Argentbear
Well-Known Member
your request for honest dialogue fall flat when you post things like thisSo you’re saying homosexuals are all bigoted? I don't think so.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
your request for honest dialogue fall flat when you post things like thisSo you’re saying homosexuals are all bigoted? I don't think so.
First of all, I appreciate your well thought out questions and answers. Patience is somewhat of a virtue and you seem to know when to exercise it. Unfortunately my impatience confounds my desire to appropriately express my ideas more often than not. Why can't people just see...you know? But I sometimes forget I'm one of those people. Anyways, the struggle continues...I regret offending you, but I don't see how I can avoid that if I'm arguing that your position is homophobic as I use the term, and that term offends you.
So you said. I can only offer reasons as to why it would be to your benefit to do so. It’s my understanding that you are retired. Should you still be in the job market for example your needs might be quite different and more compelling.I feel no need to do so.
Problems are often overlooked or misidentified to our detriment. We can only hope that what we ourselves do not see we can be wise enough to listen to others who do see and then make decisions influenced less by our pride than by all modes of information.I still don't see a problem.
Here is what I said in answer...I asked you if it was meaningful to you that you're offended at being called homophobic but that I wasn't offended at being called a Marxist or baby killer and didn't see an answer.
I've studied the etymology. There's now a movement towards using "anti-homosexual" or "Heterosexism" or "Heterosexist" in place of homophobia due to the words somewhat confused applications.The suffix -phobia refers to an aversion. In the original psychiatric sense, it meant aversion with fear. Claustrophobes fear and avoid enclosed spaces. Agoraphobes avoid going out. Each of these is a type of fearful aversion, but the word is now also used in a nonclinical way to describe aversion with repulsion. Anything that one finds fearful or repulsive can be called a phobia.
Why confuse the issue by placing a bunch of possibly accurate labels as applied to yourself into the definition of a word that started out pretty well defined? Suddenly you have a word applied to yourself that used to mean "fear of" but since you don't have "fear of" you've expanded the definition to include something you do have so that the word can be aptly applied to yourself.I find being in a church during services off-putting. It's not a fear. It's a kind of repulsion. The word ecclesiophobia in the clinical sense refers to a literal fear of churches or religion, but I would expand that usage to include people like me who are simply annoyed by church services.
I do lovingly tolerate homosexuals. I've been saying as much consistently throughout this thread. But what do you mean by "tolerate" homosexuality? Am I supposed to tolerate sexual acts between men? What does that mean? Let them do it without interference? If it’s between them in privacy how am I supposed to interfere? If a man wishes to have sex with a man that is between themselves and "God" for lack of a better term.You are asked to lovingly tolerate homosexuals and homosexuality, not to find homosexuality appealing or to engage in it, and not to celebrate it.
The only way to meaningfully approve of something in another is to mentally project (theory of mind) oneself into doing that which one is approving of. Since such a projection into "doing" homosexual acts is abhorrent to me as a heterosexual I cannot approve of such things.I don't know what approved of means to you here.
And once again I've consistently said I do tolerate homosexuals as human beings. I have gay acquaintances as well. Probably many acquaintances that are gay that I have no idea are.Once again, you are only asked to lovingly tolerate homosexuals. Why not? I do. I have many gay acquaintances.
Thank you for your honest reflection here.I am not sexually attracted to them, but neither am I repulsed by them. I do get a little uncomfortable like I described in church above, which can also be called homophobia. I don't know why that is, but I know it's irrational and something I don't want to express or reveal.
As do I. Their sexuality is on your mind more so because being labeled a homosexual or a heterosexual or what have you is a condition not a person. Homosexuality is a sexuality not a human being but a condition embodied by that human being. One cannot help but be a human being if one is a human being. There is nothing actionable to change that. Sexuality is actionable. You can act in accordance with your sexuality or not act in accordance with your sexuality.I hate that their lives are made worse by homophobes. I hate that their sexuality is on my mind more than when with heterosexuals. It shouldn't be, but my feelings are out of my control. My behavior, however, is not.
