Lissener, again.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

Originally posted by lissener

You know, airman, I apologize myself, for enabling your hijack of this thread. Please take your shit to the pit and let this thread go on its way.

Ask and ye shall receive.

THen you didn’t read the thread very closely, Airman. Please find me a quote where I called someone a homophobe just for disagreeing with me. Previous such challenges have gone unmet, and even produced apologies. I await either a cite or an apology from you (neither of which I really expect).

From “Homophobia” highjacks

If you “disapprove” of homosexuality on “scientific” grounds—that it’s “not natural” is the wonted squeak of this group—then you’re either stupid, which is forgivable; or aggressively ignorant (there’s plenty of scientific literature to contradict such idiocy), which is not.

Not so. As has been stated before, people can honorably hold different opinions, even if they are dumb. In this case, I would agree with you, but you know what? Issues like this are tough to prove, either way. Until they discover the “Homosexual gene”, there will continue to be people who prefer to think that it is a lifestyle rather than a genetic thing. Those people are entitled to their opinion, wrong though you and I think it is, because there’s simply no proof, any more than there’s solid proof of evolution, which there isn’t.

So that’s one.

Yes, a contradiction based on ignorance. If you hate the “sin” of homosexuality, then no matter how loudly you deny it, you hate homosexuals.

Not so, lissener. You can do whatever it is that you like, but nobody is obligated to do backflips over it. I’m not too fond of homosexuality myself, but I’ll be Goddamned if I think that I have the right to make you stop being gay. “Hate the sin”? Well, f you think it’s a sin, then that’s reasonable. “Love the sinner”? Why not? It’s silly to think that lack of outright approval equates to hatred. In some cases it does, but in the vast majority of cases there’s simply apathy, if not outright approval.

So that’s two. Remember, lissener, all I have to do is show that you call people “homophobes” simply for disagreeing with you.

From Homophobes can suck my dick:

By “homophobe,” I mean “anyone who objects to my use of the word ‘homophobe.’”

That statement in and of itself should be quite satisfactory to prove that you consider homophobes anyone who disagrees with you. But wait, there’s more:

Anyone who objects to the word homophobe is terrified of homos, and sleeps under his mother’d bed with this thumb in his mouth. This is what makes them such good cocksuckers.

Impressive display, lissener. I could scarcely be more impressed with your attacks upon people who are trying to have a reasonable discourse with you.

What are we up to, now, four? Well, don’t leave yet, because there’s more to come.

Here’s a good one, directed at me:

No, I just want everyone who doesn’t agree with my personal agenda–which is really just exactly the size and scope of the many issues surrounding the subject of homosexuality in our culture; just my own personal little agenda–I just want everyone who doesn’t agree with my personal agenda to suck my dick. I really dig a homophobe in uniform, too, Airman, so I might just move you to the head–OF THE LINE THAT IS! (This material is copyrighted.)

I never said that I disagreed with you. Not one time. But you decided to insult me because I didn’t give you the attaboy that you thought you deserved. The reason why, by the way, is because you are an extremist. It’s your way or the highway. Well, I’m sorry, but there’s more to it than that. That’s five.

Oh, I meant to ask, do you swallow?

Another ad hominem attack on me, simply because you assumed I disagreed with you. Whoops. Six.

In Gay Children of Homophobes Unite!, we find your definition of homophobes:

For the homophobes (defined here as anyone who thinks homosexuals are lesser, or badder, or weaker, or whatever, than heterosexuals; who thinks homosexuality is a chosen behavior; who thinks homosexuality affects anything but a homosexual’s choice of sexual partner and renders them less desirable or trustworthy as teachers or priests or leaders or soldiers; anyone who thinks homosexuality is a sin):

In other words, everyone who doesn’t think exactly like you do. Seven.

So that’s seven cites showing “a quote where I called someone a homophobe just for disagreeing with me”. I think that’s quite sufficient for the purposes of this discussion.

Gobear, you asked a question in that other thread, and I feel as though I owe you an answer. First, your question:

But it isn’t just his cause, Airman. It’s my cause, too. Does your ire with Lissener mean that you do not now support rights for any gay people, including me? Support equal rights for gay people (or not) on the merit of the cause itself, not on the personality of one or two of its supporters.

