posted on October 23, 2001 09:56:11 PM newNow, if I ACTED on that opinion and chose to treat gay people with less respect than straight people, THEN I would be a "bigot".
posted on October 23, 2001 09:59:48 PM new
Hepburn, I always thought of Gay Parades as more of an occasion of acceptance as a group, not a a day of proclamation.
posted on October 23, 2001 10:10:39 PM new
bunnicula - I'd like to try and give an answer to that. To me, Christians are just like any group. Like Democrats, Republicans, etc. Not every democrat feels/thinks/comes to the exact same conclusions on every issue. There are varying degrees. You have those who think all the way on the far right, and all the way on the far left of issues. For example when I was very young the Catholic church didn't allow birthcontrol. But many Catholics practiced birth control. Just as many democrats agree with most of the party line, there are some that don't agree with all the party lines, just with most. Same with Christians. It's hard to see that all Christians are being labeled with such a 'broad stroke of the brush'.
kraftdinner - Thank you for taking my post as I intended. I was asking you why homosexuality was "looked down upon" (so to speak) by Christians First I feel a need to share that there are many people who aren't religious at all, who 'look down upon' homosexuality. So please don't believe it is only Christians who find this behavior offensive/wrong.
The Bible says men should not lay with men. Christians believe in the Bible. Christianity is a faith, a belief and acceptance of a "God". Just like any religion, they follow what their religion preaches....in faith...in trust...in agreement.
when God says that we are not to judge but we're suppose to leave that to Him plus the other things I've stated. I really can't speak for other Christians. Some would feel the way I practice my Christian belief would not qualify me as a Christian. But I will try and answer as a person, not a Christian.
Many Christians struggle with leaving things to God and not being judgemental. But they are human and make decisions in their lives because of their beliefs. I see you, spaz and a couple of others asking that Christians separate their beliefs from their opinions. That's a pretty tall order. Their religious beliefs are a big part of who they are. Like asking someone to remove their tongue from their mouths and then speak. The Bible, and their thoughts are a part of the whole person.
There are few alive (of any faith - or no faith) who don't judge others in one way or another, right or wrong.
Some people seem to be so wrapped up in their firm stance on gays, and like what's been said here, base their beliefs on what the Bible says or what science says instead of having their own unbiased view.
KD, some people's religious training starts when they are born, others choose a religion as adults and everywhere in between. It's what they believe. Since I don't personally know you it's hard for me to give you an example that you could more easily relate to. But (making an assumption here) if you were raised by a loving mother you would believe she had your best interests at heart. You would trust what she told you to be the truth. You wouldn't question her love for you....you'd be seeing it on a day to day basis. To me, that's how it is for Christians. You, not being a religious person (??) cannot relate to anothers belief in something, ie the Bible, God...etc. and I believe that's the reason you can't understand. Some can take things/issues on 'faith' more easily than others.
Have you personally had any religious training? Or read anything on the many faiths of our world? If you don't feel comfortable answering, I understand.
posted on October 23, 2001 10:14:51 PM new
Spaz, a gentle reminder just for you:
I remember once when you had a hard time getting past being locked out of a certain place. You went from board to board complaining. Took you a long time to get past that, yourself. Now, want to toss more stuff my way? I have a long memory.
posted on October 23, 2001 10:20:02 PM new
KD, what made me so mad? I had my son with me, and he was small. I went because I wanted to show support for my friend, who is gay, and he was in the parade itself. The street was full of gay people having a good time, as was I. Until they started humping and grinding each other, making out in the street more feely rubbings that were blatantly sexual in gross ways. When people started hollering at them to stop because children were present, they got yelled back at that this was THEIR parade and they were PROUD to be gay and doubled the filth and disgusting behavior. Here where I live, during Mardi Gras for the local college, girls get up on guys shoulders and bare their breasts, so they stopped the Mardi Gras. Think they will do that for the gay parade and men flashing their penises at other men, or women rubbing their boobs against other women just to prove a point that they CAN? No. THATS what made me so angry and still does just thinking about it.
posted on October 23, 2001 10:27:14 PM new
And since Im on yet another roll, and will probably get flamed again for saying what Im saying, I may as well go out with a bang. Another reason some people MAY (notice I said MAY) not be open for learning is the WAY they are taught. Spaz and Bunnicula, for example, can and do try to explain without the insults or name calling. People like Rocker just insult. Period. To try to make people understand, one has to TEACH. Rocker yells. She insults. She thumps and hollers and gives more insults then resorts to titles and name calling. Of course those who have more questions wont dare ask. Who wants to get slammed just for daring to?
posted on October 23, 2001 10:31:10 PM new
I was going to stay out of this completely, but I have to say something here. I think that some people in this forum have been unfairly labeled just because of having a difference of opinion.
