# What the fuck is wrong with these homophobic bigots? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 1, 2000, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948 "2000-02-01T17:33:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2000, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/181 "2000-02-15T23:54:00Z")
Rousseau, I hope you don’t see me as nitpicking. In my view, the opinion of the court in the contraceptives case (IIRC Griswold v. Connecticut) established a clear right to privacy for one’s sex life kept in private, e.g., in one’s own home. The state had no right to dictate whether a couple may or may not use contraceptives, because their sex life was to be protected by a constitutional right to privacy. The court read this right into the “unenumerated rights” protected by the Ninth Amendment because in their opinion it was implied by the wording of various enumerated rights, including those covered by the Third and Fourth Amendments. And, not to be a smartalec, but because I would like some background, would you (or another poster with legal background) cite cases where a the testimony of a cop entering a dwelling on an “honest mistake” is considered admissible. It strikes me as strongly anti-Fourth Amendment. Or cops would be able to, uh, “make honest mistakes” whenever they felt it appropriate to do so. (Not a slam on honest cops, BTW – the temptation would be there, and some would do it, I am sure, with the good intention of busting a criminal who oughta be busted.) On the issue of “Constitutionally guaranteed rights,” let me just note that the original framers of the Constitution did not think it necessary to include **any** definition of rights – they were to be understood as protected. The Bill of Rights as we have it was due to strong opposition from people who believed Lord Acton about power, wanting rights spelled out and **all** of them, not just the spelled-out ones, guaranteed. (Which, BTW, is why Robert Bork is a jerk in my opinion, though he’s a great legal scholar – by his own statement, he feels that no rights not spelled out in the text of the Constitution are protected, and the Ninth Amendment is effectively a dead letter.) I do see your point about the furore that would result from anyone trying to amend any part of the Bill of Rights. But I don’t think rights spelled out in the text of the original Constitution or Amendments XI-XXVII are any less guaranteed. And the “unenumerated rights” of Article IX are guaranteed – it only requires a case where one of them is clearly being violated to illuminate what that one actually is. E.g., the right to travel is one of them, but I’m fairly sure none of us would have thought of it if asked for an example of a Ninth Amendment right if we’d been asked before the court cases defining it came up for decision. Rousseau, if you are suggesting that you have adequate bisexual orientation that you could “decide to be gay tomorrow” – then you **still couldn’t.** I’ve seen this argument go on before, and if you would be kind enough to indulge me, and not think I’m flaming you, I’d like to spell it out. Quite simply, while one decides what sex **acts** one will undergo and what one refrain from, one’s sexual interests are not so chosen. IIRC, about 2/3 of the citizens of this country are heterosexually oriented, with little or no interest in members of their own sex. (“Little” implying that for some under very particuarly defined circumstances and with substantial frustration of their normal outlet, they **might** consider a one-time homosexual interest.) Just over 25% are bisexually oriented, with the idea of having sex with any other person (attractive to them, gender no problem) at least a choice amenable to their sexuality. People with religious or other moral objections to a given sexual relationship would nonetheless fall in this category if the person in question is attractive to them. Snark would be a good example of this – he finds both men and women sexually interesting, has a moral (and taste) objection to homosexual practice. And ten percent are unable to find the opposite sex attractive (again with sporadic specific exceptions in some cases, the exact parallel of the parenthetical note on heterosexuality). Of this last group, there are a few who identify themselves as gay but believe homosexual practice is sinful and lead celibate lives. Having defined this in sexuality terms, it becomes necessary to go one step further and note that that is not the primary point raised by gay activists. My relationship with my wife is not primarily sexual. Your relationship with your SO is not primarily sexual. It is the person you want to be with, share life with, wake up next to, eat dinner with, tell that funny story you heard from Uncle Beer to, comfort when she’s down and be comforted by when **you** are. And, as it happens, have