So, you gonna try again? to find a quote where I call someone a homophobe just for disagreeing with me? Or do you acknowledge that such is not the case?
And you’ll have to try a lot harder to draw a parallel between what december did over and over, in GD, and what I did with that thread in the Pit. Be prepared for me to link to a LOT of similar threads in the Pit.
This is why I tend to suspect that you’re approaching the problem backwards; the homophobia pre-exists the rationalisation about it being a choice; these people will remain homophobes even if and when it is consclusively demonstrated not to be a choice - they’ll just start carping on about it being an insidious genetic disease.
Homophobia is the problem; people may dress it up in all different kinds of ways, including (and at the moment, perhaps predominantly) “it’s a lifestyle choice”, but the problem is the underlying homophobia, which is not addressed by proving that it isn’t a choice.
I agree 100%.
… but, that being the case, isn’t it then at least logically possible to believe that homosexuality is a choice (and quite possibly be wrong), but not actually be homophobic at all?
I mean, if someone said “It’s a choice, but that’s cool, because it’s your life and it’s your choice”, they might be factually incorrect, but I don’t think it would be fair to accuse them of homophobia.
Granted there may not actually exist such a person, but…
Do not expect the majority to accept you, we are tribal in nature. What is strange is, well strange. I do not have feelings that you should not be allowed to enjoy this wondrous journey around the sun. This is based on the fact that your ilk do not breed, and my relations will not have to deal with a mindset that is non-replicating…
Thanks. That’s a great working definition of a homophobe.
I think that yes you did in the links I provided even if you “retracted” in your special way at the end. Also, by your definition of homophobia that I quoted earlier, you’ve sure indicted a lot of people on this message board.
Ahh, since other people are doing it that excuses your actions…Gotcha 
I was bred by straight people, asshole. Your own kids might be gay. For your sake I hope they are; for theirs, I hope they are not.
:rolleyes:
I didn’t retract. Anyone of average intelligence who reads what I wrote in that thread would have understood what it was.
This is such bullshit.
Since it’s OK in the Pit, other people do it there. Since it’s not OK in GD, december got banned. Try again.
This is what I get for starting a controversial thread and then departing from it for 24 hours–a whole load of responses that have left me overwhelmed.
Anyway, in summary I’d like to thank those Dopers who have supported me in this thread, even if it’s only to say “I disagree with you but admire your conviction.” I realize after a day of thought that a pitting may have been a little too far, but I do think this dimension of dialogue is necessary. From what I see in these boards, and the world at large, I’m fearful of an inevitable collision between the homosexual movement and the Christian movement. Yeah, they’re colliding already–I don’t mean to disavow any indiginities or prejudice that’s happened on either side of the debate. I just hate to think that things will get a lot worse before they get better–which they almost certainly will.
I, for one, will continue to study the issue further. I really will. I want to reclarify that this is largely how I study religious issues that I don’t understand or don’t have an answer to–I’m at a point in my life where I don’t simply take my Church’s statements at face value, but that I go investigate exactly what was said, and what the theological basis for it is. Largely, I’ve come to agree with the church’s teachings–but I admit that there’s always more studying to be done.
I am, of course, just as frustrated as the rest of you: I wish God would make a personal appearance and say “Look, idiots, THIS is what I meant.” But given that we’ve already gone through several books, prophets, and one guy claiming to be God himself, I don’t know if even THAT would make it any clearer.
I continue to welcome debate, and hope to learn from you all. Yes, lissener, even you–although I fear that this won’t happen anytime soon, since you seem to be possessed of some kind of anger that’s preventing you from seeing anything but red. Please, dude, calm down and get some help–you’re giving the other homosexual apologetics a bad name.
No, it is not logically possible the believe that homosexuality is a choice, in the face of all available information–anecdotal and otherwise–except in the sense that “anything is possible.” To cling to such an “opinion” is ludicrous and irrational, and can only be explained by an emotional inability to consider the truth.
I would accuse them of homophobia if they use that as an excuse to, say, “disapprove” of gay marriage. If that person holds the belief, to any degree, that a gay person’s different treatment by the laws of this society, is no big deal because that person chose that life knowing there were legal limitations on it, that person is a homophobe.
**
Well gee, if you say it’s not logically possible, then it certainly can’t be.
Oh and it’s quite possible, seeing as how this is what Bones believes.
Care to show where bones disapproved of gay marriage? You know, since you labeled him a homophobe and all.
**
In my mind, much of what is wrong with organized religion is that it discourages many/most of its adherents from thinking for themselves. Garbage in, garbage out.
Being nonreligious and straight myself, I find the above quote as lame as an excuse can get. Especially in light of the fact that Res appears to be a bright guy, quite capable of making his own decisions based on the available facts. The most salient one amongst them is that gays are simply people, like anyone else. Full stop.
Fuck the Catholic Church and their intransigent and hypocritical posturing vis-a-vis sexual practices. Sure as shit wasted some Holy Water on me.
If you believe that the statement “Al Sharpton’s extremism give other blacks a bad name” is racist, then the above-quoted statement is homophobic.
If however you used the word “apologetics” to indicate that you’re not referring to all homosexuals, just us “apologetics” (though not sure what that means), then it is not a homophobic statement.
lissener, for someone who has an inordinate fondness of accusing other people of ducking the issue or of lack of reading comprehension, you sure do have a funny understanding of what Mange was suggesting.
So let me clarify for him, since it’s obvious to me what he was trying to say.
Suppose that Bob believes, rationally or not, that being homosexual is a choice. Is it logically possible for him to nevertheless be okay with it? Is he a homophobe?
The answers are, obviously, yes, and no. At least according to me.
So are you saying that a homophobe is a person who disagrees that homosexuality is a choice, or is there more to it?
I’m not suggesting that such a position should be considered a tenable or enlightened one, indeed it may well be a deeply ignorant and unworkable one, but the position of belief that homosexuality is an individual choice does not, on its own, amount to homophobia.
Although the issue is moot if nobody actually holds this abstract view.
sorry, agrees that it’s a choice
{{{{{lissener}}}}}
If THAT doesn’t work, I’ll just mosey back to the comic book threads in Cafe Society…
I wonder if the term ‘homosexual apologetics’ was not intended to refer exclusively to homosexual individuals, but rather that subset of [humans regardless of sexual orientation] that happen to be arguing in favour of equal rights etc for homosexuals.