I don’t know what you are using as a definition for fundementalists and evangelicals (that includes a pretty broad spectrum of folks; I suspect that you are talking about me, a born-again Christian) but, as a Southerner, I do not appreciate being called “horribly ignorant” by someone who has never met me!!! I thought we were fighting ignorance here. Perpetuating stereotypes only serves to spread ignorance. Why is it acceptable to bash evangelical Christians? Would it ever be acceptable to say, “Stay away from blacks/jews/polacks. They’re horribly ignorant.” It harkens back to the age of Nazi propoganda. Not believing the same way you do is not IGNORANT. And saying so just makes you sound like you’re back on the playground, “Oh yeah? Well, you’re just…just…stupid!” C’mon. :rolleyes:
Point taken, lissener, and I certainly meant no slam on you or other gays in phrasing it the way I did.
However, the fact of the matter is that being gay – predominant orientation towards others of the same sex – is a minority condition. It is therefore, in the strict dictionary definition of the term and with the obvious connotation explicitly excluded, abnormal – the statistical norm is for heterosexuality, with or without the possibility of occasional homosexual urges or encounters. And when I conceptualize regarding any variation in the human condition, I tend to look at the statistical norm and describe the variant in terms of difference from it. And I mean absolutely no affront to you or other gays in doing so – it’s just the way my analytical processes work. You are naturally and morally what you individually are, and I mean no slam on that; I merely think in terms of variation from the (biological and behavioral, not metaphysical) norm.
Something that has occurred to me a couple of times as these discussions have gone their many ways is that it might be quite helpful to have a thread in which gay people discuss how they came to recognize that they were gay, and how they dealt with it, somewhat similar to the gay bashing thread over in MPSIMS in intent and purpose – fighting ignorance by personal anecdotal accounts. It might also furnish a statistical universe of value in trying to analyze the various questions us sympathetic straight people have in attempting to better understand you folks.
(And you know, I hate the “us vs. them” imagery that has pervaded this thread and even my own posts. Of the two great loves of my life, one is female and one male – what happens to stir my libido is absolutely secondary or tertiary to that prime fact of my emotional life. What does that make me?)
And to prove that I’m an evangelical and not homophobic, I will tell you that I live in Tulsa, a wonderful city with a top-notch law school (check out www.utulsa.com ). There is also a sizable gay/lesbian population and I heard (no cite, of course) that, at one time, our per capita gay population was larger than San Francisco’s. We have beautiful parks, educational opportunities in abundance, the whole city is laid out on a grid so it’s easy to get around, and it’s very family oriented.
So, if I were a homophobic evangelical, would I invite you to check out our fair city? I think not.
Stereotyping people is terrible, but I hate to tell you, my friend, evangelical Christians and fundamentalists have done plenty to earn that reputation. That makes it extremely different from comparing it to just racism. And drop the stupid Nazi thing. Comparing yourself to the victims of the Holocaust is self-serving and just plain dishonest. Your comment ignores it, but not everyone here who expresses disagreement resorts to name calling - of which the playground comment is also an example. When people refer to fundamentalists as ignorant, it’s not just a matter of “everyone who disagrees with me is ignorant.” Perhaps if you understood why this position is actually held, you’d be in a better position to counter or change it.
Why?
And you might want to define “flaunting it.”
Esprix
As long as other people define us by our sexual orientation (which is so, so much more than “how we get off” :rolleyes: ), then it will always be important to us. As someone once said, “As long as being gay is a political issue, coming out will always be an act of civil disobedience.” So although saying “being gay defines us,” it’s not entirely accurate - being gay is an intregal part of our lives, and our lives define us.
Esprix
That’s true, for a lot of homophobes “flaunting it” means that the gay person in question had a pulse.
ElJeffe, that is greatly appreciated. I was getting ready to take you to task, and now I’m glad I read more of the thread before doing so. 
Esprix
According to the APA, it’s a complex combination of genetics, environment, biology, sociology, biochemistry, neurobiology, and so on and so forth. Basically, too complex to understand, and too complex to be wholly one or the other.
Either way, does it matter? Why?
And the rest of your post shows you know zip about genetics.
Esprix
Yes, I do know what the radical Christian platform (for lack of a better word) is but my point is that not all Southerners, even not all Christian Southerners are defined by it. And re: Holocaust victims: I was not saying that Christians suffer a plight similar to that of Holocause victims. I was thinking more along the lines of the anti-jazz propoganda wherein blacks are portrayed as childish, big-lipped buffoons. You comepletely miss my point: as a Christian Southerner whom you have never met do one have the right to judge me as “horribly ignorant?”
