Intense political debating

Jenny - posted on 07/28/2009

Not even comparable. There is no value in murder or theft and there is a victim. Gay marraige is about love and commitment and those are values that should be celebrated.

Jenny - posted on 07/28/2009

Society is not about your values though, it is about the values of all the citizens living there including the LGBT ones. I just don't see how anyone could be so opposed to something that doesn't affect them. If you want a heterosexual society may I suggest Iran? Their head of state swears they don't have any LBGT people.

ME - posted on 07/28/2009

from above:

"David and Jonathon, or Ruth and Naomi, or Daniel and Ashpenaz"



...all can be interpreted as homosexual relationships, and none of these are condemned in the bible.

Jenny - posted on 07/28/2009

I understand you don't hate LBGT people, you are intolerant of them.



I'm in a relationship out of marraige complete with bastard children and I've never been punished for it. Did that happen only in biblical days, I notice our life spans got shorter too lol? Are we under different laws in modern times? In Canada our gay marraiges are legal, even a few churches perform them, so does that make it ok? Our society hasn't been obliterated yet so I'm thinking we're ok.



I wonder if the bible would have turned out different if more women were involved in writing it. It may come down to guys feeling "icky" about anal sex and nothing more.

Jenny - posted on 07/28/2009

What if it is was the translators who screwed it up though? All that not tolerating the homosexual lifestyle for nothing. If it wasn't in the bible would you still feel that way?

Jenny - posted on 07/28/2009

The bible has been translated many times, that means it most certainly IS up for interpretation, literally. Has it occured to anyone that it was the translators who added in personal bias? The bible is not the word of god, it is the word of man. Why would people say slavery is an outdated tradition but being bigoted to homosexuals is not? Get with the times lol.



And trying to say the bible doesn't condone slavery is preposterous http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bi... Not only does it say you can own slaves but "From the Revised Standard version of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) -- Exodus 21:20-21 "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money." The word "money" in this case means property; it is translated "property" in the Modern Language, Living Bible and other translations."








I have a feeling if you didn't believe you (collective you, not directed at anyone in particular) would still not like LBGT people and are hiding behind the book as justification for intolerance. There are millions of Chriistians out there who are quite tolerant of LGBT people and I'm pretty sure they have the same book as you do. So they are wrong because you're opinion says you're right on understanding the scriptures?





Elizabeth, having experienced it myself I have to tell you you don't know what you're talking about. I never decided to be attracted to females, I just am. There was no thought process involved, nor any coming out of the closet story. It was as natural to me as being left handed (as in not common but normal). I know many couple who married with no intention of EVER bearing children. I think the best solution would be for only the state to handle contracts, churches should have no right to authorize government documents. I'm speaking about legal marraige here, you'd be free to have a religious commitment ceremony or whatever you'd like to call it. With a clear seperation of church and state, it's only fair.





If even the Christians cannot agree on what the bible is saying how do you expect anyone else to take it seriously? I'd rather keep on living my life as being good to others (ALL others), sharing, caring for my neighbours and being a contributing citizen of the world. Morality and empathy does not need a storybook. It comes from our pack behaviour of old and we need to remember that before we lose it.

