Oh, I agree. I think that once he started accusing people of branding non-homophobes homophobic as punishment, he opened up discussion significantly past his opening “question”.
What I meant by my post was that it is silly to say: “But you are doing something other than just answer his question!” when it seems clear to me that his intention in starting this thread was not to get a factual answer.
Yes, you have been quite willing to respond with “I disagree.” Forgive me if I’ve been misreading your follow-up statements, but they have struck me as being little more than restatements of your basic point that the popular pejorative of the times is etymologically misleading.
[/quote]
By insisting on characterizing the term (and by extension, its users) as “dishonest,” you practically invite people to conclude your position in the larger debate.
I’m not quite sure what you mean by the part about “not [toeing] the party line;” MrVisible and I both have expressed doubts about the usefulness and appropriateness of the term, and nobody is jumping either of us for being insufficiently committed to the cause of equal rights for gays.
As to the OP being addressed, on the face of it, the OP has been dealt with to a fare-thee-well; “homophobe”, as used in public discourse, is a pejorative used to decry the perceived bigotry of people on record as opposing equal rights for gay citizens.
If what you want the OP to be is a debate on the fairness of using pejoratives against people who wish to remain neutral on the subject of gay rights, perhaps you could write one and post it in another thread.
Thank you, GuanoLad! I couldn’t have said it better myself!
Other than to add that my primary objection is the underlying and deliberate dishonesty involved. I simply think it’s wrong to attribute to people negative qualites they don’t really have in order to advance a social goal…regardless of the merit of the goal itself.
Thanks again.
And to you, Ferrous, I live in a house where there are other people who need to use the computer also, and I am often offline due to sleep, work, meals, etc.
This does not mean I’m attempting to avoid anything.
I do not intend to hi jack this but I had to post it somewhere.
I go online elsewheres and on this line we were making jokes, some about Howard Dean.
Some person posted Howard Dean is a fag.
I’m sorry, but this was offensive to me.(not for Howies sake, but the term)
Was I wrong to be offended. The person said they were kidding.
Am I wrong, or isn’t it a slur to use the term this way (unless you are gay and talking amonst friends).
No one else was shocked or disgusted.
I was.
You have not made a case that any such attributions have occurred. Your gripe is hollow and unfounded.
Do you actually have a cite to support your complaint? Can you show examples of neutral or disinterested parties being branded as bigots by the “gay cause?”
Put up or shut up, asshole.
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
I’m not quite sure what you mean by the part about “not [toeing] the party line;”
QUOTE]
Thank you for the spelling correction. Knowing that one’s time to post before one of the frequent lock-ups occur, and that this can sometimes cause my reply to be lost, sometimes causes careless errors.
You were right and they were wrong. It’s an offensive term even if it’s used in a joking manner.
I find this style of debate invigorating.
All you have to do is reply to those who debate your position; you don’t have to address their points, or do anything to rebut them. Just reply. Talk about spelling errors. Complain about how many times you’ve replied already. Nitpick about others’ posts. Complain about how many times you’ve replied already.
It won’t change anyone’s mind, or persuade anyone that you’re anything but an idiot, but it certainly does avoid the whole ‘defending your ideas’ concept handily.
I’d like to reprint your OP in its entirety now:
So far, I myself have completely rebutted your argument, by noting that I believe there are many people who may be uncomfortable with homosexuality but who don’t believe they’re superior to gays. Which means there’s more than two camps. I myself am a third. As are many of the people in this thread.
Your OP isn’t worth even the meager effort you’ve put into defending it.
Yes, sometimes it was inappropriate. While there are undoubtedly many genuine racists who hid behind the banner of “state’s rights” out of political convenience, there are many who held their position out of a genuine concern for decentralized government. Barry Goldwater, for example.
Broadly speaking, no. But that isn’t the issue. Ends are just as important as means.
Oh, am I surprised that idiots will play the homophobia card when they are outclassed? Of course not. But I am disappointed that the tactic is tacitly accepted on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance.
I think that people just react from an honest misunderstanding of certain positions. I also think you should remember that lay people aren’t accustomed to parsing legal arguments nor do they necessarily grasp right away that a lawyer making a technical argument about the Constitution or federalism or legislative process is not necessarily expressing a personal opinion about the underlying issue in its non-legal context.
With regards to a gay-marriage amendment, for instance, (whatever its permutation or intent) a lot of people are just asking, in a vaccuum, “are you fer it or agin’ it?” A legalistic answer about whether such legislations should be conferred to the states or the fedral government can seem like a person is advocating a personal position when he is only objecting to the process.
This is an instance where unwarranted accusations of bigotry can arise but those accusations arise not from the target’s actual position but from a misperception of that position. This may be a failing on the accuser’s part but I think it’s a failing of comprehension not an over-eagerness to hurl the homophobe card.