Sounds like you want me to just conform. I think we both know how that attitude turned out for some societies. Feelings can be irrational but their arousal can most certainly be a rational response. And expressing ones feelings can also be productive. Suppressing ones feelings to placate someone else's is hardly a paved path to less destructive behaviors.You can be the same if you want to. Just recognize that your feelings are irrational and expressing them is destructive. It contributes to making the lives of some others more marginalized and more difficult. Aversion be damned. Be a friend.
Agreed. However, each of these are minorities for different reasons. LGBT people are minorities because of their sexuality. African Americans are minorities because of their race. The handicapped are minority-thank God- because of their physical or mental impairment. Muslims are minority because of their religious affiliation. Each of these groups being minorities are dependent upon their current location. While each of these minorities have been and may still be persecuted that is not the driving factor which makes them minorities. Majorities can be persecuted by minorities, again dependent upon their current locations.LGBT people are a minority, just like African American's, just like the handclapped, just like Muslims.
Um, can you clarify how pedophiles being a minority - if they were - justifies hating homosexuals? I'm thinking you've been exposed to some pretty poor reasoning. Perhaps because of that you think that all reasoning in relation to homosexuals must be poor?Now it's usually at this time that homophobes try to claim pedophiles are a minority as a justification that it is just fine to hate homosexuals.
Before I deny hate? Let me clarify something for you, it may or may not benefit the way you approach other peoples thought and action.(and before you deny hate, if you are comparing ANY minority to a child abuser you are engaging in hate)
Yes, that can be one definition if you’re specifically talking about a group of people that has been made subordinate in some manner.A minority is a culturally, ethnically, religious or racially distinct group that has a shared sense of collective identity and community that coexists with but is subordinate to a more dominant group with socially shared rules about who belongs and who does not.
I think I've shown that definitionally they can be identified as a minority in the general population. But what's more, a little investigation into the annals of criminal activities - the public records of Interpol or the FBI are good places to start - will show you that some pedophile groups have had some pretty sophisticated systems of community membership in sharing, cooperating, and celebrating their international criminal activities. There is subcultures of pedophile communities out there. We only know about the ones that have been caught.Pedophiles are not a culturally distinct group, they do not have a shared sense of collectives identity, they do not have a community or any of the other identifiers of a minority.
Um...no. It’s not. Racism deals with racial issues. Sexuality deals with sexual issues. African American is a race of people. Homosexuality is a sexuality. A sexuality is not a race. So what's the difference between a race and a sexuality? A race of people isn't a preference. It’s not actionable. Either you are African American or you are not. That fact isn't actionable. African American isn't something you do. It’s something you are even if you don't want to be.I get you don't like the comparison to racism but it is entirely apt.
You’re trying to associate a race of people with what exactly? A sexuality? I don't think it’s a good comparison and I don't think African Americans as a race would generally agree that their plight is comparable to a sexuality.Both LGBT and African American's have a long history of experiencing prejudice and discrimination and persecution often with such things being justified by religion.
You haven't explained how “dissent against” is an attack. It’s a personal position. You haven't explained how I am hating homosexuals? And can you explain, since you mentioned immorality, if it is immoral behavior or if not, why, and what specific behavior you are speaking about?those attacking both minorities will deny they hate individuals or even the minority themselves they just object to their immoral behavior.
Nope...I don't like smokers smoking up in my face either. I don't enjoy seeing smoke butts everywhere I walk, in parks, in playgrounds, every curbside, yards, EVERYWHERE! It’s like smokers either inconsiderately don't care or are blind to the fact that butts don't magically disappear like they are biodegradable. However while I condemn the actions of some smokers I don’t condemn smokers in general.Claims of "in my face" or being forced to "celebrate" their lifestyle are echo's of they should know their place and complaints about getting "uppity"
Follow with me...you obviously believe I am not a victim and I have overtly said I am not a victim so who am I invoking victimhood for?the lable does fit and you are not a victim you are just invoking victiumhood.