sex with. Gay person X is no different from you. Except that he happened to fall in love with and desire spending the rest of his life with another male. And she did that with another female. And anyone who thinks who one falls in love with is a choice has never been in love. And anyone who thinks he or she could choose to be gay could not. At most, having repressed the homosexual aspect of their bisexuality, they could choose to be open about it. And I pity the true bisexual more than the straight or gay person standing next to him/her. At least either of them has a chance for happiness with one other person, and no niggling unmet desires. The poor bisexual, unless he/she happens to fall in love with a fully functional hermaphrodite or end up in a viable multiperson relationship, is out of luck on that front. And I would guess the odds of either of them as about equal, and of course vanishingly small. (Although somebody on the board mentioned having ended up on dates with two different hermaphrodites…) Bottom line, anyway: It’s not a choice. The gay person is what he/she is. And he or she wants much what you or I want, only with somebody who is presumably outside our realm of sexual interest. Sex is a part of it. But only a part. And what they’re asking is for **equal** treatment, not to be put down because we may find their sexual interests grotesque. (My stomach churns when SqrlCub gets graphic about some of his interests – but were it not for making the point here, I’d never let him know it. And what **I** think about Ed Asner as a poster boy is not germane – it’s Sqrl’s life, and what **he** thinks that counts.) It doesn’t seem too out of line to say “Live and let live.” Or even “whatever you would not wish done to yourself, do not do that to others.” BTW, I hope it was clear that any allusions to you being bisexual were within the same hypothetical framework you raised in your statements about sexuality being a choice, not a flame. I’m not interested in flaming intelligent posters, just those who spew poison without thought. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2000, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/182 "2000-02-15T23:57:00Z")
**Polycarp** , you deserve the canonization awarded your namesake. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2000, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/183 "2000-02-16T00:22:00Z")
Rousseau > [@](#): > > Otto, I’m through with repeating myself to you. I’m through dealing with you at all. Poor little flower. Dropped his petals and folded his tent. > [@](#): > > You are obviously devoid of original thought, since nearly everything you write has already been written. Uh huh. > [@](#): > > You refered to Diamond’s statements as (parphrasing) “a member of the most priveleged group on the planet complaing because he has to be sensitive to others.” You fail to mention the fact that white males lose out on jobs and college admissions regularly for no other reason aside from their race and gender. This means you are either ignorant of this fact, or choose to ignore it since it doesn’t serve your purpose. It’s not relevant. Diamond didn’t say a word about losing jobs or not being admitted to college. No, Diamond specifically talked about what a burden it was for him to be careful around people who aren’t str8 white Xian males like he is. If Diamond, or if you, want to have a discussion about affirmative action or “reverse discrimination” then I’ll meet you in Great Debates. You or Diamond want to whine about having to be **nice** to people, honey, expect to be carpet bombed. > [@](#): > > Lacking any real points, you insist on pointing out my technical errors. Sad, really, that you are unable to grasp the actual points, choosing instead to focus on minutae. > [@](#): > > You also accused me of leaving off “…or with beasts,” because somehow that was detrimental to my argument (when, as anybody with two braincells to rub together could see, I left it off because it had nothing to do with the topic at hand). The issue at hand was whether the term “sodomy” is historcally accurate as applied to homosexuals. You have not addressed that issue at all. And of course, now that you’ve taken this little vow to put your fingers in your ears and go “lalalalala” so you can’t hear me anymore, I guess you won’t. > [@](#): > > If you look at the last three pages, you’ll find that you really haven’t made any theoretical points, as the others on this thread are doing. This is of course a false statement on your part, but we are after all in the Pit, so theory sometimes takes a back seat to vitriol. I’ve invited you before to join in the same-sex marriage thread in “Responses to Cecil’s Columns.” You haven’t done so. gee, I wonder why that is. > [@](#): > > You have perhaps the thickest skull of anyone I’ve ever encountered. Oh come now, no