Only homophobes like you think gay activists are bullies, and I don’t think rational arguments are going to change your mind in any event.
that was never my response. It is way oversimplified.
as long as those supporting gay rights are rude, name calling, and committing violence, I’ll call them bullies. Just like I would any other sort of person. The justness of the cause does not excuse the behavior.
I’m calling you out for what you are. I’m sick of sanctimonious bigots like you trying to politely debate whether I’m deserving of the same respect as a straight person as if the important thing is to be polite. I’m not trying to prevent you from marrying the person you love, so I’m not going to think of myself as the bigger jackass overall. If your sensibilities are offended by the term homophobia, I really couldn’t give less of a fuck.
Who’s committing violence anyways? I called you a homophobe; that’s not violence.
I insult stupid people. It has nothing to do with bullying them.
Dipshit.
You being a dipshit is an empirical fact. It is common knowledge that you are severely subnormal and perversely arrogant about the meager stump of intellect you do have.
You are a sputtering goldfish out of the water.
“Xenophobe” (person who hates foreigners) is the most common counterpart, and has been in use in English for nearly 100 years – the earliest cite in the OED is 1922. “Xenophobia” is somewhat older. “Photophobia” (aversion to bright lights, especially as the result of eye or neurological problems) has been in use since at least the 1770s.
Those damn photophobes just need to get over their fear and walk into the light!
OH FOR FUCK’S SAKE HERE’S YOUR FUCKING CITE.
http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/betseys/papers/JEP_Marriage_and_Divorce.pdf
That took me a grand total of 30 seconds to find on Google. I timed it. Do you know how long you’ve spent bitching and whining about how you aren’t going to provide a cite, and going and asking your friends their opinions (or more likely, making up a bunch of opinions that your friends supposedly gave)? A whole fucking lot more than 30 seconds. It’s the 21st century and you have the Internet at your fingertips, USE IT.
Christ on a pony.
I’m aware of what a phobia is, thank you. Homophobia, despite its name, is not a phobia, and is not intended to convey a sense of mental illness. It’s meaning is well understood by the general public, so creating a new term to replace it would be pointless and confusing.
As for its counterparts, it has plenty: racist, sexist, anti-semite, and so forth. Not all of them take the same construction. Sometimes, language works like that.
Again, bullshit. There is no penalty for being openly homophobic in American society. There are, however, rewards aplenty. The idea that people are so intimidated by the gay rights lobby that they dare not speak up is patently asinine, and the fact that you’ve even brought the idea up shows the utter paucity of strong argumentation on your side of the debate.
Does he say he was gay? Does he say that he’s now not gay? Because neither of these data points were in your original story. Your original story was, “Guy used to sleep with dudes, because he couldn’t get a chick. Now he can get chicks, so he doesn’t sleep with guys.” There was nothing at all in there about his personal sexual identification. There was nothing in there about his relative attraction to either gender, or how the strength of that attraction has waxed or waned over the years. You presented it as an example of situational homosexuality: he was with guys, because it was his only option, not unlike men in prison.
You don’t need it, of course, but I certainly have the right to doubt claims that you make, even ones that relate entirely to your internal state. It is, after all, not at all rare for someone to repeatedly deny their sexual orientation, even to themselves. After seeing enough of these stories, you start to spot patterns.
Once you start using their sexuality as a point in your argument that I don’t deserve legal equality in this society, I have every right to question your claims. You can’t put it forward as evidence of something, and then throw a fit if I don’t take it at face value.
You can be a bigot, and still be perfectly polite. But if you’re arguing that gays should be treated as second class citizens, or that there’s something wrong with us for being gay, then you’re a homophobe, no matter how big a smile you have on your face when you denigrate us.
The Lebowski Rebuttal is not much of an argument. I didn’t just put forward my opinion, I explained the logic that led to the conclusions I made. Do you have any criticisms of the actual argument? Because pointing out that people disagree with my argument isn’t really helpful. If everyone agreed with it, it wouldn’t really be an argument, would it?
Unsurprising.
Really? What marriages are the gay rights lobby trying to break up? Whose children are gay rights advocates trying to take away? How many anti-gay rights advocates have been savagely beaten, because they are anti-gay rights? How many have been killed? How many people have lost their jobs because they’re anti-gay rights? How many people have lost their homes?
These are the issues gay rights advocates are working on. And you think that being called a homophobe, and having a handful of glitter thrown in your face, is remotely the same thing? Pathetic.
There is nothing I’d love more than to see Newt Gingrich press charges against that man for being glitter bombed. Absolutely. Nothing.
I’m pretty sure the guy who dumped the glitter on him feels the same way.
What I’m posting is not disagreeing with you, but I want to launch a rant off of the platform of what you mentioned. I’m not saying you will disagree with any points I make, and I doubt you will in fact, but I’m just using it as a starting point so don’t take it personally at all, please.
There is almost nothing more useless and counterproductive than glitter bombing Newt. It only solidifies the anti position, and makes the vast herds of American Dumbasses out there cluck their tongues and write off gay rights as “those folks that keep doing stupid shit.” Sort of like how PETA is viewed. I hear the comments all the time, and remember when ACT UP was creating not awareness, but tons of negative publicity. Every single LGBT person I knew IRL at the time ACT UP was carrying on would say privately words to the effect of “holy crap, I wish they would stop embarrassing us.”
The average American is so stupid they can barely do more than eat, crap, and paw for their TV remote. They don’t think about the symbolism and message of glitter-bombing Newt, they see it and think “damn vandals…damn kids…there go those people again…what’s on ESPN?”