Why? Are you following a script based on previously poorly reasoned arguments from others? Not everyone who is bothered by homosexuality can articulate why clearly. That doesn't make their feelings irrational or their beliefs wrong.and here i thought you woudl go for the pedophile angle.
I never claimed to have the right to dictate anything.what gives you the right?
Well you've called it disgusting and derogatory. Is it not sick to you as well or am I mistaken?When did I say anything about bestiality being "sick"?
How about nearly every animal species that engages in copulation. Are you saying that all copulation in the so called lower animals is without "informed" consent? What do you think comprises being informed? What and how are they informed? How do they show consent if you don't believe all sex in other species is forced? Might we consider their instinct is what informs there consent?Show me an animal that can give informed consent.
Okay...and?You have to be comparing homosexuality to bestiality in order to those comparable questions
The first part wasn't a fib. It was a truth followed by a question which you didn't answer.and you just told a fib about what I said. Shame on you.
I referred to sexual preference in my post not the person typed by that preference...let me explain further.homosexuality isn't a preference any more than heterosexuality is a preference.
You first mentioned race, racists, and racism in this conversation in response to my post. You've used one of those terms at least 23 times in our interactions so far in responses to what I've posted. You've claimed I'm homophobic, have equated homophobia with racism definitionally, and have directly compared some of my responses with racism and racist rhetoric.I never said you were a racist. please stop with the dishonesty
Except I'm pretty sure I've shown that they certainly can be considered minorities.Except neither the police or the girl scouts are not minorities
sounds like you are upset they are refusing to hide in the closet.Claims of "in my face" like claims against smoke butts are not claims against homosexuals. They’re claims against those specific and increasing expressions of homosexuality that are popping up
even where they don't make sense where we have an estimated 1.2 to 6.xx% of the adult population being members of the LGBTQ++ population but we have an unrealistic 90% increase in their representation of their sexuality in every media available from commercials, tv, movies, and even kids cartoons,
you mean the way other minorities are honored?to national holidays and the renaming of streets or removal of street signs in some cities in order to honor “queerness”.
where do you shop?Why do I have to be reminded of someone's sexual preferences every time I go to the damn grocery store or turn on the television?
Like straight people's are?The sad thing about this is that there is nothing else to emphasize but their sexuality. What's worse is constantly being, unintentionally or not, bombarded with ravings about how some people’s sexual preferences should be celebrated.
Its complete and total ignorance and lunacy. Yah…let’s celebrate sex instead of being a decent human being that treats other human beings morally.
"Pride" isn't about celebrating diversity and minorities in order to lift them up. If it were we'd be leaving the sexual aspects out of it.
Make all the excuses you want but just by observing pride day celebrations the obvious fact is...it’s become a twisted way of celebrating specific ways of getting sexual gratification and we are doing little more than reducing the LGBTQ++ population to being defined by how they approach sex while at the same time demonstrating just how ignorant and unreasonable human beings can be.
Because gays aren't human?Can you tell me why we should make a national holiday for all sexualities that aren't heterosexualism?
Pride is making a perverse mockery of African Americans, Mexicans, Native Americans, and any other minority group that actually has something to celebrate other than their sexual desires. Like their h...u...m...a...n...i...t...y!
Gosh I wish I could get back to you sooner but I have so many interests including the necessities of survival that time is a premium occasionally.sounds like you are upset they are refusing to hide in the closet.
For that year...there's been a consistent and persistent increase over the years so it matters if you take an accumulative average over years or a percentage increase over a single year.according to media matters and GLADD in 2022 it was as 2.8% increase.
I don't know...what does "positive representation" mean as related to homosexuals?In looking at primetime scripted series regulars on broadcast networks they identified 775 regular characters 49 of these characters were homosexual. They noted that 34 of these characters were positive representations. Maybe it is the positive representation that you are having trouble with.
Those other minorities are not honored for their sexuality. That still sounds ridiculous to me...to honor a minority for the way they like to have sex.you mean the way other minorities are honored?
