To my gay friends

Status
Not open for further replies.
DJTorrente said:
No, it's evidence of assault and battery -- already illegal in every state of the union, BTW.

Your definition of "homophobia" is "Anything the militant homosexualist lobby doesn't like."
Click to expand...

We are discussing the motive and motivation, not the legal definition.

Is you definition of "militant homosexualist lobby" any group criticized by Rush Limbaugh and other right wing commentators that advocates equal rights?
 
A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational.

Disagreeing with or disliking or not willing to participate in homosexual behavior does not make one phobic. Nor does it make them a homophobe. Wanting to not have children does not make one a pedophobe. I happen to detest cucumbers, that does not make me a cucurbitaceaephobe.

The creation of the term was a blatant bastardization and in my opinion just as bigoted and xenophobic - probably more so - as those who say, "I really don't want to engage in relations with someone of the same sex," in order to vilify anyone who disagrees with the practice.
 
EdFred said:
A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational.

Disagreeing with or disliking or not willing to participate in homosexual behavior does not make one phobic. Nor does it make them a homophobe. Wanting to not have children does not make one a pedophobe. I happen to detest cucumbers, that does not make me a cucurbitaceaephobe.

The creation of the term was a blatant bastardization and in my opinion just as bigoted and xenophobic - probably more so - as those who say, "I really don't want to engage in relations with someone of the same sex," in order to vilify anyone who disagrees with the practice.
Click to expand...

Ed, what would you call a persistent fear of homosexual behavior in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being irrational?
 
I am a coulrophobic and I am not afraid to admit it.


As my nephew once said and so profoundly for someone so young of age at the time.
"People don't dress up like clowns. Clowns dress up as people."
 
Kristin said:
We are discussing the motive and motivation, not the legal definition.

Is you definition of "militant homosexualist lobby" any group criticized by Rush Limbaugh and other right wing commentators that advocates equal rights?
Click to expand...

I consider the militant homosexual lobby to be the individuals responsible for imposing their religious views of gaymarriage -- and its associated punishment regime for heresy therefrom -- on the entire nation, despite having been defeated regularly at the ballot box, including deep blue California as recently as 2008.

Does your definition of "equal" include 2+2 = 5?
 
AuntPeggy said:
Ed, what would you call a persistent fear of homosexual behavior in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being irrational?
Click to expand...

Anyone have a Derp->English translation link?


I'm not sure how you get through your day, but in general I don't spend my time inserting myself into other people's sexual behavior, whether it be straight or gay. It's not motivated by fear of anything, hetero- or homo-.
 
I consider the militant black lobby to be the individuals responsible for imposing their religious views of segregation -- and its associated punishment regime for heresy therefrom -- on the entire nation, despite having been defeated regularly at the ballot box, including deep blue California as recently as 1964.
Click to expand...

-- DJTorrente, circa 1964
 
DJTorrente said:
I consider the militant homosexual lobby to be the individuals responsible for imposing their religious views of gaymarriage -- and its associated punishment regime for heresy therefrom -- on the entire nation, despite having been defeated regularly at the ballot box, including deep blue California as recently as 2008.

Does your definition of "equal" include 2+2 = 5?
Click to expand...

It may shock you to learn that people change attitudes and opinions over time. Or, that old people with old, bigoted ideas die over the years, to be replaced by younger people who don't really see a role for the government in people's personal lives....

flores2.png
 
AuntPeggy said:
Ed, what would you call a persistent fear of homosexual behavior in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being irrational?
Click to expand...

Wrong conclusion. Just because someone doesn't agree with something does not mean it is a fear. The problem with the term homophobe is it was purposefully created to vilify ANYONE who speaks against homosexual acts.

If I say I dislike oral sex, does that make me a fellatiophobe? No. But if I say I dislike buggery, suddenly I'm a homophobe. You can dislike something, or the act of it without being irrationally fearful of it.
 
JoseCuervo said:
It may shock you to learn that people change attitudes and opinions over time. Or, that old people with old, bigoted ideas die over the years, to be replaced by younger people who don't really see a role for the government in people's personal lives....
Click to expand...

