I had a friend get fairly mad at me tonight for calling her mom homophobic...

[armyowalgreens]

I said that anyone who is against gay marriage is homophobic.

I tried to explain that different people suffer from different levels of homophobia and that her mother is not a raving gay hater simply because she is against gay marriage.

But she is homophobic just like my own mother is homophobic. There is no rational argument against gay marriage. Therefore gay marriage opponents suffer from an irrational fear (or dislike) of homosexuals by considering them to be less worthy of marriage than straight persons.

She attempted to tell me that I was wrong because she was taking a human sexuality class. I persisted and she finally stopped arguing.

I think this is a major issue that must be dealt with. People often avoid calling others out to avoid awkward situations. And still, others are completely unwilling to admit that people they love suffer from prejudice.

[paulsby]

1. so, therefore obama is homophobic

fascinating...

[armyowalgreens]

3. Is he against gay marriage?

[LooseWilly]

9. Actually, yes.

He's "Pro civil unions" but he "doesn't believe in gay marriage" as evidenced by http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i.html an opinion distilled in '08 (the end of the election).
Obama's opinions about gay marriage... as reflected by his opinions/work on the issue ever since...is unimpressive (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/06/29/2009-06-29_gayrights_advocate_complain_over_president_obamas_handling_of_samesex_marriage.html ... for instance)

Obama might not be against gay marriage, in some sort of vaguely coherent parsing theory world.... but he is certainly no "fierce advocate"... else stories like http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/06/29/2009-06-29_gayrights_advocate_complain_over_president_obamas_handling_of_samesex_marriage.html would not exist...

Judge for yourself...

[armyowalgreens]

10. If he is against gay marriage, he is homophobic.

[paulsby]

13. that's an honest answer

i disagree with your premises, but i applaud you for the intellectual honesty.

i am for gay marriage, fwiw. but don't agree that (some) of those who are against it are homophobic.

but kudos to you for consistency!

[Orsino]

70. There's an alternative, though its significance is questionable.

One can also pander to homophobia, as do mot of our Democratic leaders--even those who would happily vote for equality in a different political climate.

[gkhouston]

80. In which case, one is merely chickenshit. n/t

[Orsino]

133. No, not *only* chickenshit. Not necessarily.

The possibility is very real that a Congresscritter who is too outspoken for equality will be knocked off in the next election, and be replaced by a GOPer who wants to turn back the clock.

There is something good to be said for chess-playing, and it shouldn't automatically be dismissed as cowardice. A representative who advocates, even wishy-washily, for sorta-kinda-maybe progress is still a step ahead of his predecessors of decades earlier--who weren't all cowards, either.

[paulsby]

348. *if* that was the case

and i am not conceding it is, but at least arguendo, then NOW he is president, and he could very easily say "i have reflected on this issue, and have changed my mind. i am for gay marriage"

[Orsino]

359. Sure he could. I'd even applaud him for doing so.

He'd be crucified for it, for years, but I think he has the drive and charisma to pull it off. I'm also sure, though, that it would cost us some progress elsewhere, and this is not a one-issue president (alas for equality). No, he'll proceed cautiously; if he's going to have a public change of heart, it's years away, still.

[Toasterlad]

399. Playing Political Games With People's Rights Is Not Chess. It's Cowardice.

Plain and simple.

[snake in the grass]

107. Is it homophobia or cowardice?

Is Obama truly a homophobe, or is he just too gutless to stand up to these cretins, who are still living in the Bronze Age? I don't know which one he is, but I find both of them bad.

[Orsino]

117. Keeping his powder dry.

I don't think it's a lack of guts, but I don't believe his claim to believe that marriage should be an exclusively heterosexual institution, either. It's expediency, and his plan, presumably, is to sneak away with as many small gains as he can, without setting off too many alarm bells, thereby neutering himself or the rest of his agenda.

For all his stated opposition to equality, I think he's an ally--but he's not even going to try to dismantle centuries of ingrained American homophobia in a term or two.

[Mari333]

145. Its homophobic behaviour. I mean, come on

if this was a thread about a white person being told they were racist because they were against inter racial marriage, no one would bat an eye.
If Obama said "Im against inter racial marriage" everyone would be saying its racism and no one would think twice about it.

[paulsby]

351. i am for gay marriage

but i think the analogy between interracial mariage and gay marriage is specious at best.

we can get into the biology of it, but in brief, gay marriage is a radical change to the concept of marriage. it's one i SUPPORT, but it IS a new kind of marriage. men and women are significantly biologically different , and marriage has historically been between same. changing marriage ot include same sex marriage is a radical redefinition. people of different races do not have the significant differences as people of different genders. the latter have different organs, different chromosomes, and different hormonal milieu.

changing marriage from bans on interracial marriage into allowing interracial marriage was fAr from a radical redefinition of marriage. marriage, historically has included interracial marriage. heck, many ancient societies in some cases, REQUIRED interracial marriages (some cultures required that when they overtook different cultures, and that includes where the nation had people of a different race, they were REQUIRED to marry them, to keep the peace so to speak, by mixing cultures).

interracial marriage is still between two biologically distinct individuals - a man and a woman.

same sex marriage is a radical change to marriage.

one I support.

but that is why i personally do not think it's homophobic to be against same sex marriage. heck, i can recall back in the day, an editorial in the village voice (long before same sex marriage was plausible politically) opining that gays should be against the institution of marriage (kind of a seperatist argument) for other gays. how times have changed.

i believe obama is against same sex marriage. i think that is the wrong policy. but i do not think that that belief makes him homophobic

[ldf]

375. being from the south (lived there 48 years)

i am very confident that IF they thought they could get away with it, referendums would pass in many southern states outlawing interracial marriage.

believe it.

there is only a thin veneer of "civility" in many areas of the south. and when they are just amongst themselves, that veneer vanishes quite quickly.

it must be made clear beyond a shadow of a doubt, by the supreme court, that human rights CAN NOT be put up for a vote. period. no exceptions. it is completely unamerican.

[paulsby]

376. oh, i believe it

fwiw, i know whites who would support such a ban. there are also african americans, and even japanese americans who would too.

there are some jews who are against jews marrying gentiles, and some would go so far as to make that illegal, if they could, i am sure.

and ditto for the reverse.

whether or not gay marriage is protected by the constitution is an ENTIRELY different question. most arguments go from the equal protection clause.

i am simply saying i don't think the analogy between interracial and intrasexual (so to speak) marriage is valid, for the reasons mentioned.

i make two simple point. legalizing same sex marriage is an unprecedented radical change to the institution of marriage. and i support that change.

[Mari333]

396. inter racial marriage WAS considered radical change

72 percent of the US pop was against it.
and Im sorry, but if someone is against gay marriage, yes, they are homophobic. and to me, its no different than the way people thought about inter racial marriage at one time.

[paulsby]

421. but that's not what i said

i didn't say how americans CONSIDERED it.

i was speaking to reality, not perception.

the REALITY is that interracial marriages were exceedingly common throughout thousands of years of history, in western culture, and other cultures.

not the case w/ gay marriage.

legislatures passed a law banning it, because they wanted to PREVENT a not uncommon practice, also.

we never even HAD laws against same sex marriage until recently, because nobody even considered it, as a kind of marriage.

you can find umpteen references to actual interracial marriages in literature and history books, throughout thousands of years. not the case with gay marriage.

[Toasterlad]

401. Marriage Is Two People Committing To Each Other.

Period.

Your bullshit argument was EXACTLY the same as the racists used when fighting against inter-racial marriages. They, too, claimed that allowing men and women of different ethnicities to marry was a radical change in marriage, because it wasn't the tradition. By your definition, they were right. Your claim is that anything that doesn't follow the tradition is a radical change. You are wrong.

Gay people have been historically married before, you know.

The sex of the people matters not one bit, except to those homophobes who believe that sexual orientation makes a difference to love and/or committment.

[Toasterlad]

400. I LOVE YOU!

[paulsby]

11. correct

the logic is irrefutable.

the OP claimed that if one is against gay marriage, then that person is homophobic.

obama is against gay marriage, therefore obama is homophobic.

so, i want to see the OP come out and say it: "obama is homophobic". that would be intellectually honest.

personally, i am for gay marriage. but i do not think many of those who are anti are in fact, homophobic. but that's tangential to the obama issue

[armyowalgreens]

12. Obama is homophobic

[paulsby]

14. fair enough

intellectually honest response. that's refreshing! cheers!

[olegramps]

386. The logic is irrefutable?

I have to agree with your conclusion. The original argument is premised on the statement that anyone who is against gay marriage is homophobic.

Some would say that marriage by definition is only possible between a male and female. The same person could say that the legal rights that have developed in regard to marriage could be a separate issue and could be granted to same sex partnerships. I don't view this person as being homophobic.

The partnership should, whether those entering are of the same or opposite sex, be solely commissioned by the state and the religious aspect be totally separate as it is in several European countries in which religious ministers are not give the civil authority to perform marriages. I realize that you have to have a license and it can only be issued by the state but I believe that a major part of the problem stems from religious ministers having this authority. The legal aspects should be keep stringently separate from the religious.

[LeftyMom]

17. No shit Obama's a homophobe.

Pretty much the only way to have missed that is to have spent the last two years in a cave.

[jonnyblitz]

45. yes he is and this could be why many of us aren't huge fans. nt

[donco6]

340. Yes, actually. n/t

[Toasterlad]

398. He Sure Is.

Is this really news to you?

[galledgoblin]

406. yes, he is. there are degrees to homophobia

and thankfully not everyone against equality is as hateful as Fred Phelps, but there is no question that if you are not for equality that you are homophobic.

[JI7]

2. what does her taking a human sexuality class have to do with

this ? is she trying to say she learned in that class something about homosexuality and marriage ?

[armyowalgreens]

4. Maybe. She gave up before she fully explained her argument.

[verges]

229. So you just badgered her until she shut up?

It may have been worthwhile, or at least polite, to listen to her arguments before you shut her down. Good way to alienate people.

[armyowalgreens]

239. I never badgered her.

I merely presented my argument.

[verges]

252. But it sounds like you didn't allow her

the same consideration.

[armyowalgreens]

254. I let her speak.

She gave up. That is hardly my fault.

[verges]

274. Perhaps.

But from your description, it sounds like she tried to bring up a point from her "Human Sexuality class" and you wouldn't hear it. If that's not the case, I apologize for the misunderstanding. But, it then becomes unclear why she would bring this information up and not follow through with it. Or why you didn't ask her to continue with her point. It just rings false.

[WatchWhatISay]

5. I don't get why it is so important for you to establish this as truth

even if it were true - and I don't see anything in your argument that proves that - what is the point of insisting that someone she probably cares about and has signifigant respect for has such as serious character flaw. And anyway, there are degrees of homophobia, so that in your friends eyes, her mother does not meet that level. At any rate, when one person you care about berates another person that you care about it leaves you in a quandry.

[armyowalgreens]

6. There are different degrees. But it is all homophobia.

It is extremely important to expose the truth. If we cover up the real driving force behind gay marriage opposition it could be disastrous to our movement.

" and I don't see anything in your argument that proves that"

What do you mean?

There is no rational argument against gay marriage. All the arguments against it revolve around the idea that homosexuals are inferior or destructive.

[Liquorice]

7. It isn't a good idea to attack a friend's mom. People tend to get angry and

defensive about that sort of thing. Your friend is obviously going to defend her mom, and I really don't blame her for getting mad. Sometimes it's better not to say anything at all, especially when someone's mom is concerned. I hope she will forgive you... That is if you want to remain friends with her.

[armyowalgreens]

8. Well it's not like I brought up her mom.

She did.

I said that all gay marriage opponents are homophobic. She tried to use her mom as evidence that I was wrong. And I responded by saying that I wasn't wrong at all and that her mom is homophobic just like my mom is homophobic.

[Liquorice]

15. I see. Well when you said that all gay marriage opponents are homophobic, it

immediately made her think of her mom's views, and she felt the need to defend her mom because she loves her mom and doesn't want to think of her as homophobic.

I've always thought gay people should be able to get married, and I've never understood people who want to stop them from marrying. Even though my dad doesn't agree with me, I would get mad if someone called him homophobic. Now if someone said s/he disagreed with my dad on the issue, I wouldn't be angry at all because I also disagree with him on that topic.

[Bluenorthwest]

56. If your Dad was a KKK member

would you get mad if he was called a racist? Or would you iron his sheets each saturday?

[Toasterlad]

410. They HATE Those Questions.

[LooseWilly]

16. Cheers...

honesty is honesty is far too often shied away from.

And my mom was homophobic... and I hassled her for it... and she hassled me right back in favor of her homophobia.

She was wrong. She's dead now... which I take it to mean that god decided I was right.
Homophobia is wrong.

[tazkcmo]

50. wtf?

"She's dead now... which I take it to mean that god decided I was right."
Without a doubt the dumbest statement I have ever read. All dead people are wrong? Or just your mom? Were all dead people against gay marriage when they were alive? Teh stoopid. It hurts.

[LooseWilly]

120. I'm sorry... I thought that statement was so stupid it would be recognized for sarcasm by all...

I underestimated the tenacity of pedantry of "all"... for those who will attempt to take everything as didactic prose that they see typed in the English Language that is not properly affixed with a label otherwise... I now attach: :sarcasm:

Obviously God is Dead, My Mom is Dead... and it was only a sarcastic twitch that made me try to pretend that either fact has any relevance. My Mom was completely wrong however...

[masuki bance]

55. Good God, sir. nt

[yodoobo]

151. You'll be dead in a few more blinks of the eye too

geologically speaking.

Does that mean you'll both be wrong?

[LooseWilly]

322. Yes. When I am dead I will be wrong.

I read that in the Bible.

Of course, it was written there in crayon by my niece... my brother likes letting her use it as a coloring book.

She's wiser than Jesus Fucking Christ Himself.

[yodoobo]

338. cool

sounds your a pretty smart gal.

[Mimosa]

18. Calling people's mothers names is really classy

Army of Walgreens, what if a person just doesn't care for homosexuals? That's not fear of gay people, not hatred, even.

What if most buddhists, orthodox jews, hindus, muslims and bible believing christians all believe homosexual acts are wrong behaviours for human beings?

They have a right to believe as they do whether you like it or not.

Gays will get the right to marry and divorce and all the other rights for citizens. I and many, many others have worked hard for tolerance and to change the culture.


But there is no right to have people approve of you. Or like you. How old are you?

[armyowalgreens]

19. Who cares that it's her mother? If it was her brother does it change?

Can I not call anyone in her immediate family homophobic? What about her cousins? Do I have to go out to 2nd or 3rd cousins?

Since when was telling such an important truth a bad thing?

"what if a person just doesn't care for homosexuals?"

That's called being homophobic.


Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: \ˌhō-mə-ˈfō-bē-ə\
Function: noun
Date: 1969
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals


"What if most buddhists, orthodox jews, hindus, muslims and bible believing christians all believe homosexual acts are wrong behaviours for human beings?"