Irrelevant. It either is or isn't consistently present in one form or another. And in my case it seems to be consistently present.where do you shop?
Who celebrates heterosexual sexuality and if so how and why?Like straight people's are?
Do you not understand that that is literally the defining characteristic of homosexuality? We are literally discussing sex. Its not an obsession unless every discussion you have about a particular subject is considered obsession.you seem obsessed with sex
Your own posts show just how dishonest your statement here isGosh I wish I could get back to you sooner but I have so many interests including the necessities of survival that time is a premium occasionally.
Upset? Absolutely not. I'd rather everything were out in the open, not hidden in a closet. How else are we to address our differences if they sit festering in secret with neither of the parties none the wiser.
You make it the defining characteristic showing your unhealthy obsession.Do you not understand that that is literally the defining characteristic of homosexuality? We are literally discussing sex. Its not an obsession unless every discussion you have about a particular subject is considered obsession.
Its almost as if they are peopleI'm glad you've shared those pictures. Perhaps I can use them to help you understand my position better.....
Consider this....If we strip away the context those individuals in the pictures find themselves in ; the rainbow flags, the pride signs, etc. all indicators of where those people are and then look at them as just people showing affection for one another amidst a happy setting there would be absolutely no indicators left by which you could determine what sexuality they prefer.
Yes what is being expressed in those picture is exactly LGBT. I'm sorry you can't set aside your own prejudice to see thatThey are just people showing their humanity for one another. Their not homosexual, heterosexual, bi, or any other label you wish to give them in the moment. They are simply humans being humane and compassionate with each other.
What is being expressed in these pictures is not what makes them homosexuals or lesbians or etc. Sexual preference is what determines those things.
These events had cordoned off areas where these pictures obviously were taken. to get into these areas you have to pass through check points provide ID showing you were an adult and that you knew exactly what you were going to see. I'm sure Kristine Parks didn't mention that to her audience. And who is the intended audience? Obviously homophobesIt is notable that pride parades, by demonstration, are good indicators of an unhealthy confusion of sexuality with love and ones humanity.
For example....you've conveniently cherry picked and chosen pictures from those parades which show the decent humanity which is an inherent characteristic of most people in all sexualities. The following pictures -for purposes of demonstrating my point- I have cherry picked from a variety of the same pride parades around the world and some headlines.
View attachment 93975View attachment 93976View attachment 93977View attachment 93978View attachment 93979View attachment 93980View attachment 93981View attachment 93982View attachment 93983
'Family-friendly' Pride parade in West Hollywood had men depicting graphic BDSM sexual act
West Hollywood advertised the parade as a 'colorful and entertaining event for the whole family'
By Kristine Parks Fox News
Published June 5, 2023 5:30pm EDT
One thing I find attractive about online forums such as these is that one can be, and is even encouraged to a degree, to be brutally honest in the interest of the pursuit of true knowledge and wisdom without the derailing fear of unwarranted violence or destructive harassment .Your own posts show just how dishonest your statement here is
Please think things through. I've pointed this out already. Having a discussion, debate, giving a speech, or writing an essay about a subject does not make it an obsession or unhealthy. Insisting on unreasoned opinion despite reasoned counterarguments may be.You make it the defining characteristic showing your unhealthy obsession.
