Anti gay-marriage atheist??

[Javaman]

...

I think I have been tolerant and respectful to the people who have different opinions from myself.
[...]

That depends on the meaning of the word "tolerance". You stubbornly claim that people expressing their love in a way that feels natural for them - are behaving immorally, unless they happen to want to do it the way you like it. They need to suppress their "urges", because the joy of coitus is only for "normal" people - like you. How is that not bigotry, again?

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

I just don't see how it's tolerant to hold a position that is fundamentally intolerant. To me, telling homosexuals they are acting immorally is pretty much the exact opposite of tolerance.

Tolerating and respecting opinions of others is not the same thing as tolerating and respecting the rights of others.

[Divinity]

Pretty much anything that is illegal or legal but not socially acceptable but would require someone to refrain from acting on deep seeded desires/parts of themselves. 

I am reluctant to give examples because then people will just be like "omg, you're comparing ____ to homosexual sex!" Which is not what I'm doing at all. I'm merely pointing out that there are instances where all of us, as a society, believe a person should deny huge parts of themselves. Not that the behaviors themselves are similar in any way. But Esq made it sound like it's wrong in general to believe a person should ever do this, so I wanted clarification.

Care to give an example containing two consenting adults?

[Catholic_Lady]

My understanding of the definition of the word bigot is this:

big·ot
ˈbiɡət/
noun
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

source: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=bigot+

That's a conveniently narrow definition of the word.

The concept of bigotry can have slightly different meanings in American and British English.

In British English it refers to a state of mind where a person is obstinately, irrationally, or unfairly intolerant of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerant of the people who hold them.

In American English, the term can be used similarly; however, it can also be used to refer to intolerance towards a group of people in general based on their group characteristics such as race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, disability, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status.[...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

It was the first definition that came up upon doing my googles search, as you saw on the link I provided. But fair enough if it's just a matter of semantics or which definition you decide to use. 

I don't think I'm a bigot in any sense of the word. But well... you win some and you lose some I guess. Can't please everyone. So long as I stay true to myself and so long as the people I care about continue to love and accept me and all my differences, I can live with people on a forum thinking I'm a bigot.

[Regina]

Honestly the word "bigot" is starting to annoy me because it's becoming another one of those buzzwords that people throw around, out of context, just to shut people up. I've probably said it myself on this very forum in the past (I'll admit before people clock me), I'm just writing how I feel right now.

At the end of the day, if Miss Thing believes sex is between a married couple, and practices such in her own life choices, that's her right. It only becomes "bigoted" (by definition of what "bigoted" actually means) when one tries to force their views onto other people and push for legislation that oppresses people, which from what I've read I've not seen CL saying.

I feel like if you want to argue with why homosexuality is not immoral, it's better to actually discuss the facts and give your well thought-out reasons, not just "you're a bigot". That's not aimed at anyone in particular here, just a general statement.

[Javaman]

That's a conveniently narrow definition of the word.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

It was the first definition that came up upon doing my googles search, as you saw on the link I provided. But fair enough if it's just a matter of semantics or which definition you decide to use. 

I don't think I'm a bigot in any sense of the word. But well... you win some and you lose some I guess. Can't please everyone. So long as I stay true to myself and so long as the people I care about continue to love and accept me and all my differences, I can live with people on a forum thinking I'm a bigot.

CL, do you think it's an example of tolerance on the part of the RCC when they spend millions of dollars on political campaigns to stop SSM from being legal?

It's not just a matter of semantics to the many gays and lesbians who've been prohibited from marrying the person they love because individuals and institutions have invested so much time, effort, and money to deny them their rights.

[Javaman]

Pretty much anything that is illegal or legal but not socially acceptable but would require someone to refrain from acting on deep seeded desires/parts of themselves. 

I am reluctant to give examples because then people will just be like "omg, you're comparing ____ to homosexual sex!" Which is not what I'm doing at all. I'm merely pointing out that there are instances where all of us, as a society, believe a person should deny huge parts of themselves. Not that the behaviors themselves are similar in any way. But Esq made it sound like it's wrong in general to believe a person should ever do this, so I wanted clarification.

Care to give an example containing two consenting adults?

Personally, I find it very telling that she is seemingly incapable of providing such an example.

[Catholic_Lady]

Honestly the word "bigot" is starting to annoy me because it's becoming another one of those buzzwords that people throw around, out of context, just to shut people up. I've probably said it myself on this very forum in the past (I'll admit before people clock me), I'm just writing how I feel right now.

At the end of the day, if Miss Thing believes sex is between a married couple, and practices such in her own life choices, that's her right. It only becomes "bigoted" (by definition of what "bigoted" actually means) when one tries to force their views onto other people and push for legislation that oppresses people, which from what I've read I've not seen CL saying.

I feel like if you want to argue with why homosexuality is not immoral, it's better to actually discuss the facts and give your well thought-out reasons, not just "you're a bigot". That's not aimed at anyone in particular here, just a general statement.

Thank you. 

[drfuzzy]

Ah, but CL, here's what I see as the difference (as explained to me by a priest - I just wanted to hear what he would say) and he said that the Catholic Church no longer sees homosexual state as a sin, just homosexual sex.  And obviously, they're not going to marry gay couples.   So according to the Catholic Church, anyone who is homosexual must remain celibate to be able to take communion.  

That's a pretty big part of one's self to deny.  Imagine being told, at the age of, oh, 17, that you had to remain celibate ALL YOUR LIFE if you wanted to take communion.

I feel like you're just regurgitating what I already said (being gay is not wrong, only acting on it), and bringing up things I've already addressed (that yes, it's very difficult, and yes, God has a lot of mercy), so I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me? Lol.

mercy? According to your church, I'm supposed to be celibate all my life, because of something I did not choose for myself, or go to hell, and this is MERCY?   I can fall in love, desperately want to be with that one person for the rest of my life, but I can't TOUCH them, because if I do, I'm banned from communion?  This is mercy?

[Catholic_Lady]

Care to give an example containing two consenting adults?

Personally, I find it very telling that she is seemingly incapable of providing such an example.

If you 2 looked at the origin of when this whole subject came up, it was in a question to Esq asking him if there were any caveats to his stance that it's wrong to believe people should ever deny huge parts of themselves. It wasn't any claim that I made.

[Catholic_Lady]

I feel like you're just regurgitating what I already said (being gay is not wrong, only acting on it), and bringing up things I've already addressed (that yes, it's very difficult, and yes, God has a lot of mercy), so I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me? Lol.

mercy? According to your church, I'm supposed to be celibate all my life, because of something I did not choose for myself, or go to hell, and this is MERCY?   I can fall in love, desperately want to be with that one person for the rest of my life, but I can't TOUCH them, because if I do, I'm banned from communion?  This is mercy?

No, by "mercy" I meant you wouldn't necessarily go to Hell for it.