They made him into a pie?
Damn hobbits.
I keep yelling “Serpentine! Serpentine!”
Anyway, sorry for not joining in the middle, old chaps, but once the dreaded “homosexual lifestyle” reared its head…well, you know.
It’s nice to see the OP fighting a vigorous defense of a position that has no definition except what’s in his head (and he won’t share with us).
Now if you’ll excuse me, those fucking goblins are in my fridge again.
Hey, you guys are just misunderstanding the OP. He’s just a strict constructionalist. You know, the sort that thinks every word has a meaning, and only one meaning. So “homophobe” has to be literally interpreted as a mental disorder. Words can’t be extended from their original definition to metaphorical use. Words can’t change, and grow, or carry anything but their original, singular sense. So, for example, you can’t call a child “naughty” – the King James Bible meant that as “wicked” and who are we to use it in any other way? An “island” is a chunk of land surrounded by water, and it can’t possibly be found dividing the two halves of a street. And so on. I do wonder, though, what his one-and-only-one definition of “set” might be? Or “run”. Or “hold”. Or… Well, no doubt the vast media-Hollywood-politician conspiracy to impose the Gay Agenda can tell us all what to think.
I just baked a rhubarb pie – any takers?
Not at all. I certainly understand if Homebrew and Otto place a different value on the process of law than I do. Indeed, it’s not surprising.
But that doesn’t let me call me a homophobe without complaint. No matter how little they value law, they (if they were intellectually honest) would acknowledge that my position is not rooted in any sort of prejudice against gays. If there were some derisive insult that captured the concept of “overly-attached-to-the-process-of-law-and-insufficiently-concerned-about-its-consequences” then I’d understand. (I’d disagree, but the insult would make sense and be honestly levelled). But that’s not what happened.
Diogenes - I hate to give ammunition to an OP that I’m pretty sure I disagree with… but you’ve asked him for an example. Here’s the example. Dewey and I were called homophobes in the other thread, and you, in fact, defended me, noting correctly that I was NOT a homophobe, but just focused on what you thought was a whacko approach to state-vs-federal powers. That was a perfectly arguable and defensible statement (again, I don’t agree with the ‘whacko’ part, but I can see where you’re coming from). In essense, in that thread you agreed that I was being called a homophobe when that wasn’t the case.
Here, the OP seems to suggest that sort of thing happens.
- Rick
Well, for what it’s worth, I think their reasoning goes something like this:
If it were Rick who’s rights were being trampled, he’d abandon his legal views and demand equal rights. So the fact that he hasn’t abandoned his legal views is evidence that he places more value on his own rights than on ours, and is therefore a bigot.
I don’t think this is a particularly solid piece of reasoning - importantly, the truth of the first part is next to impossible to ascertain. However, I doubt it’s mere coincidence that you don’t find many gay strict constructionists, so there may be something to it.
Note: I do not myself buy the stated conclusion. But I can understand why people might, and that makes me unwilling to be particularly critical of people who do.
It seems to me you’re conceding the truth of the OP’s scenario. You agree I was called a homophobe without basis in fact. You differ from the OP in that you’re unwilling to criticize the accusers, because you understand, although do not agree, with their reasoning and/or conclusions.
By the way: were I the one whose rights were being trampled, you can rest assured I’d be spending time at the STATE LEGISLATURE, lobbying for my cause, identifying candidates for state office friendly to my cause and helping their campaigns, and indentifying candidates for state office overly hostile to my cause and helping their opponents’ campaigns.
- Rick
And around and around we go. You misapprehend why I say you, and especially Dewey*, are biggoted. It’s not your position on strict constructionalism that makes you a bigot. It’s the fact that you think it perfectly acceptable for the majority to impose discrimination on me because of my sexual orientation. I know you say you don’t personally want to impose that discrimination; but you’re okay with as long as it’s the majority’s opinion. Then you deny me the protection of the 14th Amendment when I try to avail myself of the only relief available besides leaving this country, my home and my family.
