the murder of Matthew Shepard can be laid at the door of the Church. After all, you can only call a class of people subhuman scum for so long before some cretin decides to put words into action.
Perhaps and perhaps not, but this is a different subject. Even if it were true that expressing the opinion that homosexual activity is wrong will encourage other people to go out and bash some gays, this does not make the opinion holder intolerant.
And once again an OP goes tragically, tragically awry…
Have I mentioned lately, Polycarp, that I’m head over heels in love with you? I mean, you know, desperately? Really. 
I can tolerate - nay, celebrate - the differences between me and a Christian. Doesn’t mean I have to like being called “sinful.”
My $0.02, but only because I don’t know the vB code for a cent sign.
Esprix
Actually, it does. As per usual, you refuse any data that doesn’t coroberate your views. Pedophelia has nothing to do with sexual preference and has everything to do with the past of the offender and their desire to have power over a victim.
I care, adn I think other gay people care about the aspersion that we’re child molesters. It is a very dark accusation, and a destructive belief.
Moderate is subjective. What you think is moderate I may not, so your question is too nebulous to be answered.
Yet another place our children learn to hate:
Found that on Yahoo!.
If somebody called him a nigger, then by all means he has every right to insult the guy back. And I do not mean this as an insult to Iverson, but notice what epithet he used? “Faggot.” Iverson isn’t necessarily homophobic, but notice how that’s just the default “nyeh nyeh” name we learn to call each other (much like Poly’s example of “that’s so gay!”).
So when do we stop perpetuating this circle of hate? As long as kids use “faggot” as a general-use name to taunt someone with, us faggots continue to pay the price, even if it’s just society’s general unease with us.
Esprix
Ooops - here’s the correct link for that article.