Elizabeth (the Instigator) - posted on 07/28/2009

Sexual arousal is an emotional response triggered by a thought, but sometimes that thought is motivated by the physical senses - touch, sight, smell, sound. However, sexual orientation/preference is a purely learned trait - NOT biological/genetic. If it were genetic, it could by proven in the animal world by observing a distinct or permanent difference in preference among any given species, but this has not happened. Many animal do not have a preference!!! When aroused, many will choose either gender. Call me arrogant, but I prefer to consider humans as a higher-order species than animals.
The child's mind is an empty bucket that parents are suppose to fill CORRECTLY. You can train a child for any psychological or emotional response - OR, you can allow him to learn it on his own (there's that word again - learn). This is very basic stuff that I acquired in school, and saw the empirical proof in my own 6 kids. You really need to give the human intellect a bit more respect than to believe we have little or no control over our reasoning and emotions.
The "prevailing medical and psychological opinion" can accept what they want; they have no proof - and never will because it IS a learned trait - period! Therefore, just a meaningless opinion.
The Bible is NOT up for interpretation - I meant that statement in my last post sarcastically. My Church has been studying Sacred Scripture for all 2,000 of those years and has a pretty good handle on God's Word. I accept their doctrine emphatically, and will not debate scripture with someone who clearly believes in Science over God - instead of Science through the God - who created it.
I believe in the intrinsic value of every human being from conception until natural death - no human is EVER to be considered of an inferior class. However, it is my responsibility to myself and my family to judge whether or not an action or lifestyle is acceptable behavior!!!
And, you are absolutely right about the Constitution. The Church or state should never attempt to coerce or demand anything from either. I have never had a problem with that except for two little issues: 1.) The unborn child is a human being (the AMA confirmed this to congress in hearings just before the Roe vs. Wade decision of 1973) - therefore abortion must be considered murder except in the extreme case of the mother's health (the operative word here is: EXTREME). The state has that one DEAD wrong!! 2.) Marriage is a purely religious function - founded by ancient believers - for the purpose of proliferation. You can live with whomever or whatever your little-ol'-heart desires, just don't ask me to accept it as a "marriage" b/c it doesn't fulfill all the necessary requirements of such. The primary of which is that the union be open to natural procreation. Some heterosexual couples discover after marriage that they cannot procreate. This does not make it invalid, because they were open to it and hopeful for it initially. However, homosexual union begins with the inability to procreate. Can you see the difference? The state needs to stay clear of that issue as well.

ME - posted on 07/28/2009

Yes, but Lot was saved wasn't he...I guess allowing your children to be raped and brutalized is God's idea of rigteousness then? If we are taking the bible literally, that is. I don't want to change your faith, I want you to keep it out of our politics...where, according to our constitution, it doesn't belong...that's it! I have no qualms with personal faith, I just have a problem with people being denied their civil rights over an issue of a few peoples faith...Separation of Church and State...we have it for a reason...to keep from suffering under religous tyranny. I would prefer not to have my faith dictated to me.

ME - posted on 07/28/2009

I've already pointed out that Sodom was destroyed because the men there wanted to have sex with the angels. Lots suggestion was that they rape and brutalize his daughters instead...how's that sound?

ME - posted on 07/28/2009

I have read the bible cover to cover twice!

ME - posted on 07/28/2009

There is no scientific evidence to support your opinion, so what's your point? It is very likely that such a gene could be found and eventually will be. The prevailing medical opinion and pychological opinions accept this as fact without the gene, besides, there seems to be a gene for just about everything else. The only support you offer is a 2000 year old book that you choose to interpret one way over dozens of other possibilities. A fact which you still clearly haven't addressed. Keeping a large % of our population as second class citizens has been made illegal in MANY other instances. What makes you think that this should be any different? Do you believe that women should grow their hair long and obey their husbands, like the bible demands? Do you believe that the bible offers the correct way to treat your slaves? Do you think it should be legal to own some because the bible ok's it? I guess this discussion can be over now because you've admitted that the bible is up for interpretation, meaning that yours is not the only possible way to interpret it, which means that you accept that you could be incorrect, which means that treating this group as second class citizens is probably NOT ok. Our founding fathers, which conservatives reference all the time as well when it suits their purposes, seperated church and state for a reason...in this case, they were right.

Elizabeth (the Instigator) - posted on 07/28/2009

There is no scientific data to support that homosexuals are born that way. There has been no homosexual gene found, and no amount of quoting of the APA is going to prove it. Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church allows the probability that it is a nurtured flaw that is beyond the person's control, like my sister's pre-disposition to rage- - she wasn't born with it but something in her early development cause this flaw she is now saddled with. We can't let her get away with trashing every person who doesn't make her happy just because it is an intense urge she has. That is what Chastity is all about, tempering physical urges to achieve spiritual union with the one and only one man ordained to be your life-long mate. And Chastity is what makes sex beautiful, instead of an orgy of selfish pleasure, it becomes a act of total self giving. If every partner has been given a part of you, none of them could have the whole of you. That is the Catholic Christian stand on marital sex. Nothing about denying the truth, but accepting the whole Truth.
As far as I am concerned, Psychology is a lot like religion, some of it can be proven, some can't. So it is up for interpretation as much as the Bible.

