wring, did you not read ANY of what I wrote?
Can you think of one good reason to believe that EVERYBODY is lying?
Frustrating, indeed, I should imagine. But if such a person is pro-gay-marriage, never says anything mean or nasty towards gay people, but, for whatever screwed up reason, believes that it’s a choice–is that person a flamin’ homophobe?
Maybe they are just stubborn.
Maybe they had a cousin Arnold who was gay, and Arnold told them that it was a choice for him. (Arnold being the confused soul that he was.)
Some people get something into their head, and nothing will pry it out. But if all their other acts, deeds, inner thoughts, etc., are not anti-gay or gay-hostile, but they have this stubborn idea because of what Cousin Arnold told them 10 years ago, are they still a homophobe? Or just a stubborn, somewhat bullheaded person?
And, on preview, what wring said.
ANd where the hell did this come from? I never suggested any such thing. I only “give shit” to people who come here looking for it. Nobody, in any of these threads, has asked me, “Lissener, would you give shit to someone who actively worked against gay discrimination and for gay marriage, if they believed in their heart that you chose to be gay?” yet you assume my answer to that unasked question would be YES! GIVEM SHIT!
When the answer, if you’d asked me, would be no. I would not give such a person shit.
Why is that such a necessary component in these threads, this ask one thing but mean another bullshit?
Man, I hate it when these threads reach this stage–“OK, but what if he was left-handed, and had once been traumatized by a circus elephant?”
You’re asking me to pronounce judgment on a situation that I don’t go around pronouncing judgment on. Almost every time I’ve shared what I think defines a homophobe has been in response to others’ questions. I’ve made no attempt to get my definition legislated, or to get other Dopers to change their definition to match mine, or gone hunting around just to pounce on people and call them homophobes. (Cites to the contrary will get you an apology.)
But OK, in your hypothetical (these begin to seem more and more like entrapment: You’d never kill anyone? No. What if someone was holding your grandmother hostage? No; I don’t like my grandmother. What if they were threatening to rub a cheese grater on Hugh Jackman’s face? Ok, yeah, I guess I’d kill him a lot. AH HA! you said you wouldn’t kill anyone!)
In the hypothetical you propose, if I knew those people, I probably wouldn’t ever bring these subjects up. But if it they were suddenly exposed to a WHOLE lot more information, and still refused to let go of their prejudices, I might write them off and stop wasting my time with them. I wouldn’t call them homophobes, primarily; any homophobia they had would probably be incidental to general small-mindedness.
why yes, I did in fact read what you wrote, thanks for asking. It was mostly an explanation of why/how you believe that homosexuality is not a choice, (which was odd, since I’ve **repeatedly ** stated that I agree w/this position), and ended by saying that since a person who believed that it was a choice was, then, believing that you and all the rest were lying etc, then
In my book they would potentially be ignorant, but not necessarily homophobic.
But, since in your book, you would equate it with homophobia, I submit to you then, that the accusation “merely disagreeing w/lissener = homophobic” has been demonstrated.
As I’ve suggested, in several posts now, it is indeed possible for both:
A. A person who thinks homosexuality is a choice can in fact believe that said people who’ve made that choice are equal in every way, to people who’ve made other choices.
and
B. A person who thinks homosexuality is not a choice may in fact, also believe that homosexuals are less than equal to other human beings.
I have no idea why you would cling so strongly to the position that they ‘must’ believe homosexuality is not a choice in order for them to not be homophobic in your eyes. I can’t for the life of me see why it would matter in the least.
Lissener, where you’re losing people here is this seeming desire to label people homophobes over tangential issues. As wring so ably put, it should be about how they think gays should be treated, not if they have a misconception about the origin of homosexuality.
This is lazy bullshit. You asked me a very specific question.
Do you believe that the earth is round? Do you think people who disagree with you are ignorant? Proof: anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant.
Do you believe that your mind is not being targeted by government microwaves? If someone disagrees with you, and they believe that Laura Bush is reading your thoughts, are they insane? Proof: anyone who disagrees with you is insane.
What kind of bullshit is that?
Lissener, do you believe A? Yes. Would you say that anyone who disagrees with you about A is wrong? In my opinion, yes. So you’re saying that everyone who disagrees with you is WRONG!
Give it up.
Cheese, please read my recent posts addressing that point.
accurate.
the laziness lies with you, in that you refuse to even consider that some one might be wrong about the issue of choice, and yet still not be homophobic.
wring, please respond more specifically.
How is what you asked me different from:
“Do you believe that your mind is not being targeted by government microwaves? If someone disagrees with you, and they believe that Laura Bush is reading your thoughts, are they insane? Proof: anyone who disagrees with you is insane.”
It’s you that doesn’t get it.
In your example, the statement “mind being targeted” is an example of one way some one might exhibt insanity. and If some one disagreed that it was an example, we’d have a disagreement and yes, indeed I think they’d be wrong etc.
In this case, however, the statement “I believe that homosexuality is a choice” is not from what I can see, an example of homophobia. they may indeed be wrong, but homophobia (IMHO, and it seems to a great degree, in yours as well) is believing that homosexuals are less than equal, deserve less than equal treatment etc.
the two are not the same thing, nor does one preclude the other, nor do they automatically always occur together.
And yet, you seem to insist that the belief that homosexuality is a choice is in some fashion, evidence that the person is a homophobe.
IT may indeed be that many people who believe that are also homophobic. But the two really are not related in any way that I can see.
I believe that some poor people choose to be Republicans. But they are indeed my equals as humans and should be afforded the same level of treatment. I believe that some people choose to be Christian. Same deal.
So, I have no problem believing that some one can believe that homosexuality is a choice **and yet not ** be homophobic.
You’re (IMHO) clinging to a very silly position. Were you to simply state that 'in your experience, most people who believed that homosexuality was a choice, were also homophobic, I’d not have a way of disputing that, nor would it be then true that you would consider someone to be homophobic for disagreeing with you.
But, instead you’re arguing this to the point of being compared to THe Ryan fer christs sake.
If you disagree with me that to insist, except out of ignorance, that homosexuality is a choice, is basically calling me–and millions of others–liars, then I can see why you see no relationship between the two.
Obviously we disagree.
If you disagree with me that to insist, except out of ignorance, that homosexuality is a choice, is basically calling me–and millions of others–liars, then I can see why you see no relationship between the two.
Obviously we disagree.
The problem with your penultimate paragraph is this: your “most/also” is only looking at the empirical facts; I am positing a theory for WHY those “most” “also.” I don’t see why you insist that they’re mutually exclusive.
Your statement: “in your experience, most people who believed that homosexuality was a choice, were also homophobic” is, let’s say, a gathering of fact. From that point, I have formed a hypothesis: that, in the face of all available information to the contrary, insisting on such a misconception is irrational.
And a further hypothesis: what would inspire someone to behave so irrationally? Personally, the only reason I can theorize is their discomfort with homosexuality itself. I’d love to hear other hypotheses.
But to draw from that that ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME–ABOUT ANYTHING–IS IN DANGER OF BEING LABELED A HOMOPHOBE–is ridiculous and lazy.
Fine, you draw a different conclusion; or rather, so far, you choose NOT to draw a conclusion. Fine. How does my positing a hypothetical conclusion as to why certain people act irrationally make me The Ryan?
It’s also not necessarily calling you a liar - they may instead, simply believe that you’re wrong, misguided etc. And either way, it is not the same thing as treating you as less than human. Odd that you can’t see that.
And your blindly clinging to this standard even when it actually **proves Airmans’ ** point, is distinctly odd as well.
It’s really odd what you’re doing, don’t you see?
