Total Posts:339|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

No such thing as a homophobe?

JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 3:33:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is something I've seen Medic say quite a few times now. This is something that I'd actually pretty intrigued to enter into an actual debate about, but in the meantime, could Medic, or any of the other "Homophobia Deniers" please explain why they believe that "Homophobia", which is to say, the "irrational hatred, intolerance, and fear of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, sometimes leading to acts of violence and expressions of hostility, and is not confined to any one segment of society, and can be found in people from all walks of life." is non-existent?
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 3:38:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 3:33:48 AM, JonMilne wrote:
This is something I've seen Medic say quite a few times now. This is something that I'd actually pretty intrigued to enter into an actual debate about, but in the meantime, could Medic, or any of the other "Homophobia Deniers" please explain why they believe that "Homophobia", which is to say, the "irrational hatred, intolerance, and fear of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, sometimes leading to acts of violence and expressions of hostility, and is not confined to any one segment of society, and can be found in people from all walks of life." is non-existent?

It's obvious homophobes exist. The only two responses I can think of to the contrary are (i) that the hatred is not irrational, and (ii) that people only hate homosexual behavior, not homosexuals themselves. But both of those objections are obviously false.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 3:40:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'll also ask Medic and other "Homophobia Deniers" if they also believe that "Transphobia" as directed at trans women (or "trans-misandry" when it's directed at trans men) doesn't exist (where both are defined as the "irrational fear of, and/or hostility towards, people who are transgender or who otherwise transgress traditional gender norms. Because lesbians and gay men often transgress gender norms, it is often associated with homophobia").
OssyOsOs
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 5:20:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
As far as I understand it Medic takes his interpretation of homophobia from a rather horrible "The Vortex" segment.
In short, as long as you aren't afraid or scared of homosexuals in the same manner as you might be afraid of spiders or heights you aren't a homophobe, regardless how hateful you might be.

There might be some confusion for some as homophobia isn't really the same as arachnophobia and the like. Homophobia usually labels hate or digust more than fear. That hate or digust may obviously be based on fear, but that's not always the case.
Of course, English is an evolving language so it's not strange that homophobia has gotten a different meaning nowadays compared to its greek roots.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 7:15:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Hatred is not irrational, but rational and Moral.

There maybe such a thing as Homophobia, ie people hating homos for no objective reason, not all who hate homosexuality or homosexuals are homophobes.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 7:54:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 7:15:32 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
The Hatred is not irrational, but rational and Moral.

There maybe such a thing as Homophobia, ie people hating homos for no objective reason, not all who hate homosexuality or homosexuals are homophobes.
And just as true, not all those who hate Islam are Islamophobes, they have very rational and morals for their hate.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 8:07:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't understand the people that think there can be legitimate reasons to be a homophobe. You're essentially making yourselves the George Wallaces of our time and you'll be judged very harshly in the history books. Even if you think you're so morally justified in your beliefs, surely you're intelligent enough to realize where history's headed and take that into account while you reflect on how worthwhile your position is.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 8:17:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 7:54:55 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/4/2013 7:15:32 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
The Hatred is not irrational, but rational and Moral.

There maybe such a thing as Homophobia, ie people hating homos for no objective reason, not all who hate homosexuality or homosexuals are homophobes.
And just as true, not all those who hate Islam are Islamophobes, they have very rational and morals for their hate.

More true. Much, much more true. Anyone who hates homosexuals because they're a homosexual is a homophobe. Anyone who hates a set of beliefs because of the values they propound is simply stating a moral position about a set of thoughts, not a set of people.

Islam is as much of a disgrace as Christianity and all the other major religions. It causes inequality, oppression and violence. Homosexuality leads to soft furnishings and broadway show soundtracks. Oh, and gays being happy. Which is obviously something we should all be very concerned about indeed. I mean... if we encourage them, they might start to breed.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 9:23:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 3:33:48 AM, JonMilne wrote:
This is something I've seen Medic say quite a few times now. This is something that I'd actually pretty intrigued to enter into an actual debate about, but in the meantime, could Medic, or any of the other "Homophobia Deniers" please explain why they believe that "Homophobia", which is to say, the "irrational hatred, intolerance, and fear of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, sometimes leading to acts of violence and expressions of hostility, and is not confined to any one segment of society, and can be found in people from all walks of life." is non-existent?