ME - posted on 07/28/2009

This is completely unbelievable...you still refuse to respond to logical questions and arguements, not about your faith, but about our culture's treatment of a large group of people. It was not me that brought up the bible, but when it was brought up, I pointed out flaws with that argument, none of which has been answered. Pointing out flaws with an argument is not christian bashing, it is DEBATE. I have NEVER used the term "crazy christians", but you all use it all the time...ummm...not sure WHAT to say about that. This is exactly the problem with involving ANY religious views in political debates...

Jenny - posted on 07/28/2009

A deep hatred for those who beleive? Not likely, many of my friends and family are religious and I certainly don't hate them. I treat religion the same as any other topic when discussing it, frank and open.

ME - posted on 07/28/2009

Every time the two of you respond you say something judgemental about this group of people. Traci calling them "women" like that is HATEFUL...if you didn't have a problem women who self identify as lesbians, you wouldn't feel the need to qualify them in that way. And...why has no one responded to the FACT that, not only does the bible say NOTHING specific about lesbian or gay sexual orientations, but that the scholars ALL disagree on what might be implied by some of the very vaguely suggested homosexual relationships in the bible...like the one between David and Jonathon, or Ruth and Naomi, or Daniel and Ashpenaz; none of which is condemned? What about the fact that same sex relationships were NOT concidered crimes by the people who wrote the bible? What about the fact that there was no word for homosexuality in any of the languages of origin of the bible? What about the fact that there are dozens and dozens of translations of the bible, and many of them disagree on the specific passages that Christians use to demonize these people? And...what about Jenny's point that literalists ignore many of the "laws" given in the bible, if they don't already agree with their beliefs? What about the fact that god makes us Stewards of his planet, not abusers? Why are literalists so bent out of shape about this one issue to the detriment of millions of their fellow human beings? It is all very hard to understand for the rest of us...and the reasons you give are hollow and empty (for the reasons I've just pointed out), which makes it even more upsetting and confusing.

Jenny - posted on 07/27/2009

"Jenny, you are in a heterosexual relationship, now. Your sexual predisposition should not be in question at this point. By calling yourself bisexual, you are essentially saying you are not satisfied with the man you are currently with and look forward to future encounters with someone else. I am married and therefore only attracted to my husband, to say I am attracted to males would be to place doubt in my fidelity to him. It is called chastity, and Mary Elizabeth should know this from being a Catholic, the Church calls us to chastity no matter what our inner urges are."





How well is that chastity stuff working out in the church anyway? Oh right, nm. Humans are sexual creatures and need not be ashamed of that. It should be embraced. While I'm currently with a male I am still attracted to women. I have a partner, I'm not dead lol. And I will never marry, I believe it is an archaic tradition. I am still monogamous. I think you are confusing being bisexual with being easy.





It's a good thing animals don't have souls, many of them participate in the homosexual "lifestyle" too. Oh wait, they are not capable of choice are they? So why do you think humans are with regards to sexuality?





Did you consider you are being labelled a bigot because of the hateful things you write? I thought religion was supposed to be about love. So how come the less religious people on the board are the most welcoming and compassoinate? And again if you are a bible literalist do you never cut your hair and own slaves? Do you think you should have the right to? The bible covers proper slave ownership a hell of a lot more than homosexuality but you don't seen to dwell on that part so much. You can't just cherry pick the parts that go with what you already believe in.

Shelley - posted on 07/27/2009

What about the fact that most men that we learn about in history or classic philosophy were homosexuals or bisexuals? They may have had their facade of marriage, but historically, men have had a LOT of sex with other men. Even Plato's Symposium of Love is 85% about what these men feel about their young men lovers, NOT the women in their lives. What would Plato have to say about homosexuality being a psychological disorder? Ponder that...