It’s like this, Gobear. I approve of any sort of sexual activity, up to and including homosexuality, not that my approval is really necessary. But when someone dismisses me like lissener did with the intention of defaming my character, then I have to ask myself why I should support someone who chooses to make comments that a) misrepresent my position, b) are dishonest, and c) have the potential to end my career via inference.

I’m always willing to go to the mat for a friend, Gobear, so yes. I support your rights, and I’d fight for those rights. But that doesn’t change the fact that I think lissener is someone who does your cause a great deal of injustice. I guess you could say that I am with you, but very apathetic to lissener. I hope that cears things up with us, gobear.

Anyway, back to the man of the hour. Care to deny that any of those statements quoted and referenced above are from you, lissener? I do believe that an apology is in order, but not from me.

[Mojo]

Do not feed the pony.

[Tars_Tarkas]

“Lissener, again.”?

more like “lissener, always”

[John_Mace]

Maybe a nitpick, Airman, but there is much more proof of evolution than there is for the “gay gene”.

Lissener is just a bitter, bitter person. That type never does any cause a service.

[TwistofFate]

Wait.

Are you trying to tell me Lissener is gay?

[Lemur866]

I still don’t understand how believing homosexuality is “a choice” is necessarily homophobia. Sure, it’s true that homophobes often claim to believe it. But just because stupid people believe something doesn’t therefore make it wrong. It doesn’t seem to me that we understand human sexual behavior well enough to rule out any explanations yet. We know for a fact that homosexuality (or heterosexuality) isn’t under strict genetic control, since identical twins can have different sexual orientations. So why is the “choice” theory automatically homophobic? Makes no sense.

[lissener]

Lissener, again.

from lissener:
Originally posted by lissener
You know, airman, I apologize myself, for enabling your hijack of this thread. Please take your shit to the pit and let this thread go on its way.

Ask and ye shall receive.

from lissener:
THen you didn’t read the thread very closely, Airman. Please find me a quote where I called someone a homophobe just for disagreeing with me. Previous such challenges have gone unmet, and even produced apologies. I await either a cite or an apology from you (neither of which I really expect).

From “Homophobia” highjacks

from lissener:
If you “disapprove” of homosexuality on “scientific” grounds—that it’s “not natural” is the wonted squeak of this group—then you’re either stupid, which is forgivable; or aggressively ignorant (there’s plenty of scientific literature to contradict such idiocy), which is not.

Not so. As has been stated before, people can honorably hold different opinions, even if they are dumb. In this case, I would agree with you, but you know what? Issues like this are tough to prove, either way. Until they discover the “Homosexual gene”, there will continue to be people who prefer to think that it is a lifestyle rather than a genetic thing. Those people are entitled to their opinion, wrong though you and I think it is, because there’s simply no proof, any more than there’s solid proof of evolution, which there isn’t.

So that’s one.

Where in there do I call someone a homophobe simply for disagreeing with me? Also, I never argued for a “gay gene.”

from lissener:
Yes, a contradiction based on ignorance. If you hate the “sin” of homosexuality, then no matter how loudly you deny it, you hate homosexuals.

Not so, lissener. You can do whatever it is that you like, but nobody is obligated to do backflips over it. I’m not too fond of homosexuality myself, but I’ll be Goddamned if I think that I have the right to make you stop being gay. “Hate the sin”? Well, f you think it’s a sin, then that’s reasonable. “Love the sinner”? Why not? It’s silly to think that lack of outright approval equates to hatred. In some cases it does, but in the vast majority of cases there’s simply apathy, if not outright approval.

So that’s two. Remember, lissener, all I have to do is show that you call people “homophobes” simply for disagreeing with you.

Where do I call someone a homophobe simply for disagreeing with me? Do you realize how broadly inaccurate that accusation is? I’ve defined my understanding of the word “homophobe” many, many times, and never have I said—explicitly or implicitly—that general disagreement with me was one of the criteria. Oh, except here–

From Homophobes can suck my dick:

from lissener:
By “homophobe,” I mean “anyone who objects to my use of the word ‘homophobe.’”

