Would it have been better if I called your argument invalid? In any case, please reply to the content of my posts. Now that you’re replied to the peripheral matters, I’m certain you’re at least reading parts of my posts.
Let me say also that shows such as “Will & Grace” and “Queer Eye…” go a lot further toward acheiving parity for homosexuals in society at large by showing them to be likable and (I’m sure I’ll get lambasted for this too, but I’m at a loss for a more accceptable term) normal, than spite, rage, insults and name-calling will ever acheive. I felt the same way in regard to the “Cosby Show” and equality for blacks. You achieve parity by demonstrating that you are little different from everyone else, not by name-calling such as is the case with “homophobe.”
First of all, thank you for hyper-extending. It’s makes you a much more pleasant person to talk to. Your rational and intelligent post is the kind of thing I like to see here.
Secondly, the part of your post that reads as follows sums up most of my feelings pretty well:
There may be a subset of “homosexual cause” supporters who will not settle for civil rights, but will insist that utter societal acceptance, including total disappearance of the “ick factor” from each individual heart, is the true Gay Agenda, toward which all right-thinking, non-homophobic people of goodwill must strive (your use of the phrase “achieve acceptance by society in general” suggests that you believe this to be the “homosexual cause,” as pursued by “the gay community and its supporters” ). If this group really exists, and displays such a “you’re either with us or you’re against us” attitude, I will concede that their use of a pejorative to label opponent and half-hearted supporter alike amounts to bullying, punishing, and even dishonesty, if you like.
Where we seem to disagree in this regard is on the question of “if.” You believe this group to be small and relatively ineffectual, I believe it is pervasive. I will grant you that we would both probably be hard pressed to prove our relative positions conclusively. However, my perception of it is what is fueling my contributions to this thread.
[/QUOTE]
Yay…a substantive assertion. Now, please provide some sort of cite that any such movement exists.
BTW, only you have a burden of proof here. It’s not up to us to prove that this widespread agenda does not exist, it’s up to you to prove it does.
Prove that there is any coordinated effort by anyone to demand anything beyond basic civil rights
Prove that its “pervasive.”
Both of these points must be proven before your argument can be taken seriously.
(fixed post)
Yay…a substantive assertion. Now, please provide some sort of cite that any such movement exists.
BTW, only you have a burden of proof here. It’s not up to us to prove that this widespread agenda does not exist, it’s up to you to prove it does.
Prove that there is any coordinated effort by anyone to demand anything beyond basic civil rights
Prove that its “pervasive.”
Both of these points must be proven before your argument can be taken seriously.
People have harassed me all through this thread to do the same thing. The purpose of the OP, ONCE AGAIN!!!, is the dishonesty involved in portraying people as phobic when they aren’t. (And as an aside: If this isn’t the intent on the part of the people who use it, what was the genesis for its use in the first place?)
For further info I refer you to my post earlier today where I address a similar request. I don’t know the # of that post, but it should be somewhere on this page under today’s postings.
What are the shows which call people homophobes?
Humm, Ok, let’s sum up to see if I’ve managed to follow this discussion.
-
It’s possible to believe that the States and not the Federal Govt’ should have legislative decision making power over the issue of gay rights, and not be against gay rights.
-
A person does not have to be scared of gay people in order to be a homophobe.
-
A person does not have to be scared of minorities or immigrants to be a xenophobe.
-
Somewhere, at sometime, the word homophobe was used incorrectly, either by accident or design.
-
Starving Artist is either a) A total moron with the IQ of a deranged, brain-damaged yak or b) a pain in the ass who has taken the art of being purposefully obtuse to staggering new levels.
Have I missed anything?
Oh, and pass me some of that pie, would you?
Thank you, Diogenes, for your civilized and profanity-free postings. I respectfully disagree however, that it’s up to me to “prove” anything. My purpose in this thread is to question the honesty and legitimacy of the use of the word “homophobe” in the attempt to acheive equal rights and societal acceptance of homosexual people.
I know this appears to you as evasiveness, but please believe me. I believe that any attempt by me to respond to requests that I prove one thing or another, or that I state my own personal beliefs in the greater question of gay rights, will only open the door to too much conversation about the merits of what I may say, rather that the subject of the OP and its underlying question: the legitimacy of the use of the word “homophobe”
Your petty and obtuse misunderstanding of the suffix “phobic” is something which has already been corrected. Do you have a reading disability?
Not worth answering.
Give me a frickin’ break!!! Why else would the word have come into use in the first place. I’ve heard and read myself many statements by members of the gay community to the effect that disapproval of gays is (at least partially) due to irrational fear of gays. The use of this word is an obvious attempt to portray all not overtly in favor of gay rights and societal parity as having an “irrational” fear and abhorrance of gays. In other words: “You must not object to us, otherwise you have you have a mental disorder.”
