"Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham

[RoadRunner79]

OK, so you aren't scared of homosexuality, you are bigoted against it.

No;   If you mean that I think that homosexual activity is a sin and immoral.   I don't think that disagreement or thinking that something is wrong, means that you are intolerant.  When you loosen the definition that much, then you are a bigot as well.  

I think it's poor polemics to stretch the definition of emotionally charged words, and then go on to equivocating them afterwards.

[Amarok]

No... you are wrong.   I'm not prejudice, fearful, or hateful of people with same sex attraction.  I do think that homosexual activity is wrong and a sin.    You are being fairly negative towards my beliefs right now, would you consider yourself phobic.   You can disagree, and say that I am wrong, but that doesn't make you a bigot.  It is intolerance towards those with differing opinions that makes you a bigot.

If you oppose homosexuality you are a homophobe . This is not a question of disagreement opposing homosexuality is not disagreement it's bigotry plain and simple. And your beliefs are homophobic as well calling them such is not bigoted it's pointing out your beliefs are bigoted opposing bigotry is not bigotry no matter how much your kind tries to paint it that way 

And just to note.  While it may have wormed it's way into the definition, I think that this ambiguity is still a misuse of the word.  I also think that it stems from deceptive tactics and is not an enhancement of the  language.  I don't consider myself phobic in any sense of that word in regards to homosexuals.  And if you are using the word homophobic in regards to me, then I'm likely to ask you to clarify it each and every time.  Just a heads up.

I don't care if you agree with the definition nor do i care if you think you are homophobic and you can whine when i call you out as much as you like i will still call you what you are and your requests (rabbit holes) will be ignored .

---

No;   If you mean that I think that homosexual activity is a sin and immoral.   I don't think that disagreement or thinking that something is wrong, means that you are intolerant.  When you loosen the definition that much, then you are a bigot as well.   

I think it's poor polemics to stretch the definition of emotionally charged words, and then go on to equivocating them afterwards.

So your a bigot and a homophobe . And no opposing bigotry is not bigotry as homosexuality is NOT a matter of agreement .What an age we live were bigots whine when there ideological bigotry is called out

[RoadRunner79]

No... you are wrong.   I'm not prejudice, fearful, or hateful of people with same sex attraction.  I do think that homosexual activity is wrong and a sin.    You are being fairly negative towards my beliefs right now, would you consider yourself phobic.   You can disagree, and say that I am wrong, but that doesn't make you a bigot.  It is intolerance towards those with differing opinions that makes you a bigot.

If you oppose homosexuality you are a homophobe . This is not a question of disagreement opposing homosexuality is not disagreement it's bigotry plain and simple. And your beliefs are homophobic as well calling them such is not bigoted it's pointing out your beliefs are bigoted opposing bigotry is not bigotry no matter how much your kind tries to paint it that way 

And just to note.  While it may have wormed it's way into the definition, I think that this ambiguity is still a misuse of the word.  I also think that it stems from deceptive tactics and is not an enhancement of the  language.  I don't consider myself phobic in any sense of that word in regards to homosexuals.  And if you are using the word homophobic in regards to me, then I'm likely to ask you to clarify it each and every time.  Just a heads up.

I don't care if you agree with the definition nor do i care if you think you are homophobic and you can whine when i call you out as much as you like i will still call you what you are and your requests (rabbit holes) will be ignored .

---

No;   If you mean that I think that homosexual activity is a sin and immoral.   I don't think that disagreement or thinking that something is wrong, means that you are intolerant.  When you loosen the definition that much, then you are a bigot as well.   

I think it's poor polemics to stretch the definition of emotionally charged words, and then go on to equivocating them afterwards.

So your a bigot and a homophobe . And no opposing bigotry is not bigotry as homosexuality is NOT a matter of agreement .

So basically it's worship at the alter of the LGBT or we will call you names.   How very tolerant of you!

---

I don't agree with weakening these definitions, because I think that it weakens the case, when there is real bigotry and racism, and homophobia.  People throw the words around to bully someone, and the the meaning is lost in ambiguity.  Apply these same claims and reasoning  to something that you think is wrong whether it's my religious beliefs, pedophilia, abortion, or separating illegal immigrant children from their families.  Do you call yourself a bigot?  If not, then why?

[Amarok]

So basically it's worship at the alter of the LGBT or we will call you names.   How very tolerant of you!

That's like saying it's worship at the alter of interracial marriage and the civil right movement or we call you names . How very tolerant of you .


I'm sure this fine fellow would agree with you .After all it's" just difference in opinion"

[Chad32]

If more people worshiped at the altar of respecting differences, the world would be a better place.

[Amarok]

If more people worshiped at the altar of respecting differences, the world would be a better place.

Some differences are not worth respecting

[Chad32]

If more people worshiped at the altar of respecting differences, the world would be a better place.

Some differences are not worth respecting

But many are.

[Amarok]

Some differences are not worth respecting

But many are.

True

[The Industrial Atheist]

It would help the case of religious people if they could make a rational argument for the immorality of gay sex. But they can't do that. That's why it's bigoted.

It would be like if I said "God really hates women who wear pink pants all the time, this behavior should be outlawed, it's immoral." Even if I could point to ancient writings that seem to state this, it's not enough by a longshot. How does anyone know if these are actually the writings inspired by god? Would it necessarily matter? Does might make right?

Just because a being apparently has the power to create the universe, this doesn't mean it's any more moral than you or me, just because it claims to be. Certainly with people, power and control doesn't make us more moral.



I find it rather silly when some in the Fox News crowd say "It's intolerant to not tolerate our intolerance!" Well you aren't tolerating our intolerance of your intolerance lol.

We could go in circles for weeks if you like. But really we don't have to tolerate intolerance. We have science that backs up the claim that being gay is natural. You have the writings of poorly educated desert dwellers that lived thousands of years ago.

[Mister Agenda]

It's like you can't get away with claiming not to be racist, when you just don't think blacks and whites should be allowed to marry each other because the Bible. Maybe you wouldn't be racist without the Bible, but it's still racist.