“Those people” who informed me it’s “gay lifestyle” are gay (I thought that was implied by the rest of my prior post - sorry for the confusion). “Those people” are normal lesbians who go about their everyday lives just like you and me, have family support, and consider their sexuality to be a pretty okay thing, despite having to be discreet at work. Considering the first time I was informed of it being “gay lifestyle” was 10-15 years ago by my aunt, who is still with the wife she had then, I don’t think she’s too interested in conversion therapy (thankfully). So yeah, do you see why the semantic issue raised in this thread has been so confusing?
Truth be told, some people do make a lifestyle out of being gay. It is not, however, the usual habit of the majority of the gay community to do so - we simply live our lives. “Living a lifestyle” is for the young anyway - they usually grow out of it. 
Esprix
Well, truth be told, it seem like here on the SDMB, the term “homophobic” is used against dudes who either do not agree with your side of a debate having anything whatsoever to do with homosexuality, or to shout at those that are not 100% in total support of your platform or program.
So, from what I can see: “homophobe= those that do not 100% agree with you”. :rolleyes:
I’ll just shut up now.
Esprix
‘Truth be told,’ DrDeth, that “all or nothing” attitude is one I see other than just on the SDMB, and on both sides of the issue.
There are those of the gay community who feel that anyone who does not 100% support them is homophobic and who will verbally bash those they feel are “wrong.” There are also those of the gay community who practise what they preach and show tolerance to those who hold different beliefs, (rightly) saving their scorn for individuals who are truly homophobic.
It’s the same with Christians who morally/religiously disagree with homosexuality - some are tolerant and willing to live and let live, while others are actively intolerant/homophobic (which ranges from simply snubbing gays all the way to Fred Phelps style hate-mongering). Trying to paint this issue in black and white isn’t fair to either side; there’re varying degrees of grey on both sides, and quite a bit of middle-ground.
The Fred Phelpses of the world are a tiny minority of frothing bigots who are annoyances to straights and gays alike, and are ignored by almost everyone. They’re not the problem.
The Family Research Council and their ilk are bigots with budgets and a vendetta, whose sole goal is to keep the faggots in their place as the moral whipping boys of society. But there aren’t that many of them, and if people just didn’t listen to them, they’d go away. They’re not the problem.
It’s the average joe on the street who thinks they don’t have a problem with gay people, but wouldn’t vote for a candidate who supports gay marriage that’s the problem here. It’s the suburban mom who ‘has plenty of gay friends, you know’ but who protests against their kids being taught anything positive about gay people in the schools that keeps gay people marginalized.
If you’re not supportive of gay people getting the rights and responsibilities inherent in legal marriage, you’re actively participating in keeping a minority disenfranchised. And if calling you out on that makes you uncomfortable, well… good. No-one should be comfortable in their bigotry.
Is it necessarily bigotry when someone has a moral dilemma based on their religious convictions and abstains from voting for or against an initiative on gay marriage? For some Christians, voting in favour of such an initiative would be effectively condoning homosexuality - a sin by their religious beliefs, and something which would be against what they believe to be God’s Word. Is it “keeping gays marginalised” to not help their cause, if you’re not hindering it either?
FTR, and to avoid further misunderstandings, I am a staunch supporter of gay rights and yes, I would vote in favour of any sort of equal rights initiative or pro-gay politician (assuming the rest of that politician’s agenda matched mine 
). I am also trying to look at this from both sides of the issue & asking the above question based on prior debates with Christian individuals.
I love you, MrV!
Esprix
Yes, IMHO. Keeping silent is not an option. (You can make your own references to 1939 Germany if you like, 'cause we were rounded up, too.)
Besides, most mainstream Christian denominations still tow the “it’s ok to be gay, but doing those gay things is a sin” line, teaching not to discriminate or treat the “sinner” any differently - just hate the “sin.” If you go by that teaching (as much as I loathe it), there doesn’t seem to be a conflict to me.
