[Slider]

I was recently told that I may have a Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). I had no idea what BPD was, so I looked it up and still don't know what it is. From what I read about BPD, the signs and symptoms conveniently sound like normal dysfunctions that your average person would suffer from. I mean, realistically, we all have problems, right? I suppose this was some psychiatrists attempt at categorizing us.

Anyway. The assumption was made after I responded to two issues. One issue had to do with the pastor of a church seeking public attention or controversy by exposing his church via the media as a "gay friendly" establishment.

I may not have worded my response well, but I mainly questioned the motives of the pastor. Personally, I don't mind if you're gay or if you go to church. I simply don't understand why a church would specifically advertise itself as accepting of homosexual attendees. I'm of the belief that your sexual preference is YOUR business and there is no logical reason to expose yourself to a church as being either homosexual or heterosexual. It is none of their business and, ideally, not the purpose nor reason for attending church.

So, of course, I was lambasted for that comment, because I'm obviously a hate-spewing bigot. Have you also noticed how freely people throw around the hate moniker these days?

The second comment was made in response to a woman's daughter who had taken it upon herself to protest the derogatory use of the word "gay" by ignorant youth in our society. *sarcasm*

Again, I may have chosen the wrong words in my response and formulated them in a crude manner, but I simply pointed out that I, personally, don't belief in editing or censoring people. I don't offend easily and it is often my hope that society would begin to exhibit some of my patience and understanding but, sadly, we see a lot of paranoia of language that is usually the byproduct of a "bad news is good news" media.

I also made the arguement that, as a society, we should focus more on the motivation of the indivdual and intention of the spoken word, rather than on the words themselves. Words are empty without meaning and, typically, ineffective without action. The inherent danger is not in the word itself, but the emotion of the individual.

In conclusion, I noted that to attempt the societal removal of a word, to me, seemed to be a replication of Orwell's novel 1984, in which the government would select certain words for removal (Newspeak: Newspeak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

At that point, I was presumed to be suffering from BPD and quickly felt the collective scorn of many distressed and offended individuals.

In my defense, logically if I were a bigot, then my comments should not have come as a surprise. But, if I'm NOT a bigot, then my comments and intentions were seriously misunderstood. Either way, the attention that was heaped upon me was certainly unwarranted.

Thanks for reading.

[screamofconscious]

I wouldn't take such an assessment seriously. If you're concerned that you have some kind of psychiatric condition, then talk to a psychiatrist.

If the people of the last church I went to had their way, they would have had me convinced that I had antisocial personality disorder and would be damned to hell for my lack of desire to worship in the same manner as them.

[Slider]

I wouldn't take such an assessment seriously. If you're concerned that you have some kind of psychiatric condition, then talk to a psychiatrist.

If the people of the last church I went to had their way, they would have had me convinced that I had antisocial personality disorder and would be damned to hell for my lack of desire to worship in the same manner as them.

I apologize for the confusion. These people were not members of a church, but members of a listserv, an INFJ listserv, in fact. Haha, I'm not sure what it means if you're misunderstood by individuals who share the same personality type, but I don't think it's a good sign.

Also, it would take an act of God for me to go see a shrink.

[Ninja]

You've said god, as figures of speech a couple of times I've noticed. Do you believe in God, or are you just saying God.. like.. God!! I hate.. stupid people.

[Slider]

You've said god, as figures of speech a couple of times I've noticed. Do you believe in God, or are you just saying God.. like.. God!! I hate.. stupid people.

Sometimes it's not easy...but, yes, I believe in God. If you believe, you capitalize everything when referencing God: His, Him...etc.

[MickyD]

I also made the arguement that, as a society, we should focus more on the motivation of the indivdual and intention of the spoken word, rather than on the words themselves. Words are empty without meaning and, typically, ineffective without action. The inherent danger is not in the word itself, but the emotion of the individual.

In conclusion, I noted that to attempt the societal removal of a word, to me, seemed to be a replication of Orwell's novel 1984, in which the government would select certain words for removal.

