Most of the people I know that don't like gays have never been in a church. They don't look to the bible for their direction of feelings.

Another issue I have is that there are other religions in this country. I seriously doubt gay rights activists would parade themselves into a mosque and pull the kind of crap they have pulled in churches.

Actually I understand how you took the joke, and understand how you feel, but please understand that as a gay person, with the comment coming from a person who supports gays, that was not an insult.

A stereo type maybe but not one that would send me into fits or rage. My new gay friend here is very affeminate, a great cook and a great decorator, he finds it amusing as well, in fact he says if people don't like the way he acts and his choice in careers then can kiss his.. oh you get the message.. .

And it's Not an insult unless you find male designers to be some how inferior, which I am sure you don't. So in this case I found it cute, not insulting. But I do understand what you are saying from your point of view. I would not want someone who hates gays saying it in such a way that would obviously be a slap in the face.

she meant as a dig, she was actually standing up for us, so I would never have taken that as an insult from her. Now maybe a homphob I might have.

I'm not as learned about the Gay thing as other straight posters are.

Fanta is right. That boy is Gay! I took a look at his web site and had to put on my sunglasses for all the pink.

That is why I said that humans have to also take responcibility for their Reactions as well. Ask before one assumes in some cases. If something can be interpreted in several ways, ask which way they mean before responding. I interpreted her post differently than you did. So I responded differently. But if I had not understood the underlying reasoning for her post I would have asked her to please rephrase it so I could understand it better.

I wasn't trying to insult you or anyone else. Im just stating facts. It irritates me when all the ills of this country are placed at the feet of Christians. I define christians as people that actually go to church and live a life of respect for all.

I am already trying hard to express myself as carefully and respectfully as possible, with out being someone I am not, so I don't know what else I can say. I must be failing miserably. Might be time I just give up.

it had nothing to do with standing up for one person. not everyone would have taken it so lightly as you did (which is your right) not to mention it could have easily started something from someone on the other side. either way...it was tasteless no matter who said it. to find it ok for one to joke about it but an insult from another that was joking as well...sorry not right in my book

i imagine if i had posted it that way (even though some know my stance) i would have gotten jumped on for posting it in that way

generalizing of race, gender, politics, religion, sexual preference etc...IS WRONG AND IGNORANT IMO. unless someone knows all of that catagory...the statement holds no water IMO. I don't pick and choose who or what can be generalized by who

this is a recording

I think you have already made up your mind about me, what can I say.

The California vote on banning gay marriage should tell you that it isnt just right wing christians that vote for the bans. California has a huge democratic voting majority.

I have no idea what gays have pulled in churches, and I dont' think I even want to know, but again guilt by association? I hope not, but after all this typing I can see we are just going to go around and around once again, so it's useless to keep talking.

boo...maybe i can explain it this way....no you didn't set the generalization up in here, but like you said...guilt by association (i believe is what davey was trying to say). I have spoken up against all generalizations regardless of what they were or who said it. I think maybe this is where the issue is. it's not so much what you said but what you didn't say in the beginning and then later you used the same argument that i have been using this whole time. make sense?

and I think it feels like you may be getting ganged up on...but that is because the others left and you are the only one typing. i'm not meaning to gang up on anyone by any means. i am posting to what's currently being said. i actually had to walk away from th computer earlier because of someone else

Guilt by association goes on all the time on this board. Everything that is wrong with america, in the eyes of liberals, comes from the right wing religious types. Ive read enough posts to be confident in that statement. Including yours. Its yours and others opinions, and if you or they really believe it, then there isn't much else that can be said. Don't get upset when the other side plays the same games. You can't have it both ways.

indeed, a matter of interpretation for EVERY WORD HEARD, unless there is first TOTAL AGREEMENT TO THE MEANING???

as in what is "hot" water???

as in the sky is blue???

generalizations do offend some easily, no doubt about it.

but, just how can one speak without generalizations???

it is not as easy as it might sound, as all "utopian ideas" sound great, and people spew them easily, without actually knowing just what or how to create them???

for there to be no generlaization, it would have to be true 100% of the time???

can't change, or be subject to personal interpretation???

why, the entire world is based on "personal interpretations" is it not???

it is what is taken in then by the brain, IN EVERYTHING SEEN???

SO TO NOT USE???

no old ladies are bad driver's, as all old folks are not bad drivers???

boom???

already in a grey area???

many have stories of yes, and no???

but, they cannot be used, if they are a "generalization", so, instead of NOT USING THEM FOR WISDOM, or governing, or determining laws, the knowledge way procede to go to "outside data" to prove it point, one's "sides" point, as the one looking to prove has SELF MOTIVE???

as some will want to prove yes, if it serve them, and other's prove no, if it serve them???

so, both sides are digging up data, but ONLY TO SERVE THE REASON OR THING FIRST WANTED TO PROVE???

is this not the way of the world and all systems???

so, to get past personally, one would have to not use anything except ALL DATA, FROM BOTH SIDES???

it is in this way, that all words must be deemed as true, or there will be a biased end result???

simply proving the self motive alone, or only a "generalizations", assumption, some calling this "mans reasonings", or "surmizings", of course both "sides" deeming it's own data as supreme, lol???

so, to go beyond generalizations, it is much more difficult than it actually first sounds, as who is willing to believe all words, as certainly, one would have to "accept the person" the words come from???

this would be the only way to have the most "wide", or broad, or largest perception, to use for self knowing???