They are all homophobic.


"They have a right to believe as they do whether you like it or not."

And you will notice that I never said that they do not have the right to be homophobic.


"How old are you?"

20

[Violet_Crumble]

35. You really need to reconsider yr approach...

What was the purpose of you saying that to yr friend? For you to feel all good about yrself? It can't have been to educate, because the most surefire way of putting someone offside is to attack someone they love. My mum's rather bigoted, and while I've had times where I've had it out with her about something she's said, if one of my friends came up to me and harangued me saying they thought my mum was a bigot, I'd think they were pretty rude and lacking in all social skills and distance myself from that friendship. There's something that dawns on most people with maturity, and that's that while family members can pull each other to pieces and fight with each other, if an outsider takes it upon themselves to join in, they've crossed the line. If yr intent is to educate people, then a little bit of tact and diplomacy goes a hell of a long way....

[armyowalgreens]

37. "What was the purpose of you saying that to yr friend? For you to feel all good about yrself?"

No. I spoke the truth. I like the truth. If you do not like the truth, I feel sorry for you.

"It can't have been to educate, because the most surefire way of putting someone offside is to attack someone they love."

No, it was to reveal the truth. It was not an "attack" anymore than calling a racist a "racist" is an attack.


"I've had times where I've had it out with her about something she's said, if one of my friends came up to me and harangued me saying they thought my mum was a bigot, I'd think they were pretty rude and lacking in all social skills and distance myself from that friendship. There's something that dawns on most people with maturity, and that's that while family members can pull each other to pieces and fight with each other, if an outsider takes it upon themselves to join in, they've crossed the line."

That is you trying to justify your own fear of the truth. I will openly admit that several members of my family are homophobic. I invite others to see it as well.

You aren't doing any of your loved ones any favors by ignoring their blatant ignorance. You're probably doing much more harm than any possible good. There is no such thing as "crossing the line" when calling someone out for his or her bigotry.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. I didn't realise you were so special that yr opinions magically become *the truth*

You aren't doing any of your loved ones any favors by ignoring their blatant ignorance. You're probably doing much more harm than any possible good.

I see. So me having it out with my mother about her bigotry is seen by you as ignoring it? Yep, clearly I need some complete moron to arrive and shriek at my little old mum that she's a bigot! ;)

on edit: I notice that yr purpose for saying that to yr friend wasn't in order to educate or change minds, but was all about how yr opinion is something you like hearing voiced. You like the sound of yr own opinion, so yr going to share it, regardless of whether it's inept or inappropriate to do so. Sorry, but I haven't got much respect for selfish and self-centred stuff, but I've got massive amounts of respect for those who work towards educating people and gaining equality for gay couples....

[armyowalgreens]

238. Give me your moms address and I will gladly pay her a visit.

Yes, I am a very special person. My opinion is the truth; at least in this instance.

[Violet_Crumble]

Gosh, yr willing to pay airfare and come here to be obnoxious to my mum?

Wow, that's dedication to being totally inappropriate. I'm impressed!

No, yr opinion isn't the *truth* and when yr more mature you'll come to realise that. Or you'll grow up and turn into an antichoicer, who never learn that *the truth* is merely their opinion...

[LooseWilly]

330. If a person "doesn't like homosexuals" then the label "homophobic" is not an opinion.

It is a fact. It is the definition. You can defend your bigoted mom from others... but (now we come to an opinion) that is contributing to said bigotry.

My mom was homophobic. She admitted to it. If anyone else had any sense they'd've seen it too. And, by the way, in my opinion your projection of your values regarding who is allowed to call your mom a bigot is "selfish and self-centered stuff"... in that you are trying to make others behave according to a "morality" that is centered within you. Projecting things like "yr opinion is something you like hearing voiced" is ironic, in that the act of making that judgment is, in and of itself, "voicing yr opinion" ... ;)

[Gman2]

109. You say you just like the truth. But if you thought me a bigot

I just about guarantee you would not state it to me, as I would put you to sleep almost instantly. Are you a coward, cuz you didnt call me a name?

[Zodiak]

180. Oh brother....what is it with the internet tough guy routine?

Keep your veiled threats to yourself, tough guy. If you want to be Bill Braske, there are other forums for that.

[Gman2]

211. I am establishin g something important. He said that if you dont call names, it

is cuz of cowardice. NOONE has ever called me bigot, homophobe or like that to my face. Are they all cowards?

[LooseWilly]

331. Yes?

You're certainly sounding like a bigot here... though I wouldn't say that the evidence is overwhelming... yet.

[Zodiak]

353. Lighten up, Francis

This isn't about you.

[olegramps]

387. You appear to think you are of superior stock.

[verges]

236. You should care!

Do you frequently go around insulting your friends or their families? If you do, you may not keep them very long. All people have flaws. Including you, my friend. It doesn't mean they need to have their own or those of their loved ones pointed out. I hope this friend wasn't too important to you. Because you very well may have lost her friendship.

[TokenQueer]

277. You are beyond ridiculous.

Calling someone that embraces anti-gay views a homophobe is not "insulting"... that would be stating a fact.

:eyes:

[Sherman A1]

30. Well Said!

I don't think calling anyone's family members names (and especially Mom) does much to advance any cause or line of argument. In fact I don't think name calling does much good in any event. People have rights to their opinions and rights to disagree and those points should be discussed, but I cannot think of a case where name calling advances one's position.

For example just how did the term "Axis of Evil" make things better?

[armyowalgreens]

32. Comparing "axis of evil" to "homophobe" is about the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.

What an utterly absurd thing to say.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. The problem is yr seeing comparisons where none were made...

Just the same as you tried to say that I'd made some comparison I hadn't. In both cases, something has been used as an example to show the problem in yr logic, not as comparisons to homophobia.....

[armyowalgreens]

248. The problem is that you are wrong. They were attempts at comparisons.

[Violet_Crumble]

319. When it comes to mindreading, don't give up the day job. I attempted nothing of the sort...

Even basic reading comprehension skills would allow someone to see that there wasn't a comparison made in what I wrote, and when you sit there and tell me what I attempt to say, then things just start getting very silly...

[Sherman A1]

300. Well Said!

but, I believe that you will not change the opinion of our esteemed poster.

[Violet_Crumble]

316. Thanks...

I'm not sure what the problem is that's causing them to do this. It could be comprehension issues, and it could also be some sort of Internet Debating Laziness where anything other people say gets turned into 'How dare you compare........to.....!'

[Sherman A1]

366. I believe that it is the latter, not the former

I just don't see it as a comprehension issue.

Nevertheless, you and I are on the same page.

[Sherman A1]

185. The point was that name calling doesn't enhance the

conversation or really get one anywhere in expressing a point of view. Sorry you don't seem to see that.

[armyowalgreens]

249. If you only knew how funny your accusation truly is...

I've been a advocate against name calling in here. Real name calling, not what you guys with weak constitutions consider name calling.

[Sherman A1]

299. Well,

Since it wasn't an accusation, but an observation, you again miss the point, but that seems to be rather consistent on your part.

So we obviously disagree and we are not going to change each other's opinions.....


Have a pleasant day!

[TokenQueer]

282. This is not a difference of opinion...

People that harbor anti-gay views are bigots. Plain and simple.

[mitchtv]

312. I'll have to stick with that opinion

You want to deny my rights, you're a bigot

[ronnykmarshall]

323. Watch that mouth Nancy Boy!

You'll might upset the "liberals" that still think the gays are just too pushy!

[liquid diamond]

373. They don't give a shit what you call them. They have names for gays too.

I'm sure you know what they are. How does calling names help? It just escalates this already controversial issue.

[TokenQueer]

433. Equal rights are controversial?

Really?

[liquid diamond]

437. Yes. Read a history book.

[LooseWilly]

332. If a person exhibits homophobic behavior, calling them a homophobe isn't calling them "names".

It's recognition of a fact.

For instance, if one of my son's friends were to tell him that I'm a drunk... I would not consider it to be calling me names. It would be using an adjective in accordance with the definition of the word.

I think its really telling just how many people are so afraid of their own character flaws, or those of their family, that they will try to browbeat others into pretending that they don't exist, also.

[eShirl]

42. So if Fred Phelps believes God hates homosexuals, he's not homophobic when he

brings his church to protest at funerals with signs saying things like "GOD HATES FAGS" etc.?

OK then...


Oh, also, he never said homophobes have no right to believe whatever they want, nor that he has a right to have people approve of him or like him.

[bullwinkle428]

69. If someone "doesn't care for" blacks or Latinos or Asians, would that

not make them racist?

What if they "don't care for" Jews? Are they not anti-Semites?

[Neecy]

112. huh?

what if a person just doesn't care for homosexuals? That's not fear of gay people, not hatred, even.

So, if I "didn't care" for African-Americans, then I'm not a racist as long as I don't fear or hate them?

Of course there are degrees to everything. But if someone told me to my face that they didn't "care for" me, without knowing me at all, because I'm homosexual of course that makes them homophobic.

I also agree that people have the right to be homophobes. No one is looking for mind control here - the OP was simply calling out bigotry.

[blue_onyx]

149. Well

"They have a right to believe as they do whether you like it or not."

Yes, just as KKK members have the right to believe that white people are superior to black people. That, however, doesn't make their opinion any less bigoted.


"What if most buddhists, orthodox jews, hindus, muslims and bible believing christians all believe homosexual acts are wrong behaviours for human beings?"

Religion was used to justify racism too. Doesn't make it ok.


People who don't support gay marriage are bigots. You trying to push it as a difference of opinion and not bigotry is BS.

[DireStrike]

281. Everyone is someone to someone.

If we forbade arguing with people based on family ties, there would be nobody left to argue.

And it isn't just moms. Sisters, too. Pretty much any female. And brothers. And spouses, obviously, so nobody who is married can argue.

So I guess we are left with childless, single, only-child orphans left to argue all our causes. That is good, they will probably come up with sound social policy, having known depravation.

[Malikshah]

303. "what if a person just doesn't care for homosexuals"

What if a person doesn't care for homophobes?

Geez, do people even think things through before they post?

[ronnykmarshall]

321. What if a person doesn't care for black people?

What if a person doesn't care for asian people?

What if a person doesn't care for latino people?

Uh .... that person is a fucking RACIST !!!!

Do the math.

[noamnety]

337. What does that even mean?

"what if a person just doesn't care for homosexuals? "

"I'm not afraid of them, I just don't like them."

That would make them homophobic.

[donco6]

343. What?????

"Just doesn't care for homosexuals?" WTF???

You're talking about a class of people, not a fucking restaurant or rock band.

There is no right for people to discriminate against another class of people.

Talk about classless. . .

[Toasterlad]

411. "what if a person just doesn't care for homosexuals?"

Those people are called homophobes.

There's no acceptable reason for bomophobia. Not religion. Not culture. Nothing.

Calling people bigots when they're bigots isn't "name-calling". It's stating fact.

Do you feel the same way about black people that you feel about gays? Is it okay to "not care" for black people?

[Jeep789]

20. If one is against "State" marriage at all what does that make them?

I don't think the State (or Feds) have and reason to know who the hell one is sleeping with and therefore think they should only have an interest (and that benefits should apply) as such. That said, if we must endure state sanctioned marriage for anyone, the same rights and "term"
should be granted to everyone, regardless of sexual status.

[armyowalgreens]

21. That person wouldn't even bother addressing the question about gay marriage.

They would make it pointless by saying that state sanctioned marriage is not good.

I was waiting for someone to bring up that argument. I should have clarified my OP.

[Mimosa]

22. Agreed

Equality is the goal. It will happen.

But it's not forwarded by calling old ladies or gentleman names. And nobody is obligated to like us.

[armyowalgreens]

23. You never responded to my response to your post.

So I'll again say that such important truths should not be left hidden simply because we don't want to hurt someones feelings.

This has nothing to do with name calling.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. The problem is that yr opinion isn't *truth*, it's merely yr opinion...

It's yr opinion that anyone opposed to gay marriage is homophobic. I've got a friend who's gay, in a long-term relationship, and who absolutely melted down when gay unions were going to be legalised where we live. He didn't react in that way because he's a homophobe, he did it because he's got committmentphobia...

I find all this stuff about having to tell 'the truth' a load of bullshit. Like, I work with someone who rides a bike to work and is a bit stinky. While it'd be an important truth to tell her she stinks, it's so fucking rude to just come out and say that. There's other ways of dealing with it that are more subtle and won't alienate people yr trying to talk to...

[armyowalgreens]

43. Comparing body odor to homophobia. My god, what has this discussion become?

"I've got a friend who's gay, in a long-term relationship, and who absolutely melted down when gay unions were going to be legalised where we live. He didn't react in that way because he's a homophobe, he did it because he's got committmentphobia..."

I'll just get that squared away right now. ^^^^That is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Absolutely irrelevant.



Revealing someones homophobia is much more important than telling someone they smell bad. It really is. And the fact that you made such a ludicrous comparison makes me suspicious about your own intentions.

[Violet_Crumble]

51. No, I didn't compare them. I gave an example of a truth. You clearly don't like yr own logic...

There's nothing irrelevent about pointing out an example of someone who's not homophobic being opposed to gay marriage.....

You just don't seem to be able to comprehend that yr opinion isn't fact. Sure, you can share yr opinion with everyone, but don't expect that there won't be consequences. Also, I'm pretty sure that me pointing out that yr behaviour was obnoxious and did far more harm than good doesn't make me a homophobe or at risk of being one. I am working out that you sure do like flinging that label around a lot though.....

[armyowalgreens]

244. Some of the people in here make it easy to use that word quite freely.

I said that the absurdity of your argument leaves me suspicious as to your true intentions in this thread.

And, believe me, your argument is hopelessly absurd.

[Violet_Crumble]

315. Yeah, I noticed that you have a habit of throwing it around at the drop of a hat...

You haven't bothered saying *why* anything I've said has been absurd. Maybe you'd be more effective if you took the time and effort to explain why and actually comprehended what people are saying to you rather than reacting by saying you suspect someone's a homophobe. Me thinking that you are lacking in any sort of tact or diplomacy and that rather than being about education, yr 'talk' with yr friend was All About You and how good coming out with whatever you feel like saying is the most important thing in the world to you does not mean I'm homophobic...

[LooseWilly]

333. I'll make a case for your homophobia.

You defend those who are against same sex marriage as simply being holders of an opinion.

Denial of marriage rights (and the consequent federal and state benefits) to a segment of the population... is a denial of rights. Denial of rights is discrimination. Practicing and/or endorsing (and I would include defending those who practice and/or endorse) discrimination is sufficient grounds to call someone a bigot. Bigotry directed at homosexuals has a special label: homophobia.

Ergo... your defense of those who endorse the practice of discrimination as being merely people who hold an opinion... makes you homophobic, as per the definition.