The same reason that there are those who deny the holocaust.

They don't wish to accept that such things were done by people with their own mental attitudes.

In other words they are moral cowards.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 9:55:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 7:15:32 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
The Hatred is not irrational, but rational and Moral.

On what possible logical basis could you come to such an absurd conclusion?

There maybe such a thing as Homophobia, ie people hating homos for no objective reason, not all who hate homosexuality or homosexuals are homophobes.

What rational reasons are there to hate homosexuals and homosexuality?
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 1:20:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 9:55:47 AM, JonMilne wrote:
At 7/4/2013 7:15:32 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
The Hatred is not irrational, but rational and Moral.

On what possible logical basis could you come to such an absurd conclusion?
Homosexuality is immoral, for it limits human productivity in his society. Hating homosexuality, and the people who practice it or promote it and normalise it and even legalise it is justified.: : There maybe such a thing as Homophobia, ie people hating homos for no objective reason, not all who hate homosexuality or homosexuals are homophobes.

What rational reasons are there to hate homosexuals and homosexuality?

If you believe Morality is rational, then you'd understand.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 2:02:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 1:20:58 PM, Fruitytree wrote:

Homosexuality is immoral, for it limits human productivity in his society.

How so? Do you mean procreation? If so, we've been through this. Homosexuals can procreate and have children that are biologically theirs via the use of IVF and artificial insemination. And even so, the ability or not to procreate is not a pressing concern for the world right now.

Hating homosexuality, and the people who practice it or promote it and normalise it and even legalise it is justified.

No it isn't. It's outdated bigoted dogma.

If you believe Morality is rational, then you'd understand.

You didn't answer the question. Morality is a big, big philosophical topic which, just like many other areas of philosophy, is separated into several different branches on the subject that we can theorise on. Some of those branches of morality are rational. Others, like the mean spirited and homophobic one you're trying to promote, quite clearly are not rational.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 2:43:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Homosexuality is immoral, for it limits human productivity in his society."

Population Growth is a huge problem. We need more homosexuals. This means less people contributing to C02 in the atmosphere, and less finite resources being sucked up. More land too.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 6:17:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 2:43:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Homosexuality is immoral, for it limits human productivity in his society."

Population Growth is a huge problem. We need more homosexuals. This means less people contributing to C02 in the atmosphere, and less finite resources being sucked up. More land too.

Your country is one that needs more babies to pay you retirement dude!!
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 6:18:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 6:17:14 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/4/2013 2:43:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Homosexuality is immoral, for it limits human productivity in his society."

Population Growth is a huge problem. We need more homosexuals. This means less people contributing to C02 in the atmosphere, and less finite resources being sucked up. More land too.

Your country is one that needs more babies to pay you retirement dude!!

Was that supposed to be a joke?
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 6:19:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 1:53:59 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/4/2013 7:15:32 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
The Hatred is not irrational, but rational and Moral.

Totally called that sh!t.

Seriously, I want some recognition for this. lol
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 6:23:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 6:19:06 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/4/2013 1:53:59 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/4/2013 7:15:32 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
The Hatred is not irrational, but rational and Moral.

Totally called that sh!t.

Seriously, I want some recognition for this. lol

I think you are a legit psychic.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 6:27:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 2:02:31 PM, JonMilne wrote:
At 7/4/2013 1:20:58 PM, Fruitytree wrote:

Homosexuality is immoral, for it limits human productivity in his society.

How so? Do you mean procreation? If so, we've been through this. Homosexuals can procreate and have children that are biologically theirs via the use of IVF and artificial insemination. And even so, the ability or not to procreate is not a pressing concern for the world right now.

Hating homosexuality, and the people who practice it or promote it and normalise it and even legalise it is justified.

No it isn't. It's outdated bigoted dogma.

If you believe Morality is rational, then you'd understand.

You didn't answer the question. Morality is a big, big philosophical topic which, just like many other areas of philosophy, is separated into several different branches on the subject that we can theorise on. Some of those branches of morality are rational. Others, like the mean spirited and homophobic one you're trying to promote, quite clearly are not rational.