A person isn't a bigot because they don't agree with or accept a certain lifestyle. For one thing, I don't label a person by their lifestyle, gay or strait, anymore than I label them by their skin color or choice of religion. I consider a "gay person" a person who lives a gay lifestyle. Just because they live a lifestyle that I don't agree with or accept doesn't mean that I have a right to condemn them as a person or treat them any differently then anyone else.
On the other hand they don't have the right to tell me I have to accept their lifestyle. I don't and I won't! It's their business. I don't care and I don't want to know about it.
posted on October 23, 2001 10:37:33 PM new
Who's been unfairly labeled here outoftheblue? I think we're all just trying to understand each other, that's all.
posted on October 23, 2001 10:37:34 PM new
hepburn, you go girl, I am proud of you. I haven't had time to email you back, I wasn't ignoring you, so don't think that. Heather
posted on October 23, 2001 10:41:55 PM new
I was going to respond to Hep, but I see she's gone off to bed. Sleep well. I understand the hurt you're feeling, and I'm sorry this has happened to you. I too, didn't/don't like to be called a bigot for no other reason that sharing a different opinion.
posted on October 23, 2001 11:03:37 PM new
Would you care, lindaK, to point out where it is that spazmodeus called hepburn a bigot so everyone can see that you have some basis for your stance on this circumstance?
posted on October 23, 2001 11:21:05 PM new
In answer to James' question, our gay friends believe that their homosexuality is innate, as from what I've read do the majority of homosexuals in the US. If the estimates are correct though, there would be almost 26 million homosexuals in the country so doubtlessly one might encounter almost any opinion among minorities of them.
As to whether or not homosexuality is a matter of choice, that is a view primarily advanced by conservative fundamental Christians and hasn't been a major consideration of mainstream public discourse or social/scientific study for many years. The basic debate has been between the predominance of the environmental as opposed to the biological influence. The Gallup poll linked below shows that currently (as of last June) the public is split evenly between the enviornmental and genetic. Probably because somewhat serious biological study has only begun to be pursued the last couple of decades. Lots of other current opinion reflecting public sentiment toward homosexuality.
posted on October 23, 2001 11:33:11 PM new
That Gallup poll has one line that I need explained to me.
Over 80% of Americans accept the idea of including homosexuals under the protection of equal opportunity provisions in the workplace.
??? What does that mean exactly? I haven't filled out a job application in some time but I don't ever remember seeing a part of the application that asked:
Sexual orientation: (_)heterosexual (_)homosexual (_) bisexual (_)other
I may not be in that 80% if it means that gays will be a required minority in a workforce.
posted on October 23, 2001 11:55:47 PM new
I think the phrase just refers to non-discrimination in the workplace. But I haven't filled out a job application since 1967 so I'm not sure what's on the forms any more. Worked there for 30 years. I do remember though that at that time they still asked for the religious preference. Mine was none.
posted on October 24, 2001 12:10:52 AM new
can it be real?
[to Hepburn]
"I understand the hurt you're feeling, and I'm sorry this ['this' is being called a bigot by spaz] has happened to you. I too, didn't/don't like to be called a bigot for no other reason that sharing a different opinion"
Perhaps you didn't know that, lindaK, which is why I question your entry to the fray. You in essence condemn spazmodeus by your sympathy for hepburn. If you did not know the circumstance which brought about the interchange between them you had opportunity to find it right here in the thread.
posted on October 24, 2001 12:17:49 AM new(For those of you who just tuned in, I didn't call anyone a bigot. However, I did disagree with hepburn's stance in the linked thread. Let's rejoin our program, already in progress ... )
posted on October 24, 2001 12:22:05 AM new
My word! A double post. Sort of makes up for my lack of diligence otherwise I suppose.
[ edited by antiquary on Oct 24, 2001 12:25 AM ]
posted on October 24, 2001 12:33:28 AM newAs far as nature/science goes, biologically, it doesn't work! Two females can't produce offspring; nor can two males.
Au contraire in regards to females. The process is known as parthenogenesis and is well-known in lower animals up through reptiles (& in some plants). It has also been seen in mammals including humans, though the dividing cells die after a short period. Scientists have even been able to trigger it.
There is one lizard family that is famous for parthenogenesis--15 species within the family reproduce totally without males:
