Oh, and about showing you, you just fucking said it, moron.
in referance to talking with a homophobe. When people disagreed with you in your homosexual threads, you called them homophobes, even though they were not.
Please show me where I said someone was a homophobe simply for disagreeing with me.
If I quote what you said in response to somebody, you’ll merely weasle out by redefining homophobe to fit your whims, you constantly weasle by redefining homophobe over and over and have no clear judgement of who is and who is not, and since you yourself said you refuse to reasonably argue with a homophobe, instead spewing ugly contempt filled shit at them, then I see no reason to bring you shit that you’ll instantly deny.
This is like the fourth or fifth time I’ve seen you say this. Are you channelling banhattan now?
Instead of just saying “asked and answered,” why not quote where it was answered so we don’t think you’re just being a douchebag?
I have only defined homophobe in one way, and have never redefined it.
Please show me where I called someone a homophobe simply for disagreeing with me, or quit pulling that bullshit out of your ass once and for all. Put up or shut up.
Sorry, Ash, tired of doing all the work. If someone brings something up that’s been addressed over and over and over again, I’m not likely to keep rising to the same bait. An inattention to the content of the thread is indicative, to me, of bad-faith debating. If Bippy wants to indicate otherwise by actually expending some of the effort that you’re suggesting I should expend, perhaps I’ll meet him halfway.
The last post from Bippy contains two questions. Both are yes/no questions. Would it really be that difficult to answer them?
Fine:
No.
No.
(The premise he states at the beginning is incorrect, and its parellel in re: homophobia has been addressed over and over and over.)
Actually that was too abrupt: I apologize, Bippy.
The gentlemen’s agreement is not as you suggest. The gentlemen’s agreement is not to call an antisemite an antisemite, and by extension not to call a racist a racist or a homophobe a homophobe.
First, your ill-brained definition of homophobes:
Gay Children of Homophobes Unite!
Of course, you call
John Mace a homophobe here by saying:
You said that after the conditions in the thread were given that only homophobes could suck your dick. Then you give these too:
I also said this, near the end of the same thread"
It seems clear that Res has put a lot of thought into how he can reconcile his personal conscience with the teachings of his Church. There’s obviously some conflict there. I imagine it must be difficult to resolve what one feels, emotionally, to be correct, with what one believes to be the will and desire of the Supreme Being.
Of course, as an atheist, I could give a fuck. I don’t give a shit about what you believe in. I care how your thoughts and actions impact things that actually exsist, not how they line up with your supernatural wish-fulfilment. You don’t “condone” homosexuality. Well, congratulations, you’re a bigot. Not much of one, sure; compared to the Jesse Helms and Pat Robertsons of the world, you barely rate. But all this hand-wringing about why you’re a bigot is a joke: if you’re so damned conflicted, change your belief system. If your belief system is more important than other people, fine. That’s your call, but stop trying to play it for pity. Stop pretending that you have to believe this way. You choose to follow a religion that teaches that some people are inherently worth less than other people. People make their Gods in their own image: your God is a bigot. What does that say about you?
All that said, I don’t think you’re a worthless person, or fundamentally evil, or anything. This is just one part of your personality that I find ugly. It’s not the whole of your being, or your defining character trait. (I hope, at least.) Just as, I am sure, the fact that you don’t “condone” homosexuality does not prevent you from being civil, or even friendly, with gays you meet in day-to-day life, there’s no reason I can’t do the same to people who feel the way you do. But when the subject comes up, I have to denounce such beliefs in the strongest possible terms. Morally, I can do nothing less.
Lissener, Lissener, Lissener… You don’t really think that anyone who denies the genetic basis for hmsxlty is a homophobe, do you?
I’ve got a cool question, then: my brother is gay. Very gay, if I can put it that way. Does that mean I could be genetically “half gay?”
If there is a “gay gene,” am I part of a new. potentially oppressed group? (“The Gayable?” or “Almohomosexuals”? How about “halfmosexuals?”) What if a gay gene is discovered, but it turns out you don’t have it? You’d be as confused as this guy is.
I am ribbing you here by taking your idea to extremes… but I don’t think you’ve thought about the implications.
'possum, asked and answered.
What about people who consider the presence or absence of a causal genetic factor in homosexuals to be entirely irrelevant in respect of their rights and their place in society?
Wasn’t that what the thread by Diogenes
here was about?
Thanks lissener I have been trying to follow this and other threads as far as possible, but the info in it is sometimes hidden by the misunderstandings of those involved and of my own.
My two questions were not directed at you in particular, unfortunately in the time between writing and sending the message several messages had come between which changed the reading of my question from a question of simple value to a question with apparent motive to undermine your position.
There is I believe strong reasons not to be rude to others no matter how reprehensible their views are. The reason for my belief in this, is that anyone can change for the better. Rudeness in debate always makes the rude person’s ideas seem weak even if that is not truly the case. And rudeness makes the person perceiving the rudeness become defensive or rude themselves both of which are of no help to anyone who would like them to change, even just a little.
I believe that calling ResIpsaLoquitor a homophobe is unhelpful, when the source of the Homophobia being felt is not him/her personally but the current tenets of the Catholic church and its reading of the Bible.
In a similar fashion I would not call a Jewish or Muslim person racist if their understanding of their religious text leads them to believe they are the “Chosen People of God”. They would only be racist if they act upon that belief in ways that discriminate against those they consider not chosen.
. . . WHat about them? who is this addressed to?
Sorry; rethought.
I am one of those people.
It’s only when homophobes crop up to try to rationalize their prejudice, which is usually based on the misapprehension that it’s a choice one makes, that choice comes into the debate.
Oh, I didn’t read that far…I guess I didn’t think I’d have to since that’s kind of the same thing **December ** did to get banned when he tried to make a point. Hmph.