pope made homophobic slur

[Argentbear]

So you’re saying homosexuals are all bigoted? I don't think so.

your request for honest dialogue fall flat when you post things like this

 

[FloorSalad]

Flaming queer here: is is a sub-ideal thing to do? Sure. Do I take offense? Not particularly. I don't really care for the pope generally but it sounds like something my grandma would have said. It just doesn't have the sting it used to. xD

 

[setarcos]

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.

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...

The term doesn't offend me. Its misuse as a description of what I am and its semantic shift over time somewhat annoys me since I feel it has been and is constantly misapplied and misused as a tool to push a particular and not altogether benign agenda. imo

I feel no need to do so.

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 still don't see a problem.

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 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.

Here is what I said in answer...

"It would seem that the answer to that is that I care about my reputation and whether or not I hold a true opinion whereas you apparently don't.
I understand what you’re trying to say. But I think it’s the wrong approach to ignorance. I think we should be concerned with false impressions about ourselves. I think we should be bothered by how accurately others see us as being versus how we wish to be seen. I think we should always be concerned if we have a true opinion about how we should be in comparison to how others are."

In short...it is meaningful to me to defend my reputation against what I see as being derogatorily mislabeled and ensuring others have accurate information concerning myself and my reasoning.
It apparently isn't important to you to ensure others have accurate information about yourself since you gauge the importance of action based upon what you perceive as effecting your comfort most irrespective of others accurate information. If that is an incorrect assessment I welcome your corrections.

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.

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.

I've looked at umpteen different versions of how homophobia is being defined...from Oxford and Cambridge's dictionary versions to Wikipedia to Planned Parenthoods version and Britannica's take on it.
Dictionary.com, vocabulary.com, Merriam Webster, and all the way to the Civil Liberties Union for Europe and APA's Dictionary of Psychology as well as UCSF's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Resource Center.
They all have subtly differing definitions. Some of them not so subtly. Some of them overtly agenda driven.
Originally the word was what its constituent parts said it was...the irrational fear of a particular type of person. Now we have a hodgepodge of evolved definitions which are being used to demonize all dissention against homosexual practice. Now, even if you’re against a particular sexual practice like sodomy, you’re a bigot or worse. Mark my words...societies rush to okay everything will do nothing but doom us all in the end. We're seeing the beginnings of such a thing with the confused issues of Transsexuals in sports for example. We're making it worse for both transsexual's and those who aren't not better.
And people wonder why discord reigns supreme. WE CREATE IT and then sustain it to meet someone's or some groups own agenda driven ends. People want a better world? Then stop irrationally throwing people under the bus in order to attempt to treat symptoms instead of curing the diseases. Heck we are rapidly approaching the time when we can't even identify what is a disease, what is healthy, and what is harmful because of our myopic concern for placating the now at the expense of the later.
We are creating a rational basis for hatred and then irrationally condemning that hatred. Fifty plus years of so called progress in the social field but anyone who doesn't have their head in the sand can see that while things may be getting specifically better they certainly are getting generally worse.

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.

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.

Now you have a word possibly applied to yourself for the wrong reasons which may or may not have unknown consequences for yourself with people acting on the wrong understanding about yourself. What is your agenda for expanding the definition of a well-defined word?

You are asked to lovingly tolerate homosexuals and homosexuality, not to find homosexuality appealing or to engage in it, and not to celebrate it.

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.

My intolerance involves some amount of involvement. That would include witnessing, celebrating the concept, or participation in. Should I be forced - I say forced because it certainly wouldn't be voluntary - to (accidentally or not) do any of those things it would be intolerable to me and I would be forced to change the circumstances I found myself in by asking for respectful refraining from doing those things in my presence or removing myself from the circumstance, whichever is most productively achievable.
It has no more to do with hate than my natural inclination to avoid certain foods that make me sick.

I don't know what approved of means to you here.

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.

Once again, you are only asked to lovingly tolerate homosexuals. Why not? I do. I have many gay acquaintances.

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.

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.

Thank you for your honest reflection here.