The issue of armyowalgreen's choice of etiquette is not contingent on whether or not homophobia is an opinion. You can argue that it is rude to point out to homophobes that they are homophobes. Likewise, you can obviously accuse me of being rude for making the case that you are a homophobe.

The issue of rudeness or not rudeness is well and nice... but it doesn't effect the issue of whether or not one is a homophobe. Why not just argue that armyowalgreens should participate in the charade that his friends' moms are all saints, no matter how bigoted they are?

[Violet_Crumble]

379. Excuse me? I did nothing of the sort!

You defend those who are against same sex marriage as simply being holders of an opinion.

What I don't appreciate is being accused of something I haven't done. The only time I've spoken of opinions is pointing out to the OP that their opinions are not facts. That does not in any way equate to me defending anyone who's against same sex marriages.

You might like to rethink that argument of yrs that I'm supposedly a homophobe, and if you have any actual arguments for continuing along that line of thinking, feel free to argue away using what I've actually said at DU on the issue of gay marriage. I don't think yr going to come up with anything there...

[mitchtv]

370. the old "derail" argument attempt

next....

[Mimosa]

98. What you started, dear.

Revealing all you think you know is hardly good strategy. And kindness to one's friends is a higher value.

[armyowalgreens]

245. "And kindness to one's friends is a higher value."- No it's not.

[Mimosa]

344. Silly boy! ;) One day.....

If I didn't like you I wouldn't continue to engage on this. I think most of the people posting who disagree with who are know your hearts in the right place Army o' Walgreens.

This topic has gotten Baroque.

BTW, why David Byrne for your avatar? He sort of dabbled in 'the religion.'I assume he was initiated


Way back when my partner and I used to go hear the Talking Heads before they were famous. Also the sex Pistols, before that Roxy Music....


Army, you are probably having a lovely time in life to be so arrogantly confident. Nothing anybody says will make any difference to what you believe. Later you will look back. People on a message board won't count for anything of course. Your regrets will be from recalling how you handled situations in real life. I think what some of us older folks would like to spare you are the regrets. It's too easy to label older people. OK, battle a forty five year old if you must, but for heaven's sake spare the grannies your righteous wrath! They are not in positions of policy-making and have no power over legislation. Keep your powder dry for big game: politicians and the like.

I'm not a granny, btw.;) I'm far too glamorous.

[Gman2]

110. Look, if it is as simple as your limited vocabulary, study/!

[Bluenorthwest]

60. You keep stating that he shrieked at an old lady

when his post says he said to his pal that his pal's mom was homophobic. The Mom was not present except in your version.

[ronnykmarshall]

325. Wait, I thought he kicked the old buzzard?

Didn't he throw her down a flight of stairs too?

I swear I also read something about an old embroidered pillow she had since a child being thrown into the fire place as she screamed for him to stop.

[armyowalgreens]

327. True story- I laughed maniacally as she wept at my feet.

[alphafemale]

28. That's pretty much where I am. I see the term Marriage as being too wound and bound in religion

To a Catholic even a Divorced person's remarriage is generally not going to be seen as valid to the church.

But this has no impact at all on the legal contract recognized by the state on people who have "remarried."

And then there are liberal churches where there are people married all the time. It is a relationship blessed and sanctioned by a spiritual leader and the couple's community.

But the couple has no legal standing to have their relationship recognized in most states.

These wide variations within even mainstream religions is a reason the government has no business in declaring what a marriage is. They cannot force a Catholic priest to bless a marriage of a divorced person and new partner. They can not prevent a Unitarian minister from blessing the union of a same sex couple. Which is as it should be in both cases.

Every adult should have an option to enter a legally binding domestic partnership if they choose. But the state should abandon the misguided notion that they have any business declaring what a marriage is.

[insanity]

417. Yep!

The term marriage is far too bound to religious traditions to the point that I'm not comfortable with the term being used to describe a legal partnership between two committed people regardless of orientation. There should be no separate legal institution for straights and gays, we should simply honor the fact two people wish to share a commitment.

If a church wants to have a marriage ceremony for a gay couple, then I completely and totally support it, but if they want to live in the stone ages then I guess that is their First Amendment Right. Let the churches argue over the term marriage, but lets stop institutional discrimination.

[alphafemale]

431. To me it's almost like the state declaring what a "Baptism" is.

Should they legally sanction Sprinkling or Dunking?

[Lilith Velkor]

268. Homophobic

I have been told many times that my opposition to state sanctioned marriage means that I would rather destroy it than share it, in spite of the fact that I am neither married nor straight.

Not long ago, somebody would have flamed you for suggesting marriage had anything to do with sex (even though it does), but there's been a pogrom, and that's that.

[slackmaster]

336. Libertarian

Not a member of the Libertarian Party, just libertarian.

[Chemisse]

24. I disagree

People are resistant to change. The older you get, the more inertia you have.

It took me a while to come around to gay marriage, just because it is an abrupt cultural shift. I thought the civil unions thing would be fine. But the more I read about people wanting marriage, and the more time passed for me to adjust to the idea, the more I realized it was unfair to discriminate in this way.

So opposing gay marriage is not necessarily a sign of being homophoboc (all homophobes are opposed to gay marriage, but not all who are opposed to gay marriage are homophobes). You should have called her inflexible or "old and stuck in her ways."

[armyowalgreens]

25. You fail to argue that these people are not homophobic.

Instead you argue that they can overcome and abandon their homophobic tendencies.

Homophobia because of ignorance is still homophobia.

[Chemisse]

26. I think you use the word homophobic too widely

It is supposed to mean a fear of or at LEAST a dislike of gay people.

But if someone is just resistant to change and has to get used to the idea, that does not say they dislike or fear gay people.

I am certainly not homophobic, and was not homophobic 10 years ago when I thought civil unions would be the best idea. I was just resistant to a cultural shift. I had to get adjust to the idea, just like a lot of other people did.

The true homophobes are the ones who - 10 years from now when gay marriage is legal around the US and everybody has had time to accept the new reality - STILL think it is wrong.

[armyowalgreens]

29. I'm not using it too widely.

"It is supposed to mean a fear of or at LEAST a dislike of gay people."

Per webster...

Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: \ˌhō-mə-ˈfō-bē-ə\
Function: noun
Date: 1969
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
— ho·mo·pho·bic \-ˈfō-bik\ adjective


"But if someone is just resistant to change and has to get used to the idea, that does not say they dislike or fear gay people."


But why were they resistant to change? If they didn't hold some sort of prejudice against gay people, they wouldn't be resistant.

[Silent3]

61. Are there any other -phobia/-phobic words with a meaning that...

...includes the concept of discrimination? Or where the word "aversion" in the definition would have the sense of a philosophical, religious, or cultural disagreement, as opposed to a visceral aversion like an arachnophobe has to spiders?

DISCLAIMER (that will probably be ignored, because if I dare voice disagreement here, I MUST be a homophobe too!): I support gay marriage. I don't like discrimination against gays of any kind. I consider discrimination against gays ignorant at best, and often a hateful thing.

Even if you can point to a dictionary definition that has the meaning you want "homophobia" to have, the -phobia/-phobic suffix has a general meaning that doesn't really fit well here. I think use of the word "homophobic" is a tactic to frame the debate by painting the opposition in an unflattering, but not necessarily accurate, way, the old tactic of trying to label your opponents as cowards, regardless of whether it really fits or not.

I feel a bit like Bill Maher must have when he got a shitload of grief the saying he didn't think the 9/11 terrorists were "cowards". Evil, crazy, arrogant, ignorant, vicious, spiteful, yes -- but cowardly, no. No one wants to let attempts at accuracy interfere with their anger or their trashing of the opposition.

Even when it's justifiable anger, however, that doesn't mean all negative words and negative connotations properly apply to the targets of your anger.

[armyowalgreens]

260. You are preaching to the choir and, in turn, proving to be a false martyr.

Bill Maher was right.

You are wrong.

See, I can be both accurate and disagree with you. But nice logical fallacy.


Definitions of words matter. Simply because the suffix "phobia" is in the word does not mean that the proper definition of "homophobia is wrong.

But I suggest you look up "afraid" and scan through the definitions. One of them proves your argument faulty.

[Silent3]

295. I'm arguing about connotation vs. denotation.

It's possible to be denotatively accurate but connotatively deceiving. My argument against the way people toss around the word homophobia is that I think, despite dictionary definitions (and I already admitted you have that in your favor), that "homophobic" is a word can be deceptive and connotatively inaccurate.

For many prejudices there aren't any special (at least well-known) special words. I can't think of a special work for prejudice against blacks... we generally just call people with such a prejudice "bigot". No invocation of the idea of a phobia there.

When someone is prejudiced against Jews, we call them antisemitic, not something like "semitophobic".

When someone is prejudiced against women, we call them misogynists or chauvinists, not something like "gynophobic".

Since we don't usually classify any of these other prejudices as phobias, why use a word where homosexuality is the issue that implies a phobia?

[LooseWilly]

339. You are making an argument based upon a false etymology.

Homophobic includes the word "phobic"... so you are trying to shoehorn the connotations you have for the word "phobia" into the word "homophobia".

It is an easy mistake to make... but not a sound basis for an argument, as your own admission about the dictionary shows.

Firstly... the connotations of "phobia", if you look at the broader picture, does fit with all the behaviors associated with homophobia (the connotations, if you will). As an example, the US has a phobia of terrorists... so the citizenry tolerates a policy that includes torture, denial of basic human rights and dignity, indefinite imprisonment, etc. If the fear of terrorists (phobia, if you will) leads to such barbarities, then obviously a fear of homosexuals (homophobia, if you will) can lead to gaybashing, tying people to posts to die of exposure, not to mention denial of rights and benefits arising from the institution of marriage.

Hence, your false etymological argument rests pretty much on a narrow minded misinterpretation of a connotation that you have yourself shoehorned into a word.

Secondly, the whole basis of your argument is essentially "I have misinterpreted the meaning of this word, but the false connotations that I am associating with it are a valid basis for justifying the rigid minded, taken for granted, bigotry of people that I or any of my friends is fond of."

I am sure that, if you look into the history of the word homophobia (the etymology), you will find that it evolved from some specific case that did involve fear (like the fear of "Bubba" in prison)... and that the scope of the term has just grown.

I would suggest that, rather than try to pedantically defend those who behave with other variations of fear than running away and hiding as not being homophobes... you instead try to "mentally translate" the term, when you hear it, into "anti-gay bigot". It should clear up all your confusion in future.

[Silent3]

354. I don't think you get "connotation".

Otherwise you wouldn't be rambling on about supposed "false" etymologies.

For example, look up the word "ignorant" in the dictionary. One definition is "lacking in knowledge or awareness in general", but another is "lacking in knowledge or awareness in general". You can insist on the validity of that second definition all you want, and insist that it isn't necessarily an insult, but don't be surprised if calling someone "ignorant" doesn't have the effect you want in many contexts, isn't well received, and doesn't help you make a case in a with respect to many issues where you could nevertheless claim technically correct usage of the word.

I'm quite personally capable of performing the mental translation you suggest. What about the OP's friend or her mother?

...rather than try to pedantically defend those who behave with other variations of fear...

Who have I defended? Where did I do that?

This is like a conversation that goes like this:

A: Republican policies are terrible for the poor!
B: Yeah!
A: Republicans suck up to crazy fundamentalists!
B: Yeah!
A: Republican cowboy diplomacy is terrible for international relations!
B: Yeah!
A: Republicans are all poopypants!
B: Well, I don't think Republicans actually poop in their pants more than...
A: WHY ARE DEFENDING THE REPUBLICAN AGENDA!?!?

Whether I'm right or wrong about the word "homophobic", it's utterly ridiculous (but sadly all too common) to react as if any disagreement over how one trashes an opponent is tantamount to a defense of that opponent.

[LooseWilly]

377. A- your definitions are the same. B- Sorry, you defended nothing... my mistake.

B) You were correct... you defended nothing, and I apologize for saying that you had. I was incorrect... and I rescind any suggestion that might be associated with my unfounded allegation.

On the other hand.

A)- I know what a connotation is... but thanks for implying that I'm an idiot. I do enjoy my many moments of stupidity. However... as your juxtaposed definitions are... exactly the same ... i.e. "One definition is "lacking in knowledge or awareness in general", but another is "lacking in knowledge or awareness in general"." I don't know that whatever point you thought you were making makes any sense... or not... :shrug:

Nonetheless, I think, were you being honest, you would recognize that your argument about the fundamental "power" of the fragment "phobia" as a component of the word "homophobia" is not etymologically significant, given the dictionary's definition of the word. You can argue about "connotations" to your hearts content... but when the connotations you talk about are primarily resultant of some some fragment of a word that is not actually contributory to the modern definition of the word... then the "connotations" to which you refer are... fictional. They are not connotations of the word to which you refer ("homophobia", to wit)... but rather connotations associated with the word "phobia", which you are employing spurious logic to "shoehorn" into denotative & connotative significance of the word "homophobia".

Your argument is disingenuous... dishonest... and without merit.

Don't get me wrong.. I find spurious logic to be a fine source of entertainment... but please don't presume that all of us are idiot enough to fall for your spurious logic arguments on serious topics. And, I would argue, homophobia is actually a serious issue... so please... try to confine your spurious logic exercises to less serious issues... like terrorism.

:)

[Silent3]

397. The repeated definition was a copy/paste error...

...where the second definition of "ignorant" was supposed to be "lack of knowledge in a specific area", e.g. as "I am totally ignorant about fly fishing". The point being you can technically call anyone ignorant based on the second definition. There's no grammatical requirement when you use the second definition that you attach an explanatory "of/about (fill-in-a-subject)", so you could stomp your feet and point at the dictionary about how you can accurately call everyone you meet "ignorant", but the dictionary won't save you from the poor impression you'll make doing that.

As for the rest, pointing out connotations of root words is far from a spurious issue. As I just said in another post, a major reason for forming new words from well-known root words is to obviate the need for a dictionary, to use the power of the root words to automatically conjure up meanings. I'm sure you can find that post, so I won't repeat myself further here.

[noamnety]

363. One of my students likes to play that game.

He likes to argue that my definition of a word isn't right - because he has limited vocabulary skills and prior knowledge. He may only know one meaning of a word. Sometimes I put the dictionary in front of him, and make him look up the definition. He tries to avoid doing that. When he looks it up, it's what I said it was.

We have these conversations where I ask him which he thinks is more likely - that I am wrong about the word, and the people who write dictionaries are all also wrong about it? Or that perhaps he was wrong about the definition?

Do you think ArmyofWalgreens bullied the folks at Websters into including that in their book just to mess with you? Or is it possible that's the accepted definition and you just haven't done enough reading on the subject/you don't have enough prior knowledge to be aware that this was the definition?

The MEDICAL definition of homophobia is "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals."

