Do you have to be phobic to be a "homophobe?"

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Starving Artist

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?

1.) Abhorrence does not mean “fear.”

2.) You have not shown that there is any widespread, coordinated effort to label those who are indifferent or undecided as to gay rights as “homophobes.”
Moron.

[alice_in_wonderland]

@Starving Artist

Give my regards to the March Hare and the Mad Hatter.

^^
But not the Cheshire Cat!

HA - This clearly demonstrates that you’re Felineophobic!

Felineophobe! Felineophobe!

Ahem.

For anyone else interested, I’m currently leaning towards “a”, rather than “b”.

Input is welcome.

[Homebrew]

@Starving Artist

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.”

“Uh, I believe in equality as long as you’re, like, um, not different and stuff.”

[shy_guy]

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.

What would a “rational” fear and abhorrance of gays be, anyway?

[Gorsnak]

@Dewey Cheatem Undhow

You seem to think that any position that favors a slower approach amounts to “blithe unconcern.” Which makes me wonder: if someone were to suggest transforming the US overnight into a fascist dictatorship, with the first order of business after the revolution the granting of full marital status to gay couples. Would you then criticize an opponent of this plan as thinking certain rules are more important than the lives of gays?

This, frankly, is stupid. Gaining gay rights at the cost of becoming a fascist dictatorship is obviously a bad deal. However, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the bargain of gaining gay rights at the cost of a non-strict constructionist Supreme Court decision. There’s bugger all for a downside in the latter case (I would argue no downside whatsoever, actually - it would be a win/win case).

Wow! Smug superiority, arrogant self-righteousness, and unwarranted assumptions of relative education all wrapped up in one sentence! A perfect hat trick! I make no claims to metaphysical truth. Indeed, my view rests largely on the proposition that I shouldn’t be able to impose my own ethical worldview on the rest of humanity by fiat. It’s guys like Homebrew who are relying on capital-J Justice as part of their position.

Unless you have a Ph.D. in philosophy, and specialized in metaethics, it’s not an unwarranted assumption. And in much the same way you can tell I’m not a lawyer by reading my posts, I’m pretty much certain you haven’t written a dissertation on noncognitivist metaethics. So unless you want to take those labels of smug superiority, arrogant self-righteousness, and unwarranted assumptions of relative education for yourself every time you presume to instruct me on legal matters, you can shove those accusations right up your ass.

Your arguments do indeed require you to be certain of ethical (actually normative ethical, as opposed to metaethical, though the former always presuppose the latter) beliefs. If your views on the value of majority rule are mistaken, so is everything you’ve built upon that. And actually, “I shouldn’t be able to impose my own ethical worldview on the rest of humanity by fiat” is a horrible way for you to phrase your view, since your view enables 51% of the population to do just that. Homebrew’s view does not do any more ethical worldview imposing than yours does.

As to whether they are factually incorrect about you or Rick being bigots? I think they are. But your views are suspect, and I cannot see into your heart. There’s at least some possibility that they are right. So don’t look to me to defend you against their accusations. Demonstrate them wrong yourself.

[Bippy_the_Beardless]

@shy guy

What would a “rational” fear and abhorrance of gays be, anyway?

Well I can’t stand show tunes, would that count?

Nice pie by the way.

Starving Artist I contend that there are very few homosexuals that incorrectly label people as homophobic. You have received several times the correct definition of homophobic.
If you can’t provide evidence that people are being mislabeled as homophobic to any great extent, then shut the fuck up will you, I’m trying to eat some of ETF’s supurb rhubarb pie here.
If you instead want to argue that it is incorrect to call a homophobic person homophobic, then join the line of PC word reallocaters, maybe you could invent a new phrase for such people like ‘homosexualy challenged’.

[Fionn]

@Starving Artist

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.”

You know, maybe my history is a little off here, but didn’t “The Cosby Show” run decades after the major civil rights battles for minorities (education, voting, employment, etc) had been fought?

[Bricker]

@Gorsnak

This, frankly, is stupid. Gaining gay rights at the cost of becoming a fascist dictatorship is obviously a bad deal. However, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the bargain of gaining gay rights at the cost of a non-strict constructionist Supreme Court decision. There’s bugger all for a downside in the latter case (I would argue no downside whatsoever, actually - it would be a win/win case).

Ah, yes - I’ll remember you said that when Bush is re-elected, and Ginsburg, Souter, and Breyer have retired, with Bush naming all their replacements. Roe v. Wade will be first on the chopping block, I expect, but I know you’ll greet that development with equinamity.