one’s skull is thicker than yours. > [@](#): > > You challenge me to do things, and I do them, and then you challenge me to do them again. You say “show me my hypocrisy.” And I do. And then you say “You didn’t show me my hypocrisy. Show me my hypocrisy.” So I do again. Well, no, actually you call me a hypocrite, but fail to offer an example of my saying one thing and acting in a way that belies that statement. You should get yourself a little pad and write down all the words you hear that you don’t understand, and look them up at the end of the week. > [@](#): > > If I want to deal with five year olds, I’ll get a job at a daycare center. You’d never get the job. You have to be smarter than the kids to work at a daycare. > [@](#): > > But, really, I’m just going to ignore you now, because having a discussion with you is like herding cats, and I can’t deal with that kind of frustration anymore. “Herding cats”? You steal from a Super Bowl ad and I’m the one who’s unoriginal. I do love, though, how you feel compelled to announce not one but **twice** that you won’t be talking to me anymore. Having taken no such vow, I’m free to continue to point out your fundamental errors. Starting with this one. Any part of the Constitution is changable by amendment. Article V spells out the process: > [@](#): > > The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. See? Nothing in there exempting any part of the Constitution either then in existence or which would be ratified later. Congress could pass an amendment today to repeal the entire Bill of Rights, and if 3/4 of the states were stupid enough to go along with it, they’d be gone. See the text of Amendment XX1, section 1: “The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.” And before you bluster that the Eighteenth Amendment didn’t deal with “Constitutionally guaranteed rights,” it doesn’t matter. Whatever the subject of the text later amended, once amended that’s it. > [@](#): > > I’m not gay, but if I woke up tomorrow and decided to be, then I could. And it works in reverse as well. Oh right. I woke up at age 6 and decided to have feelings that were “different.” I woke up at age 12 and decided to be gay. You can rest assured that being gay is _not_ a choice. But why don’t you try a little experiment? When you wake up tomorrow, decide to be gay just for the day. > [@](#): > > I admit, it is much harder to be gay than straight. And so people who make that choice have my respect (until they lose it by some other means). Oh yeah, you’ve demonstrated a lot of respect for gay people here. > [@](#): > > Many people then ask me, “why shouldn’t we make it just as easy to be gay?” And I say to them that, as a society, we aren’t ready for that yet. Hopefully, someday we will be, but the reality today is that we are not. Such a nice little Catch-22 you put gay people into. We can’t make it easier for people to be gay because society isn’t ready for it. But society isn’t ready for it because it’s not easy for people to be gay. But we can’t make it easier for people to be gay… [Note: This message has been edited by Lynn Bodoni] ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2000, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/184 "2000-02-16T00:33:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Who INVENTED the term homophobia From “Completely Queer: The Gay and Lesbian Encyclopedia”: “Homophobia: As defined by psychologist George Weinberg, who popularized the term through his book _Society and the Healthy Homosexual_ (1972), ‘the dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals’ or, more generally, ‘revulsion toward homosexuals.’ Today, however, homophobia is generally thought of as an unreasonable fear or hatred of homosexuality, especially in others but also in oneself (internalized homophobia).” ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2000, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/185 "2000-02-16T00:46:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by Rousseau: > That’s why nobody ever alters or deletes [the first ten Constitutional Amendments], although every single other part of the Constitution can be modified. But they _ **can** _ be modified!! They CAN!!! Really, I’m not lying to you! They are part of the Constitution and can be changed!! Aieeeee!! > [@](#): > > **andros** , I apologize. I recognized the links, knew they had been posted on the board before, and assumed that it was you who had previously posted them. Sorry. Er, apology accepted, I suppose. Except that I never posted any links **at all** , as I recollect. Check the rest of the thread. **Gaudere** posted some. Not me, cap’n. > [@](#): > > No. I didn’t claim that all Amendments after 10 were “clarifications.” True enough. You said that the amendments regarding sufferage were clarifications. My bad–I assumed (reasonably, I think) that you were referring to all Amendments 11 and up. > [@](#): > > See, there you go. If it can be changed or removed, it ain’t “guaranteed.” I think that we just have different interpretations of what “guaranteed” means in this context. Er, sure. A right, as per the dictionary, is a privelege granted by the Governement to the people. The Gummint grants us the right to free speech, yadda yadda yadda. But not against our will. If for some bizarre reason most of the people in the country decided that we didn’t want Government protection of free speech, (listen closely, this is the important part) **we can change the Constitution to reflect that.