oaf is against the gay lifestyle

[ChiComCat]

I'm actually more interested in discussing whether someone is per se a bigot if he/she believes homosexual sex is immoral.  I don't think so, but I also know that there is plenty of evidence that people can't make the distinction between the act and the person, and if they can't, they are a bigot.

I think people can believe whatever they want and not necessarily be a bigot.  It is the acts of condemning people, being hateful to people and enforcing those views on someone else that make them a bigot.

[Paul Moscow]

I'm actually more interested in discussing whether someone is per se a bigot if he/she believes homosexual sex is immoral.  I don't think so, but I also know that there is plenty of evidence that people can't make the distinction between the act and the person, and if they can't, they are a bigot.

Would you shower in a locker room with someone you knew was gay? Would you let your son be on a baseball team where it was known that the head coach was gay?

[Daddy Claxton]

I'm actually more interested in discussing whether someone is per se a bigot if he/she believes homosexual sex is immoral.  I don't think so, but I also know that there is plenty of evidence that people can't make the distinction between the act and the person, and if they can't, they are a bigot.

I think people can believe whatever they want and not necessarily be a bigot.  It is the acts of condemning people, being hateful to people and enforcing those views on someone else that make them a bigot.

Is oaf a bigot? I thought that's how he was treated.  I could have been reading too much into some of the posts.

Paul, are those questions to me? If so, lol of course.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I'm actually more interested in discussing whether someone is per se a bigot if he/she believes homosexual sex is immoral.  I don't think so, but I also know that there is plenty of evidence that people can't make the distinction between the act and the person, and if they can't, they are a bigot.

I think people can believe whatever they want and not necessarily be a bigot.  It is the acts of condemning people, being hateful to people and enforcing those views on someone else that make them a bigot.

Is oaf a bigot? I thought that's how he was treated.  I could have been reading too much into some of the posts.

Paul, are those questions to me? If so, lol of course.

I don't think anybody called oaf a bigot. They may have inferred it, but oaf inferred it just as much. Most of the discussion was on the morality of having sex without the pure intent of procreation, yet it somehow being okay intentionally only have sex when the odds are at their worst. It just makes no sense from any logical standpoint.

[Spracne]

Who the eff is oaf?

[joda]

I'm actually more interested in discussing whether someone is per se a bigot if he/she believes homosexual sex is immoral.  I don't think so, but I also know that there is plenty of evidence that people can't make the distinction between the act and the person, and if they can't, they are a bigot.

Would you shower in a locker room with someone you knew was gay? Would you let your son be on a baseball team where it was known that the head coach was gay?

I'm not sure where you're trying to go with these questions, but anyone who would let their daughter play on a team with a male coach but not want their son on a team with a gay coach is definitely bigoted. Gay does not equal pedophile no matter what some would have you believe.

['taterblast]

I'm actually more interested in discussing whether someone is per se a bigot if he/she believes homosexual sex is immoral.  I don't think so, but I also know that there is plenty of evidence that people can't make the distinction between the act and the person, and if they can't, they are a bigot.

Would you shower in a locker room with someone you knew was gay? Would you let your son be on a baseball team where it was known that the head coach was gay?

yes and yes. what would you be worried about happening?

[ChiComCat]

If a female finds you attractive, you don't have to have sex with her.  Same is true with a male.  I think some struggle with that distinction.

[420seriouscat69]

If a female finds you attractive, you don't have to have sex with her.  Same is true with a male.  I think some struggle with that distinction.

It's extremely hard not to do tho.

[star seed 7]

So everyone here would advocate for coed locker rooms right?

[CNS]

So everyone here would advocate for coed locker rooms right?

Guys, I have it on pretty good authority that God was all but ready to be accepting of gays but just couldn't work out the locker room scenario so he said eff it and shut it all down.

[star seed 7]

So everyone here would advocate for coed locker rooms right?

Guys, I have it on pretty good authority that God was all but ready to be accepting of gays but just couldn't work out the locker room scenario so he said eff it and shut it all down.

I don't believe in god. I also don't believe if you're uncomfortable with showering with someone that is attracted to your sex, that you are a bad person as a result. Group showering situations are pretty awkward to begin with.

It's not something that would bother me, but I could understand how it could bother someone regardless of their acceptance of homosexuals.

Not that I would change anything in a separate but equal way, except perhaps try to give more privacy in general (personal stalls, etc), which is a model most new schools are going to and is probably welcomed by just about everyone

[treysolid]

I also respect that he has his own sense of morality

describe his "sense of morality" to me in respect to homosexuality and what about it you respect. this is me trying to understand, not be an bad person.

He described his sense of morality in quite a bit of detail on his own.  He lost me when he was drawn in to the particularities of sexual intercourse, but I understood that he believes that sex outside of marriage is immoral, whether gay or straight, and that is not a far fetched belief.

Nonetheless, I said I respect that he HAS his own sense of morality.  Meaning that I have respect for someone who comes on here, states what he believes and doesn't just repeat what you, limestone and a few others have already said multiple times.  I respect that you have your own sense of morality, too.  I don't respect those who just repeat what you've already said when I don't get the sense that they've thought about it any further than "I think SD is cool so I'll adopt his opinion and call everyone else a bigot because that's what SD does".

i personally find it VERY interesting that you are willing to label un-named board members as SD parrots (and unworthy of your respect, see bolded text), yet you respect oaf for simply parroting catholic dogma. how do you know that he's spent even a minute questioning catholic doctrine on this issue?

i believe this is what religious people call one of those "speck of sawdust in brother's eye/plank in your eye" scenarios...