On the contrary, I've already pointed out, numerous times that none of those things are specific to or necessarily lacking in any specific sexuality. Consider this...look at your list and from that list alone could you tell me what sexuality the couple that has all those things is?You ignore love
you ignore marriage
you ignore family
you ignore people just living their daily life
My friend, I've never argued that they weren't. If I have please show me so that I may correct that opinion.Its almost as if they are people
Its almost as if your deliberately creating your own delusion about what I've said.Yes what is being expressed in those picture is exactly LGBT. I'm sorry you can't set aside your own prejudice to see that
In my researching this I came across multiple eyewitness testimonies concerning the very adult actions of participants in these parades in front of children. The pictures I came across are obviously part of a parade on a street in a city with no indication of cordoned off areas. And why in the world should a parade supposedly celebrating the human dignity of a minority group of people have associated cordoned off places for these kinds of activities to take place anyway. Your really stretching here. Multiple news outlets ran stories on the subject.These events had cordoned off areas where these pictures obviously were taken. to get into these areas you have to pass through check points provide ID showing you were an adult and that you knew exactly what you were going to see. I'm sure Kristine Parks didn't mention that to her audience. And who is the intended audience? Obviously homophobes
LoveOn the contrary, I've already pointed out, numerous times that none of those things are specific to or necessarily lacking in any specific sexuality. Consider this...look at your list and from that list alone could you tell me what sexuality the couple that has all those things is?
Of course you can't because those characteristics are not specific to any one sexuality. However, add a sexual component and you can then define what sexuality the couple is.
One might argue and some have argued that life IS about sex. That it is about the propagation of ones genes into the next generation. Or failing that, the happy pursuit of hedonistic desires. To those people little else matters.Life isn't about sex for anyone and isn't necessary to define one's sexual orientation.
Yes they are. But only in so much as the sexual urges that define their sexuality exists within them. The urges continue to exist but they don't have to have sex to have those urges. Your putting the cart before the horse. The urges exist which pushes one to act upon them. Willpower, lack of opportunity, or some other interfering factor may stop the person from fulfilling their urges but that does not eliminate their existence. It just stops their fulfillment....until it doesn't. Either way we are able to label someone with a particular sexuality because their sexual preferences continue to exist whether or not they are fulfilled. We don't label someone with a sexuality because of the way they've had sex. The act of having sex does not define their sexuality. Their sexual preferences do. Some homosexuals are celibate their entire lives I'm sure. And so are some heterosexuals. We are only then able to label them with a sexuality because of the continued existence of their sexual preferences. If they have no sexual libido at all then labeling them with a sexuality would be irrelevant and meaningless.People are gay or straight or bi whether they are having sex or not, they are gay or straight or bi without ever having had sex at all.
I'll ask again....how does any of these things define a person as a homosexual? They may be potential characteristics found in particular homosexuals but those things alone do not define that person as homosexual since those are characteristics that may be found or not found in any person regardless of their sexuality. So what does? What defines a person as a homosexual?Love
marriage
family
daily life
Identity
acceptance
Your confusing people with sexuality. I personally find homosexuality distasteful, and unhealthy. That says nothing about homosexuals as people. I find some homosexuals absolutely decent human beings, as was indicated in the pictures you presented and some absolutely abhorrent human beings as in some of the pictures I posted. No different than heterosexuals in that regard.You keep saying how you want an open honest and thoughtful discussion but that is impossible when you view the people involved as nothing more than a sex act.
I think your making it prejudicial and bigoted by deliberately or indeliberately ignoring what I've actually been saying.That is at best prejudice and at worst bigotry neither of which has any place in the kind of discussion you claim to want. .
Who they love. Who they marry. Who the start a family with.I'll ask again....how does any of these things define a person as a homosexual? They may be potential characteristics found in particular homosexuals but those things alone do not define that person as homosexual since those are characteristics that may be found or not found in any person regardless of their sexuality. So what does? What defines a person as a homosexual?
No, no, and no.Who they love. Who they marry. Who the start a family with.
Yep that is the generally accepted "politically correct" definition. What this definition doesn't make clear for fear of offending someone is that all of those things involve a sexual component when applied to sexual orientation, hence the phrase "sexual orientation". I mean seriously...the initiation of emotional patterns in sexual orientation has its origins in the persons sexuality. The same goes for the vague notion of romance...you've got to love these nebulous terms.Sexual orientation refers to an individuals enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes.
Depends on what you mean by identity. Do homosexuals identify themselves only by who they wish to have sex with? If not then you have to ask yourself what portion of their identity is based on their sexual orientation? Sexual orientation is a part of self identification, it is not the whole basis of ones identity.Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors and membership in a community of others who share those attractions.
