Super Bowl Coach (hearts) Bigots.

I have trouble wrapping my mind around that. What is it, then, that has anti-gay people all up in arms if it isn't "homosexual behavior?" Are we into semantics now? How would you describe it? Because they obviously see a difference between what homosexuals do and what heterosexuals do.

I'm sincerely trying to understand your point...

 

They hate that two men (or two women) are performing an act they feel is something they have ownership of.

 

I don't think sincere God-fearing people who believe homosexuality is wrong feel that way because they feel they have 'ownership' of intimacy, I think they believe it's wrong because it's what their higher power has dictated.

 

And that's all fine and well ... until it infringes on people's rights. Then it becomes discrimination, and in this country, that is illegal.

It does not matter what you believe or I believe or what Alanis Morissette's God believes. We're all free to believe what we want.

But we cannot discriminate. And it doesn't matter if you're basing it on religion or fear or hocus-pocus ... it doesn't matter what you cloak it in, it's wrong.

No matter how sincerely or fiercely someone believes that it's different this time ... it's not. It's still wrong, and it's always wrong.

 

Sorry folks, didn't mean to bail or imply I wasn't going to answer:

F_B: I will preface this with the statement that I am semi-retarded. So I can't really defend the group Dungy spoke to. I don't know enough about them. His face raising money for a group that has pull in what laws are passed can be argued. Fine. I don't think Tony Dungy has the power to impact laws, or get them passed. That's where I disagree.

Again, I completely disagree with Dungy's stance. I don't believe in God, one of my best friends is gay and has been in a long-term relationship and they would be MUCH better parents than about 70 percent of the straight people I know.

But I think bigot is getting thrown around here, when I don't think the man in any way said he "hearts" bigots. I'm sorry if I can't explain it any more clearly, I'm not a debater and I don't follow politics. I just know how I feel.

 

So I guess any type of behavior is okay? We wouldn't want to discriminate against thiefs, murderers, or child molesters.

I'm sure this is okay too: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070321/ap_on_fe_st/deer_sex

I suppose the guy has an excuse. It probably had a nice rack.

 

Personally, I don't know why they're all up in arms. They might have some validity, I think, if their same arguments against homosexuals -- "the Bible told me so," our culture's going to hell, these people are inferior -- hadn't already been used to denounce a) legal immigrants from the old country; 2) abolitionists; III) women's suffragists; 4) black civil rights advocates; all of which we've embraced, albeit slowly, over the last 232 years.

It's the same argument over and over again. And we always see the light, again and again.

***

As for the behavior, it's as simple as this: A behavior is an action, nothing more, nothing less. People -- homosexual people, heterosexual people, white people, purple people, male people, female people -- engage in behaviors. Behaviors are not their own entities. That's Psych 101.

If you can distinguish between "sin" and "sinner," then you can distinguish between "people" and "behavior."

The problem here is, there is no such thing as a homosexual behavior. A homosexual is a person. Kissing is a behavior. There is a difference.

There is no such thing as homosexual kissing. There is kissing (the behavior), and there is the people who engage in that behavior. They are not the same.

Any kind of people can engage in the behavior.

The behavior is kissing. The behavior is not homosexual kissing. Homosexuals are people.


EDIT: Unless, like trounced, you don't see homosexuals as people ... :

 

There is nothing consenual about anything you posted. Thieves take property from others. That infringes on the civil rights of the property owner. Their actions are criminal.

Child molestors take from the innocent and pray on the weak. They infringe on the rights protected to children. They are criminals.

Murderers take lives away. Since we all have the right to live, you can't exactly take that away.

When you choose to hate someone for the way they are born, that is discrimination. If you take away that person's right to be who they are, as long as that right doesn't take away from the rights of others, you are discriminating.

 

My point is, those who are anti-gay are against a behavior, a lifestyle, an act, a situation or however it is you want to describe what it is that differentiates homosexuals from heterosexuals.

Getting back to my point that SOME Christians, and it SEEMS as if Dungy is one of them, differentiate that lifestyle, act, situation or however it is you want to describe it from the person as a whole.

I THINK that Dungy and people with similar beliefs disapprove of that part of the person, but don't denounce the entire person along with it. We all have many different sides of our persona which make us who we are. I am a journalist, but that doesn't define who I am.

But as it tends to happen, this discussion has deviated from my original point, which was that it's possible to disagree with something a person does and not be hateful. Bottom line. I don't believe that Tony Dungy is a bigot or a hateful person.

You may say his beliefs discriminate and therefore are wrong. Fine. We can have that discussion as well...

 

So what is a "homosexual behavior"?

What behavior is homosexual in nature? What makes a behavior homosexual?

Because I can't think of one.

 

That's not the way they are born. It's the way they choose to live.

Even if I concede that someone may be born attracted to someone of the same sex, it is wrong for him or her to act on that impulse.

 

Didn't I move on from that? I asked you earlier to specify what makes a homosexual a homosexual and a heterosexual a heterosexual if it isn't behavior...