[Silent3]

374. My vocabulary is quite extensive, thank you.

If you can't even decipher what I'm getting at better than that, and feel the need to turn a disagreement over the use of a word into a snide comparison to a student with limited vocabulary skills (I'm sure he talks about connotation and denotation all of the time, huh?), you're not worth wasting my time on.

Your snotty attitude does, however, bring to mind words that are probably found even within your student's limited vocabulary. I leave it as an exercise for the teacher to figure out which ones.

[noamnety]

385. It's clear in this case

that your understanding of that particular bit of vocabulary is/was limited, and your reaction seems to be denial that the dictionary definition is more accurate than your personal understanding of the word.

I'm sure your overall vocabulary is just fine - my point is that your reaction to being confronted with an accurate definition is quite similar to that other person.

[Silent3]

395. There's a big difference between arguing about...

...the dictionary because you have a limited vocabulary, and you're trying to bluster and cover up ignorance, and having a genuine dislike for a particular word and the way it's used, seeing it as a possibly "loaded" word, meant to perform the rhetorical task of trying to paint an opponent as a coward.

Dictionaries are mainly denotational. Connotation is not always addressed. The possible confusion or misleading impact of a word isn't going to be something a dictionary usually addresses at all.

If suddenly someone decides that "elephant" means "cat", and manages to get that into an official dictionary, people aren't going to stop picturing pachyderms when they hear the word "elephant". Yes, that's a very forced example, but I'm only trying to point out the dictionaries are not the be-all and end-all of the impact and usage of words. A word won't cease to be confusing or misleading simply because you can point to a dictionary and expect everyone to automatically be (in a nearly literal sense) "on the same page".

There are plenty of other -phobic/-phobia words. Hydrophobia. Claustrophobia. Arachnophobia. "Homophobia" (a poorly formed word even apart the questionable use of -phobia -- based on root words alone it's more like "fear of sameness") just doesn't fit the pattern very well. It's a word that finds much better company among words like "antisemite" and "misogynist", neither of which try to invoke the idea of "phobia".

Yes, I know you can argue the (what I consider to be a weak) case that any prejudice is a type of phobia, but then you have to ask why we don't say "semitophobic" and "gynophobic" instead of "antisemite" and "misogynist".

One of the main reasons for forming new words from Greek and Latin root words is to make dictionaries unnecessary for people familiar with the root words. If a "telephone" let's you hear sounds from a distance, and "television" let's you see images from a distance, "teleolfaction" should let you smell odors from a distance. If I coin that word, but then (since it's my new word -- I can do what I want!) say "teleolfaction" means "applying scented oils", it's my fault, not anyone else's, if that word causes confusion, even if I manage to get that definition into a dictionary by making my scented oil business famous.

[noamnety]

418. I'm sorry you don't like the definition

but it IS the definition of the word. And that goes in reverse as well - it's the proper term (accepted linguistic and accepted medical term) used to describe a person who discriminates against gays. And it is in popular usage - unlike using "elephant" to mean "cat."

You make it sound like some manipulative act that AofW was "able" to point to a dictionary that has the definition he "wants" it to have. That's a skewed version of reality. He simply pointed to the definition the word DOES have.

The only people who would be confused by it are people who have a limited enough vocabulary in this subject that they are unaware of the definition. If you want to argue that people are confused by words they don't know the definition of, then yes, we'd be in agreement on that. If you want to argue that when people don't know the definition of a word, they tend to (correctly or incorrectly) assume the definition based on familiar roots, we're in agreement on that as well.

It sounds like you have incorrectly assumed a narrow definition based on your personal familiarity with the word phobia, and are having a hard time backing down and admitting you didn't realize it had a broader definition.

In any event, this is not a particularly obscure word or a particularly obscure definition. This is not "teleolfaction."

Take offense or not at the various people pointing that out in this thread. But at least next time you see the word, you'll know what it means, as will anyone else reading the thread who assumed it could only refer to a "phobia" in the traditional meaning of that word.

[Silent3]

423. Where did you ever get the impression I didn't know what the word means?

That's a ridiculous take on my posts here. Now I see where the attitude you're giving me comes from. You assumed I really was ignorant of the dictionary definition from the start, just had the definition presented to me here in this thread for the first time in my life, and that everything else I wrote was backpedaling to hide that I didn't know what the word meant.

Wrong, and not supported by anything I wrote.

[Gman2]

87. The prejudiced hold a prejudice for themselves.

First and foremost, people believe themselves worthy and deserving of first fruits. All others must stand in line. When ANY group shouts for their rights, they smell zero sum game. To convince them that all win, is the goal, and the path.

[armyowalgreens]

262. I have little interest in holding any further discussion with you on this topic.

Your particular views are disgusting and not based at all in science.

Unless, of course, you would like to debate your views on homosexual couples raising children.

[LeftyMom]

27. I'm really tired of that excuse.

I know plenty of old people, and even old and very religous people, who are very much in favor of full equality for lgbt people including marriage rights. You should have heard my aunt (well past 70 and extremely Catholic) after Prop 8 passed- I heard words out of her I had no idea she even knew. :scared:

Excusing older people for being homophobic or trying to explain away their homophobic attitudes as a product of their upbringing makes about as much sense as excusing old people who say racist things or otherwise act like anti-social assholes, which is to say none at all. Assuming the oldsters in question are in full control of their faculties, age is no excuse, and pretending otherwise is both dangerous to societal progress and quite patronizing to the individual elders being excused. If anything, all that life experience should have illustrated the problems that come from denying people their full rights as individuals, and it's perfectly acceptable to point that out.

[SacredCow]

135. Agreed....

Some of the most staunch and vehement supporters I know are straight senior citizens, who were absolutely raised to believe that homosexuality is evil and nasty, but after educating themselves a bit realized that all of what they were taught was bigotry- pure and simple.

[Chemisse]

290. But did they feel that same way 10 years ago?

That is about the time civil unions were being talked about seriously, with occasional gay marriage talk seen as kind of a fringe concept. Back then most people I talked to were willing to consider civil unions, but the idea of gay marriage was treated as somewhat absurd.

Then Bush and crew fanned the embers of the desire for gay marriage, tyring to exploit the more polarizing stance. I remember laughing at them in the years after that, since that is how gay marriage really got a foothold.

Anyway, most of the people I know who were against it at first, when it was such a radical notion, are for it now. And I am willing to bet that many of those who are still against it, will be totally fine with it 10 years from now.

So were we all homophobic 10 years ago, now all miraculously free of bias?

So, while I think you are wrong, I do not begrudge you your extreme opinion. It takes the extremes to move the center. The more you argue with people and insist they are homophobic, the more people will be sensitive about it - even as they are mad at you for saying it!

[LeftyMom]

356. Sure. My late grandmother, who was 93 and a lifelong SB, was in favor of equal marriage at least

that long ago, as was my aunt. While I adore them both, neither has some special talent that allows them to progress in their opinions faster than the old people you know.

Please stop making excuses for bigots. Being old is no more an excuse for supporting discriminatory treatment toward lgbt people than it is for dropping the n bomb in casual conversation, referring to the children of unmarried parents as bastards, or any other sort of long-since unacceptable bigoted behavior.

[Chemisse]

357. So if someone is in favor of it now but was not in favor of it 5 years ago

Does that make them a homophobe then and not now, or then and forevermore?

Cut people some slack. If they are kind people, who care about other people's feelings and rights, they will soon come to accept and support gay marriage. In a few years they will wonder why they were ever against it. You see this over and over again with new social concepts.

[LeftyMom]

362. Well, when they outgrow their homophobic opinions they're no longer homophobes.

It's really quite simple.

[ronnykmarshall]

329. You should have heard my mom!

When Prop 8 passed she used the phrase "worthless fucking cock suckers" more than once.

[Gman2]

31. It is NOT always homophobia.

Many are just as hating of any group that would dilute their privileged position. This is calculated, cynical and has absolutely NOTHING to do with sex. Some are kneejerk religious. Some are provincial. You are not automatically a homophobe.

When you make that charge, it is like automatically accusing those that dont like Obama as racist. It can easily be shot down. Opening up a soft underbelly to your democratic superiority.

[armyowalgreens]

33. "When you make that charge, it is like automatically accusing those that dont like Obama as racist."

No, it's not.

And it cannot easily be shot down.

"Many are just as hating of any group that would dilute their privileged position."

Do you know the definition of homophobia?

[Gman2]

34. Use of the word has been criticized as pejorative against those with differing value positions, wit

Use of the word has been criticized as pejorative against those with differing value positions, with several researchers proposing alternative words to describe prejudice and discrimination against gay and lesbian people.

From Wiki. The colloquiel definition makes homophobics fear homosexuals BECAUSE of their particular sexual practices, not because of their clout, or numbers. When you make the charge of homophobia, there is only one reaction you can expect. Defensiveness. If you speak in terms of the persons social standing, and how that could be affected by the increasing public force of that protected group, you MIGHT get somewhere. If you are only about labeling, go for it. Dont expect to win any minds.

[armyowalgreens]

36. I prefer to call it for what it is, not what people want to hear.

It's homophobia. If someone is angered by that word, maybe they should reexamine their own prejudice.

I'm not going to soften the wrongness of their feelings or actions simply because I risk confronting a defensive person. Ignorant people are often defensive when their own ignorance is revealed to them. It's the natural response of the ego. The smart ones will come around. The fools will never learn.

I am reminded of my favorite chapter from the Tao

" 41
When a superior man hears of the Tao,
he immediately begins to embody it.
When an average man hears of the Tao,
he half believes it, half doubts it.
When a foolish man hears of the Tao,
he laughs out loud.
If he didn't laugh,
it wouldn't be the Tao.

Thus it is said:
The path into the light seems dark,
the path forward seems to go back,
the direct path seems long,
true power seems weak,
true purity seems tarnished,
true steadfastness seems changeable,
true clarity seems obscure,
the greatest art seems unsophisticated,
the greatest love seems indifferent,
the greatest wisdom seems childish.

The Tao is nowhere to be found.
Yet it nourishes and completes all things."



The truth can sometimes hurt ones self-confidence. But I do not search for the truth because I want to hurt anyone. I search for the truth because I want to help people.

[Gman2]

39. You understand NOTHING about negotiation

You MUST allow the dignity of your opponent. To box your opponent in, as a hater purely, is counterproductive. And the smart ones WONT get it. They are too busy trying to prove that they dont hate THEM for the act.

[armyowalgreens]

40. " To box your opponent in, as a hater purely, is counterproductive."

You incorrectly equate my labeling someone as "homophobic" as me assuming or acting as if the person is hateful.

I know plenty about negotiating. This has nothing to do with negotiating. I don't negotiate with homophobes about the nature of their homophobia. Either they realize it or they don't.

[Gman2]

41. With inflamatory words, it matters not, your intention!

[armyowalgreens]

44. So do you not call murderers "murderers" because you are afraid it might be inflammatory?

It's only inflammatory because it it's painfully true. People who are ignorant enough to be homophobic are naturally going to dislike when the truth mocks their beliefs.

[Gman2]

47. There is only one way to become a murderer. There are several ways to be what you call

a homophobe. The criteria for murderer is concrete.


My parents are sometimes racist. They dont like the Mexicans taking over Southern Calif. They dont hate mexican food. They dont hate mexican citizens. They dont hate that Mexico snuggles up to the USA. They hate that all they remember about the USA has changed. To discuss the issues with them, I would get absolutely nowhere by calling them racists. Is I talk to them about the demographics, try to understand their concerns, there is a possibility that we will quell SOME of their concerns.

There is VALUE in changing the imaginary center. You dont just WIN democratic values over the repubs.

[armyowalgreens]

48. There are different types of murder just as there are different types of homophobia.

Different types and severities.

However, murder is murder and homophobia is still homophobia.


That was a poor argument on your part.


(I'm going to bed. I'll respond later)

[verges]

255. A murderer knows he's a murderer.

Lead them through a path of self discovery.

[armyowalgreens]

256. My path of self-discovery is fairly direct.

Feel free to take the scenic route.

[verges]

269. But perhaps

your friends; and her mother's are not so. I wasn't talking about yours. When I direct plays, I've discovered that you get better results from the actors by leading them to discover the truths of the text on their own. It's much more effective than just telling them the meaning. Because then, they truly understand and give a more real performance. Teaching, I would imagine is much the same way.

In another post in this thread, you expressed a knowledge of the Tao. Then you should know that beating someone over the head with harsh truth is usually counterprodutive. You build up a wall of resistance. In the case of your friend, this wall is a protective wall because you attacked her mother (intentional or not, it was apparantly percieved as such. And perception IS important!).

My problem here is not your definition of homophobe. Though I'm not sure I agree. My problem is that you were unneccessarily rude to a friend. You could have gently persuaded her; rather than immediately resorting to name calling (and homophobe can be interpreted as such{how would you like being called that?]) And shutting down her attempts to refute your arguments and present her own.

[armyowalgreens]

278. Yes because calling someone homophobic is "beating someone over the head with the harsh truth"...

sheesh.

So whenever I make someone angry, am I being rude? Is that the qualifier?

I was gently persuading her. I could have very easily gone off on a tangent ranting about how her mother was partly responsible for destroying the lives of millions of people.

BELIEVE ME, I was gentle.

[Eliminate_Capital]

99. Abolish Capital

Agreed.




"In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme."
-Aristotle

[Mimosa]

113. Some forget the big picture by their need to win 'arguments'

Tactful people win more battles in the long term. One can acquire allies by embodying the kind of change we want to see, even with people who don't totally agree on all points.

[verges]

250. I believe you mean:

The Book "Tao te Ching"

The Tao itself is much larger than a mere book.

[armyowalgreens]

257. I've read it several times over and have spent hours analyzing it.

I think I know what it's called. It's often referred to as the "Tao" even though I understand your semantical point.

But if you'd like to go further, we have never even realized the true tao. It is inconceivable. All attempts to find truth have merely been interpretations.

[verges]

271. reading, analyzing and yet not understanding. nt

[armyowalgreens]

273. Meh.

[verges]

276. That's what I thought. nt

[armyowalgreens]

280. ...Meh?

[TokenQueer]

286. Why are you trying to advance this "differing value position" meme?

If you believe a section of society should not be granted equal rights - you are a bigot. If that group of people happen to be gay - you are a homophobe. Watching you split hairs to justify bigotry is stomach turning.

[olegramps]

388. It seems strange to me that you stress the dictionary definition of homophobia:

How about considering the definition of marriage:

1a: The state if being married b: the mutual relation of husband and wife c: the institution where by men and women are joined in a special kknd of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary)

I suppose that be holding that the term marriage has been traditonally reserved for the union of men and women would make me to be homophobic. I admit that I don't have any desire to enter into a homosexual relationship, but I certainly don't classify myself as being homophobic.

[armyowalgreens]

419. I don't know what dictionary you use, but it isn't the right one...

Per Merriam-Webster.com

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>


Notice definition #1 section 2.

