Nobody knows what causes homosexuality, so arguing vociferously over the origins of homosexual orientation is (excuse the expression) fruitless. But please, do not base your opinions on gay rights on the tenor of Lissener’s or my posts, but on the merits of the cause itself.
Racism is wrong, no matter how irritating Al Sharpton may be.
Anti-Semitism is wrong, no matter how annoying Ariel Sharon may be.
And homophobia is wrong, no matter how irritating Lissener or Gobear may be.
I apologize, Daniel, but I have no intention of being polite to homophobes on this subject.
I’m perfectly polite on most other subjects, disagreements notwithstanding, but I’m through being anything but aggressive and ugly to homophobes, and will never waste another breathe on a reasonable conversation with one.
I’ll submit to the rules of GD when I’m in there, and I’ll engage anyone, ignorant or otherwise, who shows a good faith intention to actually learn something on the subject. But I will not engage homophobes who refuse to engage sincerely.
And yes, what that means is this: if I tell you that for me, it was not a choice, your refusal to accept that at face value is to call me a liar. To refuse to accept it from the nearly total unanimity of everyone else who’s ever expressed themselves on the matter is to call everyone else a liar. If that’s what you have to do to cling to your “belief” that it’s a choice, that’s utterly irrational, and I will refuse to engage reasonably.
Gobear, I’m in total agreement with you on that post.
lissener, is the “you” in your last paragraph referring to me specifically? If it isn’t, this is an example of how immoderate posting can come across as really insulting. If it is, you’re completely misconstruing what I’ve said here and elsewhere.
I’ll repeat: at least try to be polite (= listen carefully) to folks who substantially agree with you. Politeness toward respectful opponents would be nice, too, but if that’s too much to ask, at least don’t jump down the throats of your allies.
Daniel
The “you” was universal, not specific, unless of course you’d call me a liar for telling you, from the horse’s mouth as it were, that homosexuality is not a choice, no matter how complex its actual “source” might turn out to be.
I would never tell you that. And if you’d read my posts, you’d know that by now, and not have to include that snarky little qualification in your post.
Have some tea. Calm down.
Daniel
Something that I would like to bring to the table here is that I fully understand how over time this can start to look like an unreasonable request. The fact is that even the folks that are polite in their condemnation of homosexuality are part of a system that is rather active in it’s desire to marginalize and dehumanize people simply because of the way that they love. In a very real way, even folks that are polite in their expression that homosexuality is wrong are still a threat.
Moreover, I do not understand why it is that the burden should fall on the gay community to endlessly and politely educate these folks. At some point, it should be acceptable to simply dismiss them. The information is out there, as are all of the arguments in favor of treating each person with dignity, equality and respect in spite of how you feel about the way that they love other humans.
Binarydrone, refusing to respond to homophobes is acceptable. Engaging in a vitriolic fashion with people who are debating honestly and respectfully is counterproductive. Being vitriolic and aggressive and leaping down the throats of people who basically agree with you is assholish.
Daniel
It’s good to know you’re completely unreasonable when talking to anyone who disagrees with you.
I agree 100%.
Ryle, you made that up. You’re a liar unless you can show me where I said I intend to be “completely unreasonable when talking to anyone who disagrees with” me.
**gobear wrote:
Agreed. Homophobia is wrong, and Lissener’s militant rudeness is completely independent of this fact. What is not agreed is the definition of homophobia. I tend to use the standard, accepted definition. Whereas Lissener is using a different definition, namely anyone who has ‘negative feelings towards homosexuals’ or who does not condone homosexuality.
It is perfectly acceptable to condemn homophobia. What is not acceptable, is to create a new definition for the term, group detractors together under this new definition, and then systematically condemn them.
Can you give me an example of how you can debate honestly and respectfully that an entire segment of humanity should be marginalized and denied full access to all of the institutions of society?
Honestly, I curtly dismiss these folks out of hand and I have nothing to loose (having the complex set of nature and nurture that resulted in me turning out to be heterosexual). Were the behavior of the straight supremacists more of a direct threat to me, I can very much see where I would rather quickly go on the attack.
If a wasp lands on my arm, I squash it. I don’t sit down with it drinking cinnamon snap fucking tea and hold a teach- in about how its stinging me would negatively impact my self-actualizing anima.