Sounds exactly like something Lenny Bruce/Carlin would say. It's interesting, your first answer makes perfect logical sense to me. I'm perplexed why people took that as a hate comment. It shouldn't be an issue in the first place.

The second answer ties in more with the power of language. As I see it, people don't seem capable of going beyond the said "word" and have such rigid structural attitudes towards them. What's the meaning behind it? The motivation? The drive? Wouldn't it seem to make sense to approach things from the source and see what the big fuss is about instead of squabbling over the product and making short-term fixes to appease everyone?

What's wrong with being a bigot anyway? Just another one of those labels. I don't dabble in linguistics too much but from why it seems to have a negative connotation is that it ties in with the whole anti-social against society concept. Just cause we'd prefer to get to the root of the problem and end pointless arguments doesn't make us anti-social. Call me a bigot if that's too much for you too handle.

At the end of the day, if you have a different opinion I'll listen and talk it out but if you're just going to be close-minded and emotional then don't waste my time.

As I like to see it, the world's a nutcase and we're unfortunate enough to see clarity in it all

[Slider]

At the end of the day, if you have a different opinion I'll listen and talk it out but if you're just going to be close-minded and emotional then don't waste my time.

As I like to see it, the world's a nutcase and we're unfortunate enough to see clarity in it all

That's exactly the way I see it, and thanks for taking the time to respond. With any issue, the first thing I always do is ask, "Why?"

Why did that pastor specify that his church allows and is accepting of homosexuals? What was his motivation? And, shouldn't all churches be accepting of all types of people; and why are we discussing sexual orientation at all? I never thought that the priority of a church was to first divide people into groups and then welcome them.

Secondly, why is that woman's daughter protesting a word? What is her motivation? Is it unfounded or unjust? And, why do people continually feel the need to force their beliefs onto others? "I don't like it when you do this. I'm going to gather millions of people to protest what you do and convince Congress to ban and/or make what you do illegal, so you can't do it anymore."

I thought the f**king point was FREEDOM, people!? We need to stop infringing on the rights of others and just mind our own f**king business.

[Seymour]

I was recently told that I may have a Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). I had no idea what BPD was, so I looked it up and still don't know what it is. From what I read about BPD, the signs and symptoms conveniently sound like normal dysfunctions that your average person would suffer from. I mean, realistically, we all have problems, right? I suppose this was some psychiatrists attempt at categorizing us.

Psychologists and psychiatrists don't generally go around making up labels for people who are happy and functional. A personality disorder is defined a: "as an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that differs markedly from the expectations of the individual's culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment. Personality disorders are a long-standing and maladaptive pattern of perceiving and responding to other people and to stressful circumstances."

I think it's important to note the "distress and impairment" part. We all have issues, but they have to be pretty serious and unpleasant to really qualify as a personality disorder. Personality disorders don't make someone a bad person, but they can cause a lot of distress both for the sufferer and the people around him or her.

It you are generally happy, have functional long-term relationships, and do fine in work/school, then it sounds unlikely that you have a personality disorder (or any other serious psychological problem).

Anyway. The assumption was made after I responded to two issues. One issue had to do with the pastor of a church seeking public attention or controversy by exposing his church via the media as a "gay friendly" establishment.

I may not have worded my response well, but I mainly questioned the motives of the pastor. Personally, I don't mind if you're gay or if you go to church. I simply don't understand why a church would specifically advertise itself as accepting of homosexual attendees. I'm of the belief that your sexual preference is YOUR business and there is no logical reason to expose yourself to a church as being either homosexual or heterosexual. It is none of their business and, ideally, not the purpose nor reason for attending church.

Well, as a gay man, I'm glad that some congregations let people know that they are gay friendly. Frankly, many are not and I'd rather know before I face judgment and rejection. I've sat through a sermon in which gay people were trotted out as an evil, insidious, well-organized, recruiting, powerful source of corruption. I'd rather skip that in the future, if possible.