You may call it irrational and not necessarily Moral and it still would be rational and moral.

So you would solve the Homosexual couple by making them babies that wouldn't be theirs ?! with another mother or father that isn't the actual spouse of the homo parent, it is just making things way less Moral.. Solving a problem by creating many others.

So what is the identity of the baby? what are his rights ? Who are his parents? and what are the additional people doing in his life and future?

Where Is the family unit? his grandparents and ancestors ?? their rights and obligations towards him ?

Our Morals are tied with a family society. a Homo couple is the destruction of the society. and it isn't even necessity!!

It's like a foul starting to eat paper then develop a taste to it although it doesn't benefit him nor is it a food!
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 6:32:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 6:23:23 PM, Enji wrote:
At 7/4/2013 6:19:06 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/4/2013 1:53:59 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/4/2013 7:15:32 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
The Hatred is not irrational, but rational and Moral.

Totally called that sh!t.

Seriously, I want some recognition for this. lol

I think you are a legit psychic.

Finally, people are recognizing my powers! muhahahaha
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 6:40:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 6:18:49 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/4/2013 6:17:14 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/4/2013 2:43:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Homosexuality is immoral, for it limits human productivity in his society."

Population Growth is a huge problem. We need more homosexuals. This means less people contributing to C02 in the atmosphere, and less finite resources being sucked up. More land too.

Your country is one that needs more babies to pay you retirement dude!!

Was that supposed to be a joke?

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com...
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 6:42:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 6:40:44 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/4/2013 6:18:49 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/4/2013 6:17:14 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/4/2013 2:43:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Homosexuality is immoral, for it limits human productivity in his society."

Population Growth is a huge problem. We need more homosexuals. This means less people contributing to C02 in the atmosphere, and less finite resources being sucked up. More land too.

Your country is one that needs more babies to pay you retirement dude!!

Was that supposed to be a joke?

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com...

All I got outta that was... holy crap, RationalThinker is Canadian? Awesome! :D
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 6:44:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 6:42:49 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/4/2013 6:40:44 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/4/2013 6:18:49 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/4/2013 6:17:14 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/4/2013 2:43:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Homosexuality is immoral, for it limits human productivity in his society."

Population Growth is a huge problem. We need more homosexuals. This means less people contributing to C02 in the atmosphere, and less finite resources being sucked up. More land too.

Your country is one that needs more babies to pay you retirement dude!!

Was that supposed to be a joke?

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com...

All I got outta that was... holy crap, RationalThinker is Canadian? Awesome! :D

I, too, am one!
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 6:46:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 6:44:08 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/4/2013 6:42:49 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/4/2013 6:40:44 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/4/2013 6:18:49 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/4/2013 6:17:14 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/4/2013 2:43:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Homosexuality is immoral, for it limits human productivity in his society."

Population Growth is a huge problem. We need more homosexuals. This means less people contributing to C02 in the atmosphere, and less finite resources being sucked up. More land too.

Your country is one that needs more babies to pay you retirement dude!!

Was that supposed to be a joke?

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com...

All I got outta that was... holy crap, RationalThinker is Canadian? Awesome! :D

I, too, am one!

Freakin' lucky, man. Canada's awesome!
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 6:47:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let's look at your definition of what a homophobe is...

"irrational hatred, intolerance, and fear of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, sometimes leading to acts of violence and expressions of hostility, and is not confined to any one segment of society, and can be found in people from all walks of life."

"Irrational"- Right off the bat you're asserting an a priori belief that anyone who disagrees with any part of the homosexualist agenda, can only be seen as irrational.

"Hatred"- Throwing the word hatred in with irrational reinforces your attempt to silence dissent. What is irrational hatred?? Well, if one is against redefining marriage, you now have a negative label to throw on that person, since that opposition is obviously irrational, in your eyes, it can only be a result of hatred for those engaging in homosexualism. Whether there is actual hatred in the heart of that person is irrelevant, since you can't possibly know what they actually feel, but if they oppose your political position, they're exhibiting an "irrational hatred".