I think this is where a lot of confusion is created. There's a disconnect between understanding what people who don't like homosexuality actually don't like about it and what homosexuals try to present themselves as to those kinds of people.So it is love that defines a person as homosexual or heterosexual or bi sexual. It is also defined by identity
Absolutely, and?Homosexuality like all sexual orientations is defined in terms of relationships with others
Holding hands or even kissing has cultural connotations attached to it. These things can be signs of courtship which has a sexual component defining ones sexual orientation, or they can be signs of being friends or greeting one another without sexual components attached which have nothing to do with ones sexual orientation.People express their sexual orientation through behaviors with others, including such simple actions as holding hands or kissing. Thus, sexual orientation is closely tied to the intimate personal relationships that meet deeply felt needs for love, attachment and intimacy.
They certainly can include those other things but those other things do not distinguish homosexuality from any other sexuality. If we strip away the sexual component in defining a particular sexuality then we're left with a definition which may describe any sexuality. The end result is we haven't really defined anything. For instance I would look up a definition for homosexual and then one for heterosexual and get the exact same definition. Given that fact what exactly have I defined? Nothing in the way of difference. Heterosexuals would be homosexuals by definition and vice versa. That just may cause some shock and confusion on a first date.In addition to sexual behaviors, these bonds include nonsexual physical affection between partners, shared goals and values, mutual support and ongoing commitment.
Homosexuality is not a person nor a minority group of people. For some reason your not grasping the difference.Homosexuality is not just about sex, either as individuals or as a minority.
Come on...this sounds a bit desperate and I think its beneath you. I'll stick with the reasoned arguments rather than tit for tat you on insults. Though I'm only human.And if you can't see and understand that then i have to wonder just what is wrong with you
you can't have a reasoned discussion when you view the people you are wanting to argue about with with contempt.No, no, and no.
A man doesn't have to be a homosexual to love another man.
Although homosexuals can and do marry, being married has nothing to do with homosexuality. You are a homosexual whether your married or not if you are a homosexual. Being a homosexual may determine who you wish to be married to but it has no determination in whether or not you are a homosexual. There is no fundamental difference in the institutions of heterosexual marriage or homosexual marriage. The difference lies in the participants and their intentions.
Since it is not within a homosexuals ability to start a traditional family -that is, have progeny between themselves and their partner- I'm presuming you mean family as in adoption. Be that as it may, starting a family, like marrying, may be done by homosexuals in some fashion but that again is not a determinate of why they are homosexual. Loving someone, marrying, and starting a family are not determinates of who is homosexual and who is not. You are simply describing a set of which some homosexuals may be an element in. Love, Marriage, and family do not define homosexuality. Those things may only characterize certain homosexuals.
Some homosexuals have no desire to start a family, fall in love, or get married. That doesn't make them no longer homosexual.
Yep that is the generally accepted "politically correct" definition. What this definition doesn't make clear for fear of offending someone is that all of those things involve a sexual component when applied to sexual orientation, hence the phrase "sexual orientation". I mean seriously...the initiation of emotional patterns in sexual orientation has its origins in the persons sexuality. The same goes for the vague notion of romance...you've got to love these nebulous terms.
That being said...you still haven't answered the question..."If this definition applies to all sexualities in general then what applies to homosexuals specifically? How do we distinguish between the sexualities? There is only one component that specifically differentiates the sexualities from each other. What is that component? I think you know but for some reason you don't want to go there.
Here's a helpful hint, there is only one type of love that can specifically identify a sexuality. That is erotic love. All other types of love are sexual orientation and gender irrelevant.
Depends on what you mean by identity. Do homosexuals identify themselves only by who they wish to have sex with? If not then you have to ask yourself what portion of their identity is based on their sexual orientation? Sexual orientation is a part of self identification, it is not the whole basis of ones identity.