I will respectfully disagree that calling childish behavior childish is, well, childish.
Yes, I’ve been here long enough to know that not everyone here who expresses disagreement resorts to namecalling. That’s why I didn’t make it a general post but a quote from Alien2022. I never took issue with everyone, not even with him/her personally. Just with the assumption that was made. I do know why those assumptions are made: evangelicals are seen as closed-minded bigots who want all others to burn in hell. I know all about the stereotype. That’s why I made the suggestion that bo check out Tulsa: to demonstrate that not all are like that and not all Southern cities are like that.
You know what? It’s not so much that I hate Christians, I just hate their Christianity.
:rolleyes:
Truly, you need to go read my previous thread, “Love the Christian, Hate Christianity”. You’ll discover how vacuuous, impotent and insulting the phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin” truly is.
While you’re at it, I’d also suggest you read up on MrVisible’s excellent new thread, Your Gay Lifestyle. What’s it like, really?".
And there’s also the four threads linked in my sig - they’d also be educational reading, IMHO.
Esprix
That’s stereotyping indeed. Part of the problem is by referring to Nazi propaganda, directly or indirectly you call the person you’re criticizing a Nazi. Nobody’s gonna take kindly to that.
I didn’t, and I wasn’t attempting to say he had a right to. Actually, rights don’t really have anything to do with the matter, but it’s a mistake to do so. I tried to open my post by saying that.
You are absolutely right on both counts. My profound apologies.
I didn’t see anyone field this, so I’ll take a shot at it.
Is it possible to hate black skin without hating black people? Theoretically, I suppose, but for all practical purposes, no. However, is it possible to hate a crime without hating a criminal? Say, to hate the crime of theft without hating your son, who is a thief? To this, I would say yes.
“But,” you say, “the theft example can’t be applied to the question of homosexuality! The thief chooses to steal, thus the theft can be separated from the person. But the homosexual doesn’t choose to be gay, he just is. It’s a part of him.” And you’d be absolutely right. But you would be missing something, namely:
The people who suggest we “hate the sin, love the sinner” are, generally speaking, exactly the same people who are convinced that homosexuality is a choice, not an absolute. They believe that a man could stop being gay, stop having homosexual urges, if only he wanted to. And of course, they’re full of crap. However, to the hate-the/love-the set, the theft example is exactly analogous to the homosexuality example, because they mistakenly believe that both thievery and homosexuality are conscious decisions.
That being the case, it is entirely possible that someone could legitmately “love” a gay man, while “hating” his gayness. Of course, the number of people who legitmately feel this way, as compared to those who just preach it so they can justify the fact that they really do hate homosexuals, is up to debate (I’d guess it’s damn small). And I certainly wouldn’t expect any gays to be happy with the people who “hate” their lifestyles, nor do I think they should. Further, simply convincing them that being gay is not a choice isn’t going to help, because as long as they believe that homosexuality is a sin in the first place, they’re going to remain convinced that you can change. After all, God wouldn’t condemn people to Hell based on certain unalterable characteristics they have no control over, right?
So while I do believe that the hate-the/love-the mentality is legitimate in a general sense, and while I do believe that it can be applied to gays as long as you’re willing to argue from the ignorance of the nature of homosexuality, I also think that the mentality can be pretty much ignored for all practical purposes. This for the reasons that few people could be considered to legitimately believe this anyway, and those that do couldn’t be convinced that they’re wrong in their beliefs. So it would seem to me that the approach for Christian tolerance would be the same as if they did hate the sinner: Convince them that homosexuality isn’t a sin in the first place.
Jeff
So anti-gay attitudes are indeed based on ignorance and lies - it’s a form of prejudice. Those who condemn homosexuality are “bearing false witness”. I don’t think prejudice should be subject to the same degree of absolute protection that tolerance affords to ethnicity. It is not immutable and not intellectually nor morally equivilent to competing views. You can build a culture around beliefs about the unexplained mysteries existence, but you cannot force other people into being components in your belief system or culture.