this is NOT WHAT HUMANS ARE TAUGHT???

we are taught as a child, to base KNOWING ON "WHO" IS GOOD, BY BEING TAUGHT A "FIRST BELIEF"???

a 'moral code', or a "definer of who is good", based on "actions", so anybody the self see, NOT MEET THESE "PREREQS" IS X'D OUT OF ALL DATA INTAKE???

so, then the WHOLE WORLD DOES THIS, ALL TOGETHER???

the entire premise of knowledge is based in "outside fact", to back up what self know or wish to be true???

so only no motive at all, for self, could take in all data, and so then begin to speak with less generalizations each day???

this would indeed though, take some amount of time, as NOTHING IN THE ENTIRE WORLD, PRESENT "ALL SIDES" FROM ONE SOURCE???

so, just how much data, or learning, or expanding of the human brain is happening???

not near as much as what could ever could be, as humans are actually capable of being walking computor's, as indeed, we built them, so they came from OUR HEADS, OUR BRAINS???

IT IS ONLY "SELF BIAS", THAT KEEPS THE ENTIRE WORLD FROM BEING "EINSTIENS"

SEEMS FAR FETCHED, BUT INDEED, HE WAS NO MORE BRILLIANT THAT ANYONE HERE, JUST DID NOT "DOUBT" ANY DATA???

took it all in and asked without "distain of the speaker", why is this true???

is it true all the time???

so, the only way to 'counterbalance this', is to take in ALL DATA AS EQUAL???

who the hell is really willing to do that, as one would first have to deem the speaker of all words as good first which be the largest hurdle, lol???

personal feelings then stand in the way of this for sure???

so a larger road to no generalizations is a tuff one???

no people are stupid???

no people are idiots???

no people are assholes???

no people are crazy???

no people are mean???

no people are racist???

no people are haters???

no poeple are greedy???

no people are selfish???

all generalizations???

because they are not true 100% of the time???

the self, love to use these, as these make self better each time used???

one could not speak them, unless it FIRST seen another as less, or had resentment toward someone???

how hard is that???

each human as been thur much self pain, and all that ever did not go "right" for self, breed these in the human brain???

to not SEE THRU GENERALIZATIONS, IS NEEDED BEFORE ONE COULD EVER NOT SPEAK USING THEM???

TO NOT SEE THRU GENERALIZATIONS, MEANS ONE WOULD NOT HAVE TO LOOK DOWN ON ANYTHING ELSE HUMAN???

how the hell can one do this???

only ask oneself, is it true for all people at all times???

do you realize just how much data this TAKE FROM THE BRAIN IN AN INSTANT???

all knowledge, and why some have coined knowledge as a curse, as without wisdom to go with it, knowledge only make distain, or hate, as it tell self it is smart, for seeing or knowing or pointing out something, but does not tell how to change it, expept to say "stop it", that is 'wrong'???

stop it, that is mean???

stop it, that is cruel???

again, all based on generalizations???

it was mean to tell a white man, to accept a black man, to the white man's children, to the white man's wife???

it was cruel to tell the white man to stop perpetuating hate toward the indian's, most for who???

the ONE THAT AGREED WITH THE "ONE" THAT HATED THE INDIANS, LOL???

i do not post these as that this is something all should do, as nothing can do this, unless it had "excellent prime directive", and to try to without it, would indeed make for a lot of exploded temper's, as these "feelings" do need a way to expell as well, to not hold them in???

so in this way, freedom to speak, is much more critical than whaht then "human systems" seems willing or wanting to endorse???

just thoughts...

damn, sorry in advance for the rant???

but, then am i really sorry, as if i was, would i still post it???

no, just sorry if it hurts anyone's feelings, as this is not the motive...

each just speak it's own sight of it's greatest known good???

peace

Well I can understand that view, just as I can understand the frustration of the gay community when the church and it's people do the same to us and place all the ills at our feet. I define people by the way they treat me not by whether they go to church or not, I don't care what religion they are frankly. But when the majority of christians define us as an abomination it sure doesnt' leave us much room to negotiate does it? LOL

i MIGHT accept that statement a little better. you didn't say or imply ALL of something. much better lol

The only way ya'll, I don't swing that way, will really know if God approves of it is after death.

I will state this once again....

Religious belief is too personal to the individual to qualify any topic as a debatable issue. It can't happen. To most it is as personal as an attack on ones family, and there is no concession from either side.

Base your opinions on rights and morals, your opinions, then you will find more are willing to at least agree to disagree, and it will not become so personal an issue, and an actual debate can occur.

We are individuals here, each with their own set of values, each valid in their own belief system. NOTHING MORE!

Leave the "mass conception" out of it! None of us have the right to speak for anyone else other than ourselves, and that is the basis for a true debate. ONE OPINION AGAINST ANOTHER!

MARCUS OF QUEENSBURY RULES!

Now go to your corners and come out fighting!

dang it...i got put in time out by soul

I would expect that,
like McDonalds,
like Haynes,
like Adidas,
like Wilson,
like Spalding,
like The Big Brother organization,
etc,

That every organization,
represented by Hilton would denounce,
and withdraw their advertising with Hilton.

Just like all those corporations above
did when Phelps was spotted smoking a
Marijuana pipe on a video!

Eh maybe by Friday, aye?

Has anyone asked them self
how?????
someone
as controversial
as Hilton,
and as hated
as Hilton,
Ever get chosen to be a judge
at the Miss USA pageant?

How do you figure that choice was made?