Just because someone disagrees with something does not make them a bigot. But if it makes you feel better to call people names, 3rd grade is calling they want you back.

I disagree with government recognized same sex marriage. However, I disagree with government recognized opposite sex marriage as well. So in the above graph I would be considered a bigot. Where in fact I want equality for all. NO government recognition of either.
 
Flying Viking said:
-- DJTorrente, circa 1964
Click to expand...

You wouldn't be calling me racist, would you? How exactly did you come to that deduction, Mr. Holmes?

You obviously missed my link about Selma envy.

You see, thinking people tend to consider that being made to shop around for wedding cakes and flowers isn't quite the same as enduring jail, dogs and fire hoses. You don't. That's fine. In a free country, you should not fear losing your livelihood, even if you are a blithering idiot.
 
JoseCuervo said:
people who don't really see a role for the government in people's personal lives....
Click to expand...

If only...

JoseCuervo said:
It may shock you to learn that people change attitudes and opinions over time.
Click to expand...

Then put it on the ballot! Why is it that the left consistently runs to the only unelected branch of the federal government to do its dirty work for it?
 
JoseCuervo said:
It may shock you to learn that people change attitudes and opinions over time. Or, that old people with old, bigoted ideas die over the years, to be replaced by younger people who don't really see a role for the government in people's personal lives....
Click to expand...

Same-sex marriage requires a government role in people's personal lives.
 
DJTorrente said:
Then put it on the ballot! Why is it that the left consistently runs to the only unelected branch of the federal government to do its dirty work for it?
Click to expand...

Because they know they can't win at the ballot box. But you knew that.
 
EdFred said:
Just because someone disagrees with something does not make them a bigot. But if it makes you feel better to call people names, 3rd grade is calling they want you back.

I disagree with government recognized same sex marriage. However, I disagree with government recognized opposite sex marriage as well. So in the above graph I would be considered a bigot. Where in fact I want equality for all. NO government recognition of either.
Click to expand...


Read some of the comments in this thread.
 
JoseCuervo said:
Every year, acceptance goes up.
Click to expand...

Post your big picture a third time... that will REALLY drive the point home.

If your side was so confident, the Supreme Court decision would not have been necessary. We'll never know now, will we?
 
How come I never get asked to participate in any of these polls?
 
DJTorrente said:
You wouldn't be calling me racist, would you? How exactly did you come to that deduction, Mr. Holmes?

You obviously missed my link about Selma envy.

You see, thinking people tend to consider that being made to shop around for wedding cakes and flowers isn't quite the same as enduring jail, dogs and fire hoses. You don't. That's fine. In a free country, you should not fear losing your livelihood, even if you are a blithering idiot.
Click to expand...

What do you mean "shop around??? In the most famous "gay union flowers" case, the florist who refused gave them recommendations to other shops and did everything but write them a letter of reference!
 
Everskyward said:
Do you decline or hang up on them like I do?
Click to expand...

No, I actually participate. I remember one survey they were expecting more of a "household" than a single guy. The questions ran the gamut from how much turkey meat do I buy/consume in a month to shaving cream. But there was waaaay too many questions devoted to feminine products. I finally say, just put down 0 for anything to do with female products, because none live here.

My favorite is when the political volunteers call, and regardless of the party affiliation, I convince them that their political views are the complete opposite of the candidate they are calling for. They get really quiet and confused, and it completely throws them off. Whether it changes their viewpoint or not, it's still fun to mess with them.
 
Kristin said:
You live in a better better part of the country than any I have lived in, or you have a more narrow definition. But instances of guys randomly assaulting a gay man on the street and beating him half to dead, or worse, strikes me as pretty good evidence of homophobia.
Click to expand...
What you describe does not equate to a phobia but rather a crime against a person.
 
DJTorrente said:
You wouldn't be calling me racist, would you? How exactly did you come to that deduction, Mr. Holmes?

You obviously missed my link about Selma envy.

You see, thinking people tend to consider that being made to shop around for wedding cakes and flowers isn't quite the same as enduring jail, dogs and fire hoses. You don't. That's fine. In a free country, you should not fear losing your livelihood, even if you are a blithering idiot.
Click to expand...