That statement in and of itself should be quite satisfactory to prove that you consider homophobes anyone who disagrees with you. But wait, there’s more:

from lissener:
Anyone who objects to the word homophobe is terrified of homos, and sleeps under his mother’d bed with this thumb in his mouth. This is what makes them such good cocksuckers.

Impressive display, lissener. I could scarcely be more impressed with your attacks upon people who are trying to have a reasonable discourse with you.

What are we up to, now, four? Well, don’t leave yet, because there’s more to come.

Can I get a WHOOSH from the congregation? I’ve already explained, in that very thread—which was locked as a “joke” thread—that I was lampooning others’ characterization of me, and that that is what I’d sound like if I was actually saying what you were accusing me of saying.

Here’s a good one, directed at me:

from lissener:
No, I just want everyone who doesn’t agree with my personal agenda–which is really just exactly the size and scope of the many issues surrounding the subject of homosexuality in our culture; just my own personal little agenda–I just want everyone who doesn’t agree with my personal agenda to suck my dick. I really dig a homophobe in uniform, too, Airman, so I might just move you to the head–OF THE LINE THAT IS! (This material is copyrighted.)

I never said that I disagreed with you. Not one time. But you decided to insult me because I didn’t give you the attaboy that you thought you deserved. The reason why, by the way, is because you are an extremist. It’s your way or the highway. Well, I’m sorry, but there’s more to it than that. That’s five.

WHOOSH! WHOOSH! WHOOSH! WHOOSH! WHOOSH!

from lissener:
Oh, I meant to ask, do you swallow?

Another ad hominem attack on me, simply because you assumed I disagreed with you. Whoops. Six.

Ad hominem, yes; that was my point. Otherwise, WHOOSH!

In Gay Children of Homophobes Unite!, we find your definition of homophobes:

from lissener:
For the homophobes (defined here as anyone who thinks homosexuals are lesser, or badder, or weaker, or whatever, than heterosexuals; who thinks homosexuality is a chosen behavior; who thinks homosexuality affects anything but a homosexual’s choice of sexual partner and renders them less desirable or trustworthy as teachers or priests or leaders or soldiers; anyone who thinks homosexuality is a sin):

In other words, everyone who doesn’t think exactly like you do. Seven.

No, in other words, people who question my full humanity.

So that’s seven cites showing “a quote where I called someone a homophobe just for disagreeing with me”. I think that’s quite sufficient for the purposes of this discussion.

In NOT ONE of those quotes—except in the joke thread—have you found me labeling someone a homophobe simply for disagreeing with me. Not one. I disagree with Gobear on how to “handle” this situation, but I have not ever called him a homophobe; nor do I think he is one. I have disagreed with many people on the subject of my “tone” in these discussions, and that has not been grounds for me to call them a homophobe.

The only time I EVER call someone a homophobe is when they express an opinion that does not acknowledge my full humanity. That is the single driving criterion, IMO, in what makes a homophobe. Of course I disagree with those people on whether I’m as fully human as they are, but it’s not the mere disagreement that makes them homophobic.

It’s just silly to say that I’m criticizing them simply for disagreeing with me. They hold an opinion that I disagree with too; they also call me an extremist, a militant, what have you. Do they call me that SIMPLY because they disagree with me? No; but because we disagree about THIS ONE TOPIC. People who think homosexuality is a sin are homophobes, PLUS I disagree with their unenlightened “opinion.” People who think I should just buckle down and CHOOSE to be straight disagree with me on the nature of sexual orientation. Due to THAT SINGLE UNENLIGHTENED OPINION, they are homophobic.

If I were kidnapped and hypnotized tomorrow, and made to believe that I was straight, I would no longer disagree with those people. But they would still be homophobes.

So please try to be a little more precise in your posts here, AD. I have tried to be very, very precise in what I feel constitutes homophobia. Just because people disagree with my definition doesn’t mean–KAZAAM!—my definition changes to no longer include them.

In other words, my definition of homophobia came first; individual disagreements came after. And my definition of homophobia has never changed, let alone to include “anyone who disagrees with me.”

Gobear, you asked a question in that other thread, and I feel as though I owe you an answer. First, your question:

from lissener:
But it isn’t just his cause, Airman. It’s my cause, too. Does your ire with Lissener mean that you do not now support rights for any gay people, including me? Support equal rights for gay people (or not) on the merit of the cause itself, not on the personality of one or two of its supporters.