I find that some straight people have a blind spot for all the ramifications of "just don't tell anyone." What if you weren't expected to "just not let on" that you were straight and married. So... no wedding ring. No sitting together consistently in church. No displays of affection (not even innocuous hand holding). No mentioning you spent holidays with your spouse's family. No being openly exciting about the house you are buying together.

By the time you've deleted all the tangentially revealing information, there isn't much personal that's left. Even answering "where are you spending the holidays?" becomes an exercise in creative use of pronouns and vague phrasing. The difficulty of hiding being gay isn't so much about keeping sex private, it's more about all the relationship ramifications and how those affect day to day life.

It's true that straight people don't go telling me details about their sex lives all the time (for which I am grateful). But it's also true that saying "I'm gay" or "this is my spouse" isn't telling straight people any more about my sex life then them telling me they are engaged or dating someone of the opposite sex.

My advice: Don't visualize. I know I try not to when people let on they are straight.

So, of course, I was lambasted for that comment, because I'm obviously a hate-spewing bigot. Have you also noticed how freely people throw around the hate moniker these days?

The second comment was made in response to a woman's daughter who had taken it upon herself to protest the derogatory use of the word "gay" by ignorant youth in our society. *sarcasm*

And I have some sympathy for you here. I don't buy into the idea that politically correct speech solves everything. In some cases it's an active impediment to real communication.

But, I've also played online games and heard people on the enemy team described as "gay" , "faggot", "pansy", etc, etc, all in the space of 45 seconds. In those cases, I find it hard to believe that it's just that "gay doesn't mean GAY, it just means kinda lame." I'm not sure what a good solution is, though.

It does seem slightly ironic to me that you want homosexuals not to let on (that is voluntarily limit their speech for your comfort), but you are offended that people are being asked to voluntarily limit their own speech (by not using the term "gay") for someone else's comfort.

Note that I fully support a congregation's right to believe what it wants, and have whatever kind of doctrine it wants. I also don't expect everyone to agree that homosexuality is okay. I do hope people understand that being gay affects more than what goes on behind closed doors in the bedroom, because it affects who you fall in love with and who you build a life with.

[More Tea]

I'll start by noting that accusing someone of having a personality disorder is highly improper unless you are in a treatment relationship with them. I am sorry you experienced that.

... the first thing I always do is ask, "Why?"

So do I.

Why did that pastor specify that his church allows and is accepting of homosexuals? What was his motivation? And, shouldn't all churches be accepting of all types of people; and why are we discussing sexual orientation at all? I never thought that the priority of a church was to first divide people into groups and then welcome them.

Probably because Christianity has not, historically, been friendly towards gays. The pastor probably feels that extending a specific welcome will reassure those who are gay and who believe, and will have the effect of actually bringing more people together in his church.

On a personal note, I have some friends who are gay and who are also Christian. Such reassurance can mean the *world* when you've been on the outside for so long.

Secondly, why is that woman's daughter protesting a word? What is her motivation? Is it unfounded or unjust? And, why do people continually feel the need to force their beliefs onto others? "I don't like it when you do this. I'm going to gather millions of people to protest what you do and convince Congress to ban and/or make what you do illegal, so you can't do it anymore."

Because words are symbols and symbols have power--perhaps the oldest, deepest power of all. She has the freedom to say she does not like how a word is used by some folks. The part about marching to Congress represents the intellectual trap of taking an idea to an extreme and then arguing against the extreme. Very common when we feel passionately about something--I fall into the trap too, sometimes. But recognize it for what it is.

I thought the f**king point was FREEDOM, people!? We need to stop infringing on the rights of others and just mind our own f**king business.

And here's the crux: so it is not O.K. for these other folks to not mind their own business by expressing opinions or extending a specific welcome, but it *is* O.K. for you to not mind you business by speaking out when they do so?

"Why?" is indeed the question to be asked here.

[Slider]

Psychologists and psychiatrists don't generally go around making up labels for people who are happy and functional. A personality disorder is defined a: "as an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that differs markedly from the expectations of the individual's culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment. Personality disorders are a long-standing and maladaptive pattern of perceiving and responding to other people and to stressful circumstances."