[olegramps]

444. Surely you aren't arguing that this was the traditonal concept of marriage.

This is what disturbs many people. They hold to the traditional concept that it never included the concept of marriage being possible between those of the same sex. If I understand President Obama then I have to conclude that he holds this view. By the way, I really question whether this conversation ever took place.

[TokenQueer]

436. "I certainly don't classify myself as being homophobic."

David Duke didn't consider himself a racist. He preferred White Nationalist or Grand Dragon. Doesn't mean he's not a racist...

[olegramps]

445. Is this suppose to be an intelligent response?

[VMI Dem]

52. If someone said "Obama should not be President because he is black"

Would that be racist in your world?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

57. no no... thats automatically opening up a logic door ...

[VMI Dem]

62. The stupid in this thread burns.

Am I reading posts that say you can dislike gay people and not be a homophobe?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

64. you deny people their civil rights and clearly you are not a homophobe

[Gman2]

73. I would march for them. Lived in San Fran, This right here is proof of the idiocy of that label

Anyone that would label me a homophobe just cuz I want to reduce the stigma on both sides, to really be able to progress and talk, paints with an idiot brush.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

79. So you oppose gays getting married? i am not sure what you are talking about

[Gman2]

83. Who said that? I just know about persuation, and screaming homophobe

aint persuasive.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

85. so what is the opposition to my statement? that is what i dont get

[Gman2]

97. How is this statement meant? Literally?

[Gman2]

72. If our interest is in labelling people, then by all means.

If we are trying to reduce hate for gays, and truly give them equal rights, then you MUSt treat peoples concerns aas more than simply evil.

Prop 8 has proven that there are simmering prejudices. And that those prejudices are present within those that you would not expect.

When they get all by their onesome, it appears.

If you want to do a patch job, and have people mouth your dictates, and still be hatin', then by all means. If you want harmony, and love of all our brothers and sisters, then the only way to proceed, is to talk to people about theri concerns, without inflammatory labels.

The goal is to for instance stop gaybashing, not to sneer and eyeball them menacingly.

[Mimosa]

350. Sometimes gay people dislike other gay people....

Sometimes gay people dislike certain other gay people and are not homophobic. Just discriminating. *LOL*

[Toasterlad]

402. You Sure Are.

This is DU!

:hi:

[JonLP24]

46. K&R

My rec looks like it isn't going to do any good though, LOL.

[Zywiec]

53. Funny, I was just speaking yesterday with my daughter in college and son in high school

about using tact when speaking with others.

I guess it's something that comes with age.

Of course, when you don't give a shit about the person you're speaking with, tact goes out the door.

[varelse]

63. When you care more about defending human rights and equality

than about sheltering someone else from the ugly truth, perhaps "tact" is not a priority.

[Zywiec]

67. Did you read my last sentence?

All I'm saying is I speak differently with people I care about than not.

I know lots of people here get kudos for their screaming and ranting at family members and strangers. "So there I was standing in line at X, when blah, blah, blah, blah...."

I guess I'm "sheltering" my family from that great experience.

[TokenQueer]

288. Why should the oppressed be the party required to use tact?

How's the view from that position of privilege?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

58. it is better to stand up for an oppressed people than to be polite

congratulation on doing that.

[Gman2]

74. Who's stupidity makes those mutually exclusive?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

155. you are a homophobe. nt

[la_chupa]

59. most people don't really understand what marriage is anyway

It's an odd thing really, a legal contract that is primarily religious based.

I have a friend, actually no I don't like her, let's go with I know someone who got married and then called me all upset because she found out that darling hubby had all kinds of credit problems. Yup, sorry sweet pea but you married his credit rating and his outstanding debt.

true story

[VMI Dem]

65. Politeness and tact in the face of bigotry is cowardice.

I salute you.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

71. ...

:applause:

[Gman2]

75. Would you consider me a wimp? That would be the furthest thing from your mind

if you knew me.

[JoeyT]

176. Just a tip:

When you're trying to tell someone they're not being tactful enough, it doesn't help your argument when every third post is you waving your dick around and screaming about what a badass you are. I'm guessing you went to the Ted Nugent school of diplomacy, yeah?

[Gman2]

186. NOPE, there are many here who flat out called those that wouldnt yell

homophobe at anyone in earshot a a coward.

[Mari333]

100. +1

[Rebubula]

101. No...

...sometimes it is called being an adult.

There are times to fight and there are times to be polite. Being polite and tactful goes a lot further than being angry and mean.

As Elwood P. Dowd (Harvey) said - "In this world you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant." - - Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant

[Mimosa]

102. Oh, pooh.

Real bigotry accompanied by action is one thing. It's what people have worked to change. I've seen a whole lot of change and have been part of making it happen.

Personal distaste and a negative opinion is another. We all have a right to opinions.

[VMI Dem]

105. Homophobia is real bigotry. Disgusting, repulsive bigotry.

Opposition to gay marriage is disgusting, repulsive bigotry.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

168. and some opinions are bigoted and stem from bigots. since when dont opinions matter?

if i held a racist opinion, i would be a racist.

[Bluenorthwest]

66. Calling a bigot a bigot is always just fine

and telling the interested third party, in this case your friend, that her mom is a bigot is part of waking your friend up to HER job in dealing with her Mom. You spoke to your friend about her Mom, you did not walk up to Mom and call her a homophobe. You told your friend what you thought of such attitudes and you are right.
Such 'friends' as that one are worthless allies in life and will always throw a tizzy and stand with the bigots claiming tradition or some such.
Many on this website could do well to practice a word substitution game and replace 'gay' with 'Jewish' or 'black' and read what they wrote again and ponder it accordingly. That way they might not defend such utterly vile things so quickly. "It is not that they hate Jews, they just don't like the way they took over the Fairfax district." And so on.
And the age excuse is just so daft. All that means is she has been a bigot for longer than some other bigots, she was a young mind who bigoted out early on and remained that way by choice. Choice. Her choice to be a bigot, to favor discrimination against her neighbors.

[Gman2]

78. I have debated Jew haters, homophobes, sexists, all sorts.

NEVER have one of them admitted to the entirety of the labels. All of them can be reasoned with, to an extent, by rationally discussing it, without the labels.

My mother just got help by some boys passing by. They had piercings, tats, and generally were the type she would avoid like the plague. They helped her move the items of furniture, then all hugged her and said goodbye. When she told me about it, she said that she will never again judge someone on their looks etc. Gay people are people. When a person becomes aware of the truth of that, hearts will change.

She was changed by a hug. Not a harsh label.

[Bluenorthwest]

293. Again, I note that the OP was not talking to the bigot

but to the bigot's daughter. Not the same as the case you are speaking of. Not at all. And different tactics are called for. But it is never wrong to call a bigot a bigot. Bigots and their friends don't like it. But it is never wrong. And no once rationally discussed any civil rights into existence in the history of the earth, it is always taken from the bigots using truth as a tool. Always.
And if I am wrong, I'm wrong about my rights, not yours. Live as you wish. But demanding that others do is just daft.

[Mari333]

68. +100000 for all of your answers and a knr

you got it. even my good progressive friends, god bless em, some of them still have an element of that fear in them because because of a dictated indoctrination they received in their youth . its not overt homophobia as you state..its inert but still in there concerning the word marriage and the idea of it for lgbt folks.
They are otherwise maddeningly progressive, but I am working on them with facts and they come around pretty quick. A lot of it is they dont have facts.
and yes, Obama's stance is homophobic if he wont say out loud "lgbt people have the right to marriage in the USA".
He needs education, like some of my friends do.

edit to add: My definitions of homophobia as I see them as a straight person are only mine, always correct me if I am off base.
inert homophobia is just as dangerous, to me, as the overt stuff. You have out and out mean people who lash out with anti lgbt behaviour, like Fred Phelps. Those are deadly. But the other kind seems to be people who still have their own issues to deal with, who are sitting on the fence, who even have lgbt friends and co workers, who support all kinds of liberal ideas, but who still seem to put gay marriage into some odd category they just cannot deal with and who use all kinds of odd circular arguments to dismiss it (I have heard some real doozies also)...
and what it really seems to boil down to is their own need to have facts. and get over their societal/ religious bias and indoctrination.
and it can be just as deadly in other ways.
oh, edit to add: Im almost 60. :) woooot

[Gman2]

82. but I am working on them with facts and they come around pretty quick

You mean you didnt SCREAM HOMOPHOBE at them to come around?

[Mari333]

84. no, I dont scream at anyone .

But I am not gay. I do not have to put up daily with the frustrations, closed doors, lack of benefits, and outright cruel and unnecessary discrimination that LGBT people put up with every day of their lives.
Im not stopped by people in trucks who jump out and beat me to a pulp with tire irons like my friend was because he is gay.
Im not murdered in my home with my partner because of being gay.
Im not denied the right to be with my partner on his or her deathbed at the very end because of being gay.

No, I already have the privilege of marriage, and I am highly aware of the fact that its denied to a huge group of people in the United States.

and if they need to scream I empathize why they would need to do so.

[Gman2]

89. I am not gay either, but have been accused of it since a little boy.

If a guy doesnt like watching guy sports, has a vocabulary, is interested in animals, peace, likes the color purple, and doesnt label friends that would be judged likewise. he is gay. I still think it counterproductive to fling harsh labels cuz you can.

[Mari333]

92. I dont think telling someone that their stance or behaviour is homophobic

is flinging a harsh label. No different than telling someone their behaviour is racist.

[Gman2]

93. If it makes YOU feel better, that is all that matters.

[Gman2]

94. If it makes YOU feel better, that is all that matters.

[Mari333]

96. sometimes the truth hurts.

seems to be bothering a lot of people on here. :)

[KamaAina]

266. "Accused" of it?

You say that as though there were something wrong with being gay.

[Gman2]

305. I wouldnt like being called French, English, Chinese, if I were not.

[KamaAina]

306. J'accuse! Vous etes francais!

Doesn't hurt quite as much, does it?

[bigwillq]

76. Good for you, man.

Thank you.

:hi: :hug: :thumbsup:

[Starry Messenger]

77. Gosh, people here get really defensive when "mom" is involved

I wonder what the reaction would have been here if she'd been a Republican. So homophobia is only bad if you're Sally Kern or Sarah Palin? They are both moms...

[Gman2]

81. If people treated their opponents like mom, there would be a lot less strife in the world.

And a lot more compassion. I stand ready to smash down anyone that I caught harrassing anyone, for any hate. But discussion is not smashing down upon others.

[Starry Messenger]

103. Calling homophobic behavior homophobic

isn't "smashing down". I realize from your responses above that you have a whole philosophy about this that works for you. And that's fine. I object however to your characterization of calling out privilege as some kind of abuse of that person.

[Mari333]

86. my mom is a homophobe too

shes a nice lady, just uninformed. Its like misogyny. sometimes its over the top sometimes its hidden but still there.

[justiceischeap]

88. It's kinda like saying, "I got nothing against black people, I just don't want them as friends"

It's still a racist statement but the person making that statement is trying to deny their racism to themselves and the person they're talking to.

Homophobia is the last ACCEPTED prejudice. People excuse it, deny it, try to talk around it, redefine it to fit their ideation but in the end, it's still bigotry and prejudice against a class of people who are denied equal rights because of who we love (though, to homophobes, it's about people we have sex with because we obviously are not capable of real "love").

I encounter all kinds of homophobia in my life, from family members to co-workers. I, like the OP, like to be truthful when I encounter it. If a homophobic statement is made, I truthfully point out that the person making it had just made a homophobic statement. I use that language; I use the word HOMOPHOBIA. The point a lot of you anti-truth folks are missing is this: Sometimes people need to be told they're being homophobic because they aren't even aware that their statements or attitudes are. I've had a fair number of successes with my approach. Usually people who are aware of said phobia are the ones who get angry because they don't want to change, they don't want the mirror held up because they don't like what they see when you do. Well, IMO, they shouldn't like what they see because it's wrong.

Homophobia will continue to be the last ACCEPTED prejudice because people are unwilling to step out their PC bubble and call a bigot a bigot...unless it has to do with race or gender that is. Then it's fine to speak the truth, right?

[Gman2]

91. "Homophobia is the last ACCEPTED prejudice"

That is so wrong. Poor, ill, minority, still sucks.

[justiceischeap]

104. I don't think it's wrong at all

Look at Prop 8, look at any number of states (or the Fed Gov't for that matter) who have legislated against gays. If that isn't accepted prejudice than I don't know what is. Hell, one could argue that it's even ENCOURAGED prejudice.

[marmar]

106. "Then it's fine to speak the truth, right?"

Actually, a lot of people still have a hard time calling out racists and sexists, too. N'est-ce pas?

[justiceischeap]

114. I agree but it's much more accepted to call out racists and sexists than homophobes n/t

[Mari333]

116. +10000 for a great post.

[Mimosa]

90. When I was 20 I knew EVERYTHING, I was never wrong!

As a 20 year old anti-war, gay rights activist I was soooooo smart. I knew what was right and who was wrong! And did I ever tell those codgers. Most of them ignored me. Some said I would learn when I got older. I learned the most from older people who admitted they had too many faults themselves to be quick to judge others.

God forbid I should quote passages from the Tao to prove I'm 'smart.' What an occidental thing to do. ;) :lol

Army of Walgreens, when you're 30 you'll laugh at yourself at age 20. You do know something. Just not everything. You don't yet know how amusing know-it-alls are to the experienced.

Your passion and energy are necessary. But remember that where you are now, we who are older have been. But you haven't yet been where we've been. ;)Good luck.

[Mari333]

95. Im almost 60 and I agree with armyofwalgreens.

sounds to me like he was merely discussing homophobia with a friend, and when she brought up her mom he just said "well her stance is homophobic".
shit, I tell people the same thing when they tell me they are against gay marriage. they are being homophobic. simple.

[VMI Dem]

108. I'm almost 40 and the OP is right on.

[Beam Me Up]

115. What does one's age have to do with the definition of homophobia?

I'm over sixty and I agree w/ the OP -- if one is against gay marriage, one is expressing a homophobic prejudice.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

111. Well, She Was Right And You Were Wrong.

One being against gay marriage does not make one a homophobe outright. There are many reasons why one might be against it and though many who are against it are in fact homophobes, there are many that are not. Just runnin around spewin out offensive labels like that based on such an ignorant perception, is likely to get people mad at you.

[SacredCow]

129. Perhaps they're not a raging, in-yer-face homophobe....

but to be against equal rights for people who don't fall in love with people of the opposite sex (and only BECAUSE they don't fall in love with people of the opposite sex) is homophobic. Regardless of the M.O., the logic distills into: "Homosexuals don't deserve the same rights as heterosexuals."

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

162. Some Aren't Homophobes At All.

[blue_onyx]

153. Wrong

"One being against gay marriage does not make one a homophobe outright."

Yes, it does.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

163. No, It Doesn't.

Claiming it does makes one narrow and ignorant as it relates to the discussion.