"Intolerance"- What does it mean to be intolerant?? For homosexualists, once again, it means any opposition to any part of the political agenda. To me, if I see someone who is obviously a flaming homosexual, and I just go about my business and don't bother that person, then I am tolerating him. But if I'm against redefining marriage, I'm told that I'm intolerant, even though I tolerate that person by any rational definition of the word. Intolerance, to you, means anything from a simple disagreement with your politics to the extreme of murder. Intolerance, to me, means actively attempting to rid the world of something by means of violence. If I allow something to exist in spite of not agreeing with it, I am obviously tolerating that thing, so to call me intolerant is to also label yourself as being intolerant to those who disagree with you. So why should I wear that label, but not you??

"Fear"- Here we finally get to the meaning of what a phobia actually is. Homophobia, assuming a rational definition of the word existed, would be a fear of homosexuals. Really though, who "fears" homosexuals?? Nobody, that's who. Yes it's fair to say that some people don't like them, some even hate them, some don't want to be around them, some are violent toward them, and some just treat them as they would anyone else even though they may disagree with their lifestyle or politics, but realistically how many of you have ever met someone who would describe their feelings as a "fear" of homosexuals??

Here is Webster's definition of a phobia..."an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation".

Now let's look at how it defines homophobia..."irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals".

See how it takes on a whole different meaning just by adding homo to it. It goes from being an exaggerated, inexplicable, illogical fear, to being inclusive of those who don't like, or have political disagreements with homosexuals. In other words, it's nothing more than a made up label for homosexuals to slap on anyone who voices dissent from their political goals. It isn't really a "phobia", but that's just a minor detail to you. By adapting a word to fit your purpose, you've created a way to try and silence any opposition. People don't want to be labeled as a "phobe", so even if they disagree with the lifestyle they do so quietly, and appear apathetic.

The definition of homophobia given in this thread is even more homosexual friendly than the Webster's definition. Even using Webster's though, it's difficult to see how one could disagree with any part of your political goals without fitting into the all-encompassing definition of being a homophobe. Calling people homophobes is disingenuous, manipulative, and just another lie told by those engaging in homosexualism, to try and win public support.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 6:48:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 6:46:07 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/4/2013 6:44:08 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/4/2013 6:42:49 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/4/2013 6:40:44 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/4/2013 6:18:49 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/4/2013 6:17:14 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 7/4/2013 2:43:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Homosexuality is immoral, for it limits human productivity in his society."

Population Growth is a huge problem. We need more homosexuals. This means less people contributing to C02 in the atmosphere, and less finite resources being sucked up. More land too.

Your country is one that needs more babies to pay you retirement dude!!

Was that supposed to be a joke?

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com...

All I got outta that was... holy crap, RationalThinker is Canadian? Awesome! :D

I, too, am one!

Freakin' lucky, man. Canada's awesome!

http://www.statcan.gc.ca...

It is. But will not continue to be without traditional families and many babies!!
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 7:09:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 6:47:40 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Let's look at your definition of what a homophobe is...

"irrational hatred, intolerance, and fear of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, sometimes leading to acts of violence and expressions of hostility, and is not confined to any one segment of society, and can be found in people from all walks of life."

"Irrational"- Right off the bat you're asserting an a priori belief that anyone who disagrees with any part of the homosexualist agenda, can only be seen as irrational.

"Hatred"- Throwing the word hatred in with irrational reinforces your attempt to silence dissent. What is irrational hatred?? Well, if one is against redefining marriage, you now have a negative label to throw on that person, since that opposition is obviously irrational, in your eyes, it can only be a result of hatred for those engaging in homosexualism. Whether there is actual hatred in the heart of that person is irrelevant, since you can't possibly know what they actually feel, but if they oppose your political position, they're exhibiting an "irrational hatred".

"Intolerance"- What does it mean to be intolerant?? For homosexualists, once again, it means any opposition to any part of the political agenda. To me, if I see someone who is obviously a flaming homosexual, and I just go about my business and don't bother that person, then I am tolerating him. But if I'm against redefining marriage, I'm told that I'm intolerant, even though I tolerate that person by any rational definition of the word. Intolerance, to you, means anything from a simple disagreement with your politics to the extreme of murder. Intolerance, to me, means actively attempting to rid the world of something by means of violence. If I allow something to exist in spite of not agreeing with it, I am obviously tolerating that thing, so to call me intolerant is to also label yourself as being intolerant to those who disagree with you. So why should I wear that label, but not you??