Hmmm, is it because before Freud, men were the only humans believed to have sexual desire? If men were the only ones "enjoying" sex, then why include women? Now that we know this to be false, men must stop having sex with one another? I think not. Or is it to reduce the spread of disease? We must encourage marriage to keep everyone from shagging and spreading disease. Isn't that about how it went, historically? I see nothing wrong with fulfilling one's sexual desires in whatever way that can be accomplished. I think we all can agree that different things turn us on... Who are we to label someone as a "sexual deviant"? Sounds pretty judgmental to me.



I have a problem with those who like to interpret religious texts narrowly in order to further their own purpose. The Bible is meant to be read and interpreted in a holistic manner. Keep that in mind Christians. Otherwise, you are just as bad as those Army of God quacks who bring people in based on one line in the Bible. Please don't fall into this trap, or wait, is that what happens at church every Sunday? One phrase is interpreted FOR YOU. IDK. I'm guessing.



Who we have sex with has nothing to do with the rest of our character. Just b/c a man may go to bed w another man at the end of the day doesn't take away from what he may have accomplished that day. It's quite ridiculous actually. I find it quite similar to the way women were treated prior to Freud's discovery that OMG women have sexual desire too. Surprise surprise! The fact that so much of our political debating is spent on abortion and homosexuality is very disappointing to me. They are private/personal matters that should not be the subject of this bs debate.



In France, they could care less about Carla Bruni or anything else relating to Sarkozy's personal life b/c believe it or not, his personal life doesn't affect the lives of the French. His policies affect them, therefore that is what holds their attention. I wish our country could do the same, but since we are a "Christian" nation, we must be worried about moral issues and judge people. Ugh.

ME - posted on 07/27/2009

Now you are questioning my Religious devotion...that's perfect! I disgree with my church on several political issues because I do not believe that they have any business there, one of those is Abortion, one is the issue of Gay Marriage and Civil Rigts, and the final is their treatment of women...However, I don't believe that any human being can fully understand or explain the mind of God, the Pope and his Bishops included...and most of the Priests and Nuns I know personally, agree with me on that (not all, but most). I have never taken a vow of Chastity...that is something that priests, nuns, and monks take part in (and many disagree with that teaching as well). St. Paul was writing in another language around 2000 years ago as well...can you read in that language?



Well said Sara...I'm pretty sure that's (almost exactly) the def. of intolerance I quoated earlier.

Sara - posted on 07/27/2009

No one ever has to compromise whats in their heart, but that sure doesn't mean you should be stomping on other peoples lives/feelings/beliefs because their heart isn't the same as your own.........

Elizabeth (the Instigator) - posted on 07/27/2009

When someone calls themselves a "Christian" or Catholic" it is assumed they believe in and adhere to the teachings of that religion. I would suggest you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the issue of homosexuality. The Catholic Church has continuously condemned homosexuality as an intrinsic evil because it does not lead to the natural fulfillment of the sex act which is to bring forth new life - and the act, a sin. However, no one but God can judge any particular person committing that evil - all we can say (according to Church teaching) is that homosexual BEHAVIOR is itself a sin, and condemned by God and the Church. Again, we are all called to chastity!!! This does not mean that we will never commit sin. It means we must constantly fight the urge to sin. This is what St. Paul means when he talks about "fighting the good fight".

Sara - posted on 07/27/2009

Posted by Elizabeth Belske (3:30 pm)


Jenny, you are in a heterosexual relationship, now. Your sexual predisposition should not be in question at this point. By calling yourself bisexual, you are essentially saying you are not satisfied with the man you are currently with and look forward to future encounters with someone else. I am married and therefore only attracted to my husband, to say I am attracted to males would be to place doubt in my fidelity to him.





Really? Wow....





So that's not a personal dig? Jenny's not supposed to be offended by that (or anyone else)? It's ok to say things like that to someone you know nothing about because it's your opinion?

ME - posted on 07/27/2009

and, if you had read my statements, you would have seen that I pointed out already that the diagnosis of sexual deviance was revised when the prevailing medical and psychological understanding changed. A good friend of mine, a catholic nun and the head surgical nurse at a catholic hospital, would argue just as forcefully against everything you are saying. Eliz...she gets her information from medical science. I have an MA in pychology and counseling...I get my information from that science. Yours comes from one possible translation of a 2000+ year old book that was based on ancient hebrew culture...why are we even continuing this conversation, we are operating on two completely different levels. Mine is backed by science and contemporary medicine, yours is backed by ideology from 2000 years ago...we're nowhere near the same level of understanding on this issue.

