major blow to heterophobes

[Peikko 1,575]

So, if one thinks that homosexuality is detrimental to society and immoral, is that homophobic?

On another note, if homophobia is just a phobia, how come you dislike "homophobic" people. If it's just a phobia, then it isn't something they can control. It's just something they were born with.

Of course, for it not to be, one would have to be able to demonstrate that in fact homosexuality is detrimental to society. Again, a phobia is a fear of something that in reality of little to no threat, that's the definition of 'an unreasonable fear'. Homosexuals are not a threat to society but there are people who 'fear' that they are.

I am not sure what you point is with your second comment, I conclude that there is none.

[SMR 368]

Of course, for it not to be, one would have to be able to demonstrate that in fact homosexuality is detrimental to society. Again, a phobia is a fear of something that in reality of little to no threat, that's the definition of 'an unreasonable fear'. Homosexuals are not a threat to society but there are people who 'fear' that they are.

I am not sure what you point is with your second comment, I conclude that there is none.

The point of the second comment is that if you are really going to relegate it to the status of phobia, it shouldn't be looked down on. Just like you don't look down on someone with arachnaiphobia. It's just something they were born with. You can't have it both ways. Either opposition to the acceptance of homosexuality is a conscious choice that some people make and has nothing to do with fear, or it is a fear that can't be controlled or legislated against since it isn't a choice that people make.

In regards to the first comment, you are thus acknowledging that the name homophobia implies that homosexuality poses no threat to society and has no harmful effects. Thus, the name assumes something that is not proven and which a huge percentage of the population does not agree with. In short, you acknowledge that it is word-smithing to try and control the debate by relegating anyone who disagrees with you to the status of irrational and phobic. That isn't intelligent debate.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It is a phobia because it is irational (does The Shooter's aesthetics argument really makes sense to you?).

And how are people "born" with phobias? A phobia is a behavioural condition, acquired either through trauma, or in the case of homophobia, by upbringing and social conditioning. There's nothing biological about it. That's a false premise, right there. The second false premise is that all phobias are equal, they aren't.

Stop trying to muddy the waters with irrelevant #######.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Gene Hunt

[Danno 1,228]

It is a phobia because it is irational (does The Shooter's aesthetics argument really makes sense to you?).

And how are people "born" with phobias? A phobia is a behavioural condition, acquired either through trauma, or in the case of homophobia, by upbringing and social conditioning. There's nothing biological about it. That's a false premise, right there. The second false premise is that all phobias are equal, they aren't.

Stop trying to muddy the waters with irrelevant #######.

PLease Hunt, don't continue on with this "phobia" silliness.

When a person has a real phobia it is an actual condition.

Likewise, the majority of people have a natural fear of falling or of sudden loud noises, those are not phobias but rather normal reactions.

The clear majority of people in the world also have a natural repulsion about Homosexuality, are you suggesting that most people in the world and throughout modern world history are or have been afflicted with a phobia?

Now I thought we met halfway and agreed, THe condition is to be called, **-Disgustus, people who are disgusted at two man playing the role of man and wife.... either at the dinner table or anywhere else.

It's just weird.

No one need hate these people or wish any harm to them, the majority I have known are harmless, often nice people... but we also need not pretend this is normal, natural or healthy behavior.

[Danno 1,228]

I think that priest has a dark secret.

I don't think he has a dark secret as much as he has a dark heart... if he wants to watch these poor people blown up.

As a servent of God one would think he would want to reach out to these poor afflicted people and help them.

Already Gays are killing themselves at alarming numbers, they need help.

I wonder if this Priest (if this story is even true) feels the same way about imperfect people ?(like the rest of us)

[Peikko 1,575]

PLease Hunt, don't continue on with this "phobia" silliness.

When a person has a real phobia it is an actual condition.

Likewise, the majority of people have a natural fear of falling or of sudden loud noises, those are not phobias but rather normal reactions.

The clear majority of people in the world also have a natural repulsion about Homosexuality, are you suggesting that most people in the world and throughout modern world history are or have been afflicted with a phobia?

Now I thought we met halfway and agreed, THe condition is to be called, **-Disgustus, people who are disgusted at two man playing the role of man and wife.... either at the dinner table or anywhere else.

It's just weird.

No one need hate these people or wish any harm to them, the majority I have known are harmless, often nice people... but we also need not pretend this is normal, natural or healthy behavior.

Where did you get that completely distorted view of homosexual relationships?

There is no pretence, it is normal, healthy and natural to be homosexual, but how precious of you to acknowledge that despite their 'handicap' most of them are harmless and nice. To view it as 'disgusting' is abnormal and requires one to have a fear of one's own respnse to something that sits outside what you consider 'normal', but see Danno, here's the thing, no one requires you to dwell on homosexual practices, either when you are in the presence of homosexuals, or anywhere else for that matter. That you do says something about you, not about the homosexuals around you. Most people simply don't think about it at all, and even if they do, do not dwell on it, or fall prey to feelings of 'disgust'. Such feelings are the mark of the phobic - you are afraid of your own response to the thought of homosexuality. One has to ask why? Or at least I do

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

PLease Hunt, don't continue on with this "phobia" silliness.

When a person has a real phobia it is an actual condition.

Likewise, the majority of people have a natural fear of falling or of sudden loud noises, those are not phobias but rather normal reactions.

The clear majority of people in the world also have a natural repulsion about Homosexuality, are you suggesting that most people in the world and throughout modern world history are or have been afflicted with a phobia?