I wasn't calling you a racist (that honor goes to the guy with a swastika in his avatar). I was pointing out that the same criticism that is being levied against the Obergefell decision today, is exactly the same criticism that was levied against Brown v. Board of Education when that decision came out. Unconstitutional...overreaching...leave it to the states. But the Supreme Court then as now understood that you can't leave to the states conduct that, even if sanctioned by a majority of voters, violate the 14th Amendment.

I read that Federalist article and fundamentally disagreed with it.
 
Flying Viking said:
I wasn't calling you a racist (that honor goes to the guy with a swastika in his avatar). I was pointing out that the same criticism that is being levied against the Obergefell decision today, is exactly the same criticism that was levied against Brown v. Board of Education when that decision came out. Unconstitutional...overreaching...leave it to the states. But the Supreme Court then as now understood that you can't leave to the states conduct that, even if sanctioned by a majority of voters, violate the 14th Amendment.

I read that Federalist article and fundamentally disagreed with it.
Click to expand...

So I'm the racist? Do you even know anything about me? Or is that your ass talking?
 
Flying Viking said:
I wasn't calling you a racist (that honor goes to the guy with a swastika in his avatar). I was pointing out that the same criticism that is being levied against the Obergefell decision today, is exactly the same criticism that was levied against Brown v. Board of Education when that decision came out. Unconstitutional...overreaching...leave it to the states. But the Supreme Court then as now understood that you can't leave to the states conduct that, even if sanctioned by a majority of voters, violate the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...

So what was the conduct in these cases that you feel violates the 14th Amendment?
 
Flying Viking said:
I wasn't calling you a racist (that honor goes to the guy with a swastika in his avatar). I was pointing out that the same criticism that is being levied against the Obergefell decision today, is exactly the same criticism that was levied against Brown v. Board of Education when that decision came out. Unconstitutional...overreaching...leave it to the states. But the Supreme Court then as now understood that you can't leave to the states conduct that, even if sanctioned by a majority of voters, violate the 14th Amendment.

I read that Federalist article and fundamentally disagreed with it.
Click to expand...

I'll thank you not to put word in my mouth, then. It's funny, because I'd venture a guess that the guy with the swastika in his avatar is more likely to agree with you, or at least is closer to your opinion, than I am.

I'd love to see one piece of contemporaneous evidence to suggest that the 14th Amendment could have been intended to redefine the institution of marriage to include relationships that are definitionally outside the meaning of the word. Go ahead and look, I'll wait.

You see no difference between being subjected to being denied the wedding flower purveyor of your choice and being subjected to dogs and fire hoses. Your astute powers of observation are noted -- I'll be sure to consider them to shed light on whatever else you have to say.
 
roncachamp said:
So what was the conduct in these cases that you feel violates the 14th Amendment?
Click to expand...

You must have misread my post. It's not about what I think, it's about what the SCOTUS based their rulings on.
 
Flying Viking said:
You must have misread my post. It's not about what I think, it's about what the SCOTUS based their rulings on.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I misread, perhaps you misspoke. You wrote; "But the Supreme Court then as now understood that you can't leave to the states conduct that, even if sanctioned by a majority of voters, violate the 14th Amendment." That implies you feel the court was correct in these cases. If you do, then please identify the conduct in these cases that you feel violates the 14th Amendment.
 
DJTorrente said:
I'll thank you not to put word in my mouth, then.
Click to expand...

You're right - I should have said "Someone like DJTorrente, circa 1964." My apologies.

DJTorrente said:
It's funny, because I'd venture a guess that the guy with the swastika in his avatar is more likely to agree with you, or at least is closer to your opinion, than I am.
Click to expand...

You know, all I see is someone who has chosen as his avatar a swastika surrounded by Stars of David. I need not know anything further about his opinions on anything, because that one alone is so repugnant to me.

DJTorrente said:
I'd love to see one piece of contemporaneous evidence to suggest that the 14th Amendment could have been intended to redefine the institution of marriage to include relationships that are definitionally outside the meaning of the word. Go ahead and look, I'll wait.
Click to expand...