Elizabeth (the Instigator) - posted on 07/27/2009

Jenny, you are in a heterosexual relationship, now. Your sexual predisposition should not be in question at this point. By calling yourself bisexual, you are essentially saying you are not satisfied with the man you are currently with and look forward to future encounters with someone else. I am married and therefore only attracted to my husband, to say I am attracted to males would be to place doubt in my fidelity to him. It is called chastity, and Mary Elizabeth should know this from being a Catholic, the Church calls us to chastity no matter what our inner urges are.

ME - posted on 07/27/2009

Eliz...the translation that you gave of Cor 6:9-10 is one of about 50+ possible translations, and they certainly do not all use the terminology you've chosen to quote.

Jenny - posted on 07/27/2009

Until you experience what it feels like your opinion on the subject is moot. I have been there and know for a FACT homosexuality is natural and not a choice. We are not the only species it occurs in don't forget.

Elizabeth (the Instigator) - posted on 07/27/2009

And did you also look further back in the APA than 1969 (I believe), because before then, the APA deemed homosexuality a disorder. They removed it from their definition without any scientific evidence, no apparent research data had changed, simply a change in popular opinion.

Jenny - posted on 07/27/2009

So I'm a sexual deviant now? That's priceless.



How come the bible only gets pulled out to back up what you already believe? What about the parts about not cutting your hair and to kill adulterers? Or owning slaves?

Elizabeth (the Instigator) - posted on 07/27/2009

As long as some of us are accepting the Bible as authority, I do not feel it would be inflammatory to quote it. Though if I am out of line, at least I know there are plenty of you willing to tell me so:

[1 Corinthians 6]

{6:9} Can it be you do not know that the iniquitous shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not be led astray: neither fornicators, nor those serving idols, nor adulterers,

{6:10} nor the effeminate, nor males who sleep with males, nor thieves, nor the avaricious, nor the inebriated, nor those who speak evil, nor the rapacious shall possess the kingdom of God

ME - posted on 07/27/2009

ok...I just spent quite a bit of time looking into what religious scholars say about homosexuality in the bible, and the answer is very confusing, just as I expected it to be. The story of Lot seems to be the only time when homosexual acts (not persons of that orientation) were condemned, and the citizens of Sodom wanted to have sex with the angels, not other men. Lots suggestion on what to do instead, btw, was that these people rape and brutalize his daughters instead...I'm sure that God was very pleased with this idea. There are as many as three homosexual relationships in the bible, none of which is condemned. There was no word for homosexuality in any of the three languages of origin of the bible, so none of the ancient/human authors originally said anything explicitly about homosexuality. I would say that this makes what you are claiming about homosexuality and the bible quite questionable, based on facts, and not based on my opinion.



In addition, I'm sure my friends and family of LGBT persuasion would absolutely disagree with the idea that such nasty comments made about them in public, in politics, in person, behind their backs, and by drunk jerks who'd like to beat them up for holding hands in public ARE examples of bigotry and hatred. Having witnessed many of these events, I can tell you that I was also a victim of hateful speach and bigotry simply for walking along with them. That was my point.

ME - posted on 07/27/2009

I've never thought of medical expertise as either rude or politically biased, I'm not sure where that notion came from. The medical definition in the DSM-IV-TR is NOT my definition, it is the diagnosis of Paraphilia, and it does not include Homosexulaity, end of story. I am, as I've pointed out several times, a Catholic, and I believe in and have studied the bible extensively. I have no problem with people who apply it's lessons to their OWN lives, and who live as true examples of Christ in this world. I know many such persons, and respect all of them. None of them has ever falsely accused an LGBT person of being equivalent to a pedophile. I see no way in which this conversation has anything to do with Christianity or any form of Religious belief.