I am not a qualified psychoanalyst here but I suspect you are not repulsed by them because you are not thinking about or being asked to approve of their preferences for how they get sexual gratification. You’re not repulsed because they are readily apparent as human beings first and with their sexual preferences a not so readily apparent subcategory of their personhood. I'm presuming that witnessing them have sex would not be appealing to you.
How do you classify irrationality? The subconscious mind is sometimes thought to be irrational. However the more we study the human mind the more we've come to realize that the processes that occur beneath our conscious awareness are acting in accordance with a rationality of their own in order to inform and influence our consciousness. I don't see your uncomfortableness as irrational. I see it as a rational response when the subconscious "projection" I was talking about includes parts of homosexuality you cannot help but disapprove of as a heterosexual.
It’s not homophobia. Its heterosexual instinct, normal and ridiculously condemned for political reasons.

 

[setarcos]

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.

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.

If homosexuality is on your mind more than heterosexuality its most likely because you've become "thought blind" to what you are as opposed to imagining being what you aren't. The mind attends to the foreign more so than the known.
But labeling every Tom, Dick, and Harry a homophobe as a part of an argument for how bad they are neither helps homosexuals nor those that are labeled in resolving their differences. It’s worse than accusing their actions as being in accordance with the label...something that can be argued. It assumes they personify those accusations themselves. Something without argumentation. Those labels, especially if they are misused and abused as I feel in my case more often than not shuts the discussion down before it gets started as if that alone is self-evident proof of who is right and who is wrong. Is that the goal? If so it’s working since hate and discord is rampant and increasing in the world. We've placated sexually identifying persons at the expense of a mentally repressed general population whose repression arbitrarily surfaces in the form of anxiety, irrational anger, hatred, suicide, and violence.
Fortunately, right or wrong I at least have the patience and leisure to attempt to prove my reasoning. Not everyone does and so a lot of misunderstanding goes unaddressed.

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.

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.

I'm being a friend by expressing my feelings, reasoning, and thoughts on how not to make it better for homosexuals and conversely what might be a better path towards mutual understanding and peace between discordant groups. Those that condemn without reasoning simply because of opposition are sure to fail to spread the love.

 

[setarcos]

LGBT people are a minority, just like African American's, just like the handclapped, just like Muslims.

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.


I've tried to explain to you what racism is. Reread my post # 356. So I'll ask again, if LGBTQ++ people are not a race, what does continuing to reference African American's and racism have to do with what we are discussing? Nothing in reference to LGBTQ++ peoples can be considered racist...by definition. You’re simply trying to coopt a word -"racism"- that has negative connotations associated with it in order to attempt to associate my arguments with those connotations. Your trying to obfuscate getting at the truth in order to push your own agenda, truth be damned.

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.

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?

(and before you deny hate, if you are comparing ANY minority to a child abuser you are engaging in hate)

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.


First of all, hatred is not in itself a condemnable emotion to express.

Second an action, be it verbal or physical, is hateful only if that hate is sourced from the one acting. Not from the one on the receiving end of that action.

For instance, if I look at pedophilia (And I do consider them a sick people) in a positive light and then I compare homosexuality to pedophilia I wouldn't be making the comparison out of hate. You may perceive the motive of comparison as a hateful thing to do if you don't agree with the comparison but you would be wrong. You hate pedophilia and so consider the comparison hateful. Some who loves pedophilia would consider the comparison loving.

Now, if I disgustedly condemned pedophilia and then compared pedophilia to homosexuality without justifiable reason then that could be perceived as hate. But then again, should I compare homosexuality to pedophilia with justifiable reason that would not be a hateful action but a justifiable comparison between two things that are hated. When you engage in accusations of hatred it would behoove you to keep these things in mind.


Hatred is not automatically to be considered damnable nor even obviously hatred.

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.

Yes, that can be one definition if you’re specifically talking about a group of people that has been made subordinate in some manner.


It can also mean this...

noun

1.

the smaller number or part, especially a number that is less than half the whole number.

"harsher measures for the minority of really serious offenders"

From (Oxford Languages)



That's why you can have a minority group of people subordinate a majority group of people in things like dictatorships.

Or you can have minority opinion be justified over majority opinion in time as we see in major paradigm shifts in science like with Einstein's Relativity Theories.

Or you can see a majority be subdued by a minority in battle.

Minority groups are not always classified by their persecution or subordination.

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.

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.


There is a spectrum of healthy sexuality and unhealthy sexuality and I’d put pedophiles on the furthest reaches of the damnable side as a minority group.

I get you don't like the comparison to racism but it is entirely apt.

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.


Sexuality is an instinctual preference. Heterosexuals can certainly act in opposition to their sexual preferences. So can Homosexuals. It’s not likely that they will but they can. Sexuality is actionable in practice. Sexuality is something you do not something you are.

You simply cannot be racist against a sexuality by definition.

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’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.


I think your straying from my original opposition and reasoning anyway. I do not hate homosexuals. I'm opposed to the celebration of a sexuality. I'm opposed to being asked to tolerate, celebrate, or joyously accept its sexual practices. If you need to, look back on what I've explained is my reasoning as concerns this.

those attacking both minorities will deny they hate individuals or even the minority themselves they just object to their immoral behavior.

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?

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"

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" 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, to national holidays and the renaming of streets or removal of street signs in some cities in order to honor “queerness”. 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? 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.
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!

We've created in America, for the sheer politics of it, rather than its sanity, a federal holiday that celebrates sex before we've created a federal holiday that celebrates the lives and cultures of the original inhabitants of the land the U.S. comprises today. Cultures who were displaced for the benefit of other cultures.
That is shameful and worthy of actual disgust in my opinion.

 

[setarcos]

the lable does fit and you are not a victim you are just invoking victiumhood.

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?


I've argued the label point. You've not given counterpoints. So...whatever you think will satisfy your need to be right you go for it.



As far as the comparison to bestiality...what is the direct comparison you think I made?

If you tell me that I can walk you through why I don't consider it to be a direct comparison.

and here i thought you woudl go for the pedophile angle.

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.


I'm sure you're just used to winning arguments concerning sexuality through the sheer weight of all the negative accusations, assumptions, and obfuscations you pile upon your opposition in the hopes of attrition.

what gives you the right?

I never claimed to have the right to dictate anything.
I don't have that right. I don't dictate true opinion I try to discover it. Should I expect any less of a minority group?

When did I say anything about bestiality being "sick"?

Well you've called it disgusting and derogatory. Is it not sick to you as well or am I mistaken?
Do you think its disgusting but not sick?

Show me an animal that can give informed consent.

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?

You have to be comparing homosexuality to bestiality in order to those comparable questions

Okay...and?

Hmmm...How do I get you to see it wasn't a direct comparison?

A direct comparison would be a 1 to 1 comparison of the actions of the one group with the other group. I made no such comparisons.

Comparing my feelings about the one with my feelings about the other is not a direct comparison.

If I said I fear bunnies as much as I fear bears that's telling about me but it doesn't make bunnies into bears in my eyes nor should it anyone else's who has a modicum of reasoning ability.
As concerns comparably answerable questions between the two sexualities, I've given you some and some questions which you've not answered. See post 350 for instance.
You cherry pick minor points to reply to but ignore all the reasoning they are surrounded by.

and you just told a fib about what I said. Shame on you.

The first part wasn't a fib. It was a truth followed by a question which you didn't answer.
I apologize for the second inference. I should have clarified that that was how I felt in the absence of you clarifying what your true intentions were.

homosexuality isn't a preference any more than heterosexuality is a preference.

I referred to sexual preference in my post not the person typed by that preference...let me explain further.


Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not people. They are sexualities. Sexualities are classifications of how we prefer to express ourselves sexually. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are both types of people who can choose to act on their preferred sexual desires or not act upon them. In other words they may instinctually prefer to have sex a particular way with a particular gender which is beyond their control but they have control to act or not act out those preferences. They can even act against those preferences if they so choose for some reason. That is why they are called preferences. Preferences are actionable, what gives rise to those preferences typically are not without changing the person.

Otherwise there is absolutely no general difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual as defined except the sexual component of their preferences. That is the only difference personified by a sexuality. All else can be, has been and is expressed equally between the types.

I never said you were a racist. please stop with the dishonesty

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.


You're either woefully underequipped to keep in mind the course of this discussion or you don't care what's actually been said and with these kinds of statements hope that people won't take the time to read what's already been said and just take your statement at face value.

So which is the case here? And who’s being dishonest?

Except neither the police or the girl scouts are not minorities

Except I'm pretty sure I've shown that they certainly can be considered minorities.

And I noticed you didn't comment upon what my main point was in that post. Care to now?

 

[Argentbear]

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

sounds like you are upset they are refusing to hide in the closet.

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,

according to media matters and GLADD in 2022 it was as 2.8% increase. 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.

to national holidays and the renaming of streets or removal of street signs in some cities in order to honor “queerness”.

you mean the way other minorities are honored?

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?

where do you shop?

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.

Like straight people's are?

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.

you seem obsessed with sex

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!

Because gays aren't human?

 

[setarcos]

sounds like you are upset they are refusing to hide in the closet.

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.
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.

according to media matters and GLADD in 2022 it was as 2.8% increase.

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.

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.

I don't know...what does "positive representation" mean as related to homosexuals?

you mean the way other minorities are honored?

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.

where do you shop?

Irrelevant. It either is or isn't consistently present in one form or another. And in my case it seems to be consistently present.

Like straight people's are?

Who celebrates heterosexual sexuality and if so how and why?

you seem obsessed with sex

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.
I'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. They 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.
It 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.

'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
​

Nudity at Seattle Pride Sparks Outrage: 'Why Were They Not Arrested?'

Published Jun 28, 2023 at 9:33 AM EDTUpdated Jun 29, 2023 at 8:54 AM EDT

Newsweek

This demonstrates the kind of apparent intermingled disconnect in the differences between ones sexuality and ones shared humanity that these people apparently have. The same parades depict both decent compassionate behavior and overtly demonstrated sexual behavior while being tolerated and cheered by everyone with the sad inclusion of those ignorant families who believe such displays are appropriate venues for their children to participate in and celebrate.
Its absolutely mind boggling to me and is actually one legitimate reason to fear for the future of human kind as it devolves into this debauchery and epistemological chaos.
Were celebrating sexuality, were rendering our language semantically chaotic, and were redefining what is healthy and rendering acceptably normal into meaningless relativism.

​

 

[Argentbear]

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.
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.

Your own posts show just how dishonest your statement here is


"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"

"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?"

""Pride" isn't about celebrating diversity and minorities in order to lift them up."

"a twisted way of celebrating specific ways of getting sexual gratification "

"Pride is making a perverse mockery of African Americans"

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 make it the defining characteristic showing your unhealthy obsession.
You ignore love
you ignore marriage
you ignore family
you ignore people just living their daily life

Why the unhealthy obsession?

I'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.

Its almost as if they are people

They 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.

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

It 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​

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

 

[I Am Hugh]

I abandoned the gay life a long time ago and so have mixed feeling on this. I'm so sick of the fake, stupid pageantry. What's the latest buzz? What's the latest meme we should be offended by? Things may have changed but we - us f***s - used to say it all the time. What do you expect to happen when you start to police thought and speech? People become fake and stupid. Life becomes a dog and pony show. Hate crime. Stupid. So, although I'm not a Catholic, can't imagine why anyone would want to be a Catholic, I also couldn't possibly care less about what the Pope said. Let people do and say what they want so long as they don't actually harm anyone. Let them engage in f****ry behind closed doors, let them say there's too much of it. Who really cares? I was watching a YouTube video about a young man who had committed a horrible crime and they bleeped out the words, sex, abuse, molested, sexual, murder etc. So stupid and fake. Before you know it there will be no words because we're afraid to say anything.