It’s kind of a gentleman’s agreement, as I see it. And it applies to any number of comparable areas as well.
From the perspective of a conservative, liberals are ruining this country, and thus causing all sorts of harm to them personally. And from the perspective of liberals, the same applies to conservatives. And the same goes for people who hold differing opinions on any number of specific issues, from abortion to affirmative action to SOCAS to drug laws, and so on. According to your rationale here, the proper approach to dealing with anyone holding a position on any of these issues should by rights be shrilly attack them, in recognition of the fact that they, by their political support, are oppressors. Of course, the other side feels precisely the same about you and other holders of your position, so if everyone adopts your approach any hope of reasonable discussion of the issues is lost in the furious shouting on both sides. Not to mention the dangers of increased animosity along political lines among members of the various political groupings.
So to avoid this type of situation, we kind of hope that people on each side can be polite and respectful to others with different opinions, even though each side may feel that those opinions are empowering their oppression. And the payoff for them is that the other side might be respectful to them, even though they feel the same way.
Of course this is not mandatory - obviously anyone can do whatever they want. But the expectation has some rational basis, and is not one that is being uniquely applied to gays.
Let’s suppose that here on the SDMB we get a newbie. This newbie is 16 years old, and had a fundamentalist upbringing. S/he comes to this board, sees one of lissener’s threads in GD about homosexuality and decides to lurk within. Said lurker sees the kind of vitriol that lissener has been throwing about lately.
Do you honestly think this is going to help abolish his/her ignorance? I doubt it. In fact, it’ll probably strengthen it.
Even if you’ve been debating this issue for your entire life (which I imagine most of you homosexual dopers have been), I think that if you really want to get anywhere you have to be unfailingly polite to all who want to engage in the discussion.
Except the trolls. Be as mean and rotten to them as you want. 
What’s the gentleman’s agreement method for dealing with Anti-Semites or racists?
Actually, this cracks me fully up: Elia Kazan’s greatest achievement, IMHO, is a film in which Gregory Peck poses as a Jew to write an article about antisemitism. He comes to learn that antisemitism is a systemic, societal problem, largely supported by the common practice of politely overlooking it. The film is titled Gentlemen’s Agreement. Might be a GREAT double feature with Trembling Before G-d.
Yes, thanks for the eye rolling since it’s quite evident your mind isn’t open. In fact, your attitude in the threads of read about this subject are pretty analagous to a McCarthy Witch Hunt with everyone that strays from your narrow P.O.V to be a homophobe.
It’s a good thing that homophobia doesn’t seem to carry the same weight that racism has on this board or your calling people homophobic would have you in a much bigger flame war.
I think it’d go without saying if you wanna play “Red Rover” with any ideology or circumstance that you’d wanna do that. 
There’s a fundamental difference between a gentleman’s agreement to tolerate something and a gentleman’s agreement to be merely respectful of others’ views on a subject. I am not suggesting that any sort of propriety would require you to tolerate what you consider to be homophobia - it’s only the tone that you adopt in combating it that is an issue. Same goes for abortion, affirmative action and any number of other examples. And the same goes for anti-Semites and racists.
Seriously and respectfully, Izzy, I’d be curious to hear your reaction to that film, if you can rent it (newly restored version out on DVD). I wonder if it would give you any difference of perspective?
The gentleman’s agreement is to not label all Arabs as anti-semites and not to label all Israelli’s as anti Arab.
Why?
Because by doing so you make it impossible for two groups with differing views to comunicate, further more by alienating those who might change their ideas if given time to think and better less biassed information than they grew up with you lose the chance to make changes for the good of all.
Catholic ‘dogma’ does say homosexual sex is wrong. But the ‘dogma’ is also interpreted as saying that any sex which is not for the explicit purose of reproduction is wrong.
Is someone who believes all circumsision is wrong being anti-semetic?
Is someone who believes all non penis-vagina penitration sex is wrong being homophobic?
Bippy, asked and answered.
I didn’t make that up you dolt, you’ve consistentley shouted homophobe when people disagree with you, and then they disagree that they are a homophobe and you tell em that they’re hijacking your threads.
Fuck you and your agenda, I agreed with you initially but your fucked up arguements are making me question my viewpoint.