If I am fired because I’m gay, that deprives me of my property. If I am forbidden to marry my (hypothetical) boyfriend, that deprives me of my liberty. There are those who would deprive me of my life even. You are in effect saying that my life, liberty and property is less valuable than the majority’s right to make whatever laws they want. It seems to me the Constitution was created to protect Liberty not arbitrary laws.
If it brings you comfort, I’m willing to modify my opinion of you to straight supremist rather than homophobe.
*Dewey receives more disapprobation because of his penchant for entering Pit threads to defend assholes like Sen. Santorum, Tom Delay and Strom Thurmond.
The federal constitution is not a catch-all tool to protect all liberty. The states are the right venue to pursue your claims of liberty.
And to the extent you’re being deprived of your liberty, it is WITH due process of law. The law determines how legislatures are elected, how laws are made, how courts are constituted. The laws that currently forbid you to marry your boyfriend are the result of the due process of law. They are not forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment.
If you wish to change that state of affiars, the Fourteenth Amendment is not the solution.
By the way, what have you done, specifically, to influence the laws of your state?
- Rick
Not to rehash the whole thing, but to be consistent you must believe Loving was a wrong decision.
It may argue it’s “due process” but it’s in no way Equal Protection.
Suffice it to say I do not share your bleak assessment of the situation. Majorities can be persuaded by moral reasoning, even to their detriment; males, for example, effectively halved their voting power by approving the 19th amendment. I see no reason why the instant situation is any different. Indeed, the trend is toward acceptance of gays – thirty years ago, every state had an antisodomy statute; at the time of Bowers that number had been cut in half to 25; by the time of Lawrence, the figure was thirteen. Yes, the legislative approach will take longer. Persuasion generally does. But in following that approach, we gain the advantages sought without harming notions of self-governance.
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?
Ends are as important as means. We have to be careful in making changes to insure we don’t give away the store in exchange for those changes. Recourse to judicial fiat whittles away at our ability to self-govern. We ought not allow the erosion of that principle when there is a perfectly viable (albeit slower) alternative available.
Your moral disapprobation aside, does this mean you agree that Homebrew and Otto are factually incorrect in throwing out the bigot label in response to my remarks?
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.
So you agree that their accusation is false, but see no need to point that out? False slurs are OK in your book?
This, in a nutshell, is a lie. Neither I nor Bricker believes that such discrimination is “perfectly acceptable.” Just because we believe in decentralized, majoritarian government does not mean that any action taken by a majority meets with our moral approval. It just means that when such actions are taken, we think the appropriate remedy is work to change the law by ordinary democratic processes rather than by judicial fiat. A belief in self-governance does not mean sitting on your hands in the face of rules you disagree with.
:rolleyes:
Let’s be clear about what we’re talking about:
- I thought an OP pitting Rick Santorum had not presented sufficient evidence of his assertion, and said so (and I didn’t know much about Santorum before that thread). Much bleating ensued. When finally given additional evidence, I ceded the point, but pointed out that the OP standing alone was in fact insufficient, and that it was right of me to ask for more data (a point the OP chimed in and agreed on, BTW). More bleating. Accusations of homophobia. The usual nonsense.
I can’t seem to find the thread – maybe someone with better searching kung fu can find it. But I defy anyone to read that thread and conclude I am a homophobe. 'Aint so. Asking for more evidence for a particular claim ought not trigger accusations of bigotry.
-
In this thread, I had the temerity to suggest that it might be a bit untoward to celebrate Strom Thurmond’s death like a drunken frat boy. So now I suppose good manners are an indicia of homophobia.
-
I have never to my recollection mounted a defense of Tom DeLay on these boards, though I’m willing to be corrected if I’m overlooking something.
I also call to your attention this post wherein I unequivocally condemned asshatted comments from Sen. Bill Frist about gays.
Except “island,” “run,” and “hold” do not attempt to intimidate, villainize and trivialize people by portraying them as having mental disorders they don’t actually have. Call a bigot a bigot, call a fence-sitter a fence-sitter, but don’t be dishonest.