"Fear"- Here we finally get to the meaning of what a phobia actually is. Homophobia, assuming a rational definition of the word existed, would be a fear of homosexuals. Really though, who "fears" homosexuals?? Nobody, that's who. Yes it's fair to say that some people don't like them, some even hate them, some don't want to be around them, some are violent toward them, and some just treat them as they would anyone else even though they may disagree with their lifestyle or politics, but realistically how many of you have ever met someone who would describe their feelings as a "fear" of homosexuals??

Here is Webster's definition of a phobia..."an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation".

Now let's look at how it defines homophobia..."irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals".

See how it takes on a whole different meaning just by adding homo to it. It goes from being an exaggerated, inexplicable, illogical fear, to being inclusive of those who don't like, or have political disagreements with homosexuals. In other words, it's nothing more than a made up label for homosexuals to slap on anyone who voices dissent from their political goals. It isn't really a "phobia", but that's just a minor detail to you. By adapting a word to fit your purpose, you've created a way to try and silence any opposition. People don't want to be labeled as a "phobe", so even if they disagree with the lifestyle they do so quietly, and appear apathetic.

The definition of homophobia given in this thread is even more homosexual friendly than the Webster's definition. Even using Webster's though, it's difficult to see how one could disagree with any part of your political goals without fitting into the all-encompassing definition of being a homophobe. Calling people homophobes is disingenuous, manipulative, and just another lie told by those engaging in homosexualism, to try and win public support.

"Homophobia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals."

Just so you know, the term "irrational" is meant to modify all the nouns in that list.
CanWeKnow
Posts: 217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 7:10:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't think that the popular idea of homophobe accurately reflects the dialectical reality of what homophobia means.

You say homophobe and people think you must hate homos because of sexual disgust, moral belief, or some other kind of petty belief.

When I hear homophobe I think about a little boy who is scared of homosexuals for no good reason.

The popular idea of homophobe has nothing to do with the irrational fear and subsequent hatred of homosexuals.

If we want to be correct in our dialect it would be better to say anti-homosexualism and refer to those who believe in it as anti-homosexualists.

It's incorrect to append -phobe to this kind of mind set. I think it's an insult to anti-homosexualists (not that they don't deserve it) and more importantly an insult to people who actually have genuine phobias. We don't want to begin spreading the idea that anyone with any kind of -phobe has some religious or political agenda guiding their behavior.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 7:11:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 7:09:20 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/4/2013 6:47:40 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Let's look at your definition of what a homophobe is...

"irrational hatred, intolerance, and fear of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, sometimes leading to acts of violence and expressions of hostility, and is not confined to any one segment of society, and can be found in people from all walks of life."

"Irrational"- Right off the bat you're asserting an a priori belief that anyone who disagrees with any part of the homosexualist agenda, can only be seen as irrational.

"Hatred"- Throwing the word hatred in with irrational reinforces your attempt to silence dissent. What is irrational hatred?? Well, if one is against redefining marriage, you now have a negative label to throw on that person, since that opposition is obviously irrational, in your eyes, it can only be a result of hatred for those engaging in homosexualism. Whether there is actual hatred in the heart of that person is irrelevant, since you can't possibly know what they actually feel, but if they oppose your political position, they're exhibiting an "irrational hatred".

"Intolerance"- What does it mean to be intolerant?? For homosexualists, once again, it means any opposition to any part of the political agenda. To me, if I see someone who is obviously a flaming homosexual, and I just go about my business and don't bother that person, then I am tolerating him. But if I'm against redefining marriage, I'm told that I'm intolerant, even though I tolerate that person by any rational definition of the word. Intolerance, to you, means anything from a simple disagreement with your politics to the extreme of murder. Intolerance, to me, means actively attempting to rid the world of something by means of violence. If I allow something to exist in spite of not agreeing with it, I am obviously tolerating that thing, so to call me intolerant is to also label yourself as being intolerant to those who disagree with you. So why should I wear that label, but not you??

