posted on October 22, 2001 05:24:48 PM new
luculent
Just from reading your post I can see that its not nessairly that anyone is interested in anyone elses sex life.
you your self pointed out the your mailman the coach the teacher since you say your not interested in there sex life then it must be they brought the facts directly to your attention.
You as you say not interested are pulled into the know on there way of life.
by the way faith is belief, faith is not religion, Faith is not judgemental when someone believes in something and it is good they tend to pass on details about it weather it dish soap, hair spray, faith in God or good news.
I have no idea about the sexual preferences of my mailman, coaches, or teachers. I do not care about their sexual preferences. Those were just examples.
I was just asking why sexual preference seems to be of concern to people. JT said that tax dollars were part of the problem of sexual preference. But that's because so many in our society seem to think that sexual preferences dictactes the ability to do a job. Then tax dollars are used to defend the right to employment or housing and other such stuff.
I could care less about my mailman's sexual preference. I am more concerned about receiving my mail dry and in one piece.
posted on October 22, 2001 06:24:28 PM new
[i]"What motivates me to keep posting to this topic is the consternation I feel when I see people using religion and science as convenient justifications to look down upon an entire group of people. How would they object if they couldn't refer back to God or Darwin? Maybe they'd be forced to admit Because I don't like the way gays look or act! Because I think what they do is disgusting! Because I'm afraid of it! Thing is, they know objections of that type
aren't good enough reasons to treat people like second class citizens. So instead they reach for religion or science so they "righteously" denounce them. That way they can be heard and remain true to their own personal agendas"[/i].
Yes, yes, Spaz, but there are a somewhat large number of groups of people to whom or about about which other people do those things, and sufficient leeway to distort a reading of the bible in a way in which one group may judge the direction in which another group mows their lawn I'm sure. Yet here such things draw little attention while homosexuality draws some without fail.
posted on October 22, 2001 07:08:12 PM newIf my son's teacher is gay, what does that have to do with her ability to teach?
1. Will my child be aware of it? If so then it is not appropriate.
2. If a teacher does not teach all (subjects & character) in light of God and the Bible, they have no business teaching my child in the first place.
[ edited by jt on Oct 22, 2001 07:12 PM ]
posted on October 22, 2001 07:32:15 PM new
Serious question: Why does Terri have to? Isnt she entitled to have a gut feeling (if thats what it is), or go with what she was raised to believe, or just plain ol' not accept it? Why must she or anyone be forced to condone it to keep from being called names or accused of being a bigot or whatever? TO each his own. Why do you need an answer from her to suit what you want to hear, or force her to believe in?
posted on October 22, 2001 08:12:39 PM new
Why is it so all fired important to you, spaz, what other people think or feel about any subject, and so especially the subject that seems to fascinate you as this one does? Doesn't that fly in the face of your claim to promote a live and let live relationship between people?
posted on October 22, 2001 08:17:18 PM new
You are insinuating that her opinions about homosexuality are “wrong” because she obtains them from “God, the Bible or science.” Once again, the poor Christian’s viewpoint can’t be accepted as remotely valid because she is blindly following some man-made book instead of thinking for herself, the poor narrow-minded soul.
Sometimes it appears that there is very little “tolerance” for Christians at AW. Ya'll certainly don’t have to agree with Christians, or even like them, but being “tolerant” of their viewpoints, the same way you preach tolerance of everything else, wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world. The double standard is obvious.
Now I’m a sensitive person so please don’t eat me alive.
(formatting problem)
[ edited by nefish on Oct 22, 2001 08:18 PM ]
Why is it important to you or anyone else who posts here what people think? Why do you post here? To get responses? Or to have a conversation with yourself? Me, I prefer to hear what other people are thinking about this or any other topic that I participate in.
What fascinates me, as you put it, is the way people abdicate personal responsibility for their opinions, choosing instead to attribute them to the dictates of church or science. And using them as license to look down their noses at people, like that makes it okay.
How long ago was it that people used science to suggest that black people were inferior to white people? Or both science and religion as justifications to slaughter Jews?
posted on October 22, 2001 08:41:22 PM new
Yet you make your own judgements using conscience, your superego, an element in theory which may have no substance, yet nevertheless science, and go about directing that people look within themselves to find their flaws as you have adjudicated them flaws. You say that if they do in fact follow their own religious beliefs then PERHAPS they are not homophobic but if they follow their religious beliefs because they are those of someone else they may not be homophobic but those others may be.
Anyway you twist it it doesn't sound to me to be a matter of observation but instead it looks like a series of defensive accusations made against anyone who does not share your own viewpoint.
I didn't call you a bigot, so quit trying to lay that at my doorstep.
How do you figure Im laying it at your doorstep, spaz? Did I say you did? You sure are uptight about all this. And defensive. Frankly, its pissing me off.
posted on October 22, 2001 09:07:48 PM new
I shouldnt be surprised anyway. Now that you know who I am, you havent spoken more than two times to me, and those times were to be hateful.
posted on October 22, 2001 09:10:44 PM new
And while Im on a roll, I will say that I have learned alot from you, spaz. I also learned alot from Rocker. Transexuals are not necessarily gay, are they? I learned that, for one. So let me ask you this, and devil take the hindmost if I piss you off. Are you so defensive and knowledgable about this because you were born a woman, but you are now a man yourself? Or is that too personal to ask? Course, it cant be any more personal than you asking Terri or anyone else to think like you do about this matter of homosexual versus heterosexual and WHY they think or feel as they do, especially if they dont agree with what YOU think they should be agreeing to, or understanding or accepting of it.
edited to clarify the last sentence.