To MrVisible and all the others who claim no one knows “what the hell” my position is, is very simple:
It is DISHONEST to call someone a “homophobe” if they are not phobic about gays.
That is my position!!! How can I be more clear???
It is totally irrelevant to my original post and the message behind it whether or not I’m in favor of gay people, gay rights legislation or gay marriage. The question is the inherent intentional dishonesty involved in calling people things they aren’t as a tactic to further your own ends!!!
Once again, no one seems to want to try to justify this dishonest ploy; they just want to try to find out if I’m a “homophobe” myself, or try to pretend that no one calls people homophobes who aren’t, and try to get me to recite chapter and verse examples of who is doing it and when. (Btw, if no one is doing it, why are you defending it?)
And while I’m sure I’ll be accused of the same: this is all smoke and mirrors by people who want to avoid the real issue, which is dishonesty in the cause of righteousness.
Actually, in my case it is what happened. I called you ‘lawful evil’ and it seemed to offend you mightily.
I’d like to take this opportunity to remind you that the bad guys always think they’re wearing white hats.
And “homophobia” is not intended to convey a mental disorder. There’s nothing “dishonest” about it. The suffix “phobia” is a perfectly accurate descriptor for those who feel hostility towards gay people. The problem is that you don’t understand how language works. This aspect of your OP has been corrected multiple times.
Next fucking question, dipshit.
Yes.
It did offend me mightly. But I didn’t think it was dishonestly levelled – that is, you believed it and had a basis for the belief. I disagreed - quite strongly - that it was true to call me evil, and I still do. But unlike ‘homophobe,’ calling me ‘lawful evil’ in connection with this debate makes sense from your perspective and is not dishonestly levelled.
Calling me a homophobe is without any foundation. Calling me lawful evil is an utterly cruel attack, and wrong, but I know where you’re coming from when you say it.
See the difference?
- Rick
Okay. Nice position. Looks very comfortable. You’re a moron.
You totally ignore all the work that people have put into explaining to you what the word ‘homophobe’ actually means. You ignore dictionary definitions and patient explanations. You’re a moron.
You ignore the fact that several of us, myself included, are actually using terms that are more clear to the simple-minded, such as straight supremacist, simply because we’re tired of ignorant idiots like yourself latching onto the ‘phobic’ part of the word and making a big deal of it. And here you are, trying to seem like a Hellenic scholar by doing the ‘hyuk, phobic means fear! I’m not afraida you!’ routine. You’re a moron.
I don’t care what your stance on gay rights is. You could fancy yourself the Ghandi of the gay rights movement, and it wouldn’d do anyone any good. You’re a moron.
You cannot fight what you perceive as dishonesty by stating a position on which you’re not willing to listen, as well as simply preach. You can’t fight dishonesty by accusing a group of people of something, and then refusing to define which people you’re accusing. And you can’t fight dishonesty by lying about the people with whom you’re debating. Because the people in this thread aren’t dismissing you for your views on homosexuality. We’re deriding, insulting, and ignoring you because of one thing.
You’re a moron.
We gave up asking your position on gay rights two pages ago. You are a fucking liar as well a moron and tool.
We’re asking you to clarify the terms of your fucking OP! YOU, assface, are the one who is avoiding the substance of your own allegations. Your specious attempt to parse the word “homophobia” as a clinical disorder has already been debunked and dispensed with. Do you actually have any OTHER support for a “dishonest” use of the word? Are you ready to support your stupid ass “Hollywood conspiracy” charges? Are you willing to define what sort of people are being unfairly tarred?
Have you ever been in a debate before? You seem to have no idea how to do it.
Back atcha!
My position on the validity of the word “homophobe” as a being dishonest has hardly been proven wrong. Simply saying it isn’t hardly qualities as proof, and dictionary definitions only state the obvious: the word has been misused so prevalently and for so long that it has now gained recognition in the dictionary.
Being called names by the likes of you two is a compliment, believe me. It shows I’m right on track! Remember?..last refuge; frustrated, ineffectual??? 