And I daresay the most Christian person I’ve ever met - Polycarp - is one of the staunchest supporters of equality I know.
Esprix
The nature of the moral dilemma is such that, yes, it would qualify as bigotry. The question here is, “Do all people deserve the same rights, no matter what their sexual orientation?”
If your answer comes back “No” then you are, indeed, a bigot. As in, someone who believes that an entire category of humans is beneath them, with no evidence to support that claim.
The idea that some people may or may not deserve basic human rights based on arbitrary criteria is appalling to me. I don’t understand how people can hold these beliefs and still have an ounce of self-respect left. That may be why they need to tell themselves that they’re superior so much.
Sionach, I appreciate the fact that you’re just playing devil’s advocate. But you may want to ask yourself if these particular devils need another advocate. And that to some of us, this isn’t play. This is an issue that affects us, deeply, every single day of our lives.
And Esprix, I love you too. Ya big lug.
Except that I am in favor of gay people being able to marry- (why should we get all the heartache & misery of divorce? 
). However, to me it is not a big issue, hardly the one big issue that would cause me to vote for or against a candidate. And for that- I have been called “homophobic”. In fact- right here on this board- espix & I agreed on an issue- but another poster called my postition “homophobic”. Of course, they wouldn’t dare to call Esprix that. But they could call me that- because I did not agree with them 100%.
But I do very much disagree* with you on one point- “if you are not supportive…you’re actively participating…”. Wrong. Some dudes just don’t care much about an issue that does not directly concern them- they are apathetic on such issues. However, they are “actively” doing nothing of the sort- they are “actively” doing nothing at all to be 100% correct. And this is part of what pisses me off- “If you are not 100% actively supporting my position, and working hard to support it- then you are against me and a homophobe”.
So- if a “gay marriage” prop came up on the CA Ballot, allowing same-sex marriages- I’d vote for it. But I wouldn’t campaign actively for it, or donate money, or volunteer. And- for that- some would call me a “homophobe”. And you know, call someone who doesn’t deserve it a name often enough, and you might turn them into one.:mad:
*which means, I guess that soon someone will come around and…
Actually, to me, that would seem to put you into the “actively supportive” category pretty firmly. Thank you.
Yeah, there are some fringe looneys that think that you’re a bigot if you don’t wear rainbow colors every day. But hey, on the other side, there’s Fred Phelps. Loonies abound; assuming that everyone on one side or the other is a loony does no-one any good.
Understand this is based on a conversation with a specific group of Christians (mostly hailing from the south and midwest, if that means anything). A further issue with sinning for those specific Christians was that by giving approval of the sin (whether by renting a home to a gay couple or by voting in favour of gay marriage), they become guilty of the sin themselves (based on Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians). I don’t agree with that attitude, but respect their right to hold it & am not sure it would be “right” to try to convince them their religious beliefs are wrong, any more than it would be right to try to convince a homosexual individual their sexuality is “wrong.”
I realise that, more than you probably can guess. But, the religious aspect of this issue is a difficult one for me; while I wouldn’t want to interfere with someone’s religious beliefs, I also don’t like to see discrimination of any kind. I’m not asking the questions to necessarily advocate for those Christians, but to hear other perspectives and hopefully resolve the issue for myself (plus, hopefully find some different rationale and counter-argument for the next time I end up debating the subject ).
If someone had a deep religious conviction that it was their duty to go out and kill anyone named Smith, would you have any compunctions about trying to convince them that their religious beliefs were wrong?
The difference between convincing people who use their religion to oppress a class of people and the people who are fighting to be free of that oppression is demonstrable harm. I can prove that their religion is harming my partner and I in any number of ways. They can’t prove that our sexuality is harming anyone at all.
I’m torn - on the one hand, although I would still consider them bigots, if the only reasonable compromise between their faith and my life (what an interesting debate that would be) would be to not vote at all, I might be able to live with it, out of respect for their beliefs.
Then again, that overwhelming silence breeds affirmation and growth of bigotry and discrimination.