Standing up against homophobia means taking the battle to the homophobes directly. Money, politics, and guns if needed. It means sticking together, forming social circles for mutual protection. When your LGBT friend walks home from the bar at night you leave early, even if it’s inconvenient, to walk with them. It means even if politically you’re against it you learn self-defense and get legally armed so when you see some drunken yobs kicking a “fairy” in the street or threatening to “rape a lesbian straight” you put a fucking stop to it. When you hear someone at work making a homophobic slur you stand up and put your fucking job on the line to complain about it and say “not in this fucking office, you don’t.” When you’re at the stadium and you hear drunken beerbellied fans call players “fags” you stand up and tell them to pipe down. When an LGBT person says “I’m running for city council” you fucking dig deep and donate large, or you volunteer to help canvas for them. When you go to the polls you don’t pick “the least homophobic candidate” who has a chance of winning, you pick the best candidate for the cause. And when Fred Phelps clan comes to protest you get your ass out of the comfy chair and stand in the rain to say “not in our town! That’s not what my America is about!”
You don’t make a public spectacle out of yourself by the self-serving “OMG I’ll do this and soooooooooooooo many people will tweet about me, dooode!” act of glitter-bombing Newt. It’s shameful.
Arguably being polite shows respect for a person; we may disagree but that is no reason to be rude.
I do not consider name-calling to be rational argument, but it sure seems to pass for it in certain subjects.
Throwing glitter on someone is violence. Battery is typically outlawed with language similar to: “Any unwanted touching done in a rude, insulting, or insolent manner.”
Please keep in mind that I am not claiming all gay activists do things like this, and if previous posts look like that I apologize for over-generalizing. If people would be more careful in their approach rather than seeing red whenever somone has a criticism of the gay movement, we’d solve the problems quicker.
I am mostly supportive of gay rights, and I mean constructive criticism here. Gay activists who behave in the manner I complain of are impeding their cause. My mother used to alaways say you attract more flies with honey than vinegar, (but I was never sure why she wanted to attract flies to begin with, ha ha).
You are making the reasoning mistake that severity is the issue. I am talking about the principle. Do you argue that stealing a candy bar is ok because it is only stealing a thousand dollar item is bad. Nor am I arguing that the glitter is anywhere near as severe as beatings and murders.
My argument is that gay activists who do this have crossed the line, and I believe that doing what you complain of is no way to make your point.
And as far as severity goes, I am only using the least severe examples. Check out how badly some ex-gays have been treated for going against the “party-line.”
When the substance of the disagreement is about something as serious as denial of civil rights, sometimes there is reason to be rude.
So you agree that if, having read a persons statements and arguments, you decide you can’t respect them, then politeness would be inappropriate?
Which could explain why a lot of people are being rude to you, don’t you think?
There is a difference in respecting a person vs. respecting their arguments.
It is always appropriate to be polite, especially if you are trying to sway public opinion.
It is commonly accepted that rudeness is an admission that your position is not correct and you know it.
Bullshit.
And there are arguments so bloody stupid that it’s impossible to respect the person making them.
:rolleyes: This again? No one is impressed when you start claiming that something is “commonly accepted” and then spend pages and pages refusing to back up your claim.
I am heartily sick and tired of bigots derailing the public discourse by demanding politeness and good behavior from the people they are oppressing. It’s an argument of breathtaking privilege, and it allows the oppressors to control the discourse.
“Oh, please, sir and madam who are telling me to my face that I am subhuman and do not deserve the same rights as others, would it be possible for you to change your mind? Thanks ever so.”
Bullshit.
Bigots who makes that argument isn’t really asking for politeness and has no intention of not being an oppressor. It’s just a way for them to excuse their continuing oppression. “I would have backed gay rights if the gays just had been more polite!”
Bullshit.
The oppressed don’t have any obligation to make the oppressors more comfortable.
In order of your claims
“It is always appropriate to be polite, especially if you are trying to sway public opinion.”
No, it is not always appropriate to be polite. That is a blatantly stupid thing to say. I, as an honarary affiliate member of the gay crusade, decide to fuck your arse. Do you feel a polite response is required, or not?
And if your mission is to sway public opinion, is it not a better starting point to ask just why that public opinion is calling you a horse’s arse?
“It is commonly accepted that rudeness is an admission that your position is not correct and you know it.”
Oh dear lord. Really? I fucking missed that cunting memo? I am arse wrenchingly certain that my position remains bollocks blisteringly identical in its accuracy regardless of how much bad language I used. Let me illustrate:
- E = mc2
- The twatting energy of a body is equal to its arsing mass times the square of the wanking speed of light (in a mother fucking vacuum)
Somehow, you feel the second statement is an admission of inaccuracy. You twat.
The principles aren’t even remotely similar. Dumping a bag of glitter over someone’s head is not the same “principle” as catching someone outside a bar and kicking them into a coma. It’s not the same “principle” as going on national TV and saying that natural disasters are God’s judgment on gays. It’s not the same “principle” as the systematic disenfranchisement of an entire class of people. One is a juvenile prank against a public, political figure. The others are overt acts of hatred and discrimination against millions of innocent people. There is absolutely no point of comparison between the two.
How badly have they been treated? Please, provide specific examples.
You’re arguing that I should be treated as a second class citizen in the nation of my birth. I don’t care how polite you are when you do it, there is nothing respectful about your action or your opinions. They are inherently insulting, regardless of how prettily you dress them up. You should not be surprised when people respond in kind.