ME - posted on 07/27/2009

I'm also wondering if it makes it ok, rational, logical, or somehow not intolerant to voice an opinion that is clearly false based on the Facts, knowledge, and judgements of experts. I've clearly given the psychological and medical diagnosis of sexual deviance, and it does not include homosexuality. In fact that term was explicitly removed from the DSM when the prevailing medical and psychiatric evidence proved it to be a completely normal way to come into this world.



I do not think "Christianity is a load of crap", and would not say that, but I would expect any Christian to be personally taken aback by such a statement (which is what I am assuming Sara meant). All I was pointing out was that the false opinion held by some people in this world about the LGBT population is both offensive and dangerous (life or death dangerous unfortunately). That in my opinion, is not a personal attack. Pointing out the facts as they are understood by scientists is a foundation of logical debate, while pointing out unsubstantiated opinions is not. This particular topic came up because I was pointing out earlier that ugly opinions are NOT a productive form of debate, and this was a thread about debate...I did not mean for this to become a discussion of LGBT issues; and, for that, I am sorry.

Sara - posted on 07/27/2009

I guess I just have a hard time separating my emotions from issues, because I take most of them to heart. How do you separate the two so easily? I mean, it may be my opinion that the Chrisitanity is a load of crap. That doesn't bother you or illicit an emotional response? Does it make it ok to say anything you want because it's your opinion even if you know it is offensive to most people? Just trying to understand...

Sara - posted on 07/27/2009

I'm just going to put it out there Elizabeth. You seem like, and have stated, that you like to stir the pot a bit and "never shied away from debates even in the face of insults". Well, is it really debating if there are insults being thrown around? Anyway, based on your last post I think you just like to push people's buttons and say things in order to illicit a reaction out of them. Hence this thread. I agree that "intense, intelligent debate" is great, so let's try to contribute to that cause, huh? It's great that you have no emotional ties to idea or parties, but many of us do. Lumping homosexuals in the same category as pedophiles is insulting to some of us, simply because we have loved one that are gay. So, is my loved one a sexual deviant? No. But how can you possibly expect that someone wouldn't take some comments to heart? I think you do have to have respect for other's feelings in your debate. I do not agree that when emotions are high is when I'm going to walk away and actually consider your point. More than likely I will be more willing to dismiss your opinions in the future because you've acted like a jerk. In this group, I have had better conversations with people like Christa, where we have kept it courteous and not gotten personal with eachother. That has made far more an impression on me than you have thus far with your other thread, or even this one. I think you can absolutely tell people how you feel without getting ugly. That is intelligent debate, IMO.

ME - posted on 07/27/2009

That just proves you don't know what your talking about...



Paraphilia (of which Pedophilia is one type) is: "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving 1) nonhuman objects, 2) the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner, or 3) children or other nonconsenting persons that occur over a period of at least 6 months. These include exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteruism (rubbing the genitalia against another person), pedophilia, masochism, sadism, and voyeurism. They include transvestism and gender identity disorder (which are very similar to one another and do not involve Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual persons), ONLY IF those issues cause problems in a persons life that cannot be dealt with, such as, affecting one's career, friendships, and relationships to the point where OTHER pscychological problems arise.



I just copied this for you from my Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) published by the American Psychiatric Association.



...so, I would say that comparing someone to a pedophile, who is clearly not such a person, IS cutting them down. Men who molest boys are NOT homosexual, they have a psychological disorder called paraphilia. This includes the unfortuate situation in the Catholic Church. Priests are just as likely to have paraphilia as anyone in the lay population.

Elizabeth (the Instigator) - posted on 07/27/2009

Mary, I never cut anyone down, I simply stated my opinion. In my opinion, the psychological disorder of homosexuality is only threads away from pedophilia. Men who molest boys are homosexual to begin with. It's not a stretch! The scandal in the Catholic priesthood was not heterosexual priests abusing, but homosexual!