Maybe you should look up the definition of homophobe. That might be a good place to start for you. :think:

[blue_onyx]

171. Are you kidding me?

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

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia


Being against gay marriage is irrational and discriminatory. Therefore, it's a bigoted opinion.


Do you support gay marriage?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

179. It Oftentimes Is Nothing More Than Ignorance.

Ignorance does not equal homophobia. Get a clue.

[blue_onyx]

187. It doesn't matter

It's a homophobic opinion.

I find it interesting you didn't answer my question.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

194. "It doesn't matter" ROFLMAO

Ummmmm, yes ralphie, it does.

[blue_onyx]

201. No, it doesn't

The source or reasoning behind bigotry doesn't matter. Holding a bigoted opinion makes you a bigot.

Still avoiding my question, huh? I guess you're trying to justify your own homophobic opinions.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

216. You're Too Funny.

Your viewpoint is so obviously a product of narrow thinking and limited understanding, that there obviously is not going to be any chance of getting you to open your mind on this topic. Therefore, future attempts via reply would more than likely be irrelevant.

Oh, and you might want to look up the definition of bigotry also. Being against gay marriage does not make one automatically a bigot either. Get a grip.

[blue_onyx]

228. You are so irrational

Being gay, I'm more informed on this topic than you'll ever be. You have some nerve telling me about homophobia and bigotry.

You seem more worried about the perception of your family/friends. You don't want to think of your sister-in-law as a bigot so you come up with some irrational reasoning to claim her bigoted opinion doesn't make her a bigot.

You're the one who needs to educate yourself.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

231. ROFLMAO!!!!!

You're not informed. You're nothing more than blinded by bias.

And I LOVED the part about me having some nerve telling you about homophobia and bigotry!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[blue_onyx]

233. Thank you

You just showed the rest of the posters that they shouldn't even bother speaking to you.

You just made a fool of yourself. Congratulations :applause:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

242. Whatever You Say Pal!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


:dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce:

[armyowalgreens]

372. I've let other attempt to explain things to you. Clearly you don't get it.

How unfortunate.

Your laughter is undoubtedly nervous.

[Forkboy]

384. The more emoticons he uses the less of an argument he has.

It's like a tell in poker.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

391. Actually Lad, I'm The Only One Who Made An Argument.

The others have done nothing more than get emotional and cast defenses that amounted to nothing more than "cause I said so".

Fact is, you probably haven't even read through. You just like to put down with your elementary school level of sarcasm and follow me around whenever you can, just cause you're in love with me and the new leading member of the OMC fan club. Kinda immature and pathetic really... :hi:

[Forkboy]

414. You flatter yourself, because no one else will.

Small minded people try to use the stalking/following card because the fact is, you're all bluster and no brain. You just like to put down everyone who disagrees with you using a combination of hot air and emoticons, just because you're in love with yourself and are the only member of the OMC fanboy club. Kinda immature and pathetic really... :hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

416. And There You Go Again.

You're a one trick pony. Elementary school level sarcasm and retorts with rarely ever any actual substance or contextual argument. You speak of small minds as if you didn't have one yourself. And you are projecting with your all bluster and no brain idiocy.

I did provide substance to my argument in this thread. Those I am in debate with haven't, nor have you. But you see a subthread with OMC in it? Well poof! There you are to amuse us with your childish retorts and amateur comebacks! Substance? Who needs it! Just put down OMC and you'll be loved by all! Better rush in to get your dose of desperate attention!

Immature and pathetic, indeed. :hi:

[Forkboy]

428. Your idea of substance is your opinion and then claiming it's right.

Rush Limbaugh does the same thing and claims it's substance as well.

Just put down OMC and you'll be loved by all!

Ever wonder why that is?

[armyowalgreens]

420. You suffer from delusions of grandeur.

We have all presented our arguments.

I just happen to think your argument is wrong.

[Mari333]

270. amazing, isnt it.its almost surreal.

its like david duke coming in here and telling martin luther king what racism is like.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

297. Yup. That's EXACTLY What It's Like.

:dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce:

[Gman2]

296. It's about effectiveness, You think No Drama Obama is an idiot?

[Violet_Crumble]

383. I'm probably going to get myself into trouble by not reading most of the thread, but....

Being against gay marriage does not make one automatically a bigot either.

While I'd agree with that, it's also important to note that while there are cases where opposition to gay marriage is for other reasons than homophobia, in most cases it is driven by homophobia. It's exactly like someone saying that being a Holocaust denier makes someone antisemitic. In many cases the denial is driven out of antisemitism, but there are other cases where it's for other reasons. Maybe I'm lacking in imagination right now, but the only reasons for being opposed to gay marriage that wouldn't be down to homophobia would be political convenience (I suspect that's Obama's reason) and a phobia about committment (a friend of mine who's gay was opposed to civil unions coz he was scared of getting married). Apart from them I can't think of any other legitimate reasons right now...

[justiceischeap]

200. According to Psychology Today, you'd be wrong

Behind Acts of Homophobia Are Homo-Ignorance and Homo-Avoidance

Today, homophobia does not apply as it was originally defined, in not fitting the definition of a true phobia: an uncontrollable, irrational, persistent fear of a specific object, situation, or activity. The terms more important today to track in yourself and others are homonegativity, homoprejudice, and even homo-ignorance. Ignorance-by lacking information and having misinformation-is likely the biggest foundation for any of the three.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gays-anatomy/200810/behind-acts-homophobia-are-homo-ignorance-and-homo-avoidance

Just do a Google search for the phrase "ignorance homophobia" and you can wade through the 2.6 million results to see that the definition of homophobia has expanded and changed. As a gay woman, I know that homophobia is rooted in ignorance, I've seen it first hand... kinda like when someone says there's a difference between being a homophobe and being ignorant. Now, I'm not claiming that you yourself are a homophobe but you do seem misinformed about what homophobia really is.

[Starry Messenger]

206. That would actually make an excellent OP.

:thumbsup:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

213. Ummmmmm, No; I Wouldn't Be.

Nothing in your quote says otherwise. It speaks of new terms. Nowhere after citing 'homo-ignorance', does it state that 'homo-ignorance' is equal to homophobia; as you're ignorantly trying to claim.

Furthermore, the mere proclamation that Psychology Today has the authority to define words or create new ones is beyond hilarious.

[justiceischeap]

217. I see you didn't really get the crux of the entire post

That fact the definition has expanded still hasn't changed. Unless you walk a mile in my GAY shoes, you'd know that homophobia and any other prejudice for that fact, is rooted in oh, oh, can you feel it? IGNORANCE!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

230. I Got The Crux Just Fine. I See That You Still Think That Psychology Today Has Authority To

state such things as if fact. Do you not recognize the ridiculousness in the defense you are presenting? :rofl:

[Gman2]

298. It seems pretty clear, the reason you are a homophobe, is cuz you don't agree with every

jot and tittle.

[blue_onyx]

234. Don't bother

This poster is irrational and there's no point in debating him. See post 231 as an example.

[justiceischeap]

189. What would be a non-homophobic reason to be against gay marriage

And I'd like to point out as a gay, it goes way beyond the marriage issue. Often, the prejudice to gays is based on sex--as in what kind of sex people are having. One thing that always amazes me is that people who holler "sodomy" often forget that oral sex between any human is considered sodomy (as well as the anal variety).

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

208. Ignorance Or Impulse.

Many people are against it just because; so to speak. They are ignorant to the true depth of pain that the lack of equality fosters. They haven't ever actually thought about their position, they've just simply held it. Others say they are against it merely because they think it's the right thing to say based on their local culture, upbringing etc. They too haven't really thought out their position.

My sister in law was against it. She told me so in my kitchen one day. I immediately went on the offensive (albeit kindly) and had an in depth discussion with her about it; within much information and education garnered from DU was used. It was easy to tell she hadn't really thought out her position. By the end of the discussion, after forcing her to think, she agreed that they should have the right. The discussion was amicable and informative. There are tons of people just like her. Would I call her a homophobe? Not a chance.

To be a homophobe there needs to be an awareness on the part of the person as to why they hold the position they do. She did not fear, loathe, or otherwise dislike gays. She simply picked a side of a controversial issue without thinking; and in doing so inadvertently picked the wrong one.

[justiceischeap]

219. But initially she did take the "uninformed" opinion.

So, on the basis of your argument, someone who was raised to be a racist, let's say, who doesn't "know" better, does that just make them ignorant and not a racist?

I need to know this the next time I encounter one so I don't jump off the handle and call him a racist. I can just tell him he's misinformed about the issue.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

227. Not Apples To Apples.

Furthermore, you provided no example of just how the person would express their racism. That would be a mandatory requirement in order to actually discuss the argument.

[justiceischeap]

275. I think you've proven the homophobia point just fine. n/t

[noamnety]

364. Bigots often have no awareness of their bigotry.

(Irony alert for the amusement of others reading the thread)

[Mimosa]

352. Early gay rights and feminist activists saw marriage as a patriarchal construct

Early gay rights and feminist activists viewed marriage as a patriarchal construct. It wasn't what we wanted to copy. Now the 'virtually normal' view has prevailed.

It's fine with me that gays now want 'in' to what was a heterosexual institution. Times change. And there are sound financial social reasons for desiring equality which includes state recognition of monogamous unions. If straight couples get benefits so should gay couples. It's going to happen. Army of Walgreens, it got to the point where what you want is right around the corner by the work of people who came before you.

We have something to say about it.;)

[Beam Me Up]

118. If I opposed marriage between blacks or mixed racial marriages . . .

would I be a racist?

Damn right I would.

That some DUers can't see that opposing gay marriage is as homophobic as opposing inter-racial marriage is racist really blows my mind. I see this thread barely getting 5 votes. It's been off and on the greatest page several times. Very disappointing.

[joeybee12]

119. You beat me to it...I can think of "lots of reasons" to oppose interracial marriage...

...but they are all ignorant, bigoted reasons, just like most of the reasons against marriage are, and people use "religion" as their cover.

[VMI Dem]

123. No, no, there are many reasons that are not racist at all.

I'm sure some people in this thread could tell us what they are.

[joeybee12]

144. I'm for racial purity...nothing racist about that, is there?

Can't have the gene pool watered down, can we?

[Gman2]

121. I used to be against Gay Marriage. I thought the ONLY reason

Gov should be involved AT ALL, is cuz the gov has a vested interest in well adjusted babies turning into good citizens. You know, mom AND dad. I wanted full equal rights for gays. Just not gov marriage. When prop 8 hit, I could no longer tolerate the discrimination. I changed my mind. Not for any other reason but for seeing the momentum against gays.

[Mari333]

122. psst. I think its hitting a lot of people where it hurts.

mirror and all.

[VMI Dem]

124. Bingo.

[Gman2]

127. Do you think I would have changed my mind by you yelling homophobe at me?

My objection was entirely philosophical.

[Starry Messenger]

134. I'm glad you changed your mind Gman2.

It sounds like you are a smart guy and you've found a way to explain it to people that changes minds. That's a good thing. I have really intractable relatives that are total haters that will not listen to facts and are like "talking to the dinner table". Sometimes telling them that yes, they are homophobic shocks them a little into actually listening. Perhaps different tactics work with different people?

[Mari333]

140. If you told me you were against inter racial marriage I would call that racist

if you tell me gays shouldnt have the right to marry I would call it homophobic.

[Gman2]

158. There is ZERO gov interest in limiting interracial marriage.

There is an interest in bouying the preferred configuration. I would fight against that bouying rising to the level of making others second class citizens.

[Mari333]

174. But there was a time when inter racial marriage was debated when it was illegal

and 72 percent of the US pop was against black and white couples being married. 72 percent of the pop were taking a racist stance.
same thing now , only its a homophobic stance people are taking.

[Gman2]

178. NOPE, there NEVER WAS a loogical gov interest in limiting interracial

[Mari333]

197. did I say there was a logical govt interest in limiting inter racial marriage

no, I didnt. I was using the analogy of inter racial marriage as an example. Inter racial marriage was illegal. Now, its not.
people who were against it were racists.
GLBT marriage is now illegal in most states.
people who are against gay marriage being legal are homophobic.

[Gman2]

202. Your declarative statement is NOT proof.

[Mari333]

210. okay, its my opinion that people who are against inter racial marriage are racists.

[bullwinkle428]

125. The trolls are un-reccing as fast as the rest of us click on the rec. link!

[Violet_Crumble]

381. You think anyone who unrecs some lame OP is a troll? That's stupid n/t

[Better Today]

126. "I persisted and she finally stopped..." So I just wonder why you are so proud

of not even listening to your friend? Phobia has a particular meaning. For example we wouldn't say that the KKK are negro-phobic, we would say they hate negros. Therefore your friend is probably more correct than you, people who don't want gay marriage allowed are not phobic about homosexuals, they just hate them, or they just hate to give them rights.

I'm so tired of seeing "homophobia" used to describe hatred or intolerance which are not phobias at all.

[VMI Dem]

130. Who the hell still uses the term "negro"?

Homophobia is a term that describes hatred of gays. Why nitpick what has become common usage?

[Beam Me Up]

131. Which comes first the hatred and intolerance or the phobia? n/t

[NOLALady]

128. Her Mom is homophobic.

I still cringe when I hear people say they are not racist but they are against "mixed" marriages.
Yes, Virginia, you are a racist/homophobe if you believe it's OK to criminalize marriage.

[Gman2]

132. I am not antigay, but philosophically, am still against gay marriage

And yet, I will march for gay marriage and vote likewise. Am I a homophobe?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

136. do you actively campaign against straight marriage?

[Gman2]

138. Actively campaign against it? I live it. Single.

[SacredCow]

146. If you're philosophically against all marriage....

then you're against heterosexual AND homosexual marriage- which is a balanced equation. The "mom" character in the OP is against gay marriage, but presumably all for heterosexual marriage. So, heterosexuals are free to build a life with someone they love, but not homosexuals- which is clearly tipped in favor of the heterosexuals.

[VMI Dem]

147. No, philosophically against gay marriage.

Apparently has something to do with children.

[Gman2]

152. YES, Gov has NO business in anyones relationship, save for the interest in

a preference in kids having a traditional family. A PREFERENCE, not discrimination. I feel society has that right. Otherwise, I would keep marriage only in church papers.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

154. so gays should not be raising children?

[Gman2]

156. AS I said, a preference, not discrimination. I would not want ALL

families to be single mothers either.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

161. what is a preference not a discrimination? you make no sense

[Gman2]

166. Society has a right to prefer mom and dad families, That is logical.

Mom and Dad families have proven to have a slim margin of advantage. I always thought it somewhat akin to torture, but thats me. If there is some advantage to the legalities of this arrangement, it is fitting that other groups would like the same. I just dont think gov has a compelling interest other than to back that preference in traditional family structure. And NOT to the detriment of the other groups.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

NO its not logical. mom and dad dont marry, human beings marry each other

the rights afforded are not just to parents, but to spouses. barren men and barren women are allowed to marry. gays raise fine families, but even if we didnt want to raise families, we still want equal rights from marriage.

you keep trying to tell yourself you are not a bigot

[Gman2]

175. Were I not to tell you my internal dialogue, all you would know is,

I am fighting for gay marriage, have had gay friends, and believe that civil rights trumps all others. SO, I AM A HOMOPHOBE! And proud of it.