"Fear"- Here we finally get to the meaning of what a phobia actually is. Homophobia, assuming a rational definition of the word existed, would be a fear of homosexuals. Really though, who "fears" homosexuals?? Nobody, that's who. Yes it's fair to say that some people don't like them, some even hate them, some don't want to be around them, some are violent toward them, and some just treat them as they would anyone else even though they may disagree with their lifestyle or politics, but realistically how many of you have ever met someone who would describe their feelings as a "fear" of homosexuals??

Here is Webster's definition of a phobia..."an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation".

Now let's look at how it defines homophobia..."irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals".

See how it takes on a whole different meaning just by adding homo to it. It goes from being an exaggerated, inexplicable, illogical fear, to being inclusive of those who don't like, or have political disagreements with homosexuals. In other words, it's nothing more than a made up label for homosexuals to slap on anyone who voices dissent from their political goals. It isn't really a "phobia", but that's just a minor detail to you. By adapting a word to fit your purpose, you've created a way to try and silence any opposition. People don't want to be labeled as a "phobe", so even if they disagree with the lifestyle they do so quietly, and appear apathetic.

The definition of homophobia given in this thread is even more homosexual friendly than the Webster's definition. Even using Webster's though, it's difficult to see how one could disagree with any part of your political goals without fitting into the all-encompassing definition of being a homophobe. Calling people homophobes is disingenuous, manipulative, and just another lie told by those engaging in homosexualism, to try and win public support.

"Homophobia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals."

Just so you know, the term "irrational" is meant to modify all the nouns in that list.

Dakota, words mean what medic wants them to mean, when he wants them to mean it. DUH.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 3:57:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 6:27:53 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
You may call it irrational and not necessarily Moral and it still would be rational and moral.

I'm not basing my views on a "Because I said so" or a "Because my imaginary magical sky daddy said so" basis like you are. I'm basing it on actual observable fact.

So you would solve the Homosexual couple by making them babies that wouldn't be theirs ?! with another mother or father that isn't the actual spouse of the homo parent, it is just making things way less Moral.. Solving a problem by creating many others.

At least one of the parents would be biologically the parent of the baby. But in any case, the "biological" part isn't that important, otherwise the exact same argument above could be used to oppose heterosexual parents who adopt. And also, how much involvement the "mother/father" has is entirely up to them. If they're simply wishing to engage in an act of charity and then wish the gay couple good luck, that's entirely their decision. On the other hand, some surrogates or sperm donors do become friends of the gay couple and end up having some involvement in the child's life. But again, whether someone is biologically the parent of the child is irrelevant. What matters is the standard of care they can give to the child.


So what is the identity of the baby? what are his rights ? Who are his parents? and what are the additional people doing in his life and future?

His/her parents are the two people who take chief responsibility in raising him/her. The identity of the baby is the name given to him as well as the married couple's last name (so for example they take on the last name "Jones" or whatever), or if the couple aren't married yet, they can always give the child a double-barrelled last name (so for example if you have one gay person with the last name of "Smith" and another called "Jones", the last name of the baby can be "Smith-Jones" or "Jones-Smith"). His rights are to be cared for. And the baby will always have people around who can be role models regardless of their gender, as I'll explain in the next part.


Where Is the family unit? his grandparents and ancestors ?? their rights and obligations towards him ?

Uh, the gay parents are likely to have relatives who can care for him as well, just like it is in many straight families. Much like in straight families, it's not just the parents who provide care and act as role models to the child. As that child grows up, it will have a whole PLETHORA of role models of opposite genders within multiple different settings including nursery, kindergarten, primary and high school, college, university, any clubs like sports or chess clubs or whatever clubs they decide to join, wherever they decide to work and so on and so on. Regardless of whether the parents are straight or gay, the child will always have a big network of people who can provide care to them.

Our Morals are tied with a family society. a Homo couple is the destruction of the society. and it isn't even necessity!!

Wrong. Gay couples have been statistically shown to be no worse than straight parents. Indeed, it's even been found that because, unlike straight couples, gay couples actually are more likely to actually plan to have children, gay couples are considerably more likely to provide a stable family unit for the child. And there's also the fact that as a minority group that features prominently in discussions about human rights, a gay couple is statistically more likely than a straight couple to teach their child important stuff about diversity and tolerance.

It's like a foul starting to eat paper then develop a taste to it although it doesn't benefit him nor is it a food!

Er... what?