Again....you are comparing apples and oranges. A proper comparison would be whether a girl in a girl's softball team would have an issue with a lesbian teammate in the locker room with her. Gender differences and sexual preferences are not the same thing. If we say that 5% of the population is homosexual (some say up to 10%.. and that doesn't even incluse bisexuals), and I have been in a locker room every day from age 12 through 23, I am sure I have dressed and showered with hundreds of homosexuals. In fact one of my old teammates, that I played along for 4 years in high school is a homosexual.... he has seen me dress a number of times. I would be completely comfortable being in the locker room with him. He has never acted inappropriately... in fact I have never had a homosexual act innapropriately around me in the locker room in over 20 years.
I agree with you that they are not the same thing, but I disagree with your using it in the argument. Why are girls uncomfortable with a guy in the showers with them? Are women likely to be more or less comfortable with a straight guy or a gay seeing them naked? (assuming it's not an intentional sexual situation obviously) So what? Again, the issue of comfort isn't some fear that they will act inappropriate. If I walked in a girl in a shower on accident and she pulled her towel up, it's not because she's afraid I'm going to rape her. Yes, most guys who have been in sports have likely showered with a gay guy and not realized it. I'm not sure what that has to do with whether it makes you a bigot to be uncomfortable if you DO know. Lots of women have been seen naked by a guy that they don't know about. It doesn't change the fact that they'd be unhappy to find out.
Anyway, I give up. You think someone is a bigot if they are uncomfortable showering with a gay guy and I think it's not as clear cut. We've spent enough time debating a rather meaningless portion of the larger issue so let's just agree we have a difference of opinion and move on. We aren't changing the other one's mind and in general we are probably on the same side of the issue at large.
Pls show me the part in this thread where I screamed 'bigotry' you speak of. the posts I refer to come from a place of ignorance in the truest sense of the word, meaning lack of knowledge. Broussard said living a life of homosexuality is sinful. he didn't refer the sexual acts. I maintain that a gay person can abstain from sexual activity for years. they are still homosexual.
You call multiple people homophobic in your first post What posts? what posts are homophobic? living a life of homosexuality would involve homosexual acts. else you would be living a life of heterosexuality. If I desperately want to drink and don't, am I an alcoholic?
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/euXQbZDwV0w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
nope. in my first post, on page 3, I specifically pointed out that the ignorant posts I had read were not here. that was before this thread made its way to D&D. where did I say posts or posters were homophobic? I said "there's one thing I still don't get about homophobes." those are the ones that show ignorance about people feeling uncomfortable showering with a guy they already showered with. the discomfort comes from the person who is now worried about the gay person showering with them. therefore, they are afraid of showering with the person. homophobes. that's one of the basic rules of AA or being an alcoholic in general. "once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic. you don't have to engage in homosexual acts to be a homosexual. a person who deep down knows they are gay might not engage in a homosexual act for years. but they do know they are attracted to the same sex and they are not attracted to the opposite sex. that does not make them a heterosexual.
So if someone is attracted to the same sex but doesn't have sex with anyone, they default to being a heterosexual? All those kids who are attracted to their same gender but have never acted upon those urges will be glad to know that they are actual heterosexual! Btw, the correct comparison would be saying that if you desperately want to drink but don't, then you don't like to drink, which is of course not true.
Well it would depend on what you are comparing it to. Broussard was referring to homosexual acts, so my analogy would be correct. You are using a different definition of homosexuality than I. Broussard says living a life of homosexuality which would refer to homosexual acts obviously.
... if you want to try to back track from the horrible things you said to posters you refuse to identify such as: go for it. You should.
things tallanvor called me out for saying which I never said 1. there are homophobes posting homophobic things in this thread 2. I screamed bigotry I think tallanvor thinks I think he is a homophobe. how horrible. I maintain there are some moronic statements and claims in this thread. they come from a place of ignorance. the true colors of the posters who posted them have been revealed. there have also been true colors of a positive nature revealed. I don't need to quote someone and call them out amongst a discussion 350 posts+ long...
You call posters unaccepting of homosexuality and 'their true colors have shown'. What the hell do you think that stuff means? You won't even bother to post who you are claiming to be morally superior to. You just stopped by this thread to say how awesome you think you are. Whata guy. Like I said, you were right to start backing away from such awful comments.
This might be the most disingenuous post in the entire thread. "I didn't call anyone a bigot or a homophobe, I just said their true colors have shown on the issue in a negative way!" Well I'm not calling you disingenuous, I'm just saying your true colors when it comes to honesty have shown in a negative way.
tallanvor, if i were a certain poster, I would go off in an irrational and irrelevent way on how you just edited and added to your comment, but that's just not my style around here to nitpick posts, quote and call out others, and go in circles about what you said I said I said. justtxyank, do you really want me to call out individual posters for bringing up relationships with animals, animals in nature eating their own poop, and/or the belief that homosexuality is definitely a DISEASE? ps you shouldn't use quotation marks to speak for someone else if they didn't indeed use those words.. i hadn't used the phrase "in a negative way" that you put in quotes. the true colors of these posts have been shown. what else do you think it means? I am commenting on some pretty ignorant things that have been said here. ignorant simply means lack of knowledge. many people in society are ignorant that someone standing next them in the store or showering next to them in the locker room are homosexuals.
I don't have a problem calling those posters out or saying they are showing bigotry. Anyone who compares homosexuality to bestiality is a bigot. My problem with what you did was try to back off on what you were doing. Don't say their "true colors have shown" and then say you didn't call anyone a bigot.
thank you for agreeing with me about the bestiality comment. would you say that that claim would be moronic and/or ignorant? because that's the only phrase I used. I haven't backed off anything. I haven't called anyone (here) a bigot. I haven't called anyone (here) a homophobe. so there you have it- those posts I just brought were the exact posts that I referred to as being revealing to their true colors. I am editing this comment to add that I edited my last comment reminding others to try not to put words in others mouths that they never have spoken