• Rick

[MrVisible]

@Fionn

You know, maybe my history is a little off here, but didn’t “The Cosby Show” run decades after the major civil rights battles for minorities (education, voting, employment, etc) had been fought?

Yeah. Gay people will be freed by Will and Grace, just like black people were freed by Amos n’ Andy.

[Gorsnak]

@Bricker

Ah, yes - I’ll remember you said that when Bush is re-elected, and Ginsburg, Souter, and Breyer have retired, with Bush naming all their replacements. Roe v. Wade will be first on the chopping block, I expect, but I know you’ll greet that development with equinamity.

• Rick

I don’t understand the analogy.

From my perspective, a court decision extending Loving to gays would be remedy an injustice, and be in accordance with my views on jurisprudence.
From yours, it would remedy an injustice, at the cost of running afoul of your views on jurisprudence.

On the other hand, overturning Roe v. Wade would from my perspective perpetrate an injustice in itself, as well as running afoul of my views on jurisprudence.
From yours - well, I don’t know your view on abortion, though I presume the decision would be in accordance with your views on jurisprudence, assuming you place more value on strict constructionism than on stare decisis, which I think likely.

So where, exactly, is the parallel? What upside am I supposed to be satisfied with to console me over what I take to be a faulty legal decision?

[Bricker]

@Gorsnak

I don’t understand the analogy.

From my perspective, a court decision extending Loving to gays would be remedy an injustice, and be in accordance with my views on jurisprudence.
From yours, it would remedy an injustice, at the cost of running afoul of your views on jurisprudence.

On the other hand, overturning Roe v. Wade would from my perspective perpetrate an injustice in itself, as well as running afoul of my views on jurisprudence.
From yours - well, I don’t know your view on abortion, though I presume the decision would be in accordance with your views on jurisprudence, assuming you place more value on strict constructionism than on stare decisis, which I think likely.

So where, exactly, is the parallel? What upside am I supposed to be satisfied with to console me over what I take to be a faulty legal decision?

I am pro-life.

But my point was not to create an analogy so much as to point out the consequences of ceding to the Court the unfettered right to legislate - that when they agree with you, it’s fine; when they don’t, it’s injustice.

I’m suggesting that if the Court tips a bit farther rightward, you may not like the kinds of decisions that come out.

How we reach a conclusion is important.

If we accept an activist judiciary when we agree with the direction of the judiciary, what grounds have we to reject their decisions when we disgree?

[Gorsnak]

@Bricker

I am pro-life.

But my point was not to create an analogy so much as to point out the consequences of ceding to the Court the unfettered right to legislate - that when they agree with you, it’s fine; when they don’t, it’s injustice.

I’m suggesting that if the Court tips a bit farther rightward, you may not like the kinds of decisions that come out.

How we reach a conclusion is important.

If we accept an activist judiciary when we agree with the direction of the judiciary, what grounds have we to reject their decisions when we disgree?

Whoever said I thought the courts should have the unfettered right to legislate? Just because I don’t agree with your view on jurisprudence doesn’t mean mine’s not principled, or that the courts can legitimately rule in any old way they want to. As it happens, there are some things that the courts would be obligated to rule, in my view, that I think would be unfortunate. None of them, however, involve denying basic rights to minorities.

[Starving_Artist]

@Diogenes the Cynic

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.

Oh, contraire, mon moron! My allegation is both that it can not only sometimes buy often be used erroneously and that there is a concerted and deliberate effort by the “you’re either with us or against” proponents of gay rights, to portray anyone not overtly in favor of gay rights as some sort of “phobe.”

You still can’t get my comments right (I don’t you’ve made a single quote attributed to me that was what I really said), and you call me a moron?

Hmm, the pot calling the kettle…?

[Starving_Artist]

@Homebrew

“Uh, I believe in equality as long as you’re, like, um, not different and stuff.”

Don’t blame me(if you are, that is, and not just making a general observation).

That’s just the way society…uh, humans…are.

I thought, however, that this is part of the struggle on the part of the gay community: that they not be thought of as any different than you and me, sexual orientation excepted, of course.

[Starving_Artist]

@Fionn

You know, maybe my history is a little off here, but didn’t “The Cosby Show” run decades after the major civil rights battles for minorities (education, voting, employment, etc) had been fought?

With all due respect, I was referring to the fact that this program accomplished a great deal with regard to causing much of the white population to regard African-Americans as people who are black, not “black people.” And before you holier-than-thou types jump all over me on that remark, let me point out that the only times I’ve heard it used was by black people hoping that the time would come when they were regarded as such.