Your premise is incorrect. The question is whether the denial of benefits associated with marriage comport with the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. Remember, when the 14th Amendment was ratified, interracial marriages were outside the meaning of the word. Do you think Loving was also wrongly decided?

DJTorrente said:
You see no difference between being subjected to being denied the wedding flower purveyor of your choice and being subjected to dogs and fire hoses. Your astute powers of observation are noted -- I'll be sure to consider them to shed light on whatever else you have to say.
Click to expand...

For sure, gay couples are not subject to the same, severe state-sanctioned treatment as black people prior to Brown and the CRA/VRA. But that does not make discrimination against same-sex couples right. It's not a quantitative analysis, it's all or nothing. If the conduct violates the 14th Amendment, it needs to go away. Period.
 
Last edited:
Flying Viking said:
You know, all I see is someone who has chosen as his avatar a swastika surrounded by Stars of David. I need not know anything further about his opinions on anything, because that one alone is so repugnant to me.
Click to expand...

If you weren't so myopic you would understand.

There's also a confederate flag 'cross', and of course a rainbow theme. So, lets see what kind of person would fly this flag.

A Gay, Confederate, Nazi, Jew. Yeah, there's a bunch of those out there. Maybe if you weren't wearing your ass as a hat you might see the irony. Then again, based on your posts, and not a half-assed assumption, I wouldn't expect you to get it.

But it's since been modified to be more inclusive.
 
Flying Viking said:
For sure, gay couples are not subject to the same, severe state-sanctioned treatment as black people prior to Brown and the CRA/VRA. But that does not make discrimination against same-sex couples right. It's not a quantitative analysis, it's all or nothing. If the conduct violates the 14th Amendment, it needs to go away. Period.
Click to expand...

No conduct was in violation of the 14th Amendment.
 
roncachamp said:
No conduct was in violation of the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...

Apparently, the Supreme Court disagreed.

These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them. Baker v. Nelson must be and now is overruled, and the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite sex couples.
Click to expand...
 
EdFred said:
A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational.

Disagreeing with or disliking or not willing to participate in homosexual behavior does not make one phobic. Nor does it make them a homophobe. Wanting to not have children does not make one a pedophobe. I happen to detest cucumbers, that does not make me a cucurbitaceaephobe.

The creation of the term was a blatant bastardization and in my opinion just as bigoted and xenophobic - probably more so - as those who say, "I really don't want to engage in relations with someone of the same sex," in order to vilify anyone who disagrees with the practice.
Click to expand...

Well....if you are afraid of getting ****ed in the ass, or if you are afraid that those who **** others in the ass will make you more likely to get ****ed in the ass, I'd say you're a homophobe.

I think those that oppose homosexuality are probably afraid of getting ****ed in the ass. And therefore, they're probably homophobes.

If not, then they're bigots.
 
Flying Viking said:
Your premise is incorrect. The question is whether the denial of benefits associated with marriage comport with the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. Remember, when the 14th Amendment was ratified, interracial marriages were outside the meaning of the word. Do you think Loving was also wrongly decided?
Click to expand...

Try, and try again, with all your might, you can't seem to get over that fact that this isn't the great integration battle of our time. The standard bearer for this battle was not freedom from state-sanctioned violence and denial of voting, but centerpieces and pretty pictures.

The day before Ogberfell, the only thing a homosexual couple could not do in every state was to call themselves married. They could legally designate who had access to their hospital bedside, who made their medical decisions should they be unable, and who got their stuff when they die -- everything that is presumed among married couples.

Oh yeah, and now people who have religious objections to the new leftist othodoxy can be punished (fined, jailed) as heretics. Something you're very proud of, I'm sure.
 
Flying Viking said:
Apparently, the Supreme Court disagreed.
Click to expand...

Even if I were to agree with you that the 14th amendment prohibited state from affording certain benefits to heterosexual couples but not to homosexual couples, the notion that the Supreme Court got the remedy precisely backwards would go right over your head. The proper legal remedy would be so politically unpalatable that even the militant homosexualists dare not mention it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top