Zeil,

Well, at least you have no need of comfort from Aunty Foxy. She's a nice enough woman, but a bit naïve, continually confusing blindness with kindness. She's never called me a Neanderthal before, but I hope it made her feel better.

Just a bit of sorting out: you are a lesbian because you announced the fact. I am not necessarily a bigot just because you think I am. And, as far as I'm aware, 'lesbian' is not a form of abuse; 'bigot' is. However, you have indicated that you intend to continue thinking of me (and others you disagree with I presume) as a bigot. So bet it.

You might like to explain why you think that just because I have no sympathy for aids sufferers that I would not have any sympathy with cancer patients.

Toni Lavis,

You are merely disgusting and immature. Something to do with having a girls name?

TTBN,

Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
As per webster, me pointing out the obvious does not make a figment of my imagination. One does not have to label themselves as things in order for them to obviously be those things. Me calling myself a Lesbian doesn't make me one, I am attracted to other woman exclusively. That makes me a Lesbian. If I were attracted to men or both sexes that would make me straight or bisexual.
I announced it because it was relevant to my post regarding sexual morality.
I called you a bigot not because you called me a Lesbian but because of how you obviously look down upon the homosexual community in general:

"Not only do we have to suffer the whining and demands of the homosexual sector, we still have to spend pubic money to save them from their unnatural, foul practices."

That belief makes you a bigot. I'm sorry as I suggested if you don't wish to be labeled as one maybe stop pushing those ideologies.

As to sick people...

“Meanwhile anyone suffering from HIV or any serious medical condition deserves empathy and compassion”.

Don't think so dearie. You have every right to do whatever you want, according to the law, but don't expect all of us to kowtow and pretend that we think that you are anything but abnormal.

Firstly I was speaking of all people suffering illness, but I'll assume here that you thought I only meant HIV suffers or homosexual patients specifically and to that I challenge:
People (nurse and doctors) whom contracted HIV through an accidental needle-stick don't deserve compassion and empathy. Straight women whom were cheated on and accidentally infected by their partners and husbands don't deserve compassion and empathy? Patients whom were given tainted blood transfusions? People whom were tattooed with improperly cleaned equipment?

Indeed, you’re not, ttbn. Indeed, you’re not.

<<I am not necessarily a bigot just because you think I am.>>

You’re a bigot because you dislike gay people for absolutely no rational reason whatsoever, and demonstrate your intolerance through your unsupported assumption that they're "unnatural".

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=evolution+of+homosexuality

Sorry, that was another link. Perhaps you have some contradicting evidence in all the alleged reading that you do of this mysterious hard copy literature that you tell us about sometimes, yet never cite?

Feel free to print some of those articles out, if that’s what it takes to make them more credible in your eyes.

<<And, as far as I'm aware, 'lesbian' is not a form of abuse; 'bigot' is.>>

Bigot isn’t a form of abuse if one can support the accusation, and you helped Zeil out by removing any doubt there. Heck, even you seemed to agree with her. I mean, she didn’t mention any names in her first post, yet there you were, straight on the defensive.

Guilty conscience?

Hi there ZEIL...

I too would like to extend to you a warm welcome to 'The Forum'. And I suppose you'd classify me as a bigoted individual as well. Many years ago I was press-ganged into doing a specialised course, titled; 'Protective Measures for Women'. Actually it was specially designed to meet the unique needs of Gay Women in our community. Back then, it wasn't quite so proper to advertises this type of training, as it would be today. In our enlightened society that adopts this far more aggressive stance on Political Corrective.

After the preparatory course concluded (10 Weeks, @ 2 sessions per week of 2 hours per session). Being the introductory Course, each participant was encouraged to complete a comprehensive written critique on all facets of the course. Personally I thought the first course went reasonably OK.

However after the organisers had received, read and disseminated them all, many of the students claimed the most detractive moments during the course were mainly of me ? Claiming my bigoted attitude towards homosexuality, lesbian women in particular, was both embarrassing and uncalled for, given the specific nature of the course, otherwise they found the course most worthwhile!

Well, I'm buggered if I know. I always thought myself as being sufficiently professional, to never allow my personal prejudices to ever enter, my instructional style?

ttbn "but don't expect all of us to kowtow and pretend that we think that you are anything but abnormal."

*All* disease is the result of abnormalities, either intrinsically (genetic inheritance) or due to inefficient defense by the immune system.
So you should show no sympathy for anyone suffering any illness, and demand that all public funding of all medicine cease immediately!

ttbn objected to the use of 'deserves', “Meanwhile anyone suffering from HIV or any serious medical condition deserves empathy and compassion”.

'Deserves' could be taken as implying compulsion and it infers the judgemental 'ought'. There could also be the inference, in the subject case one desired by gay activists, that compassion also means agreement with and acceptance of the behaviour, poor choices or whatever, including criminality that led to the suffering.

It is the suffering ALONE that is the focus of compassion.

A humanist may show compassion for Bashar al-Assad, observing that Bashar al-Assad's beliefs, cultural origins and so on have made him the monster. The humanist would add that s/he is NOT excusing Assad in any way.

Bashir al-Assad
http://www.vox.com/world/2017/4/4/15177166/bashar-al-assad-syria-poison-gas-attack-idlib-chemical-weapons-khan-sheikhoun

It would be wrong to say that gay activists and the feminists who also ride the gay activism bandwagon are humanists. Their statements and mantras belie any sympathy for humanism.

To conclude, while the public would feel compassion for all who suffer and suffering is part of the human condition so all are inevitably affected and some would extend their compassion to all creatures, most people draw a line in the sand somewhere. There are limits where their compassion is concerned.

Importantly, no-one is likely to swallow any activist definition of compassion that implies anything outside of suffering being its object. It is reserved exclusively for suffering.

In NO way should feeling compassion be taken to imply any agreement, sympathy or acceptance of poor choices, lifestyles, or criminality that contributed to or caused the suffering.

So the public are NOT be approving or sympathetic to the 'bare-backing' and other risk-taking and not properly informing recipients, that lead to the spread of HIV/AIDS. Nor can compassion for the suffering of the stupid risk-takers and for the unfortunates they in turn carelessly infected or otherwise hurt (examples being their families), be construed as the public's unconditional support or 'love' (another misused term) for their (Gays') lifestyles. Tolerance carries obligations as well.