 

[setarcos]

Your own posts show just how dishonest your statement here is

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 .
Of course the more tactfully delivered the more fruitful the results may be. Everyone, especially myself should keep that in mind.
That being said...I may be wrong at times, I may be ignorantly insensitive at times, I might even be flat out arrogant, presumptuous, or even spiteful occasionally. I am not perfect after all. One thing I do actively try to accomplish on here though, is to not do those things on purpose. And one thing I absolutely do do in these forums is present an honest presentation of what I think and feel about a subject. I have no need of dishonesty in these forums.
When I said that I'd rather no one were "in the closet" (hiding their sexual preferences like homosexuality) I meant it. I understand why you thought my statement was dishonest here. Its apparent contradiction to what you've quoted that I said earlier Is a perfectly reasonable interpretation lacking further explanation. I can only try to explain further what I know I meant in consideration of what you perceived.
To me "coming out of the closet" is when someone presents their lifestyle, to those who would otherwise not have known or had known but have ignored, for discussion with the goal of coming to a mutual understanding of that lifestyles implications. Good and or bad.
My complaints about LGBTQ++ lifestyles are derivative of how those lifestyles have been presented and how some have determined that society should receive such presentations, they do not concern a belief that LGBTQ++ lifestyles should not be presented as not existing at all.
I fully believe that no one should be stuck "in a closet" to deal with their physiological or psychological dispositions on their own. However it should go without saying that it is not productively reasonable that those "coming out of the closet" should expect that no reasoned debate about their dispositions should ever be allowed from those that disagree with them in some manner. One should not have to fear "coming out" but that shouldn't give that person the right to "come out" in an unreasonable or perverse manner.
I stand by my complaints about the way much of the LGBTQ++ community is presenting itself and their expectations from current society.

You make it the defining characteristic showing your unhealthy obsession.

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.
That however is not the case here since while you've offered complaints and accusations you've offered precious little in the way of counterarguments to my reasoning.
I haven't defined its characteristics, the subject itself has defined it. The word homosexuality literally defines its characteristics. Lets go back to the etymology...as seemingly with any subject concerning the LGBTQ++ community these days in which being "politically correct" seems to trump what is sensible this may be somewhat of an endeavor but I have hopes we can come to a reasoned agreement here. THE primary defining characteristic of homosexuality is how it defines its sexual preference. Again, in case you have been disregarding what I've said earlier, I use preference since one, while being compelled to act upon an urge, does not have to fulfill that urge unless it is an unhealthy urge such as may be found in addictions. Otherwise there is no psychophysiological distinguishing between how the differing sexualities show affection for each other. No matter what sexuality I am I can show affection for men, women, my neighbor, or a relative equally without distinguishing my sexuality. My sexuality is distinguished - heterosexual, homosexual, whatever - only by adding a sexual component to the relationship.
IF you have a counter argument I'd love to see it. I'm always willing to upgrade my understanding.

You ignore love
you ignore marriage
you ignore family
you ignore people just living their daily life

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?
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.
Your trying to argue something that was never argued by me. Just reread my earlier posts so that you may get your counterpoints back on track if you have any.

Its almost as if they are people

My friend, I've never argued that they weren't. If I have please show me so that I may correct that opinion.

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

Its almost as if your deliberately creating your own delusion about what I've said.
While those pictures may show LGBTQ+++ persons doing stuff like showing affection and being happy those actions certainly don't define them specifically as LGBTQ++ persons. Those things are components of their humanity but they are not the definitive component that defines them as a member of that group. I'm trying to understand why you can't see the difference unless your deliberately ignoring it.
Hmmm, how about this...what activity being shown in those pictures distinguishes them from what heterosexuals do?
Prejudice?This is exasperating. What am I prejudiced about? You tell me, how am I supposed to disagree with someone without being prejudiced with the way your using the term? You obviously are disagreeing with what I've been saying so aren't you prejudiced against me? If you are and I am then everyone is and what's the point then? Perhaps you think everyone should just agree with everyone so no one is prejudiced then we can call it a day and all live happily ever after in fantasy land?

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

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.
Um...a few of the pictures literally show children in the background one shows a child in the foreground...in the parade. Pride parades don't work because by definition there is a sexual component to what they are celebrating while at the same time they are trying to inculcate into the common social psyche that its all about family and love. Its like a bunch of cops inviting everyone to a family celebration of civil service and donuts by giving out free donuts but baking them all in the shape of penises and vaginas. Now that's good PR.
So how does sexual preference define family and love?
Its amazing that people who want equality and acceptance are working so hard to differentiate themselves and not always in a good way.