Once again, and you can’t deny this (not with any legitimacy, anyway) effect is the precise reason the word “homophobe” came into use in this way in the first place.
Nonsense such as this demonstrates that you belong in Wonderland, the land of things nonsensical. Give my regards to the March Hare and the Mad Hatter.
Well, as much as I hate to, I really must go. Work beckons. Load up your blunderbusses and I’ll see you later.
The word “phobic” has NEVER had an exclusive connotation of a psycological disorder. The word was intended to convey dislike or aversion, not literal fear. Only stupid people think it means clinically phobic.
People who hate cats are called “ailurophobes.” It just means they hate cats, it doesn’t mean they’re a fraid of them.
The suffix does not have the simplistic and narrow definition that you are assigning to it. Intelligent people are able to discern a range of meanings and nuances for the same word or suffix. I know this might be difficult to grasp for a moron but just take the smart peoples’ word for it.
Utterly ridiculous.
Your own characterization of what happened shows that it was a perfectly valid cite. Homebrew used the perjorative based, not on any hatred or loathing for gays, but because he disagreed with a position on the Constitution.
A clear example of the misuse of the term, and right to hand. Imagine that.
IOW, the cite was on point, and your repeated attempts to pretend that it was not asked and answered are no more than a distraction.
Regards,
Shodan
Admirably summarized, Alice. That our dear OP dismissed it as nonsense, with gratuitous condescension and no substantive argument, merely affirms the validity of point 5.
I’m afraid Bippy has already gone through most of the rhubarb pie. There’s a skinny slice left, if you’d like. Hang around a bit, though, and I’ll have the crumble-top apple pie out of the oven. Do you like ice cream on your pie?
With regard to fear, you conveniently left out abhorrence.
With regard to “ailurophobes” (and I see you must have broken out your dictionary), fair enough…ailurophobe=one who hates cats
? =one who is undecided or indifferent to cats?
You just keep making my point! And I’m the moron?
You know what, this is a homophobic country, and whether or not it should be is not yet central to the point. That’s fine, and the only reason to get offended about being called a homophobe if you feel that way is if you actually let people convince you that a label that describes you is a bad word. Most Americans probably aren’t very comfortable with homosexuality, just guessing, no stats to back me up. They don’t understand why people would engage in homosexual behavior, and find it icky, in contrast with their religious beliefs, whatever.
The point is, I think you’re a prick if you feel like everyone else needs to live in accordance with what you consider to be a proper lifestyle. I am openly contemptuous of people who like Poison, reality TV, Avril Lavigne and Pauly Shore movies, to name just a few things. I very openly hate frat boys who play the same damn John Mayer songs on acoustic guitars at every party, and the stupid young women who reward that behavior by having sex with those guys. Frankly, I find their lifestyle to be repugnant and I fail to see why anyone would engage in that behavior. The difference between me and some people is that I understand that the way I feel about that should have no bearing on the rights of others to live their way, so long as they are not harming me, harassing me or depriving me of my lawful property. And yes, I do expect the same in return.
A certain degree of homophobia is to be expected among straight folks, especially people whose concept of homosexuality is the flamboyant pride-parade image. Many religious people in this country believe that homosexuality is immoral. Whatever, that’s great. Feel free to go on at length with anyone who will listen about exactly why you think homosexuality is wrong and why they should avoid it at all costs. Hell, rant and rave about why you don’t like black people, or hispanics or asians or whatever. I certainly will not shut up about why I don’t like you, why would I expect the opposite? Just don’t accuse people of dishonestly labeling you homophobic when what you mean is that there’s nothing wrong with what you believe. Whether or not I think that is irrelevant. We can try and convince each other, of course, but if we just plain disagree, that’s cool too.
I am absolutely apathetic as to whether any given person is racist or homophobic or whatever, so long as they support giving equal rights to everyone, regardless of whether that person disagrees with them. It’s what America’s about. In short, I’m glad to put up with everyone else’s bullshit and recognize their right to live in ways that I naturally react to with disgust, but I damn sure expect the same back from them.
Oh, and everyone needs to grow a skin and get over this idea that we have a right not to be disagreed with. I don’t give a shit if someone’s offended, really. It doesn’t register on my radar screen as far as “problems” if someone’s rainbow bumper sticker or street-corner Leviticus preaching makes you mad. Get the fuck over it.
LC
The OP’s allegation was not that “homophobe” can sometimes be used erroneously but that there is a concerted and deliberate effort by some “pervasive gay cause” to label people who are neutral on gay issues as “homophobes.”
He also has some stupid idea that the semantic of the term is a subliminal effort to paint anyone who opposes them, or even fails to actively join them, as mentally ill.
The Bricker example is fucking off-point.
Damn, I really have to go. Later!