Now I thought we met halfway and agreed, THe condition is to be called, **-Disgustus, people who are disgusted at two man playing the role of man and wife.... either at the dinner table or anywhere else.

It's just weird.

No one need hate these people or wish any harm to them, the majority I have known are harmless, often nice people... but we also need not pretend this is normal, natural or healthy behavior.

There is nothing remotely logical in your post. What's more you are still unable to qualify your opinion on why homosexuality makes you uncomfortable - and you seem to want me to believe that because "a majority of people" believe a certain way that it precludes all questioning. BS is what it is, and yes it IS homophobia.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The point of the second comment is that if you are really going to relegate it to the status of phobia, it shouldn't be looked down on. Just like you don't look down on someone with arachnaiphobia. It's just something they were born with. You can't have it both ways.

Okay, you win. Effective immediately, I fully support the right of homophobic people to enter into civil marriage and will stand with them if states arbitrarily seek to infringe upon their rights. So, let me know when the fight for the right of the homophobic to enter into civil marriage starts. I'll be there. Peace.

[SMR 368]

Okay, you win. Effective immediately, I fully support the right of homophobic people to enter into civil marriage and will stand with them if states arbitrarily seek to infringe upon their rights. So, let me know when the fight for the right of the homophobic to enter into civil marriage starts. I'll be there. Peace.

I see what you did there. That was clever.

All I'm saying is that either opposition/disgust/whatever you want to call it toward homosexuality is a choice or it isn't. If it isn't a choice that people make, there are all kinds of ramifications. It's not reasonable for a person to be held responsible if they don't have a choice. If I own a business and happen to be homophobic (which isn't my choice) then I would be justified in not hiring gays because I have a condition that makes it difficult for me to work with them . As I didn't chose this condition, it isn't my fault. As an employer, I have a right to hire workers who will be compatible in my business. Or as a restaurant owner, I could chose that I want to cater to those who have this condition and thus not serve gays because I would make things difficult for my homophobic customers who can't stand to eat in the same restaurant as gays, through no fault of their own. In reality, the ramifications of saying that opposition to homosexuality is not a choice but a condition are rather ominous.

So if you acknowledge that opposition to homosexuality is a choice that people can be held accountable, then calling it a phobia is really rather ridiculous. While MC is right that a phobia isn't necessarily something you are born with, it is an effect of society, your upbringing, your pretendencies, and your experiences. It isn't something that you chose. So make up your mind, is opposition to homosexuality a choice or a phobia?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you want to get hung up on terminology - you're just going to run yourself around in semantic circles of meaninglessness.

[Peikko 1,575]

Not everyone who apposes homosexual relationships does so because of homophobia and I have never made the argument that everyone who does is. I agree with A.J however, that whether they recognize it or not, the opposition to affording gay couples the same rights as other couples is bigoted. You don't have to like homosexuality, you don't have to accept homosexuality as moral, but you do have to accept that the argument to deny some couples the legal rights that come with marriage and not others is discriminatory. There is a niceness about making the distinction that 'marriage' is necessarily the union of one man one woman (if you demand that marriage is the perogative of religion, and that religion denies same sex couples divine sanction to union) but you can't deny that a couple is a couple is a couple in the contractual eyes of the law.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Danno 1,228]

Where did you get that completely distorted view of homosexual relationships?

There is no pretence, it is normal, healthy and natural to be homosexual, but how precious of you to acknowledge that despite their 'handicap' most of them are harmless and nice. To view it as 'disgusting' is abnormal and requires one to have a fear of one's own respnse to something that sits outside what you consider 'normal', but see Danno, here's the thing, no one requires you to dwell on homosexual practices, either when you are in the presence of homosexuals, or anywhere else for that matter. That you do says something about you, not about the homosexuals around you. Most people simply don't think about it at all, and even if they do, do not dwell on it, or fall prey to feelings of 'disgust'. Such feelings are the mark of the phobic - you are afraid of your own response to the thought of homosexuality. One has to ask why? Or at least I do

I think what you are saying is that: danno is not right in the head..... and that I am a actually gay myself (though won't admit it of course).

If you are correct, then you are not helping gays by pointing out another warped one (as you claim I must be).

[Danno 1,228]

Not everyone who apposes homosexual relationships does so because of homophobia and I have never made the argument that everyone who does is. I agree with A.J however, that whether they recognize it or not, the opposition to affording gay couples the same rights as other couples is bigoted. You don't have to like homosexuality, you don't have to accept homosexuality as moral, but you do have to accept that the argument to deny some couples the legal rights that come with marriage and not others is discriminatory. There is a niceness about making the distinction that 'marriage' is necessarily the union of one man one woman (if you demand that marriage is the perogative of religion, and that religion denies same sex couples divine sanction to union) but you can't deny that a couple is a couple is a couple in the contractual eyes of the law.

Would you support ANY LAW restricting any couple of more from marrying?

Just trying to see if we are bigots at different points or if you would allow even a father to wed his daughter (or some other bizzare...woops, I mean "alternative" choice.)

[Danno 1,228]

I'll tell you what's so funny, most of you people so "principled" on peoples privacy rights, think nothing of voting for recycling laws which even tell me where I can put my trash or what kind of light bulbs I can buy.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Ah I see - we're back to the "if you allow gay marriage, you must allow incest marriages, pedophilic marriages, beastial marriages, group marriages" etc etc etc.

You just can't let that one go can you