[Name removed]

199. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gman2]

204. Again, I fight for gay marriage, cuz their civil rights are worth more than my

philosophy's.

[JonLP24]

243. It seems to me

another against all marriage or something of another type checked in. Except he/she is "philosophically" against it but for it in "reality" and not making a lot of sense in the process.

Also society preference, marriage is a big part of this society so it makes no sense to be against it for all citizens and I'm really confused as to why this thread took such a strange turn.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

246. thats my point exactly. the stance itself is both confusing and somewhat minimizing

of the importance that marriage plays in the life of married people without children.

[Starry Messenger]

182. Why do does "society" have that right?

That isn't logical at all to me. My cousin and her wife have a baby and they are not doing anything to harm society. What do mom and dad families have that a mom and mom family cannot provide? Or a dad and dad? There are some effed up mom and dad families in the country.

[tekisui]

241. This post is pure bullshit.

[Gman2]

265. So, in your world, the minority wags the dog?

[Starry Messenger]

283. Not to speak for tekisui

But in "the world" that we all live in (aka "reality"), gay rights have been subject to the tyranny of the majority. Your statement here is really offensive. Are you defending the tyranny of the majority? Because the Bill of Rights also calls bullshit.

[Gman2]

287. The bill of rights is a counterbalance to the totally expected

tyranny of the masses. The totally expected tyranny of the masses is not evil. It is life. And democracy. It may be unpleasant not to be the majority, but need not be a cause for hate. Otherwise the friggin teabaggers would be justified.

[Starry Messenger]

291. Logic fail.

There are so many strawmen in there I don't know where to start. Hate, evil, etc. These are all your words, not mine. And the random teabagger thrown in for style? I award some extra credit but that doesn't get you out of the hole you are digging.

[Gman2]

292. Then HOW do you deal with concensus in democracy.

No We Can't?

[Starry Messenger]

294. You guarantee the rights of minorities

so. they. are. not. subjected. to . the. tyranny. of. the. majority. Like the Founding Fathers intended. In the Bill of Rights.

[Gman2]

301. There are directions you will not like, and yet are not against your constitutional rights.

The teabaggers tell us that anything we choose to do is against the con. Cuz, they say so.

[Starry Messenger]

304. Huh?

You're going to need to be more clear. That has nothing to do with my point. Teabaggers are irrelevant right wing nutters who choose to be right wing nutters. Besides, their freedom to be assholes is already protected. They have no legitimate complaint. Gays are people in a minority (born that way) who need to have protections extended. See the diff?

[Gman2]

308. They feel we have no right to an agenda. They feel their superior position

in regards to con. interpretation should shut us down.

[Starry Messenger]

311. So what?

You are the one obsessed by teabaggers, not me. Their "feelings" are full of shit. Again, totally different from the subject of marriage equality. I feel like I'm talking to the dinner table. You are totally failing to make the case here, and I would stop if I were you.

[Gman2]

317. I'm talking about a minority. I know gays dont want to dictate all things to us, like the teabaggers

do, but the principle is the same. What are the majority allowed? Someone is always going to be unhappy. And that doesnt necessarily mean they were discriminated against.

[Starry Messenger]

318. The principle is not the same.

You are wrong. In comparing the gays to the teabaggers you have shown how irrational bigotry truly is. Congratulations. "Unhappy" is not the same as discrimination. You need to think this through more and I am done talking to you.

[Arkansas Granny]

314. As far as the Mom and Dad families thing, I found a rather good article

relating to that very subject entitled "The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children" that was published by the American Academy of Pediatrics. It really has a lot of good information and I would suggest that anyone who is concerned about the welfare of children being raised by same sex couples. Some of their findings might be surprising.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349

[Gman2]

320. I dont necessarily agree, I just feel society has that right to believe this.

[Name removed]

247. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Starry Messenger]

160. Well, the Government is very much involved in everyone's relationships.

That's the reality on the ground and it isn't going away. "save for the interest in a preference in kids having a traditional family."--what does that mean? The so-called traditional family hasn't always been great for kids. In a lot of cases, its terrible. I'm not sure why the government should only intervene in that one exception of yours.

[SacredCow]

167. That's what I was thinking....

I mean, we can sit here and debate the "ideal" situation all day long, but we will still have to deal with reality. Being against the marriage of gay people because how it is going to affect children doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Any man and woman can get together and make a child (and they do- every day). Some of these couples will be stable and loving, others dysfunctional. Gay marriage isn't going to affect that in any tangible way, that I can think of.

[Gman2]

169. And that is why I support gay marriage in reality.

[SacredCow]

183. Fair enough....

I gather that your biggest qualm is against marriage in general (and I'm on exactly the same page in that regard). I am not convinced of any detrimental effects of gay marriage as it pertains to children- There's plenty of data regarding kids raised by mom/dad families of all types (stable vs dysfunctional), kids being raised in broken mom/dad homes, kids being raised by single parents... But there isn't nearly as much to go on for kids being raised by a mom/mom family (and even less on dad/dad) because it isn't allowed to happen all that often.

[Gman2]

191. I dont think there is anything detrimental either.

But society still has a right to prefer traditional family.

[SacredCow]

209. In truth, soceity will prefer the "traditional" family by default, methinks....

Let's face it- homosexuality is not only a minority of the population, there are also obstacles to reproduction (surmountable obstacles, but obstacles nonetheless). I don't think there's much of a chance that homosexual couples (of either flavor, or even combined) are ever going to usurp the heterosexual. It's reaching to suggest that legalized gay marriage (or civil unions or whatever) is going to have any kind of noteworthy effect on what the norms are.

[Mari333]

224. norms change over centuries

when I was a kid the nuclear family was touted. wasnt really a very healthy arrangement in some cases, dad as head , mom as helpmate, and kids. no extended aunties and uncles, just suburban sprawls with isolated nuclear families.
big extended families were the norm before that, but that changed. in many cultures large extended family units with everyone helping each other is a norm.
I was a young widow raising children alone, that was my norm.
norm can change.
I want to see a world where all manner of families are accepted and revered.

[SacredCow]

237. Well, sure- I agree with all of that....

My point, really, was based on the fact that homosexuality represents a minority of the population. I'd be as big of a liar as anybody if I said that I had a good number to tag on it, but the popular theories range from 5 to 20 percent, if I'm not mistaken (the most popular being the 10% figure).

No matter what society/government deems acceptable, I don't think it will alter the incidence of homosexuality in the human population. In other words, I don't much think that the male/female couple's status as the majority is in danger of changing anytime soon (if ever).

[Starry Messenger]

190. The more I think about it the less sense it makes.

Besides, lots of people get married and don't/can't have kids. They marry for mutual love and support. The government extends rights to those couples whether they have kids or not.

[Gman2]

192. JUST TO BE coNTRARIAN, what are those rights specifically?

[VMI Dem]

195. The right to equal protection.

[Gman2]

196. I believe in that. But, specifically, what are the mom and dad families REALLY GETTING?

[Gman2]

198. I'll start to answer that, A friggin heap o shit, if they try to unravel it!

[Starry Messenger]

203. There are over 1000 federal rights extended to married couples

in civil marriage.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

This link goes over the basics.

[Gman2]

205. Each and every one of those should be codified. As civil rights, not marriage.

[Starry Messenger]

212. That would take decades.

Some people don't have that long. Marriage is already here and it works. People will just need to deal with it. Gay people should be afforded the same rights as everyone else, and society should not be burdened with the expense of completely changing the fabric of our legal system just because some homophobes don't like gay people getting married.

[Gman2]

214. And again, that is why I fight for gay marriage.

[Starry Messenger]

218. Well good.

This has been a strange conversation. If you are fighting for it, I'm not sure why you needed to spend hours splitting hairs over a philosophical point. But hey, it's DU.

[Gman2]

220. To show that not everyone that differs with those here, is a hater.

[Starry Messenger]

226. The OP stated that too, actually.

Homophobia has a lot of expanded meanings that I think are getting lost in subthreads here. It can mean institutional discrimination against gays (for example) and also is used for identifying personal prejudices whether they come from a place of hate or ignorance. justiceischeap posted a great article in post #200

[Mari333]

215. Thats another fight for another day

in the meantime, marriage right now in this culture defines those rights. and they are being denied to gay couples.

[Mari333]

207. here

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/MarriageBenefit.htm

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mari333]

137. what LaLioness said.....

why would you have a problem with gay marriage? are you also against straight marriage? or just marriage as an institution ?
please explain why you have a problem with a gay couple being married, but not with a straight couple.

[Gman2]

143. I believe that gov should not insert itself into relationships.

The ONLY justification for it is to protect the tiny citizens. THE ONLY REASON. Now, I am not totally against singles adopting, and so am not against gays adopting.

I believe that gays should have all rights others have. But I still think Gov has ONLY ONE concern in marriage existing at all.

That being said, I will act against my philosophical stance, as gay rights are more important to me than being RIGHT!

[Beam Me Up]

170. Wait ... so are you saying that a heterosexual couple who have children

should be legally obligated to marry? I'm not getting this at all.

[Gman2]

173. There is a difference between preference, and obligated, they even sound different.

[Beam Me Up]

193. Who said there wasn't a difference?

You said:

I believe that gov should not insert itself into relationships.

The ONLY justification for it is to protect the tiny citizens. THE ONLY REASON. Now, I am not totally against singles adopting, and so am not against gays adopting.

I believe that gays should have all rights others have. But I still think Gov has ONLY ONE concern in marriage existing at all.

That being said, I will act against my philosophical stance, as gay rights are more important to me than being RIGHT!

I don't understand what protecting children has to do with marriage gay or otherwise. I asked if you were implying that heterosexual couples with children should be legally obligated to marry -- as if this would somehow protect children.

I'm not so much arguing as trying to understand your point which you have not made clear, to me anyway.

[Beam Me Up]

139. "Philosophically" I'm against ALL marriage. So there.

What does that make me?

[Mari333]

142. fine, that is your choice.

but the reality is that marriage is part of this culture. and there are gay people who want to have the same benefits that straight people have via marriage. and be married.
so, unless you have been actively campaigning against straight marriage for all these years, I find it ludicrous that NOW so many people are against marriage philosophically the minute gay people start asking for it.

[Beam Me Up]

148. Exactly!

We are in total agreement, Mari.

Personally I find the institution of marriage somewhat problematic. But I'm not going to support marriage for one class of citizens while denying it to another. Ultimately what I choose for myself is my own business and it isn't my business to legally enforce my position on others. I am gay and I should have as much right to marry if I choose as a heterosexual person. I may not choose to, just as heterosexual couples may not choose to. That's a personal choice that has nothing to do with equality under the law.

[Mari333]

157. gotcha

I just remember when I was married..I took all the perks for granted, I took being white for granted. I took being straight for granted. Until I started realizing that those privileges were being denied to sooo many sooooooo many citizens. I tried to imagine what it would be like to be treated like shit ( I did have some experiences being a woman of course) but I was still allowed privileges that were denied to so many fellow citizens.
If they are denied the same privileges that I am allowed to have, whether its their race or gender or who they love, than none of us are free if some of us arent free.

[Starry Messenger]

141. Why be against it?

I don't get this.

[VMI Dem]

150. I believe it has something to do with kids.

I'm not certain though.

[armyowalgreens]

225. Yes.

Assuming you are not attempting to play mind games with word play and instead you oppose state recognized marriage outright.

[donco6]

347. I don't think you know what you are.

"against gay marriage"

"will march for gay marriage"

:shrug:

[omega minimo]

159. It doesn't help if you make yourself look closeminded and intolerant.

[NYC Liberal]

164. Sometimes people who refuse to change their bigoted mindset need things forced on them...

...whether they like it or not, when their mindset is one which denies rights to other people.

The southern states refused to accept that slavery was wrong. They rebelled. And when their rebellion was put down, they were *forced* to ratify the 13th Amendment whether they liked it or not.

Then they started denying former slaves their right to vote, so the 15th Amendment was forced on them, whether they wanted it or not.

After Brown v. Board of Ed., Arkansas didn't want to desegregate their schools. So federal troops were sent in, and they marched the Little Rock Nine right through the doors of Little Rock Central High whether the school liked it or not.

This business of not calling homophobes "homophobes" because we want to "win" an argument is ridiculous. If someone doesn't like being called a homophobe, maybe they should examine why it is they are being called one. Just like a racist is a racist, whether they like the term or not.

If someone was against allowing black couples to marry, then they would be a racist, no? So similarly, if someone is against allowing gay couples to marry, they are a homophobe, period. It doesn't necessarily mean that they have a hatred - or a fear - of it or gays. It means they support a policy which discriminates against gays. One can (at least arguably) support discrimination against a group of people without necessarily being hateful towards them.

Not to directly compare the two, but I am sure you could find slaveowners who treated their slaves fairly well. It doesn't change the fact that you are talking about slaveowners and slaves. So you can find a person who is a homophobe, whether because he/she is fearful or just supports discrimination, and does not go out and bully or beat up or murder anyone who is gay.

[Mari333]

172. +1000000

[justiceischeap]

221. I think some people are getting hung up on the dictionary definition of "homophobia"

Maybe they would feel better telling those that are against my equal rights that they're bigots. I wonder if that would sit better with the naysayers... some of which I have to wonder if they themselves are homophobic.

[Gman2]

285. Maybe you can draw people out, by asking them how THEY understand the issue!

And then explaining how those gays you know are decent people, and just want what every other human wants.


this is MUCH easier if it isnt a button for you, say if you are gay. That is why WE, the ungay can be so constructive in this matter.

[omega minimo]

222. The direct equivalence of black slavery and gay marriage is most misguided.

:thumbsdown:

[NYC Liberal]

240. Which is why I wrote: "Not to directly compare the two..."

I wasn't comparing the two practices, I was comparing the attitudes.

[omega minimo]

251. And yet you have

your parsing of "practices" and "attitudes" doesn't alter that.

[NYC Liberal]

259. And yet I have not.

Slavery and the marriage are two entirely separate practices, with different histories and different issues involved.

However, the attitudes of slavery supporters and slaveowners can be found in the attitudes of at least some of those who want to deny equality in marriage rights, and a comparison can be made in the cases of those some.

A slaveowner is a slaveowner - and inherently a racist - regardless of whether he treats his slaves kindly, regardless of whether he even hates them. There were probably slaveowners had the attitude of, "I don't hate them. They're slaves and it is what it is."

