Me.
Once or twice, I said I was correct in matters of fact, and used the fact that the thread rested on matters of fact to declare victory. In a later pitting, I went on to say I was correct in certain other disputed threads. This lead to the meme that I always declare victory in threads, normally an impossible claim.
OH. :eek: ummm… Thanks for being honest enough to answer. (And sorry that it came up.)
well, that’s kinda embarrassing for all involved, I think.
Fred Phelps likely thinks the same thing about his position, so this doesn’t really help us solve the OP, or find alternatives to describe the various degrees of distaste/aversion/fear/discriimation/whatever you wish to call it.
Based on your non-answer, I guess we’re right back to calling everyone with any sort of bias against homosexuals a homophobe, if we’re not able to come up with any words to describe those who fall somewhere between Fred Phelps and someone who thinks gays should have identical rights to straights in every way.
Since you are somewhere between the two, I was hoping that you could give us an idea of a different term to use for the “tweeners” on your level, at the very least.
Another thought on religion-justified homophobia. Not to add another godwin to this thread’s string of godwins, but religion-justified homophobia strikes me as approaching “I was just following orders” territory. I do realize there are huge differences between “I believe it is God’s law” and “Adolf said to kill 'em all,” but is there a parallel abdication of personal responsibility in passing the buck in that way? (Note: what makes this not really a godwinism is that it’s the abdication of responsibility I’m parallelling; not the heinousness of the act.)
If so, it exists for all religiously-based beliefs. And I kinda think it does, for some people. If someone’s definition of right and wrong is that right equates with God’s commands and wrong equates with the defiance of God, all they’ve done is define good and evil as equivalent to obedience and disobedience to the ultimate dictator, making the terms fairly meaningless. If good and evil have meaning independent of God’s Law, then we must judge God’s Law by the same yardstick of morality we use to judge everything else.
Some folks do the latter, and I’ve got a lot of respect for that. Folks who obey God because he’s the Big Daddy? Meh. They’re not part of a meaningful discussion of morality.
Daniel
That’s a good point, but I think you can head this argument off at an earlier pass. Namely, that people are responsible for the beliefs they choose to embrace. Someone may honestly believe that God thinks homosexuality is a sin, but at some point in that person’s life, they made a conscious decision to believe that was God’s will. I think people should be held responsible for that decision, for good or ill.
That would also apply to Polycarp’s friend who believes that judgement is God’s, and not his. When he formed a belief about what God judges, he was making a judgement himself.
Malacandra if statistics were to prove that homosexual men were less likely to abuse children than hetrosexual men, would you support the scouts banning hetrosexual men from being in charge of children whether the children are male female or co-ed.
Well, to continue the I-swear-it’s-not-a-godwin parallel, that’s why the argument doesn’t really fly as defense of war crimes, right?
Right, which is why I brought it up. At one point, he made a choice to defer to “god’s” judgment over his own, if that’s the case (and it sounds like it is). For most religion-justified homophobes, however, their prejudice comes first and the justification comes conveniently after. Explains why they don’t feel the same horror for mixed fibers or creamed chipped beef on toast. (IMO.)
I’ll answer that if a homophobe will answer the obvious followup: would you let go your objection to homosexual scout leaders if it could be statistically proven than gay people are NOT any more likely to molest a minor? I have a feeling (my own prejudice here, so I’d love to be proven wrong) that male-male molestation is considered inherently worse than hetero molestation, so statistics wouldn’t matter a fig. Which, if I’m right, would prove your hypothetical (which is already shamefully prejudicial) to be as irrelevant as flying monkeys with toolbelts.
I think you mis-read Bippy’s post, there, lissener. He asked the same question you did.
d’Oh!
Posting while, um, I guess, stupid.
Hiya. I thought I stated my position upthread, but perhaps I need to clarify a little. The only circumstances in which I’d support the Scouts’ position on not letting gays be Scoutmasters are the following:
and
and
These arguments apply with equal rigour if for “gay” we read “straight” and vice versa, throughout. It might even turn out that gays are more trustworthy than straights, although as a straight supremacist and homophobe I naturally hope not. 
As I say, merely pointing out that 91% of paedos are straight doesn’t answer any questions. It may make homos somewhat the greater risk, since estimates of the incidence of homosexuality seem to vary somewhat, and if it really is the case that queers make up only 4% of the numbers but 9% of child molestors, then that 91% looks like rather less of a damnation of straights than we originally supposed. Nevertheless, if ninety-nine out of a hundred gays - or 999 out of a thousand, or 9999 out of ten thousand - are not molestors, then I don’t see any need to be prejudiced.
Cool. 
You think even advancing a hypothesis and demonstrating how it may be falsified (and expressing a willingness to see it falsified) is evidence of prejudice. Let me set your mind at rest, then: I have no daughters, but I wouldn’t want my hypothetical thirteen-year-old daughter molested any more than my son; and I wouldn’t want my son molested by a woman any more than a man. Sorry to upset you, but you don’t get to say “Malacandra is shamefully prejudiced, so we don’t have to listen to his argument”, not today. That ad hominem is going to have to wait for another day.
I believe the term was stealth homophobe.
I think in this case lissener was discussing the way society reacts, not you specifically.
“Stealth bigot”, if we’re being picky. I was so, erm, impressed with the phrase I put it in my sig for a while. (I really need a new sig. I changed it when we had that dare-or-truth thread over in MPSIMS, and I still haven’t thought of a replacement.)
Ah well, I’m not society; I’m barely even social. There’s a discussion topic there, but it’s late by UK time and I have a very large curry to go and sleep off.
Homophobia is the term used by homosexuals to label ANYONE who doesn’t approve of, or at least is willing to tolerate, homosexuality.
It is always such a joy to see an unsupported opinion thrown in on the seventh page of a thread that does nothing but repeat an unsupported opinion from the first page.
A homophobe is anyone who thinks that “homophobia is the term used by homosexuals to label ANYONE who doesn’t approve of, or at least is willing to tolerate, homosexuality.”
Aha! So homophobia is the term used by homosexuals to label anyone who thinks that homophobia is the term used by homosexual to label ANYONE who doesn’t approve of, or at least is willing, to tolerate, homosexuality!
I think we’re making progress here. 
Yes, that’s closer.