And my aspersions, as you call them, were proven correct. Why don’t you admit that maybe, just maybe, something in the conversation escaped you at first glance? Counselor, you know I respect you, so please do not be offended if I suggest there are rhetorical subtleties that you might miss.
A. You equated homosexulaity with pedophilia.
Shows how well you’ve been reading. That was Spite.
B. You called my life and my relationship “sinful.” Who made you a judge?
I’m not the judge. I believe God’s the judge, and I believe the Bible is the word of God. I’m repeating what I read and what I happen to believe. Why do you care so much about my personal convictions?
More to the point, why should your superstition have any effect on how I live?
I didn’t know it had an effect.
Why?
gobear, if I may be so bold:
Even though your intuition was correct in this case, you might have better made your point by drawing your subject out with a few subtle questions first, giving her enough rope to hang herself as it were. It’s not a question of being right, it’s a question of style.
I do understand why the subject would be a hot button for you, though.
My apologies.
If it were merely you, I’d care not one bit, but right now, you and your coreligionists are in charge of the country. Politicians who share your views are dismantling Constitutional protections for gay people and doing their best to write their religious convictions into law.
See above.
“Some people…if they don’t know, you can’t tell 'em”
– Louis Armstrong
Point taken, and you’re right; a more leisurely approach would have had greater style. In my defense, it’s late, I’ve had a few Shiraz spritzers, and I’ve had it up to here (you’ll have to envision me pointing to my neck) with antigay rhetoric.
This has nothing to do with tolerance. I strongly support your right to hold whatever views you wish, and to express those views in a non-harassing manner, constrained only by constitutionally permissible restrictions (e.g., FAA regs).
But tolerance of your particular worldview does not equate to a requirement that I endorse that worldview, or even to sit idly by while you express it. I’ve got first amendment rights, too, after all, and I’m free to comment on the validity of your worldview.
And I think the worldview that says homosexuality is hopelessly incompatible with Christianity is a vile one. I think bigotry is an accurate label to affix to that worldview. A belief that your viewpoint is flat-out wrong is part of my worldview, and tolerance does not prevent me from expressing that.
If it were merely you, I’d care not one bit, but right now, you and your coreligionists are in charge of the country. Politicians who share your views are dismantling Constitutional protections for gay people and doing their best to write their religious convictions into law.
Okay, this is a fair answer and I can see your point.
However …
-
When you say “coreligionists” who exactly are you referring to? Or do you really just mean conservatives?
-
What Constitutional protections have been dismantled? What rights did you have as a gay person when Clinton was in office that you lost when Bush became President? I am not up on legislation concerning gays but I figure you are, so enlighten me.
Dewey, that was beautiful. Striking, concise, precise and thoughtful. I’ve got half a mind to go out and get arrested for something, just so I can see you defend me in court.
Once more, with feeling: I don’t give a damn if your bigotry radar is the most finely-honed bit of homophobe detection equipment ever produced. You owe it to people to give them the benefit of the doubt and to provide them with a chance to explain themselves before you toss out accusations.
You ended up being correct in this case, but you might not have. Have the common courtesy to consider that possibility, and stay your tongue until you’ve afforded the accused the chance to defend him or herself.
Dewey, okay, good explanation. However:
A belief that your viewpoint is flat-out wrong is part of my worldview
So can I call you a bigot for labeling my worldview “vile” and flat-out wrong?
Not that I would. I’m not into namecalling.
I was just curious.
In a nutshell? Because it makes people sinners based on who they are, rather than what they do.
(And spare me the homosexuals OK - homosexual acts not OK line.)
The Christian right, obviously.
Well, for one thing, we lost all advocacy. The president won’t acknowledge Gay republicans, let alone any other gay groups. Gay people have no voice in this administration. Bush has fought insurance for dependents of gay federal workers (which married hetero federal employees get) and has generally
created a hostile atmosphere for gay federal employees.
Mind, Clinton signed DOMA, so he’s not exactly a friend of gay folks either.
Because it makes people sinners based on who they are
Um, duh.
Human = sinner.
You can call it whatever you want; that’s your first amendment right. And of course I’m free to say that your characterization of my view is stupid.
Point taken, but in this case the accused had already clearly incriminated herself.
In any event, it’s 3 am here and I’m going to bed. We’ll discuss this further in the morning.
:rolleyes:
Nice dodge. Here, let me clarify: your view says that the mere fact that one is homosexual is, in and of itself, sinful. It equates a sin to a state of being rather than to an conscious action.
The Christian right, obviously.
See, that’s where assumptions will get you into trouble. Christian doesn’t automatically mean Republican and it certainly doesn’t mean automatic membership in the Religious Right.
The president won’t acknowledge Gay republicans, let alone any other gay groups.
Have gay groups asked for an audience with him and he refused?
Bush has fought insurance for dependents of gay federal workers
I’m assuming you mean partners here and not children. Until civil unions/gay marriage/whatever you wanna call it are legalized, what obligation does the government have to provide the partners of gay employees with insurance? Sure, it’d be nice, but it’s a cost … and then we have the question of “okay, if they’re not allowed to marry, at least how long do they have to live together before they can get benefits?” With the way people of all orientations are shacking up these days, surely you are talking about committed couples and not couples who have lived together for a mere 6 weeks. In that case, what’s “committed?” A year of continuous living together? I’m surprised they give insurance to the spouses of heteros, frankly, it seems as though more and more jobs will only provide insurance for their employee, not their spouse/kids.
and has generally
created a hostile atmosphere for gay federal employees.
Cite? When you say “hostile atmosphere” are you saying gay federal workers are being persecuted on the job/fired for no reason, etc., or do you mean something else?