Opportunity lost

[Qun Mang]

Okay, temporarily locked.

[Qun Mang]

Open for business again. Let's only post under cool heads, m'kay? Remember, not everyone is going to agree. In this case both sides have pretty solid ground under them, so I think it's just a matter of priority here. What say you?

[nebula]

I applaud your move Qun Mang.

I think, though, that I'm going to refrain from any more debate. I've said POV and have been feeling like we are all just churning wheels and not getting anywhere.

I hope you don't mind.

[DaniJ87]

Secondly, your attitude towards homosexuals is appauling and saddening. Calling them "homos" and your expressed homophobic behavior (fear that one of "them" might be "checking you out") reveals a pious, self-righteous attitude. You display a spirit that seems unable to love someone who struggles with this particular sin, as evidenced by the fact you could never be in the same room as a "homo".

I would like to point out, that "homosexual" is a scientific term. I will NOT stoop to corrupting the wholesome words in the english language by using other terms for this type of people.

For example- the word "gay" used to be used to mean "happy; bright." Now it is used to refer to homosexuals. The word "Queer" used to be a classic way of saying something was unusual- now it has a completely different meaning.... I find it utterly distasteful that our language is being filled with double-meanings. And it's not just the homosexuals. It's the immoral people all over... I keep opening my mouth and making people gasp- just because I use old definitions for my words... and didn't know the "current meaning"

Homo means "same"

sexual- you know what that means.

In essence the word means "same-sex". This is a very VERY mild term for homosexuality- my pastor says that the word in scripture used by Paul for homosexuals was actually a term literally meaning "men in the bed".

As long as homosexuality runs rampant, I will use this term for it- homosexual. I may also refer to them as "sexually perverted" kind of like what Paul said of them in Romans 1 or 2.

[Kabowd]

Secondly, your attitude towards homosexuals is appauling and saddening. Calling them "homos" and your expressed homophobic behavior (fear that one of "them" might be "checking you out") reveals a pious, self-righteous attitude. You display a spirit that seems unable to love someone who struggles with this particular sin, as evidenced by the fact you could never be in the same room as a "homo".

I would like to point out, that "homosexual" is a scientific term. I will NOT stoop to corrupting the wholesome words in the english language by using other terms for this type of people.

For example- the word "gay" used to be used to mean "happy; bright." Now it is used to refer to homosexuals. The word "Queer" used to be a classic way of saying something was unusual- now it has a completely different meaning.... I find it utterly distasteful that our language is being filled with double-meanings. And it's not just the homosexuals. It's the immoral people all over... I keep opening my mouth and making people gasp- just because I use old definitions for my words... and didn't know the "current meaning"

Homo means "same"

sexual- you know what that means.

In essence the word means "same-sex". This is a very VERY mild term for homosexuality- my pastor says that the word in scripture used by Paul for homosexuals was actually a term literally meaning "men in the bed".

As long as homosexuality runs rampant, I will use this term for it- homosexual. I may also refer to them as "sexually perverted" kind of like what Paul said of them in Romans 1 or 2.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Honestly, this is a really lame excuse to justify using derogatory terms. Saying "homosexual" isn't considered derogatory...but most of the time the term "homo" definitely is. Even in this very thread, you can see the spirit behind someone's words when they refer to a homosexual as a "homo". It might not mean anything to you, but it's offensive to many others. So why use it? If you know it could be offensive, refrain from using it. It's like the word "n*gger". Etymologists who've studied the history of the word believe it originated with the Spanish word "negro" and was considered neutral in the 17th century. But by the 19th century it was a full-fledged racial slur. Do you justify using that offensive word because it "simply means black"? I would hope not.

[kodischild]

I applaud your move Qun Mang.

I think, though, that I'm going to refrain from any more debate.  I've said POV and have been feeling like we are all just churning wheels and not getting anywhere.

I hope you don't mind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree.

This is one of those issues where people believe what they believe and we are not going to change minds or hearts, but we might manage to make enemies. It isn't worth it.

Now if I can just listen to myself and stop posting.....

[Qun Mang]

No, I don't mind nebula, kodischild. I think this thread is pretty much played out anyway. There are too many other threads that can use our posts.