Similarly, a person who opposes equality in marriage rights is a person who opposes equality in marriage rights, period. And that person is also a homophobe.

"I don't hate people who are black, I just don't think they should have equal rights." = Bigot
"I don't hate people who are gay, I just don't think they should have equal rights." = Bigot

[omega minimo]

289. Please have a little respect

for the distinctive differences. The history and legacy of African American slavery is too painful to be reduced to a rhetorical device. :thumbsup:

[NYC Liberal]

358. I think we all know what the very obvious differences are.

There is a valid comparison to be made, as I explained, between the attitudes of those supporting slavery and those who support denying equal marriage rights. The issues of both are entirely different. The attitudes of the people supporting them are not so different

There is a very painful history and legacy of the treatment of gay men and women as well. There is no "competition" here of "who's had it worse" (though some people try to make it so).

[omega minimo]

415. Separating the issues and attitudes is a false premise. And rhetorical device.

[Zoeisright]

177. You're right and there's no reason to sugarcoat it.

If your friend can't handle the truth, tough.

[Gman2]

181. But wait, the friend is not the bad guy, but she is the one bearing the burden.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

184. the burden she is bearing is of hearing her mother is homophobic

the burden teh gay community bears is of having this homophobic person vote to take away their rights

your sympathy is misplaced

[Gman2]

188. I want that changed yesterday, we just have different beliefs in how to do that.

[armyowalgreens]

223. I see the winds of controversy are blowing mighty strong this morning.

I've got to pat myself on the back for such a glorious thread/discussion.

[Gman2]

232. You are correct. This, and religion haters need clarification.

[armyowalgreens]

235. I'm not sure why religion is necessarily relevant to this topic.

People who are against gay marriage or homosexuality because of religious convictions are still homophobic.

[bullwinkle428]

253. So you're rolling "religion haters" into the discussion now? Let's clarify

that the Bible was used to justify the existence of miscegenation laws for many years, before Loving vs. Virginia struck them down.

[Gman2]

261. Nope, but it is another example of kneejerk, without examination.

[armyowalgreens]

264. What do you mean by "religion hater"?

[Gman2]

267. Anyone who posts here about God, even if they are not discriminatory, is blasted as a

hater, an idiot, a fool, backwards, worthy of extreme ridicule. There are other topics as well I am sure. Those that simply want to spew, and posture, set back liberal causes. Those that break down the terms, so that all may be in unison, and use language carefully, so as not to alienate, forward our cause. It is much easier to spew, and I do too. But, moving the political center IS THE GOAL. Not to shut everyone up.

[armyowalgreens]

272. You seem to think that I am against using language carefully.

You're wrong.

But I'm not going to walk on egg shells.

The hysterical part is that your entire argument against me is simply a projection of your own actions in this thread. I used the word homophobia. You disagree with the way I used it. Therefore I am a verbal abuser.

You aren't wrong because I disagree with you. I disagree with you because you are wrong. There is a difference.

[Gman2]

279. Verbal abuser is harsh. I think you feel your approach is helpful.

It is clear that is is not. SHe eventually shut up. She is now defensive. She WILL NOT discuss this with her Mom. She thinks liberals can be overbearing.

Most of those against gay marriage, are against it, cuz they feel gays are louder, and gonna get goodies, and goodies will be taken out of the hands of those against. It is hysterical, and the same MO as all the other hysteria. Many WANT to be convinced. So, convince them.

[noamnety]

365. I think his approach has merit.

The next time this woman thinks about telling people she or her mom is against gay marriage, she will be aware that it is socially unacceptable to defend that position - that she risks people calling her on her (or her mom's) homophobia.

Making bigotry socially unacceptable and ostracizing people for their bigotry - making them ashamed of it - is one small piece in the puzzle of how to gain equal rights. I would guess that even a significant number of people who are bigots learn not to promote their views (in the workplace, at school, generally in public) because they know they will be called racists. Homophobic comments are still widely acceptable, but some day they won't be. That's part of the process of getting overt bigotry to die out, which affects laws that are introduced and supported by various politicians.

[Mimosa]

349. Gman, you've been experienced, as the J. Hendrix song goes.

Real biases, discrimination and persecution which were once normal in the culture are now mostly unacceptable. Back in the mid 1970s hardly anybody dreamed we'd have progressed this far.

It's natural the younguns think history began when they were born. I was the same to a degree.

A conversation may serve one better than an argument. Nobody is likely to to open up to tolerance if they are cast as a villain.

[DatManFromNawlins]

258. You'll get along better with people on a personal level

When you stop trying to place emotionally loaded labels on them.

[armyowalgreens]

263. "Homophobia" is an emotionally loaded word?

How so? Because it defines a disgusting issue?

[Mari333]

310. because so many people on here, it seems to me, see it in themselves

and dont like what they see.
Im sorry I have to say that, but thats what I see with these reactions..
If you were a black man on here who said he told his friend her mother was being a racist by not supporting inter racial marriage, this thread would all be in support of you.

[Mimosa]

345. No. Words lose power from being bandied about indiscriminately. n/t

[armyowalgreens]

355. You're right. Fortunately, I'm not doing that.

[Mimosa]

367. You're awake now and refreshed?

Even half asleep you've more energy than I. Can you bring me a Brandy Alexander, please? It's what Oscar Wilde would drink after dinner.

[armyowalgreens]

371. I'm awake but not exactly refreshed.

[Mari333]

368. actually , as a straight woman I have no right to tell a gay person when they can use the word

homophobic.
they are the ones who have to suffer from it. How arrogant of any straight person on here to think they know better.

[Mimosa]

405. If you're talking to me, I'm not straight

Nor do I 'tell' people whether or when they can use any word. I wouldn't be presumptuous.

A lot of DU posters have a long history of having been active in various causes. I suppose we all differ about strategies. We have different opinions on many topics.

I may have engaged AOW on a previous topic. I find you very interesting in that way when one comes across a person who sounds somwhat like oneself at a younger age. Are you a goodlooking in a very indiviual way, somewhat of a stylesetter, a sybarite and shockingly well-read? ;)The spiritual inclination is evident.

[Mari333]

422. Im 60 yrs old.

But it is refreshing to hear I may still be young. :)

[flvegan]

284. You're right.

I can understand your friend getting upset by it, but sometimes facts will cause people to have different emotional reactions when it concerns family or loved ones.

[Malikshah]

302. If the homophobe against full equality for LGBT or their children cannot handle being called out on

it, then maybe they should think about the issues. Their being called out on it is nothing compared to what we in the LGBT community go through as we try and live our lives.

[Gman2]

307. Would race relations be better if Jackie Robinson screamed filthy racist at everyone

in the stands that looked funny at him? While it certainly wasnt fair, we are trying to achieve long term results.

[Mari333]

309. armyofwalgreens did not scream at anyone.

he merely stated that his friend's mother's stance on gay marriage was homophobic.
in the middle of a conversation.
if my mother, sister, aunt, friend, uncle, etc told me they thought gays shouldnt get married, I would tell them they were being homophobic.
if someone told me jackie robinson shouldnt have been in the major leagues, I would tell them they were being racists.
whats so hard to understand?

[Malikshah]

313. I'd respond, but it's already been done. Hyperbole is tiresome and counterproductive.

When I speak to people about the issue and they ask for my candid opinion on the subject in person, I explain in calm measured tones. No use in screaming as it doesn't work.

Serious, clearly worded and thought out statements work just as well.

Having the courage of one's convictions helps.

The "logic" you attempt to use is frustratingly ubiquitous. "looking at someone funny" is in no way equivalent to being against full equality.

[Violet_Crumble]

324. But the OP doesn't say they were asked for their opinion...

And they definately don't see their opinions as merely being an opinion - for them their own opinions are *truth*. Going on their ensuing behaviour in this thread, it's not hard to imagine that what they may think was a calm discussion on their part was them haranguing a friend about their friend's mother. Me just pointing out that a bit of tact and diplomacy in that situation wouldn't have gone astray has led to them saying they suspect I'm a homophobe....

[Malikshah]

328. ?? That last sentence lost me....

Calling someone out for being a homophobe is not wrong. Tact and diplomacy have their place, but so does truth to oneself and speaking truth to hate.

[Violet_Crumble]

380. I'll explain it for you then. I got accused of being a homophobe because I think the OP was rude...

How can you call someone out for being a homophobe when the person being called out isn't even present? In the case of talking with a friend about a friends mother, it's a time when tact and diplomacy are needed. I'd say it's much more of a time and a place than here at DU where we're not allowed to *speak truth to hate*, and where I don't get the urge to trot round telling other posters that they're Arab-hating bigots or antisemites or homophobes or misogynists....

[La Lioness Priyanka]

326. thank you

[rug]

334. Even Hitler was nice to his mother.

[Arugula Latte]

341. Even when she walked in on private time?

*slinks back to Lounge* :yoiks:

[flvegan]

335. ...and with that...THE ARISTOCRATS!!

[Starry Messenger]

342. You beat me to it!

Well played. :thumbsup:

[DailyGrind51]

346. Don't be dissing anyone's mother!

[EndersDame]

360. You are correct she is a homophobe but if your friend was open minded enough

you could have used more tact and started some education on the subject. Although there are those who just are plain close minded bigots - if that is the case fuck 'em

[Iggo]

361. You're right, AOW. They're homophobes.

You didn't call your friend's mom a homophobe directly or specifically or even obliquely.

You said a certain category of people are homophobes, and your friend said, "Hey my mom's one of those!"

Your friend called her own mom a homophobe.

There.

(Edited for gender specificity.)

[Violet_Crumble]

382. Are you reading a different OP than what's actually there?

It's just that the version you've just given of what happened isn't what was in the OP. In fact, it's very markedly different than the OP. So which version is the right one? If it's yrs, I'm wondering why the OP claimed they'd called a friends mother a homophobe. It's all very strange...

[Iggo]

389. Yep, read it wrong.

Relax, Killer.

[varelse]

369. You were, and are absolutely right

I'm glad you're a very outspoken member of DU, and I'm very happy to see that you're not backing down on this.

[omega minimo]

378. Have you given any thought or consideration

to where your friend's parent may be coming from and how to reach out inclusively, draw folks to awareness, rather than call them and their family names?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

392. Of Course Not. That Would Entail Actually Having An Open Mind And Some Critical Thinking Ability.

Based on what's in this thread so far, it is highly doubtful that's gonna occur.

[Name removed]

404. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

408. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BoneDaddy]

390. I love these people

who decide they are going to label everyone who disagrees with them. This smug sense of superiority that the above post exudes is disgusting.

[VMI Dem]

394. Not everyone that disagrees, just the digusting bigots.

Whats wrong with that?

[BoneDaddy]

412. Nah

It is just another way to make people "accept" your point of view with the fear that they will be demonized if they disagree.

[VMI Dem]

413. You mean the pro civil rights point of view?

Why would anyone disagree with basic equal rights?

[BoneDaddy]

424. I don't personally

I would love to see gays and lesbians have the right to marry. I just think what often occurs on these boards is a demonization of people who are not necessarily bad people. They typically do not have the courage to confront their own inconsistencies or religious/political views. But I think the often shaming and browbeating by those who think themselves superior never works in altering someone's belief system.

[armyowalgreens]

427. By calling her mother homophobic, I am in no way demonizing anyone.

Nor am I browbeating. I'm simply stating fact.

[BoneDaddy]

438. sure on the surface

it seems like "just a label" but it carries with it a tremendous amount of power. I tend to believe most of the people in the world are what I would call "sheep". They are the followers. They are the ones who tend to avoid conflict through complicity. They also tend to be those who are not free thinkers, or those who may imagine outside the box.

I also think that it behooves us to recognize that and to work gently to change perceptions, rather than attack and demonize and label as so many do. Not because of "right or wrong" but because what ultimately may move progressive values forward.

[armyowalgreens]

439. As I said up thread, I was gentle...

Plenty gentle. I could have said things that would have been much more blunt.

[BoneDaddy]

440. gentle would have been to let it go

and not bother with browbeating your friend about her mother's perspective, however wrong you may decide it may be. You forced your friend into a confrontation where she had to choose protecting her mother, whom I guess she loves, and supporting you. If I were in her shoes I would have chosen the same because you wouldn't be my friend if you did that.

[armyowalgreens]

441. My friend forced herself into confrontation.

She is the one that brought her mother up.

One can love someone who is homophobic. After all, I love my mother.

[BoneDaddy]

442. Wow what a sick unassailable position you life in

my guess is you thrive in victimhood. You LOVE being in the drama and telling people how "bad" they are. I have seen dozens like you on this board. Your identity is about telling people how they should be and live and if they do not live to your expectations they are bad, demonized and wrong. It is a pathetic approach that the emerging ego has with the world.

[armyowalgreens]

443. Well you guessed wrong.

Your psycho analysis is a bit rusty.

[BoneDaddy]

447. Can only base it on what

I am reading.

[Freddie Stubbs]

393. Have you ever heard of the saying "You'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar?"

[Toasterlad]

403. Yes, She Definitely Should Have Complimented That Woman's Bigoted Mother On Her Convictions.

:eyes:

I don't kiss bigot ass.

[Freddie Stubbs]

407. Or she could have tried to persuade her using a logical arguement

If you want to further the cause of marriage equity, name-calling may not be the most effective strategy.

[Toasterlad]

409. Yeah, Because It's Those Rude Gay People's Fault We Don't Have Marriage Equality.

Maybe if people like you started calling out bigots on their bigotry instead whispering sweet nothings to them, we could make some progress.

[MellowDem]

425. Your "logic"...

is really shitty. Just because you view it as irrational doesn't mean others won't find arguments against gay marriage that they consider perfectly rational and have nothing to do with being afraid of gays. We would have to know the reasoning as to why she is against gay marriage first. Try to open your mind.

[armyowalgreens]

426. Rationality is objective. It's either rational or it's irrational.

So my logic is actually quite sound.

[MellowDem]

429. Well...

you just might want to realize that opposition to gay marriage cannot be entirely explained just by homophobia. A lot of it is due to misunderstanding or just even a sense of tradition and the word "marriage". Basically, treating everyone who opposes gay marriage as a homophobe before we know for sure probably isn't the best strategy to win them over, and that is what we must do.

[armyowalgreens]

430. "Misunderstanding" as in an irrational belief or thought process...

In other words, they are homophobic.

"Basically, treating everyone who opposes gay marriage as a homophobe before we know for sure probably isn't the best strategy to win them over, and that is what we must do."

The thing is that we already know that they are all homophobic.

[deaniac21]

432. snore

[armyowalgreens]

434. Your fashionably late for the party.

Welcome. We have chips and dip in the back by the refrigerator.

[madeline_con]

435. How does her sexuality class make her less homophobic?

Did she elaborate? :shrug:

[B Calm]

446. They are afraid that there will be gangs of happily married gays roaming

the streets late at night and gang raping straight people, thus turning their victims into flaming homosexuals. . .