I essentially agree with you. I believe that homosexuality is not a choice, that gosh darn it, equality is a good thing, equal treatment should be the norm, not the exception, the whole gay marriage thing etc etc etc. and I’ve never even said ‘some of my best friends are gay’.
and yet you’re arguing w/me over an idiotic point.
Some one can in fact be ignorant and still believe you’re entitled to equal treatment. The fact that they believe you’re wrong about the ‘choice’ is irrelevant to the other.
let me try one last time.
I personally believe that substance abuse is a disease, and not a matter of ‘choice’. There are others who disagree w/that position quite strongly. Yet, I do not think that the position of ‘disease/choice’ is equal to being able to state that the person is prejudiced against folks w/substance abuse issues.
Now, replace the ‘substance abuse is a disease’ with “homosexuality” in the first part and ‘substance abuse issues’ in the second.
now do you see?
If you believe that I am wrong ABOUT MYSELF, and in the same way millions of others–nearly, again, 100% of the people who’ve expressed themselves on this–then “just thinking I’m wrong” doesn’t cut it. Why am I wrong? What evidence do you have that can prove 100% of people wrong?
What do you call someone who–even if secretly–simply believes that black people are inferior to white people? Just calling it an opinion or saying “they just think everybody else is wrong” doesn’t cut it.
And what point of ADUSAF’s does it prove? Two people have accused me of calling anyone who disagrees with me a homophobe, and both have hunted for cites and come up empty. Now you try to make the same case, but the best you can come up with is, basically, everyone who doesn’t agree with you about Laura Bush is insane.
But you still haven’t addressed my point about my drawing a hypothetical conclusion, and how that is different from your “most/all” thing.
lissener you stated that you believe (know) that homosexuality is not a choice.
You also stated that people who do not believe that (who believe that it is a choice) are homophobes.
therefore people who disagree with you (on that point) are homophobes, regardless of how they may treat homosexuals, regardless of their position on any other thing.
therefore, Airman’s point has been proven.
I don’t know what you’re asking me on the other.
Re: the rest of your post about ‘how could they’ blah blah blah, see my point re: alcoholism as a disease.
A, the point is yours; I just play it as it lays. B, out of respect for this board and its processes I have stuck with this thread this far. But I’m getting pretty tired of going around and around on the same stupid merrygoround over and over and over again.
This is not what asked me, for fuck’s sake. Every time you ask me one question–“would you give shit to someone who works for gay rights but is secretly a homophobe?” and I answer that question (no, I would not give them shit), you flip flop over to the other question: “Is it your opinion that people who insist that you and millions of other people are wrong about their sexuality are being disrespectful to you?” So I answer that question (yes, I believe they’re being disrespectful), and you flop back to the first question.
You seem to be laboring under the conviction that they are the same question. They are not.
Why can’t you respond to race parallel, which makes more sense, since it’s inherent and incidental and not innately self-destructive?
"I personally believe that being born black is a irrelevant to a person’s intelligence. There are others who disagree w/that position quite strongly. Yet, I do not think that the position of ‘black = stupid’ is equal to being able to state that the person is prejudiced against black people.
Please, sincerely, try that on for size. Sincerely. Do you not see that simply not calling it prejudice doesn’t change the fact?
“Black= stupid” is in fact a demonstration of unequality.
try again.
Airman himself admitted that his point had not been proven, so I think you’ve missed something somewhere.
He said that anyone who disagrees with me is a homophobe. I pointed out pretty persuasively that that is not the case. I have a very exact definition of whom I consider to be homophobic, and I have never wavered from that definition, and it has never included “people who disagree with me.”
I have never–many unproductive cite hunts have so far backed me up on this–labeled anyone a homophobe simply for disagreeing with me.
“that sexuality is inherent somehow, even if we don’t know how, and is not a choice” is not equal to “me.”
If someone disagrees with that statement, they are not disagreeing with me; they are disagreeing with pretty much anybody who’s given the issue much thought or attention.