I view them as two different issues that are OFTEN associated. Probably in the majority of cases, but not always. Saying it is the same doesn't bother me nearly as much as saying homophobic people are in fact hiding their own homosexuality. There is almost a negligible association there. That would mean everyone is either homosexual or perfectly accepting of homosexuality, and I think the absurdity is obvious there.
I disagree on the first point. The second point is silly, like dumb blond jokes and male-bashing.
littlek wrote:How about changing the subject. Do you think that saying that you're against black people is not racist?
I think that saying I am against black people does not mean I am AFRAID of black people.
littlek wrote:I disagree on the first point. The second point is silly, like dumb blond jokes and male-bashing.
Do you mean to say that the second point is incorrect, or merely that my supporting comments lack logical flow. I would have to agree on the latter possibility. I say lots of stupid things. Do you think that the majority of "homophobic" (I don't really like that word) people are actually themselves homosexual?
Isn't a wiyaka some sort of Japanese fighting fish?
Reminds me of Fozzy, from Muppet Babies. The show that sucks the life out of little kids' dreams.
Quote:gustavratzenhofer"]Isn't a wiyaka some sort of Japanese fighting fish?
Gus,
It's part of my name and trust me it
isn't Japanese. Bill W asked about that in another thread. Sam gave the answer to that there, since I was skirmishing with someone at the time. It's part of my name, Wiyaka Nunpa.
By the way, which avatar of me do you like the best? I'm still undecided, but personally like this one a lot.
That's the only avatar of you that I've ever seen.
Run the choices by me.
SCoates,
I haven't anything to say but this. Don't mess with my name! You will feel my rath!
And how about my avatar? Do you like the way I have my hat tilted rakishly to the left?
gus, I just notice the "big stick" you carry around.
But he speaks softly. Almost uncharacteristic.
SCoates wrote:littlek wrote:I disagree on the first point. The second point is silly, like dumb blond jokes and male-bashing.
Do you mean to say that the second point is incorrect, or merely that my supporting comments lack logical flow. I would have to agree on the latter possibility. I say lots of stupid things. Do you think that the majority of "homophobic" (I don't really like that word) people are actually themselves homosexual?
I think that people make the assumption. When someone is deemed homophobic eyebrows do raise, but I don't believe anyone really thinks all homophobes are latent gays.
I see now; I think I misunderstood. I'm curious as to how you equate anti-gay with homophobia.
I think the route of hate (what is it to be 'against' something?) and fear have the same basis - misunderstanding or short-sightedness or I dunno, something.
It's late, I'm no debator, I got to go to bed.
Good night.
As far as your last point, I think it is possible to be against something without hating it. But also, I don't think that most racists fear the races they hate.
To expound on my first view, I don't hate homosexuals, nor do I hold any malice towards them. But I am still against homosexuality for other reasons. I don't hate Bush, for example, but I am against a lot of his decisions. I guess it boils down to this, I can stick with a decision that seems logical to me, without any negative emotions affecting that decision. You'll probably hate me for saying this, but I consider homosexuality to be a sin. I know that will offend some, but it does effect my logic, which is the only reason I mention it. From a religious standpoint it is absurd to hate the sinner, but wholey appropriate to have compassion on them. Now I don't intend to debate why I consider it to be a sin, and again the only reason I bring it up is to point out the difference. I know a lot of religious people who try to have understanding and acceptance for homosexuals (the people), even though they cannot themselves accept homsexuality (the percieved sin).
Now I tried to word that as inoffensively as possible, because I know it is a sensitive issue, but it is definitely possible to be against homosexuality, without having any hate or fear of them.
I don't hate you for saying it, but it frustrates me to no end.
The old "if it were a sin, why did god create homosexuality?" doesn't have any bearing on your way of thinking, then what would? Sins are things that people decide to do or not to do. How can what one is be a sin? By the act of gay sex itself? Perhaps, then, you should rephrase your views by saying you think homosexual sex is a sin. Not that I agree with that either.
Well, this is getting off subject, and I think neither of us will agree with the other, but I'll explain my logic a little more. I do not believe that God created sin.
In response to "How can what one is be sin?" I should better define my position. Homosexuality is something natural, if I understand correctly. It is not something that can usually be helped. So God could not justly condemn someone for homosexual inclinations. In that sense it would be better to define it as imperfection than sin. Everyone has imperfections which they cannot really help, but which they can overcome in order to become more Godlike. And every imperfection CAN be overcome. I believe the purpose of this life is to become more Godly. Explaining why I consider homosexuality to be an imperfection is again another issue.
You're right, we'll never agree. Oh well.