I think it's important to note the "distress and impairment" part. We all have issues, but they have to be pretty serious and unpleasant to really qualify as a personality disorder. Personality disorders don't make someone a bad person, but they can cause a lot of distress both for the sufferer and the people around him or her.

It you are generally happy, have functional long-term relationships, and do fine in work/school, then it sounds unlikely that you have a personality disorder (or any other serious psychological problem).

Well, as a gay man, I'm glad that some congregations let people know that they are gay friendly. Frankly, many are not and I'd rather know before I face judgment and rejection. I've sat through a sermon in which gay people were trotted out as an evil, insidious, well-organized, recruiting, powerful source of corruption. I'd rather skip that in the future, if possible.

I find that some straight people have a blind spot for all the ramifications of "just don't tell anyone." What if you weren't expected to "just not let on" that you were straight and married. So... no wedding ring. No sitting together consistently in church. No displays of affection (not even innocuous hand holding). No mentioning you spent holidays with your spouse's family. No being openly exciting about the house you are buying together.

By the time you've deleted all the tangentially revealing information, there isn't much personal that's left. Even answering "where are you spending the holidays?" becomes an exercise in creative use of pronouns and vague phrasing. The difficulty of hiding being gay isn't so much about keeping sex private, it's more about all the relationship ramifications and how those affect day to day life.

It's true that straight people don't go telling me details about their sex lives all the time (for which I am grateful). But it's also true that saying "I'm gay" or "this is my spouse" isn't telling straight people any more about my sex life then them telling me they are engaged or dating someone of the opposite sex.

My advice: Don't visualize. I know I try not to when people let on they are straight.

And I have some sympathy for you here. I don't buy into the idea that politically correct speech solves everything. In some cases it's an active impediment to real communication.

But, I've also played online games and heard people on the enemy team described as "gay" , "faggot", "pansy", etc, etc, all in the space of 45 seconds. In those cases, I find it hard to believe that it's just that "gay doesn't mean GAY, it just means kinda lame." I'm not sure what a good solution is, though.

It does seem slightly ironic to me that you want homosexuals not to let on (that is voluntarily limit their speech for your comfort), but you are offended that people are being asked to voluntarily limit their own speech (by not using the term "gay") for someone else's comfort.

Note that I fully support a congregation's right to believe what it wants, and have whatever kind of doctrine it wants. I also don't expect everyone to agree that homosexuality is okay. I do hope people understand that being gay affects more than what goes on behind closed doors in the bedroom, because it affects who you fall in love with and who you build a life with.

Correct. I think the definitions have changed and the usage of the words "fag" and "gay" by certain individuals are not meant to demean the homosexual community, but to simply, and perhaps jokingly, refer to someone or something as "lame" or "stupid." I still think it's a controversial issue that is open for debate and has not been resolved.

Hmm, if I were a homosexual, I suppose I would want to be around and involved with individuals who are open and accepting of my behavior. But, at the same time, I would not alienate myself from the rest of the world. Regarding church services, if I hear something that displeases me I simply don't return to that particular church, or I may refuse to attend for a number of months. Again, if I were a homosexual, I would most likely adopt this attitude if a pastor began to vilify homosexuals. But, would I only attend churches that specifically advertise themselves as being "gay friendly," probably not.

Honestly, since I am a heterosexual, I look at all people as heterosexuals. An individuals sexual orientation does not factor into my subconscious until it is influence by a change in pattern. I don't automatically see two men sitting together and think, "Homosexuals." Likewise, if I see two men walking together or two men at the gym lifting weights together, I wouldn't label them as being homosexuals. Only when intimacy or sexual references are more pronounced, like, if I saw two men holding hands or kissing, would I begin to assess the possibility that they were homosexuals.

"It does seem slightly ironic to me that you want homosexuals not to let on (that is voluntarily limit their speech for your comfort), but you are offended that people are being asked to voluntarily limit their own speech (by not using the term "gay") for someone else's comfort."

This statement confused me. Could you please clarify? How am I attempting to limit the speech patterns of homosexuals?