Again, those "attractions" that define a homosexual as a homosexual all have an underlying sexual component or else your simply hanging with a group regardless of sexual orientation. I mean really, what group "behaviors" do you think distinguishes one sexual orientation from another that would make a person be more inclined to hang with that group? What portion of ones "identity" does sexual orientation create in a person and by what attractors? Think about it.
Do you think homosexuals like to hang with homosexuals because they dance different, play sports different, tell jokes different? What do you think that homosexuals do different that tends to attract them to each other?
I think this is where a lot of confusion is created. There's a disconnect between understanding what people who don't like homosexuality actually don't like about it and what homosexuals try to present themselves as to those kinds of people.
The love your describing here is an erotic love. The Greeks called it Eros of course. There is always a sexual component to it. It is THE ONLY kind of love that distinguishes one sexuality from another as I've attempted to explain above.
I'm not saying that the other kinds of love are non existent in any particular sexuality, specifically here, homosexuality. I'm just saying that no other kind of love can distinguish one sexuality from another except Eros.
Absolutely, and?
Holding hands or even kissing has cultural connotations attached to it. These things can be signs of courtship which has a sexual component defining ones sexual orientation, or they can be signs of being friends or greeting one another without sexual components attached which have nothing to do with ones sexual orientation.
When you use the word "intimate" how are you using it?
Relationships involving the need for love, attachment or intimacy do not in themselves define homosexuality. Their intentions do.
The need for love (other than erotic love) has nothing to do with sexual orientation. We all feel it regardless of the sexual orientation of those who give it to us. I may have a homosexual brother who I love dearly and seek love from but that would have nothing to do with defining his sexual orientation.
The same with attachment and intimacy. You've just described a typical nuclear family regardless of any homosexual component.
How many times must it be said...your making an argument for the wrong thing. Your trying to argue that homosexuals are people who do people things. That's not being argued here.
Consider this...If we go with how your defining homosexuality then any homosexual who prefers one night stands over commitment cannot be defined as a homosexual.
They certainly can include those other things but those other things do not distinguish homosexuality from any other sexuality. If we strip away the sexual component in defining a particular sexuality then we're left with a definition which may describe any sexuality. The end result is we haven't really defined anything. For instance I would look up a definition for homosexual and then one for heterosexual and get the exact same definition. Given that fact what exactly have I defined? Nothing in the way of difference. Heterosexuals would be homosexuals by definition and vice versa. That just may cause some shock and confusion on a first date.
Homosexuality is not a person nor a minority group of people. For some reason your not grasping the difference.
Homosexuality is a preference. It is a preference held by a minority group of people.
Homosexuality IS just about sexual preference. Those that have this preference may embody other elements in their identity but the element of homosexuality of which is a component of their self identity literally involves sexual preference.
Come on...this sounds a bit desperate and I think its beneath you. I'll stick with the reasoned arguments rather than tit for tat you on insults. Though I'm only human.
I hope your having a nice evening.
That is incorrect. One can certainly have a reasoned discussion about whether or not that contempt is reasonable.you can't have a reasoned discussion when you view the people you are wanting to argue about with with contempt.
Dude, I regularly volunteer at a queer center and run a group that meets there (though it's not officially a part of the center, just everyone in it happens to be so it's where we meet). I have never known this mentality.Uh huh...So if a heterosexual says they don't like homosexual acts though they've said nothing about any individual person are they still not labeled as homophobic?
Consider yourself very, very lucky. What I hear quite often from the LGBT community is that anyone who thinks it is a sin is a homophobe, even if they do acts of great kindness towards gays such as helping those with HIV.Dude, I regularly volunteer at a queer center and run a group that meets there (though it's not officially a part of the center, just everyone in it happens to be so it's where we meet). I have never known this mentality.
I don't see the "its a sin" = homophobe. Its usually "its a sin and therefore discrimination is OK".Consider yourself very, very lucky. What I hear quite often from the LGBT community is that anyone who thinks it is a sin is a homophobe, even if they do acts of great kindness towards gays such as helping those with HIV.