Tolerating intolerance is an obvious paradox, but it can be easily circumscribed: We’ll tolerate anything except intolerance.
lissener:
No, of course you don’t have to tolerate anyone else’s views on anything. But, if you do not tolerate someone’s views (whatever they are) then you are being intolerant. I leave it to you to decide what you will or will not tolerate, and only ask that you do the same for others. However, immediately jumping up and down and screaming homophobe, bigot, racist, sexist, or any other pejorative term, with the intent of calling this person out for their beliefs, is not allowing others to decide what to tolerate.
I’ll assume that you are not making these comments in reference to my opinions, but rather as a strawman to elicit sympathy for your side. In case that is a wrong assumption, then I ask you to please cite where I present any such view on this thread (or this forum as a whole). I have not in any way indicated my views on homosexuality or homosexuals.
Okay, I see. So glib misrepresentations of a view is an acceptable debating tactic on this board now
Perhaps a starting point would be to create and present for general acceptance a single definition of “homophobia.” My initial comments on this thread were, in essence, a question as to what made the two quotes in the OP “homophobic.” We are now on page three, many people have replied to my posts and I have yet to be answered.
athelas:
That’s the problem, there isn’t one.
bo989:
It is useful in that it allows Christians to have love for all of mankind without compromising their beliefs that certain actions are sinful.
That is because you are responding to those who misapply that particular tenet. This is much the same mentality of those in America who would ban firearms because a small number of people misuse them. To disregard a useful tool (be it a physical or a philosophical tool) because of the potentiality for misuse is, to me, a bad idea.
I would defer to ElJeffe’s answer (as much of it as was a direct answer) as he summed up my own ruminations fairly well. Specifically that it theoretically may be possible, but is nor likely in practice.
Esprix:
I take it that you do not view this as possible? Too bad, I find it to be quite easy.
I see, I need to read a thread posted by someone who is obviously hostile to this viewpoint – right. Tell me, do you think that you have exposed any arguments about it that I haven’t already heard?
Because…?
I see, because I am ignorant, and need to be “educated.” By which I’m sure you mean that they would be good indoctrination into the “Acceptable” viewpoint?
ElJeffe:
And what of those who believe that it is not a matter of stopping the urges, just the acting upon them? I am not here advocating this position, but it does represent a fair number of people who also espouse the love the sinner view.
That’s what we like to see – someone who boldly asserts a claim and backs it up with so much evidence…oh wait, I don’t seem to see any.
And this is likely to be how successful?
akennet is officially on my ignore. Well, he/she would be if I had one:
lissener: I don’t like eating black walnut icecream with chocolate-coverd-ant sprinkles while sitting in a tub of broken glass.
akennett: That makes you intolerant of ice cream.
I was very specific about the views for which I offer zero tolerance. If you have to reframe my specificity as a blanket statement in order to object to it, you’re not qualified to engage in this debate.
oips.
that’s “. . . on my ignore list . . .”
akennett, despite your tenacious ignorance, your “contributions” to this thread have been engaged and dealt with, and the thread has moved on (the “unconscious fear” aspect that makes homophobia an apt term, for example). That you entered this debate with a spectacular display of just how uneducated you are on this issue, and how much work you’d have to be willing to undertake in order to even approach understanding it enough to engage substantively–
–and that you continue to spout your original inanities, having absorbed nothing in the course of this thread, might go some way to explain why some people aren’t taking you as seriously as you yearn to be taken.
And “love the sinner, hate the sin” isn’t glib?
Will Merriam-Webster suffice?
In common usage, it is the sexual orientation equivalent of sexism, racism, or anti-Semitism.
Will the American Psychological Association suffice?
Sure - because Christianity, unlike sexual orientation, is a choice. Yet I can still accept that most Christians consider their faith to be an integral part of the essence that makes them human, so attempting to seperate the two is impossible.
Actually, quite a bit, and I’m not “hostile,” just realistic about dealing with people who acknowledge certain parts of them to be intrinsically valuable to their well-being.
Because it’s interesting, enlightening and entertaining. Being gay is much more than sex, you know.
And you say I have a biased viewpoint? :rolleyes: Please, Mary - get over your cheap sorry self. What is contained in those threads are a wide range of viewpoints, issues, people, and conversations that you might find interesting, even if they are contrary to your viewpoint.
However, if you wish to wallow in self-imposed ignorance, that’s your problem - and don’t expect any kudos around here for it.
Oh, yes - your cites of factual information are just brimming over. Truly. We’re all impressed with your factual cites and concrete evidence… oh wait, I don’t seem to see any. :rolleyes:
Esprix