My comment had nothing to do with the civil rights struggle of the sixties, etc. It was a comment on the programs effectiveness in furthering acceptance of African-Americans by whites in this country.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Starving Artist

Oh, contraire, mon moron! My allegation is both that it can not only sometimes but often be used erroneously

Cite that it occurs "often?

and that there is a concerted and deliberate effort by the “you’re either with us or against” proponents of gay rights, to portray anyone not overtly in favor of gay rights as some sort of “phobe.”

Right. This is the part that comes completely out of your ass without a shred of support or reason. This is the part that identifies you as a moron.

Let me put it this way, dipshit. There is no such “concerted effort.” You made it up. It’s bullshit. It doesn’t exist. It’s a spectre of your own paranoia.

Lay off the crank, fratboy.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

With all due respect, I was referring to the fact that this program accomplished a great deal with regard to causing much of the white population to regard African-Americans as people who are black, not “black people.”

You have a cite for this, of course.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Diogenes, Homebrew, Bippy, Fionn, shy guy, Alice, Lucki, kaylasdad99, LaurAnge, MrVisible especially – yes, and you, too, Bricker and Gorsnak – plus everyone else on previous pages I’m forgetting:

It’s hard work, trying to shovel manure out of a pit when the equine excretory end keeps filling it back up. Why not knock off the hopeless endeavor? Maybe if we stop feeding the, er, horse, it will run out of road apples?

Anyway, you’re all invited over for a pie fest – I’ve got another rhubarb pie, a crumble-crust apple, pumpkin, Boston creme, and three pecan pies – well, I knew Bippy would polish off one before the rest of you got a shot at it. Plenty of ice cream and whipped cream for topping. The banana nut bread isn’t out of the oven yet, but for fans of Anadama bread, it’s ready for toasting, and there’s plenty of butter. Tea, coffee, and a nice selection of cordials at the free bar!

[Starving_Artist]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Cite that it occurs "often?

Right. This is the part that comes completely out of your ass without a shred of support or reason. This is the part that identifies you as a moron.

Let me put it this way, dipshit. There is no such “concerted effort.” You made it up. It’s bullshit. It doesn’t exist. It’s a spectre of your own paranoia.

Lay off the crank, fratboy.

Let’s see what Merriam-Webster has to say…
Main Entry: 2con·cert
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&rt
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle French concerter, from Old Italian concertare, perhaps from com- + certo certain, decided, from Latin certus – more at CERTAIN
transitive senses
1 : to settle or adjust by conferring and reaching an agreement <concerted their differences>
2 : to make a plan for <concert measures for aiding the poor>
intransitive senses : **to act in harmony or conjunction **

Let’s see…yeah, you’re right. There is absolutely no general consensus among the media, Hollywood and certain politicians to promote gay rights (not a bad thing) and to try to acheive it in part by labeling those not overtly in favor of it as “homophobes.” Yep, their community is in total chaos. No overwhelming consensus there. 33% is Republican, 33% is Democrat, and 33% is Independent.

Yeah, right! I’ve heard (no “cite” available) that 97% of the media votes Democrat. Hollywood is likewise overwhelmingly Democrat, and many if not all of the politicians I refer to are Democrat. But no, they don’t act in concert with one another to further their own beliefs…they are superior to the rest of people here and abroad and completely suppress their beliefs, and adjust their verbiage accordingly, so as to not make any assertions in concert with each other to further the goals they support. Nope. It’s all totally random. 97 out of 100 journalists all just careen around indepently of each other, doing nothing and saying nothing to influence one another and saying nothing to influence society in any way they can.

“Harmony” and “conjunction” does not mean they all swarm into Las Vegas and hold a huge convention to make sure they are all on the same page in conspiring to pin the “homophobe” label on those with whom they disagree. It does however mean they all influence one another, and attempt to influence society in general, through their use of terminology. They can’t (nor do they even try) to temper their language any more than do genuine bigots in trying to proselytize their beliefs.

Having said all this, I have at last had it with the name-calling on your part. You are a fucking bozo to the nth degree! Almost everyone knows it. I’ve even been advised via email not to pay you any mind because you’re a jerk, everyone knows it, and that you’re probably just trying to run up your post count.

I’ve warned you about this before, and I keep hoping against hope, that you will adopt a more mature attitude in your posts, but it’s hopeless. Say whatever you want…and being the immature schmuck you are, I’m sure you’ll try to rile me into doing otherwise…but I will no longer have anything to say to you. Rave all you want, nobody worth a shit takes you seriously. And before any of the rest of you ask me what else I expected, this is after all the Pit, my assessment of that is the being in the pit allows you to be profane without getting banned; it doesn’t mean a person has to put up with it.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

You’re right ETF.

I’ll have the pecan.