ME - posted on 07/27/2009

No, Eliz. it only refers to people who hold firm in their belief obstinantly, IRRATIONALLY, and INTOLERANTLY...not a "token", but a requirement. I may be obstinant in my beliefs, but I am not irrational, and I am certainly not intolerant.



deff of Intolerance:

•intolerance - an attitude of not accepting or respecting different opinions, practices, or people



I certainly accept other peoples right to have an opinion that differs from my own, but when that opinion is bigoted or intolerant, I have just as much right to point that out as the individual has to voice it.

Elizabeth (the Instigator) - posted on 07/26/2009

Well, let's see...that pretty much sums up anybody who stands firm in a belief or opinion. Is that rational? I do not believe any of us have been irrational, including those who disagree with me. When Jesus stood firm against the pharisees, i guess he was being a bigot, by that definition. When we fight the evils of communism, we are being bigots? Think about what that says..."a person who is obstinately and irrationally, often intolerantly, devoted to his or her own religion, political party, organization, belief, or opinion..." it only offers a token "especially one who regards or treats those of differing devotion with hatred and intolerance". A bigot is a person who regards or treats those of differing devotion with hatred and intolerance, period.

ME - posted on 07/26/2009

Wikipedia def:

"A bigot is a person who is obstinately and irrationally, often intolerantly, devoted to his or her own religion, political party, organization, belief, or opinion, especially one who regards or treats those of differing devotion with hatred and intolerance.[1]...requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animus."

ME - posted on 07/26/2009

Is your friend's nephew a psychotherapist, a doctor, or some other sort of expert on this topic. Does he have traing that would make his opinion relevant to our conversation?

Elizabeth (the Instigator) - posted on 07/26/2009

Having a negative opinion about a person's action is not hatred or bigotry.

Elizabeth (the Instigator) - posted on 07/26/2009

BTW, Mary. My good friend's nephew is a pedophile and he does not think it is any different than homosexuality, so I guess the extent of insult is relative.

Elizabeth (the Instigator) - posted on 07/26/2009

Jenny, that has been my question every time I have been accused.

Elizabeth (the Instigator) - posted on 07/26/2009

Does anyone have any objections to closing this conversation?

Jenny - posted on 07/26/2009

The line is very clear. It is consenting adults. 1 or more of various gender configurations. But all of them consenting adults. No animals, no minors. Consenting adults. So can we get past that now?

Jenny - posted on 07/26/2009

There is no "why", that's just what feeels natural to me. My family is aware of it and knows I've dated women and are fine with it. It changes nothing about me as a person. I'm attracted to individuals, not gender. I was dating a woman at the time I met my current long term partner and fell for him. 10 years later I'm still here with my beautiful family and him by my side.

ME - posted on 07/26/2009

Eliz. did you just compare the LGBT population (or even just one member of it) to pedophiles???? There is a new post by Christa asking that we not attack people personally. I don't mean to step on Jenny's toes, but I'm horrified and offended that anyone here would say such a thing to another member of our group. In fact, I would hope that someone other than myself would stand up and say something to you!!!

Elizabeth (the Instigator) - posted on 07/26/2009

Jenny, why are you a bisexual? If you have an attraction to men, then why do you need to practice the other way as well? I am just curious, because if a man is a pedophile and says he can not control his urges, should we accept his behavior as a society? Should we make it legal for men and boys to have sex because they are attracted to each other? At what age do we draw the line, because I know of some pretty premiscuous 8-9 year olds in the school systems? Should we draw the line or just allow a free for all? I am just curious?

Jenny - posted on 07/26/2009

BTW I'm a bisexual. How am I supposed to look and act?

ME - posted on 07/25/2009

I have some very religious friends who do not support gay marriage, but they certainly don't talk about the LGBT population like they are a joke or a blight on humanity. I have been incredibly tolerant, you could learn a little something...sweet dreams indeed...I wish I could just give up, but I can't stand letting people get away unchecked with bigotry and hatred against people who deserve niether...Opinions that sound like yours lead to crimes like the torture and murder of Matthew Shepherd...so, yes you are entitled, and you cannot be stopped from spewing venom into the world, but I don't have to listen to it and act like it's meaningless bantor...

ME - posted on 07/25/2009

Bigotry cannot be argued with, which is why we need hate speech and hate crime legislation...I'm sick of this garbage. Goodnight!