[ edited by Hepburn on Oct 22, 2001 09:12 PM ]
posted on October 22, 2001 09:18:42 PM new
History has seen its share of individuals who have cited religious beliefs as reasons to oppress, persecute or exterminate groups of people. We're seeing it right now, in the form of Osama Bin Laden, who wants to wipe out the West in the name of Islam.
Personally, I don't believe people like that are truly driven by his religious beliefs, but by motivations far more human -- lust for power, hatred, jealousy, etc. I think they coat it in religion to make it more palatable for public consumption.
How about the Klan? The Inquisition? The Nazis? Do you really think they were motivated by religion and/or science? They sure claimed to be. Or do you think the real reasons were more mundane -- greed, jealousy, fear, etc?
If I seem defensive, it's because I feel that far too many people in this world employ religion in their campaigns against others. I think it's dangerous, large scale or small.
Up above, you asked if my attitude flies in the face of the "live and let live relationship" that I "claim to promote." Not at all. Because that's only half of it. Live and let live, as long as nobody gets hurt.
As far as this particular topic goes, I think people are being hurt by prejudice that's being justified with, and fueled by, religion (and science). And I think it sucks. JMHO.
posted on October 22, 2001 09:24:29 PM new
Hogwash. Your attitude is no different than those you just named yourself. "Think as I think, or else I will think it sucks".
posted on October 22, 2001 09:42:10 PM new
The difference is that homosexuals (for the most part) are born that way - with no choice in the matter. So, when you tell a person who is gay that they are sinners you insinuate that you are somehow naturally better than they are just by virtue of how you happened to have been born and based on a religion that you consciously choose to base your life on.
You have a choice. Homosexuals do not have a choice to make.
Church or conscience? Neither.
Organized religion generally presents a distortion of God. God loves unconditionally... As a rule churches want you to believe there are conditions to his love. HAH!!!!! NOT!
Conscience implies to me that I have to make a choice. Since I am convinced that God himself does not have or need a gender I can't imagine why gender identity should be such a devisive force for us... So, it's irrelevent to me... as I believe it is to God.
God said, Make no mistake - I am love. Love is all there is. Love is the only law.
I'm not quoting the bible... I believe those words are from God's soul to mine based on my own experiences in the other realm. Take it or leave it - I choose to live my life by it.
Homosexuals are God's children too - so shame on anyone who wants to believe they are somehow closer to God because they happen to be hetrosexual.
posted on October 22, 2001 09:53:13 PM newNow that you know who I am, you havent spoken more than two times to me, and those times were to be hateful.
hepburn,
You know what? That's a complete exaggeration. Because I haven't agreed with you, or because I suggest that you're still sore about an earlier squabble, that's being hateful? I challenge you to come up with a single hateful comment I have made to you.
As for your subsequent question about my -- what, status? I'm not going to answer. I think it's an attempt to categorize my opinions, to find some reason to dismiss them, or explain them away, to say "Oh, that's why he feels that way" rather than seriously consider what I've written. I've seen it happen before to other people in this forum (not by you) and I don't approve of it. I'm not going to give that kind of approach any further validation by answering yes or no.
posted on October 22, 2001 10:03:03 PM newI'm not going to answer. I think it's an attempt to categorize my opinions, to find some reason to dismiss them, or explain them away, to say "Oh, that's why he feels that way" rather than seriously consider what I've written.
Dont you see, spaz? You are saying the same thing others have said to you about why they think and feel the way they do. Its the exact same thing. They believe as they do, right or wrong to whatever you think, and no matter what they say, or try to explain, it just isnt good enough. People are people, spaz. They arent bad because they were raised a certain way, or believe in God or what they think or believe God says. Its just the way they are.
posted on October 22, 2001 10:08:36 PM new
Say what?
""Oh, that's why he feels that way" rather than seriously consider what I've written. I've seen it happen before to other people in this forum (not by you) and I don't approve of it. I'm not going to give that kind of approach any further validation by answering yes or no".
Oh fine, but that's exactly what you do yourself, and to hepburn (is this a first?). You say that you haven't seen her do that classification before and go on to say that you won't respond to her doing it this time, yet you don't APPROVE of it.
Maybe back to your first post you go to contemplate whether or not you are what you proscribe and whether you can meet with your own approval.
posted on October 22, 2001 10:13:57 PM new
Spaz, I asked that of you because its what I have thought for a long time because of your knowledge, your intelligence about it, your ...whats the word I want?...PASSION to teach those of us who are ignorant on this issue. Not to hurt you, not to embarass you. I figured it might piss you off, because it would degrade your manliness or something (men are strange when it comes to their "manhood" so to speak). Even if you did answer, and it was affirmative, why would it matter? It wouldnt. You are spaz. A fellow poster at RT. Someone we all know (in boardland anyway). YOu are you. A person. A human being. Yes, things are tough for gays and transexuals and blacks and minorities and jews and muslims and this and that. Its like that the world over. But in here, in RT, it DOESNT MATTER. Or, it shouldnt matter. Or am I just naive? Id like to not think so.
edited to clarify the IF part..IF it was affirmative..not that it IS.
[ edited by Hepburn on Oct 22, 2001 10:19 PM ]
posted on October 22, 2001 10:19:26 PM new
Yeah. I don't care if it really is true that you are three feet tall flat headed and have no teeth and are made of green cheese. I still love you.