It’s like this, Gobear. I approve of any sort of sexual activity, up to and including homosexuality, not that my approval is really necessary.

That’s really the gist of my entire point.

But when someone dismisses me like lissener did with the intention of defaming my character, then I have to ask myself why I should support someone who chooses to make comments that a) misrepresent my position, b) are dishonest, and c) have the potential to end my career via inference.

Whaa-a-a-a-hunh?

I’m always willing to go to the mat for a friend, Gobear, so yes. I support your rights, and I’d fight for those rights. But that doesn’t change the fact that I think lissener is someone who does your cause a great deal of injustice. I guess you could say that I am with you, but very apathetic to lissener. I hope that cears things up with us, gobear.

Anyway, back to the man of the hour. Care to deny that any of those statements quoted and referenced above are from you, lissener? I do believe that an apology is in order, but not from me.

[gobear]

I’m always willing to go to the mat for a friend, Gobear, so yes. I support your rights, and I’d fight for those rights. But that doesn’t change the fact that I think lissener is someone who does your cause a great deal of injustice. I guess you could say that I am with you, but very apathetic to lissener. I hope that clears things up with us, gobear.

I was never in doubt of your position, Airman; I just wanted to remind folks in general that the cause is larger than Lissener or me, and the merit of the case for gay rights does not depend on the likeability of one gay man.

Not so. As has been stated before, people can honorably hold different opinions, even if they are dumb. In this case, I would agree with you, but you know what? Issues like this are tough to prove, either way. Until they discover the “Homosexual gene”, there will continue to be people who prefer to think that it is a lifestyle rather than a genetic thing. Those people are entitled to their opinion, wrong though you and I think it is, because there’s simply no proof . . .

Up to a point, my lord. (I’m re-reading Scoop, and I love that bit.)

Yes, people can honorably hold differing opinions, and I can even respect, yet vehemently disagree with, people who are opposed to gay rights. I’ve known too many fundies, who despite their religous views I really quite liked, to accept that one must reflexively loathe people one disagrees with.

However, I can only honor those who behave honorably. Bigots like Fred Phelps or some of the posters on the fundy message boards I’ve been reading, the folks who spell “gay” as f-a-g and use epithets like “perverts” and “mud-rollers,” deserve nothing more than a derisive snort of contempt.

Lissener and I are in complete agremetn about combating homophobia and agitating for gay equality-- the difference between the two of us is that, IMO, he needs to realize that there are gradations of acceptance between “100 percent homofriendly” and “raging gay-hater.” There has to be a willingness to meet people where they are and to coax them along the road to full acceptance by gradual steps. There are Dopers I’ve met who are definitely not comfortable around gay people, yet they make the effort to be friendly and to squelch their inner trepidation–how can you not love them for that?

any more than there’s solid proof of evolution, which there isn’t

And here we have the perfect example in which, with all the affection in my heart, I can say that I respect you yet absolutely disagree with you. (But we will save that for another discussion).

And it’s evidence, not proof–only math has proofs.

[Aries28]

quote originally by lissener
The only time I EVER call someone a homophobe is when they express an opinion that does not acknowledge my full humanity. That is the single driving criterion, IMO, in what makes a homophobe. Of course I disagree with those people on whether I’m as fully human as they are, but it’s not the mere disagreement that makes them homophobic.

Here’s where I’m confused then…earlier in one of the threads you said anyone who thinks homosexuality is a sin would be a homophobe in your opinion. (Please correct me if I read that wrong).

I, in all honesty, don’t know where I stand on whether it is a sin or not. Even IF it is then I don’t think it is any worse or better than any sin I commit on a daily basis as I don’t believe in levels of sin. One is as bad as the other…all a disappointment to God.

I don’t think a gay person is less than myself nor do I think I’m any better. I think you should be allowed to love/marry who you wish. I think you should have every right that I am entitled to and enjoy.

I am not uncomfortable around gay people. I could care less if you are gay or not…I base my opinion on you on how you treat me and others…that’s it.

I can’t even begin to imagine why anyone would feel the need to picket or protest with ugly signs outside of any gay establishment or church. I can’t imagine why a gay bishop would receive death threats.