Let me say that I’m on record as defending Bricker from such accusations in that other thread but its not always obvious from his posts that his arguments are procedural and legalistic rather than moralistic or bigoted. A declaration that “there is no Constitutional right to sodomy,” for example can seem like Bricker thinks sodomy should be illegal, which he doesn’t. A false accusation of homphobia may ensue but the accusation is based on a false perception of the argument.
Well, Dewey, I think your righteous indignation is out of line, given that you are expecting people like Homebrew and Otto to value the principles of jurisprudence you hold so dear over their own equality. If you would display one iota of the concern for their plight as you do for your precious strict constructionism, you might get a different response. But as it is, your blithe unconcern for the injustices forced down their throats by a hostile, vocal minority in conjunction for a large apathetic majority is merely resulting in the predictable outcome, and you have precious little ground on which to complain.
You, my friend, are why deontological thinkers drive me up the wall. Kant was a complete idiot at times as well. 
Forgive me if I’m completely off the wall here, but my reading of this thread suggests that Starving Artist seems to be arguing that same point; namely, that there are more than two camps in the homosexuality debate. It seems more like an observation that there seems to be a tendency to put people into two camps.
The problem I see is that there are people who could be considered in the middle. I believe Polycarp put forth a valid example of one who might be considered in between the two camps, and it appears that people are considering this person to be more in the “anti-” camp.
Can a person be uncomfortable with homosexual acts and still be considered neutral in the homosexuality debate? How about a person that considers homosexual acts sinful? What is considered neutral?
Well, you can find the time to respond to the one guy in the thread who seems to be on your side, and to make chiding noises at the guy calling you names, and (for some reason) to chat with me about inconsequentials. May I suggest that, instead of those things, you actually use your limited online time to address the actual argument?
A tendency by whom? Cite?
Mere discomfort with no moral judgement is not homophobic. A belief that homosexuality is “sinful” is definitely bigoted in that it confers a moral classification on people based on an innate and unchangeable characteristic.
Homebrew and Otto routinely level false accusations of bigotry at me (and at Bricker, and at others). I think righteous indignation is a perfectly legitimate response. What do you expect instead? Blithe acceptance?
I also note that the tone of your post seems to suggest you agree that I am not a bigot, and that Homebrew and Otto are incorrect in applying that label to me. You appear to be saying “what they’re saying is factually incorrect, but you should expect that kind of mudslinging since you attach great importance to certain jurisprudential philosophies, so just lie down and take it without complaint.” Well, you’ll pardon me if I don’t do that.
Assuming you agree that the bigot label is inapplicable to myself or Bricker, I wonder if you will bother condemning Homebrew and Otto’s tactics with the same force you use in decrying my “righteous indignation.” Or are false accusations acceptable debate tactics in your book?
(And if you disagree that the bigot label is inapplicable, I’d like to see you defend that position openly.)
Given that I have repeatedly expressed my full support for things like the repeal of sodomy laws and the passage of civil union legislation, your characterization of me as not “displaying one iota of concern” for gays and showing “blithe unconcern” for civil rights is wholly misplaced. This is argument by character assasination, not legitimate logical debate.
Diogenes: I might agree if we were dealing with neophytes. We are not. Homebrew and Otto have been around long enough to understand the distinction between a neutral legal point and actual bigotry. It’s been explained to them plenty of times. How often do they get to play the homophobia card before we can rationally call it a deliberate tactic instead of a newcomer’s error?
[QUOTE=LaurAnge]
I think that once he started accusing people of branding non-homophobes homophobic as punishment…"
Not as punishment! As a combination of intimidation and villianization.
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
By insisting on characterizing the term (and by extension, its users) as “dishonest,” you practically invite people to conclude your position in the larger debate.
I had just finished posting to thank you about “toeing” when I had to leave the computer. Otherwise, I would have responded to this, too.
Do you realize what you’re saying?..This term is dishonest! Or in the case of those who have unthinkingly adopted the use of it, inaccurate. Is one to unquestioningly accept indiscriminate and abusive use of this term because to do otherwise would cause a person to quite rightly and logically be percieved as a bigot?
“Go with the lie, or you’re a bigot!”
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Are you ever going to provide a cite for these assertions?
I’ve answered this before, buttpipe! (Sorry to everyone else. I can only overlook being called an asshole just so many times.)
What you are attempting to do is one of the oldest tricks in the book on debates. Once again (damn, I have to say that a lot), I am not about to get bogged down on who says it, what their context is, why they said it or what their intent was, etc. To do so would only deflect once again from the OP which was intended to discuss the DISHONESTY