[Spracne]

So everyone here would advocate for coed locker rooms right?

Guys, I have it on pretty good authority that God was all but ready to be accepting of gays but just couldn't work out the locker room scenario so he said eff it and shut it all down.

I don't believe in god. I also don't believe if you're uncomfortable with showering with someone that is attracted to your sex, that you are a bad person as a result. Group showering situations are pretty awkward to begin with.

It's not something that would bother me, but I could understand how it could bother someone regardless of their acceptance of homosexuals.

Not that I would change anything in a separate but equal way, except perhaps try to give more privacy in general (personal stalls, etc), which is a model most new schools are going to and is probably welcomed by just about everyone

We are endowed with certain unalienable rights.  Why are you so bothered by other peoples' endowments?

[CNS]

Penises absolutely freighten ppl.  I mean, you don't know what they are thinking or anything.  You can't read them.  Just impossible. 

[Paul Moscow]

I'm actually more interested in discussing whether someone is per se a bigot if he/she believes homosexual sex is immoral.  I don't think so, but I also know that there is plenty of evidence that people can't make the distinction between the act and the person, and if they can't, they are a bigot.

Would you shower in a locker room with someone you knew was gay? Would you let your son be on a baseball team where it was known that the head coach was gay?

yes and yes. what would you be worried about happening?

Have you been following this thread at all guy? I'm obviously on team buhtsecks

[Paul Moscow]

I'm actually more interested in discussing whether someone is per se a bigot if he/she believes homosexual sex is immoral.  I don't think so, but I also know that there is plenty of evidence that people can't make the distinction between the act and the person, and if they can't, they are a bigot.

I think people can believe whatever they want and not necessarily be a bigot.  It is the acts of condemning people, being hateful to people and enforcing those views on someone else that make them a bigot.

Is oaf a bigot? I thought that's how he was treated.  I could have been reading too much into some of the posts.

Paul, are those questions to me? If so, lol of course.

Those questions were meant for you. And actually I'm somewhat surprised by your response. So its just the manner in which they have sex (talking butts here) that is immoral to you? The relationship doesn't bother you at all, just the physical consummation of it? Not trolling, generally interested.

[gatoveintisiete]

Totally team buttseks here guys, I mean whether it's a guy or a gal who doesn't enjoy buttseks?
This is a perfectly good hole we're talking about, not  somebodys ear, not a lubed armpit, not some fetishy footjob, i'm talkin' good 'ole american buttwhole poking with the person I love.  Although I will
Warn one time i puulled back a crock covered in a pile of poop and it was gross.

[Daddy Claxton]

i personally find it VERY interesting that you are willing to label un-named board members as SD parrots (and unworthy of your respect, see bolded text), yet you respect oaf for simply parroting catholic dogma. how do you know that he's spent even a minute questioning catholic doctrine on this issue?

i believe this is what religious people call one of those "speck of sawdust in brother's eye/plank in your eye" scenarios...

I assumed from the detail with which oaf could describe his belief that he had spent some time examining them and legitimately  adopted them as his own.  I certainly could be assuming too much about the posters on each side.

Paul, i'm curious how you came up with what you seem to assume is my stance on sex.  The manner in which other people have sex isn't something I concern myself with.

[michigancat]

Morals regarding things that have no negative consequences for anyone are stupid and do not deserve respect.

[Daddy Claxton]

I also noticed that wacky was more directly confronted for saying he believed in god than he was for saying "they" have more money and make the best wing men.  (Nod to puniraptor for at least a  ).  Is most everyone okay with stereotyping and objectifying as long as it not based on a religious belief?

[Dugout DickStone]

I also noticed that wacky was more directly confronted for saying he believed in god than he was for saying "they" have more money and make the best wing men.  (Nod to puniraptor for at least a  ).  Is most everyone okay with stereotyping and objectifying as long as it not based on a religious belief?

Wacky is all over the board.  But he is team #lovethyneighbor.  The wingman/money comment is stupid and stereo typing but at least he doesn't equate their "lifestyle" with lying and stealing.

[Headinjun]

I also noticed that wacky was more directly confronted for saying he believed in god than he was for saying "they" have more money and make the best wing men.  (Nod to puniraptor for at least a  ).  Is most everyone okay with stereotyping and objectifying as long as it not based on a religious belief?

Wacky was stereotyping comedically. Some of you are just lousy judgemental human beings. 

Why does some fictitious  book that has a leading fictitious character get so much credence in this world?

[ChiComCat]

Morals regarding things that have no negative consequences for anyone are stupid and do not deserve respect.

Good thing that isn't the case here.  Negative consequence: It makes people feel icky

[Rage Against the McKee]

Cong. Tim Huelskamp ?@CongHuelskamp  Apr 28
#SlipperySlope is real: Lesbian Throuple gets “Married” http://goo.gl/YFNTBe  #1M1W #MarriageAmendment