 

[Argentbear]

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?
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.

Love
marriage
family
daily life
Identity
acceptance

Life isn't about sex for anyone and isn't necessary to define one's sexual orientation. 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.

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. That is at best prejudice and at worst bigotry neither of which has any place in the kind of discussion you claim to want. .

 

[setarcos]

Life isn't about sex for anyone and isn't necessary to define one's sexual orientation.

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.
Those that are seemingly indifferent to a desire to produce progeny are an exception to the general rules governing life.

That being said, it is my religions teaching and my belief that human beings have been elevated to a status above all other animals in that they have the ability to go beyond the natural instincts found in all living things. So...I do agree with you. While sex is a natural instinctual part of human life, having sex is not the sole purpose of human life.
As I've said and you've either once again ignored or didn't grasp, sexual orientation IS about sex. It is defined by sexual preference not by consummating the relationship through sex. That actual act of having sex with someone is normally a choice. That choice is usually based upon ones preferences for who and how we have sex. Those choices are innate desires we choose to fulfill or not fulfill based upon myriads of factors, some conscious, some unconscious. I'll say it again....a homosexual person is not defined as a person by his/her homosexuality. Their sexual preference is what defines their sexuality which we label as homosexual, lesbian, heterosexual or what have you.

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.

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.

Love
marriage
family
daily life
Identity
acceptance

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?

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.

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.
So yes, they are more than a sex act. But that is not what we are discussing is it.
I'm do admire open, honest, and thoughtful discussions. I'm absolutely doing that with you.

That is at best prejudice and at worst bigotry neither of which has any place in the kind of discussion you claim to want. .

I think your making it prejudicial and bigoted by deliberately or indeliberately ignoring what I've actually been saying.
I'll say it again...not all dissent or disagreement is prejudicial or bigoted. Sometimes its an honest assessment.

 

[Argentbear]

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?

Who they love. Who they marry. Who the start a family with.

Sexual orientation refers to an individuals enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes. 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.
So it is love that defines a person as homosexual or heterosexual or bi sexual. It is also defined by identity
Homosexuality like all sexual orientations is defined in terms of relationships with others. 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. 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 just about sex, either as individuals or as a minority.
And if you can't see and understand that then i have to wonder just what is wrong with you

 

[setarcos]

Who they love. Who they marry. Who the start a family with.

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.

Sexual orientation refers to an individuals enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes.

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.

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.

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?

So it is love that defines a person as homosexual or heterosexual or bi sexual. It is also defined by identity

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.

Homosexuality like all sexual orientations is defined in terms of relationships with others

Absolutely, and?

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.

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.

In addition to sexual behaviors, these bonds include nonsexual physical affection between partners, shared goals and values, mutual support and ongoing commitment.

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 just about sex, either as individuals or as a minority.

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.

And if you can't see and understand that then i have to wonder just what is wrong with you

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.

 

[Argentbear]

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.

you can't have a reasoned discussion when you view the people you are wanting to argue about with with contempt.

 

[setarcos]

you can't have a reasoned discussion when you view the people you are wanting to argue about with with contempt.

That is incorrect. One can certainly have a reasoned discussion about whether or not that contempt is reasonable.
The U.S. was founded on contempt. The Declaration of independence was the reasonable defense of that contempt.
I can certainly have reasonable contempt for bad behavior in my child but that doesn't mean I have contempt for the child who is capable of good behavior -that would be unreasonable.
What do you think my argument is about that is against a people? My arguments concern the reasoned defense of why I feel the way I feel about a sexual preference. Contempt does not exclude reason and often misunderstanding is mistaken for contempt which is then used to avoid a reasoned discussion. I think you've lost track of what my original premise concerning these things is.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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?

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.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

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.

 

[Argentbear]

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.

I don't see the "its a sin" = homophobe. Its usually "its a sin and therefore discrimination is OK".