ArchivedPA officials guilty of blatant violation of First AmendmentUnsubstantiated conclusion. You can't call it "for what it is", because that is your unverifiable BELIEF. Bigoted? Absolutely. Definition:[adj] blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others; "a bigoted person"; "an outrageously bigoted point of view" You may not like the word, but you fit the definition to a T. If you don't like it, then don't be so obstinately attached to your creed or opinion, and become more tolerant of others view that it's NOT an "abomination" or even in any way morally questionable. Homophobe? Well by the old definition of the word not necessarily, but this IS the English language we are talking about and like nature, it evolves as well. Since the vernacular has encompassed a wider ranging usage of the context of the word, it has been expanded to include a broader definition. This covers it quite nicely: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_phob.htm So by the more current definition., yes you fit that too. Bigoted? Not according to my disagreeing with your belief no. Why? Because I'm NOT blindly or obstinately attached to a creed or opinion. I have a point of view that I can back up with common sense and facts. I can also be SWAYED by facts. Also I'm pointing out YOUR intolerance. It's not intolerant to be intolerant of someone else's intolerance. I have nothing against Christians. I don't fear them, don't dislike or discriminate against them in any way. Indeed, I used to consider myself one, and I will still accompany my mother to church when she wants company. So even though there are some people that could be called a Christianphobe, (the word isn't a currently accepted one, but I'll agree with you that some could be likened to a homophobe if they acted the same way), I am not. There is also one very big distinction between the two groups. Whether you like it or not, it's almost universally accepted by the only people that matter in the field, (medical researchers and scientists) that homosexuality is innate and basically unchanging. For the sake of Aineo if he wants to contest that with the "ex-gay" ideology, I say fine. If he believes he truly changed his orientation, than great. I'm happy for him. But research shows many people have the potential to bisexuality and according to Kinsey for example, they are all over the spectrum with their sexual preference and degree of potential attraction. So do I believe people more in the middle can embrace one preference and suppress the undesired one very thoroughly? Sure. But people that are near 100%? Nope. Don't buy it, and neither does medical science. I know from my own experience it would be impossible for me. It repulses me to imagine hetero sex for myself. So besides that small qualifier, the point is we are talking about someone and who they ARE. A person is not BORN a Christian, and you can change from a believer to a non-believer off an on the rest of your life. It's simply a creed. So anyone challenging Christianity is NOT in the same league as someone condemning a homosexual. That's what they ARE. A Christian is defined by what they believe. This is why so many Christian organizations are trying SO hard to establish some basis of fact behind the idea that it's purely choice. Then they can demolish the "I can't help but be me" argument. Unfortunately for them, they aren't even close to this wish. I didn't. I probably answered it in more detail than you had dreamed. What Christian friends? I don't know what you are referring to. First of all, calling God a liar is pointless until you can first show he's even in existence is it not? I'm not convinced of that. The scriptures are written by man, so I have no qualm with calling THEM liars. However that might not be the case either. It might be misunderstanding, simple ignorance, mistranslation, etc etc etc. How do you expect us to verify any of these possibilities when we're discussing 2000 years of time passed between then and now? Not to mention you are dealing with MULTIPLE authors (and probably editors). Since I see no simple way to do so, I look at what they state as truth and accept or reject it based on common sense and current science. Their opinions on homosexuality are ludicrous to me, so I treat them for what they are. Very very ancient bigoted dislike of anyone engaging in same-sex relations. My litmus test for truth is not "Cause the Bible tells me so". You can't prove God exists because the Bible says so. Consequently you can't prove anything written therein is in any way related to God and his alleged pronouncements. Sorry, but that's reality. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame