NationStates Jolt Archive

I would dare anyone to come up with a better definition for the oft misused word racism. It is a charge that is thrown around this forum far too lightly and with little evidence presented by the person charging racism.

Racism:A belief that one race is superior to another race

Now I was recently accused of being a racist and homophobe because I support the recent attempt to amend the US Constitution to ban homosexual marriage.

1.)By using the above definition, I am not a racist seeing as how homosexuals are not a seperate race, it is a lifestyle that a person chooses to practice.

2.)In response to the charge of being a homophobe, let me say that I do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle. However, I have a few homosexual friends and their lifestyle does not affect my relationship with them. Hate the sin, love the sinner attitude.

Unashamed Christians
<><

i agree that the term "racism" is misused a great deal, but i think "homophobia" is far more often misunderstood by those who are recipients of the term. homophobia is the fear OR DISLIKE OF homosexuals and/or homosexuality, according to the dictionaries used in my classrooms, and based on what you have said that term applies to you.

1) Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2) Behavior based on such a feeling.

If it's your religion, than it's your religion. So long as you're ATNA most people could care less what you believe. But as soon as you start interfearing in other peoples lives, then that's when people start to take notice.

Based on the definition, "Fear of or contempt for," then no Christian should be a homophobe. The Bible clearly teaches that we are to love them, but not condone their moral actions.

The very word homophobe or homophobia has a negative connotation that implies that a person is afraid or detests all homosexuals as the people they are not just the lifestyle. In my case I am not a homophobe, I have and like my homosexual friends while at the same time not agreeing with their chosen lifestyle. I will say again, Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Unashamed Christians
<><

The very word homophobe or homophobia has a negative connotation that implies that a person is afraid or detests all homosexuals as the people they are not just the lifestyle. In my case I am not a homophobe, I have and like my homosexual friends while at the same time not agreeing with their chosen lifestyle. I will say again, Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Unashamed Christians
<><

just because you don't like the connotation doesn't change what the definition of the word actually is. yes, the root involves the concept of "to fear," but most English words are evolved and adapted from related but non-identical terms. whether you like it or not, your own words mark you as a homophobe; if you don't like being called what you are, then perhaps you need to re-examine your beliefs.

I would dare anyone to come up with a better definition for the oft misused word racism. It is a charge that is thrown around this forum far too lightly and with little evidence presented by the person charging racism.

Racism:A belief that one race is superior to another race

Now I was recently accused of being a racist and homophobe because I support the recent attempt to amend the US Constitution to ban homosexual marriage.

1.)By using the above definition, I am not a racist seeing as how homosexuals are not a seperate race, it is a lifestyle that a person chooses to practice.

2.)In response to the charge of being a homophobe, let me say that I do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle. However, I have a few homosexual friends and their lifestyle does not affect my relationship with them. Hate the sin, love the sinner attitude.

Unashamed Christians
<><

Now, I think not you was called racist cuz you was against gay marriage, but because you did write something not so political correct about black people.

And for you thinking that you chose your sexuality. Have you actually chosen to be attracted to the opposite sex? I am 100% sure i haven't, I just do. Would find it very odd if other ppl actually could chose thier sexuality.

Unashamed Christians, you and I think alike.

And no, I haven't chosen to be attracted to the opposite sex, but that's because it's the way we were made. We were made to be attracted to the opposite sex.

Unashamed Christians, you and I think alike.

And no, I haven't chosen to be attracted to the opposite sex, but that's because it's the way we were made. We were made to be attracted to the opposite sex.

Question for you, have you seen "There's something about Miryam" or any of the coverage? A very attractive woman who is actually a man. We are, person by person, attracted to what our personal preferences are. No man finds all women attractive, no matter how heterosexual they are, and the same is the case for all women. On a purely physical level, there are men who are prettier than many women, men who look more feminine than women (not even going to extreme of transgendered or transvestites) and are likely to appear more attractive to a heterosexual men than many women. Sexual preference isn't simple, it isn't black and white and, despite the bigotry of religious homophobes, it's part of the rich tapestry of modern human life and it's here to stay.

Vas.

Ah, but what if a church wants to marry gay people?

I believe it was the Episcopalian church that was marrying people of the same sex. Would you have that be outlawed?


Now, I'm straight. I love women, and can't see myself as being sexually attracted to guys. But I'm also really effeminate at times. Really effeminate.

Does this make me less of a human being? After all, that's "not the way we were created."

Actually I don't like your term as it simplifies the problem.

How about:

1) The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

2) Discrimination or prejudice based on race.


As to the use against you? It involved some comments you made about blacks. That is racism.

Homophobia and or prejudice it was you are talking about here.

"it is a lifestyle that a person chooses to practice"

That is a very homophobic statement. It implies that people will start doing this more if allowed.

Sorry buy you can't prove it is choice. However, there is more then enough scientific evicence to suggest it is biological. Never mind the fact it appears in nature.

2.)In response to the charge of being a homophobe, let me say that I do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle. However, I have a few homosexual friends and their lifestyle does not affect my relationship with them. Hate the sin, love the sinner attitude.2

Question: Do they know about your attitudes? IF they don't, that is not acceptance of them.

Racism - the characteristic of forming opinions based on racial prejudices.

necessary subdefinitions
Race - an aspect of being defined primarily by phenotype.

Prejudice - the formation of ideas or opinions based on previous experience with similar persons or things.

There is one very important element missing from these definitions. Racism is the use of institutional power to enforce the racial prejudices of a dominant group over subordinate groups such that the dominant group recieves privileges and opportunities that are denied to the non-dominant groups. Such privileges are many and varied. Homophobia can be similarly fonctionally defined. While the word itself literally means "fear of homosexuality" (and a strong case can be made that most homophobia stems from fear of one sort or another), the term is used as the equivalent of racism, sexism, ageism, and other such -isms with respect to sexuality.The denial of same-sex marriages by the dominant heterosexual culture is nothing short of cultural imperialism and certainly constitutes institutional homophobia.

I am sick of all the people saying homosexuality is a choice. There are certain species of spiders that ehibit homosexual traits, but I doubt those spiders have enough of a forebrain to make such a complex descision.

Yes, spiders may not have that complex a brain to make such decisions, but we do.

I am sick of all the people saying homosexuality is a choice. There are certain species of spiders that ehibit homosexual traits, but I doubt those spiders have enough of a forebrain to make such a complex descision.

Some spiders also eat their young and/or their sexual partner. Is this also natural for human to do also?

I think that the word racism is over-used, especially on these forums. It is usually thrown around at people who are brave enough to stand up against the mainstream and say that they don't agree with something that most of society readily accepts.
1) I believe that Jesus is Lord.
Christians were and some are mean to people...bigot!
2) I think homosexuality is sin....though I love homosexuals and/or just don't condone their actions.
Racist.

Now I don't know why this particular person was labelled a racist. And racism is to be stood against wherever we encounter it. And, the Bible teaches us that we are all equal under the Law, that is we are sinners, none are righteous.
But, I think we need to really examine the labels we throw around and why we do it.
I truly beleive that words like racist and homophobe are thrown around just becuase the people using them cannot think of anything intelligent to add to the debate, and need to try and take some credibility away from their opponents.
WWJD
Amen.

Yes, spiders may not have that complex a brain to make such decisions, but we do.

Pssst buddy. The fact it appears in nature where they can't make the decision kind of put a huge hole in the "it's unnatural because its a choice argument?"

Bonobos are a "higher" life form and they have homosexual acts......

Some spiders also eat their young and/or their sexual partner. Is this also natural for human to do also?


And your point is?????????

The argument offered is a response to the frequent assertion that homosexuality is nothing more then hetros living a deviant lifestyle.

And your point is?????????

The argument offered is a response to the frequent assertion that homosexuality is nothing more then hetros living a deviant lifestyle.

The point is that simply saying that because other animals do it means it is natural is a feeble argument.
A similar argument, such as the one I gave, could be used to claim cannibalism is natural and therefore acceptable in humans. Not that I am comparing homosexuality to cannibalism but it was to show that such arguments are feeble.

Yes, spiders may not have that complex a brain to make such decisions, but we do.

You're right, we do (in theory - I've come across people where I'm not so sure) have a brain complex enough for such decision making processes... that has naff all to do with whether someone is hetero/bi/homo/polysexual however since sexuality is NOT a concious choice, it just is.

I would dare anyone to come up with a better definition for the oft misused word racism. It is a charge that is thrown around this forum far too lightly and with little evidence presented by the person charging racism.

Racism:A belief that one race is superior to another race

Now I was recently accused of being a racist and homophobe because I support the recent attempt to amend the US Constitution to ban homosexual marriage.

1.)By using the above definition, I am not a racist seeing as how homosexuals are not a seperate race, it is a lifestyle that a person chooses to practice.

I might say bigot, not racist, because the overwhelming evidence says it is not a choice rather "homosexuality" (homosexual orientation) is a manifestation of androgynous brain structure(s), having an organic origin. Before you quote the Chick Tract abridged version of the "twin studies", read the whole abstract. Before you go on about it not being normal, which is also contrary to the position of the American Psychiatric Association, show higher credentials than they have. Before you go on about it will bring the necrophilic pedophiles out of the closet, be aware the same rationale legitimizing homosexuality is the same for hetersoexual activity, only that instinctual reproductive necessity and numerical superiority 'outed' heterosexuals while humans were stil swingin' from (or in ;) )the trees, or garden of Eden. Makes no difference either way.

2.)In response to the charge of being a homophobe, let me say that I do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle. However, I have a few homosexual friends and their lifestyle does not affect my relationship with them. Hate the sin, love the sinner attitude.

Unashamed Christians
<><

... ugh, what a bunch of heterosexist religio-egocentric crap.

... ugh, what a bunch of heterosexist religio-egocentric crap.

Theophobe..... ;)

The point is that simply saying that because other animals do it means it is natural is a feeble argument.
A similar argument, such as the one I gave, could be used to claim cannibalism is natural and therefore acceptable in humans. Not that I am comparing homosexuality to cannibalism but it was to show that such arguments are feeble.

Hum, well. There's also a slight difference between homosexuality and cannibalism. Cannibalism afaik only existed in kinda remote and not so developed cultures. When then the contries of western europe explored the world etc it kinda stoped to exist. This would mean that this is a choice made by the people who does that.

However, homosexuality has kind of been banned untill modern days in most cultures, yet it has still existed in every culture more or less since like forever. Imo, this indicates that this is NOT a choice you make, but something that just are.

And all of you who say it's a choice... You all know gay-people it seems. Why not ask them if they think they have made a choice or not? Cuz they are indeed the once that should know if they had or not.

Theophobe..... ;)

Hate the sin, not the sinner!

*glances at the eightth commandment an romans 1:20* ;)

Hum, well. There's also a slight difference between homosexuality and cannibalism.

I know, thats what I said. It was an example, not trying to say homosexuality is the same as cannibalism. :rolleyes:

Cannibalism afaik only existed in kinda remote and not so developed cultures. When then the contries of western europe explored the world etc it kinda stoped to exist. This would mean that this is a choice made by the people who does that.

However, homosexuality has kind of been banned untill modern days in most cultures, yet it has still existed in every culture more or less since like forever. Imo, this indicates that this is NOT a choice you make, but something that just are.

You are missing the point. I am not saying homosexuality is a choice, noone knows 100% whether it is choice, genetics or a combination of influences. I posted what I did do show that just because other animals do things in the animal kingdom doesn't necessarily mean it is automatically an accepted behaviour in humans.

And all of you who say it's a choice... You all know gay-people it seems. Why not ask them if they think they have made a choice or not? Cuz they are indeed the once that should know if they had or not.

I know a few gay people but I don't really care if it is choice or otherwise. Their sexuality has no bearing on how I treat them as a human being and it does not come into conversation.

IYou are missing the point. I am not saying homosexuality is a choice, noone knows 100% whether it is choice, genetics or a combination of influences. I posted what I did do show that just because other animals do things in the animal kingdom doesn't necessarily mean it is automatically an accepted behaviour in humans.Wotcha. Have you missed me? ;) I think the point is that it's normally the religious right that claim homsexuality is un-natural. So to a large extent, this has been made a neccessary issue by them.

I know a few gay people but I don't really care if it is choice or otherwise. Their sexuality has no bearing on how I treat them as a human being and it does not come into conversation.Unfortunately not everyone is as open-minded as you, and we have to deal with the world as it is rather then as it should be. And Unashamed Christian's stance is essentially the same as Stalinist Russia's on Christianity. Christians are fine as long as they don't indulge in Christian practices etc.

Wotcha. Have you missed me? ;)

Welcome back, long time no see! :p

I think the point is that it's normally the religious right that claim homsexuality is un-natural. So to a large extent, this has been made a neccessary issue by them.

Unfortunately not everyone is as open-minded as you, and we have to deal with the world as it is rather then as it should be. And Unashamed Christian's stance is essentially the same as Stalinist Russia's on Christianity. Christians are fine as long as they don't indulge in Christian practices etc.

I know thats what some people think and thats why to a large extent I have said little in this thread because there are so many people with differing views of whats right and wrong or moral and immoral.
To my knowledge noone has conclusively proved that homosexuality is entirely choice or entirely genetic. I tend to think thats because it is a bit of both. It is because of this that I have really only commented on the reference to behaviours of other animals as examples of whats "natural" and therefore acceptable in humans.
The issue of same-sex marriage has been discussed on another thread and it got into the religious aspects of the issue. Being an atheist it meant I agreed with some parts of both sides of the argument!

Cannibalism afaik only existed in kinda remote and not so developed cultures. When then the contries of western europe explored the world etc it kinda stoped to exist. This would mean that this is a choice made by the people who does that.

Who said those cultures were not so developed? The had a highly rich and diverse culture. They are only counted as "not so developed" because 'civilised' (read English, American and Spanish) people decided they were so. Added to this, those same people did a similar thing to what is happening to homosexuality, they decided it was wrong and put a stop to it through warfare and religion. There was no choice, it was indoctrination into western belief systems as had happened to all 'subordinated' cultures in the history of humanity.

As for it being different to homosexuality, how is it? it is something that people chose to do that was deemed 'unacceptable' and 'unnatural' by a minority of people who then did everything they could to see it stamped out.

Some spiders also eat their young and/or their sexual partner. Is this also natural for human to do also?

What is natural? Humans are a product of nature the same as spiders. You can argue that everything we do is natural. We are natural creatures; it is 'Impossible' for us to do something that is unnatural.

If you start saying mankind shouldn't do something because it is 'Unnatural' then you had better be sitting there in natural fibres sending this in via semaphore.

Religious beliefs are religious beliefs and no one can say you are wrong to think this. Added to this you have every right to think however you do re: the gay marriage bill, but what you are doing, in essence, is saying that hundreds of people who are in love, and have made THEIR decisions about THEIR lives cannot show THEIR love because YOU don't believe what THEY are doing is 'Natural'

Is that something you can justify using 'religious tolerance'?

Theophobe..... ;)

Aren't the religious the theophobes? Aren't they supposed to fear god? I'm scared shitless of Eris Discordia, she's freaking nuts!

Pope Vassilly Deferns the first, last and always.

Illustrious Greetings Unashamed Christians,

If you are going to be so pedantic as to preach to others (especially about the meanings of words), then at least have the common courtesy to define your meanings in accordance with the standard definitions before beginning such a diatribe.

For example, you defined racism as:

>Racism: A belief that one race is superior to another race

The standard definition that any dimwit could look up via the Internet (www.m-w.com) is:

Main Entry: racism
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination.

Obviously, your definition is lacking, thus your conclusion can usually be equally dismissed as logically flawed (though they may be perceived as emotionally appealing). If you sincerely wish to clear yourself of the accusation you listed:

>Now I was recently accused of being a racist and homophobe because I support the recent attempt to amend the US Constitution to ban homosexual marriage.

Then a more proper course of action would be to use the intellectual skills of logic, rhetoric, and/or debate and show your nay-sayers to be emotional basketcases lacking the ability or fortitude for the task..

Concerning the accusation of homophobia, let us look to the its defined meaning:

Main Entry: homophobe
Function: noun
: a person characterized by homophobia

Main Entry: homophobia
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.

Unless you can prove via the rigors of debate that homosexuals are being afforded the same rights as heterosexuals, then it is a form of discrimination (despite what religious indignation you might feel in the matter or what your faith my say about such matters).

Since the issue at hand is marriage, (and you are supporting the denying homosexuals legal/constitutional access to marriage that heterosexuals possess), then you are engaged in an act of "discrimination against homosexuals." Own it, by definition, you have decreed yourself a homophobia.

I apologize if logic, rhetoric, and debate skills demonstrate that your position is irrational and based upon "faith" and feeling, instead of "reason". Some people take pride in "Faith in God" as compared to "The Wisdom of the World" ... its a favored catch-all for positions unsubstantiated by reason. It is a shame that an "Unashamed Christian" would consider the matter even worthy of debate.

ArchDuke Melanalios
The Heretic

What is natural? Humans are a product of nature the same as spiders. You can argue that everything we do is natural. We are natural creatures; it is 'Impossible' for us to do something that is unnatural.

If you start saying mankind shouldn't do something because it is 'Unnatural' then you had better be sitting there in natural fibres sending this in via semaphore.

Religious beliefs are religious beliefs and no one can say you are wrong to think this. Added to this you have every right to think however you do re: the gay marriage bill, but what you are doing, in essence, is saying that hundreds of people who are in love, and have made THEIR decisions about THEIR lives cannot show THEIR love because YOU don't believe what THEY are doing is 'Natural'

Is that something you can justify using 'religious tolerance'?

Ummm...what are you talking about.

I raised the spider issue because the person said some spiders showed homosexual tendencies and hence homosexuality was natural. I gave an example of other aspects of spider behaviour that were not a natural behaviour of humans. I did not say homosexuality was unnatural nor did I say it was natural for that matter. The purpose of me posting that was to point out that the comparisons to the animal kingdoms to justify actions as natural is feeble.

I didn't mention anything about gay marriage so I have no idea where you are going with that but it was not mentioned in the quote you were referring to.

Finally, I am atheist so your ramblings about my religious beliefs are somewhat misguided.

Aren't the religious the theophobes? Aren't they supposed to fear god? I'm scared shitless of Eris Discordia, she's freaking nuts!

Pope Vassilly Deferns the first, last and always.

A theophobe fears God or religion. So in much the same way homophobe is extended to those who show contempt for homosexuals, the term theophobe can be extended to those that show contempt for religion.

In all honesty it was a tongue-in-cheek comment to show that whatever you say in a debate can be construed as having a prejudice. So calling someone racist or sexist or any other similar label is essentially nothing more than name-calling.

was ranting at Unashamed Christians, my apologies.

was ranting at Unashamed Christians, my apologies.

OK, apology accepted! :)

OK, apology accepted! :)
:)
you should be honoured... i don't normally apologise. especially when i'm busy being mad cause someones being stupid *irriataed at UChristian*

*rants* "sometimes i just get so ANGRY. then something seems to go splaty" :gundge: Paintballs!!! :gundge:

:)
you should be honoured... i don't normally apologise. especially when i'm busy being mad cause someones being stupid *irriataed at UChristian*

*rants* "sometimes i just get so ANGRY. then something seems to go splaty" :gundge: Paintballs!!! :gundge:

Then I am indeed honoured to receive an apology! :cool:

Is homosexuality natural? There can be NO doubt that it is. It occurs in nature. Is it natural behavior for humans? Well, every known culture in human history has had homosexual members. In addition, nearly all know cultures have had some form of homosexual marriage. This isn't rocket science here.

Lots of 10 dollar words in 2 cent thoughts.

I would dare anyone to come up with a better definition for the oft misused word racism. It is a charge that is thrown around this forum far too lightly and with little evidence presented by the person charging racism.

Racism:A belief that one race is superior to another race

Now I was recently accused of being a racist and homophobe because I support the recent attempt to amend the US Constitution to ban homosexual marriage.

1.)By using the above definition, I am not a racist seeing as how homosexuals are not a seperate race, it is a lifestyle that a person chooses to practice.

2.)In response to the charge of being a homophobe, let me say that I do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle. However, I have a few homosexual friends and their lifestyle does not affect my relationship with them. Hate the sin, love the sinner attitude.

Unashamed Christians
<><

Encarta has the following definitions:

rac·ist [ ráyssist ]

adjective

1. based on racism: based on notions and stereotypes related to race


2. prejudiced against other races: prejudiced against all people who belong to other races

ra·cism [ ráy sìzzəm ]

noun

1. animosity toward other races: prejudice or animosity against people who belong to other races


2. belief in racial superiority: the belief that people of different races have different qualities and abilities, and that some races are inherently superior or inferior

ho·mo·pho·bic [ hmə fṓbik ]

adjective

having irrational hatred of homosexuality: showing an irrational hatred, disapproval, or fear of homosexuality, homosexual men and lesbians, and their culture

From a previous thread in support of Bush, you stated the following:

"He believes in defending marriage as it has been known since Genesis, it simply far more effective and better for our children to have a mother and a father, just look at the Black community as a present day example where there is a soaring illegitimacy rate because single parenthood was endorsed by our welfare state."

Since you describe yourself as an "Unashamed Christian", perhaps you should reconsider? The above statement is clearly homophobic and racist in my humble opinion.

BTW, single parenthood is the result of divorce and/or choice of individuals to live that lifestyle, and is not a matter of being "endorsed" by the "welfare" state. Also, being a "Christian", shouldn't you be concerned about the welfare of your fellow citizens? You support Bush's economic policies, yet 3 Million more Americans have become impoverished since Bush took over the White House. Also, the US has the highest poverty rate among the industrialized countries, while the largest percentage of "tax cut" dollars go to the wealthiest Americans. Now that is something to be ashamed about?

Anyone can call themselves a Christian, but are they willing to practice the principles of Christianity?

There is one very important element missing from these definitions. Racism is the use of institutional power to enforce the racial prejudices of a dominant group over subordinate groups such that the dominant group recieves privileges and opportunities that are denied to the non-dominant groups. Such privileges are many and varied. Homophobia can be similarly fonctionally defined. While the word itself literally means "fear of homosexuality" (and a strong case can be made that most homophobia stems from fear of one sort or another), the term is used as the equivalent of racism, sexism, ageism, and other such -isms with respect to sexuality.The denial of same-sex marriages by the dominant heterosexual culture is nothing short of cultural imperialism and certainly constitutes institutional homophobia.

"what he said"

its odd to me how quickly a thread on racism turned to a discussion of the morality of homosexuality

y'all must all be too young to have experienced real racism. there used to be a time in the US when a black person couldnt sit down at a lunch counter with white people. today it woudl be like not letting black people into mcdonalds. and "black" was stricly defined so that light skinned people sometimes had to pretend to be "white" so they could be treated like human beings.

when rosa parks got on that bus at the end of a hard days work, she was EXPECTED to give up her seat to any white person who got on that bus. when she said NO she got arrested. ARRESTED. she in fact faced the possibilty of being killed for her refusal. no one would have convicted her killers. black people were killed for being "uppity" and their killers went free. it happend thousands of times.

that is racism

its not racist to believe that my group (whatever group i happen to identify with) is better than yours. thats human nature. its racist to ACT ON IT when i have the power to do so.

its prejudiced when i see a young black man and i avoid him on the street out of irrational fear. its racist when he comes into my office asking for a job and i dismiss his application because of his race. its racist when i refuse to rent him an apartment. its racist when i make sure he doesnt get into the local college. its racist when i tell my daughter not to date him.

similarly a black person might not like me because i am a middle aged woman but its only racist when he refuses to hire me because im white.

the anthropoligical definition is interesting but its a description of human behavior more than a political reality. from the beginning of humanity we have divided ourselves into groups and defended our group as being superior to any other. that some people choose their group based on skin color isnt surprising. its human. and prejudiced.

First off, go pick up a dictionary and read the definition of homophobe.
1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.
Someone had already pasted this, but I'll do it again. Christains do not fear or have contempt for homosexuals. We are all sinners, and all sins are equal in the eyes of God, so we simply can not look down on someone for being a sinner. However, we do not approve of their actions. A parent may love their child, but if they catch him smoking when he is 18, they are very likely to allow him to continue even though they may not approve of his actions. Because they disapprove of him smoking, does that mean they now have a phobia? NO, of course not. And the only behavior a good christian will exhibit toward a homosexual is the same behavior they would exhibit toward any other person who had not been saved. They would try to convert that person. As someone else said, hate the sin, love the sinner. To call us homophobes because we disapprove of the lifestyle is a ridiculous and uninformed distortion of the word.

As far as racism goes, it is very common for people around the forums to call people racist whenever they try to be honest. Is it racist for me to say that the majority of the African-American population is well below the national standards in education? Some people will take that and think I am saying blacks are ignorant. Those people are hatemongers and are only happy when they are causing dissent. So when people call you a homophobe or a racist in the forums, don't take it too seriously, because as often as not it will be because they couldn't think of any other good arguments.

2.)In response to the charge of being a homophobe, let me say that I do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle. However, I have a few homosexual friends and their lifestyle does not affect my relationship with them. Hate the sin, love the sinner attitude.

Unashamed Christians
<><

OK this is what i dont understand about the insistance that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice

if i REALLY REALLY am only attracted to women and only want to have sex with women, but i pretend to be straight. am i not homosexual?

it seems to ME that whether i live a lesbian life or not, the feelings make me gay.

there is a choice of how we act but there is no choice of how we FEEL. and that it is the feelings that determine my nature not the choice of how i behave.

(no im not lesbian and i dont advocate that gay people pretend to be straight)

sure it makes YOU feel better if everyone pretends to be straight. but it makes the gay people miserable. taking out promiscuous behavior which im sure you would agree is as immoral in straight people as it is in gay people, is it really wrong for people to make themselves happy by having loving committed relationships with other people of like mind?

where does our right to be happy get overridden by someone elses definition of morality? where is that line? if YOU had the power to decide for someone else who doesnt share your christian beliefs, what would YOU decide?

Based on the definition, "Fear of or contempt for," then no Christian should be a homophobe. The Bible clearly teaches that we are to love them, but not condone their moral actions.

However, the Bible says that you are not to judge them either. God will do the judging?