I can’t imagine in a million years turning my back on either of my sons if either were to come to me and tell me they were gay.

But, according to your definition, if I don’t know whether I think homosexuality is a sin or not, am I homophobic?

[Ilsa_Lund]

*Originally posted by TwistofFate *
**Wait.

Are you trying to tell me Lissener is gay? **

Well, I found out the hard way.
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[elf6c]

There is plenty of proof regarding evolution. It is one of the best researched and documented scientific theories. From a strictly scientific standpoint, it’s as close to proven as you can get. A basic University-level Biology text would help you understand if you have access to a College library (as those books are a bit pricey).

Of course, there numerous religious issues with the concept, but that’s not what you said. As an aside, personally I don’t think religion and understanding evolution need to be mutually exclusive- the more science you learn the more the quip regarding scientists ending up where the theologians are now seems appropriate.

Now back to your regularly scheduled Pit fight.

[Homebrew]

This may be your stupidest OP ever, AirmanDoors. And that’s sayin’ something.

Had lissener not already responded with

In NOT ONE of those quotes—except in the joke thread—have you found me labeling someone a homophobe simply for disagreeing with me.

, then I would have pointed it out to you.

I second “No, in other words, people who question my full humanity.”

[lissener]

*Originally posted by Mojo *
**Do not feed the pony. **

Fuck you Mojo, and Guinistasia, and Airman Doors, all of whom have called me a one-trick pony. Here’re the last 50 threads I’ve participated in. The ones with gay subject matter are bolded. By what standard am I a one-trick pony?
[ul][li]Lissener, again. [/li][li]Is the United States “liberal” or “conservative”? [/li][li]Gay Gay Gay Gay Gay Gay Gay [/li][li]“Homophobia” highjacks [/li][li]Hey, “Cutthroat Island” is pretty good !! [/li][li]Apparently, “presumption of innocence” is inconvenient. [/li][li]Feminist Utopian Fiction [/li][li]What would Bush have been without 9/11? [/li][li]A vocal/musical goddess is coming to Chicago! (and elsewhere) [/li][li]I need help from Elmore Leonard fans! [/li][li]A Might Wind disappointed me (SPOILERS) [/li][li]Any Dopers change their view on gay issues? [/li][li]Prime Suspect [/li][li]Film Cameos [/li][li]What was in Marsellus Wallace’s briefcase?? [/li][li]It’s Try-Out Day at the SDMB One-Trick Pony Chowder and Marching Society! [/li][li]Joseph Conrad reference in Ridley Scott’s Alien [/li][li]Bill O’Reilly slowly going off the deep end?(very mild rant) [/li][li]Dear NPR: I don’t want your crap (mild, unoriginal) [/li][li]Need “interesting” recipes [/li][li]Why won’t “stick snobs” shut up already? [/li][li]BELLS: any good songs with bells (a.k.a. keyboards)? [/li][li]Proper punctuation for “et al.”? [/li][li]lissener’s short movie reviews [/li][li]Fantasy bumpersticker I’d love present to another [/li][li]Ravenous -Read this post. Then rent the movie. [/li][li]What makes animals ride-able?[/li][li]Best live recordings - what do you think? [/li][li]Radiohead.[/li][li]Why do electrical outlets have to be near the floor?[/li][li]BOTTOM ten animated films? [/li][li]RNC to ask CBS to review Reagan miniseries for “accuracy”[/li][li]Poetry Is?[/li][li]the 8 word movie archive [/li][li]Now THIS vigilanteism I approve of.[/li][li]Sexual discrimination and the US Census [/li][li]Thanks lissener, maybe I should just quit the SDMB altogether[/li][li]Let’s Move Religion off the Great Debates [/li][li]The Most Bizzare Movies Of All Time?[/li][li]Homemade Biscuits -HELP! [/li][li]Top ten animated films?[/li][li]Will your children be gay?[/li][li]Is the insurance system a scam?[/li][li]Who’s More Wrong Here?[/li][li]Laundry Help, Please: Yellow Stains Under The Arms [/li][li]Can we save this table! (Stain question) [/li][li]Getting back to Alien 3… [/li][li]Macs used for graphics: Why? [/li][li]Coffee, what am I doing wrong? [/li]Your Favorite Film: Could it be remade? Why or why not?[/ul]

[Fang]

*Originally posted by elf6c *
**There is plenty of proof regarding evolution. **

No there isn’t. There is plenty of evidence, but certainly no proof. Just like there is no proof of gravity, special relativity, the law of entropy, etc. Evolution is just the simplest theory that consistently explains existing evidence about biological history.