So, in the final wash, I’m going to have to say they’re partly responsible for the cause of the problem - the sin of omission. Let that sit on their conscience. I really don’t care what their religion says about me - according to the laws of the United States, I ought to have the same rights as everyone else, and by not supporting those rights, they stand against me. Do I hate them? No. But I’m not going to ease their conscience and I’m not going to absolve them of responsibility.
Ouch. That’s a hard line I just drew.
Esprix
Sionach, I can understand your point, and would have no problem with such a person – I know a few whose firmly held religious beliefs hold that gay sexual activity is classified as sinful by Biblical prohibitions, but who see themselves as sinners in other ways and would consider a gay person as no more or less a sinner than themselves, and as emphatically privileged to be protected from discrimination, though they might have reservations about marriage (some accept the idea of gay civil marriages, some consider that “marriage” means something that the union of two men and two women doesn’t match and are therefore opposed). That of course gets us into a major religious discussion which this thread probably ought to avoid, but I can see your point.
Note that this paragraph does not in any way absolve the Family Research Councils and other such actively anti-gay groups of their ongoing sin against their fellow man; it merely speaks of a group of people who attempt to live out the eschew-sin-but-love-your-fellow-man rule to the best of their abilities. That’s a tough knife-edge to walk, and I’m sympathetic to their dilemma – though more sympathetic to the gay people being oppressed by the pseudo-Christian FRC, AFA, etc.
However, while it might be possible to straddle that fence for a certain length of time, ultimately it comes down to “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”
That annoying “condoning of sin” thing that keeps being brought up – and nearly always these days with reference to homosexuality; I’ve never seen anyone doublecheck the references of a straight married couple to ensure that neither was previously married, although Jesus’s command against divorce would seem to be a stronger prohibition than the anti-gay passages – is one I’ve never grasped well. Would you care to explain, perhaps in another thread, how you understand it to apply, and cite your First Corinthians reference overtly?
Sionach,
The line I draw between “tolerance, but not acceptance” and “bigotry” generally works out by taking the action to extreme. If everyone in the United States refused to vote for gay marriage, my life would still be livable. More difficult? Almost certainly. But I could live in it with a certain degree of comfort.
If everyone in the United States refused to rent/sell to me because I’m gay, I can’t live very well at all. That to me steps over the line into bigotry. It treads on and infringes a basic need, that of shelter for no tangible reason. I am not likely to destroy the place, bring down the property value, or even play loud music at 3AM. Yes, odds are I could find another place to reside, but all that is a cop-out.
No one should step on another person’s basic rights and needs unless, by giving in to that need, their own basic needs are infringed. If I was going to wreck the apartment you rent me, thus endangering your own ability to make money you need to survive, refusing to rent makes sense. If I was going to party all night long and you were afraid that would drive other tenants out, you have every reason to not rent. However, my boyfriend and I sleeping together hurts your own basic needs in no way.
Of course there’s the grey area of “I have no problem, but some of my tenants might”, which then treads on your ability to support your own life, but thats not the motive brought up in your example.
PS: “you” does not imply Sionach specifically.
And thank you . And you know, I’d like to see that on the ballot. Likely I wouldn’t go so far as to work for the campaign, but I might slap on a bumpersticker, or even write a letter in support. Besides the “vote” part, of course.
Just a quickie for Polycarp, as I have to leave in a moment, but here is the Corinthians reference I was given (Corinthians 1, 5).
The passage was quoted to me in response to my asking how, if a Christian is not to judge, can he justify turning his back on anyone due to their sexuality. His response was that by giving approval to the sin, he becomes guilty of the sin as well (per Corinthians), since the sinner is guilty under the Law of God.
I really dislike Paul. Casting out the “sexually immoral”? Jesus dined with the sexually immoral. He associated with prostitutes! He befriended a tax collector! By Paul’s own words Jesus should be cast out of the church founded around his teachings!
Its ridiculous. More than that, its completely against Christ’s own teachings. The only people he ever drove out were the hypocrites.