Sorry for the hijack.

[elucidator]

You have apparently caused Ilse Lund needless stress and duress. Quite sufficient. Off with his head.

[Ilsa_Lund]

Well, I’m flattered that you are looking out for me, but who will post in my movie threads if we kill lissener?

Screw these guys, lis. (Not in a literal sense, of course.)

[elf6c]

*Originally posted by Fang *
**No there isn’t. There is plenty of evidence, but certainly no proof. Just like there is no proof of gravity, special relativity, the law of entropy, etc. Evolution is just the simplest theory that consistently explains existing evidence about biological history.

Sorry for the hijack. **

proof = evidence for the purpose of this post. Rather then change terms I tried to use the same terminology which Airman Doors, USAF used, in the sense in which he used it. See also:

proof ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prf)
n.
The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.

A statement or argument used in such a validation.

Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.

The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.

and another:

proof

adj : (used in combination or as a suffix) able to withstand; “temptation-proof”; “childproof locks” [syn: proof§] n 1: any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something; “if you have any proof for what you say, now is the time to produce it” [syn: cogent evidence] 2: (logic or mathematics) a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it.

See: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=proof

This also gibes with my second line which you didn’t quote:

From a strictly scientific standpoint, it’s as close to proven as you can get.

Generally, I meant it in this sense:

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don’t go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, “fact” doesn’t mean “absolute certainty”; there ain’t no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory–natural selection–to explain the mechanism of evolution.

• Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

Interesting discussion on this topic:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

We now return you to your normally scheduled Ranting, already in progress.

[TaxGuy]

I keep wondering why we’re spending so much time (in this thread and others) worrying about how lissener defines the word “homophobe.” I say let him define it however he wants to, I don’t give a shit.

[Truth_Seeker]

*Originally posted by gobear *
**I was never in doubt of your position, Airman; I just wanted to remind folks in general that the cause is larger than Lissener or me, and the merit of the case for gay rights does not depend on the likeability of one gay man.

**

Heh. Reminds of something I witnessed at University.

Very, very politically active radical queer guy confronts this other guy with whom he’d been in substantial conflict and says, “You hate me because I’m gay!”

The other guy gets this mortified look on his face and says, “No, no! That’s not true at all! Please! I really apologize if I’ve given you that impression! I certainly don’t hate you because you’re gay. . . . I hate you because you’re an asshole.”

Priceless, and a lesson we’d all do well to remember.

Unfortunately, most people are not able to make such fine distinctions. Dozens of people have pointed this out to lissener. But hey, lissener knows best. If he’s convinced his public fits of emotional masturbation are worth the damage it does to his cause, who are we to disagree?

**IMO, he needs to realize that there are gradations of acceptance between “100 percent homofriendly” and “raging gay-hater.” There has to be a willingness to meet people where they are and to coax them along the road to full acceptance by gradual steps.

**
Completely correct. I made the identical point in a recent GD thread. Oddly enough, lissener agreed.

**There are Dopers I’ve met who are definitely not comfortable around gay people, yet they make the effort to be friendly and to squelch their inner trepidation–how can you not love them for that?

**
Excellent point! Who’s the better person? Someone who consciously wrestles with their prejudices or someone who happened to be lucky enough never to have had any in the first place?

[alice_in_wonderland]

*Originally posted by Aries28 *
**I, in all honesty, don’t know where I stand on whether it is a sin or not. Even IF it is then I don’t think it is any worse or better than any sin I commit on a daily basis as I don’t believe in levels of sin. One is as bad as the other…all a disappointment to God.
**

So:

Homosexuality is a sin.
Sin is a disappointment to God.
Ergo, Homosexuality is a disappointment to God.

I, personally, would read that opinion as homophobic.

(And I recognize that you don’t have your mind made up on the subject, Aries28, and am therefore not suggesting you are homophobic.)