** Do you need me to block quote the passage in the Constitution that spells out the Amendment process? Didn’t think so. It’s a great document, our Constitution. A wonderful document. But it’s not magic. It took blood, sweat and tears to implement it, and it exists only by the will of WE, THE PEOPLE. You’re right in that it’s highly unlikely that any of the first ten amendments will ever be changed–they’ll just be interpreted and reinterpreted. But that doesn’t mean they’re inviolate. > [@](#): > > In no way did I mean to assert anything about you personally, or your “reputation.” I apologize again. Accepted, with gratitude, but unnecessary. I misunderstood and sought offense where there was none intended. Instead, you have my apologies. Now, to non-Constitutional issues: > [@](#): > > I believe that homosexuality is a choice made by free will. I disagree. We’ve been here before. A large portion of the medical and psychological communities also disagree with you. > [@](#): > > I’m not gay, but if I woke up tomorrow and decided to be, then I could. I’m sorry, but I simply don’t believe you. Unless, that is, you find men attractive now and simply don’t act upon those attractions? Are you really making a distinction between the act and the desire? As has been mentioned before, a celibate homosexual is no less homosexual. > [@](#): > > And it works in reverse as well. I’m sorry, but I don’t believe this either. Do you have any proof that gays can voluntarily become hetero (_not_ anecdotal)? Tell you what–you start throwing out medical or phychological journal citations that homosexuality is voluntary and I’ll address them. Otherwise, I’d like you to admit that it’s an unfounded, illogical, and extremely personal bias. -andros- ---
**Author:** ![StarvinMarvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7993a0/32.png) [@StarvinMarvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StarvinMarvin)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2000, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/186 "2000-02-16T00:47:00Z")
OH (grinning really big) This ones not over, just because I have a bone to pick on this one. Be back soon. I just got “fragged” IRL by someone whos a homosexual, and happens to administer our computer network. Hes “telling” on me, for being “overly” interested in gay related subjects and the “down trodden dwelling on sites that dont purvey a healthy view of homosexuals”. He screams as he animates himself and uses his “lithp” to convey his anger. This coming from a 6’1 male in pink DR Martens wearing glittered face dust of somesort. OMG am I PO’ed. This is like my nightmare come to life!!! ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2000, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/187 "2000-02-16T00:50:00Z")
Oops, sorry there, **Rousseau**. **Otto** already posted the Amendment passage. Thanks for the etymology, **Otto**. I didn’t realize the term was that old. One big ol’ nitpick, though. You said > [@](#): > > “Herding cats”? You steal from a Super Bowl ad and I’m the one who’s unoriginal. Persoanlly, I’d be insulted if you’d said this to me. But that’s because I’ve been using the expression “herding cats” for years. I know several others who have as well. -andros- ---
**Author:** ![StarvinMarvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7993a0/32.png) [@StarvinMarvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StarvinMarvin)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2000, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/188 "2000-02-16T00:55:00Z")
Of course you realize he was talking about SDMB, and its contents and all of “our” posts. Thanks CECIL!! kidding, man I love ya, otherwise Id hate my 9-5 life. ---
**Author:** ![Kupek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90db22/32.png) [@Kupek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kupek)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2000, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/189 "2000-02-16T03:26:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by Riboflavin: > \*\* So, Esprix, what’s your opinion of affirmative action or of companies that extend benefits to unmarried gay couples but not unmarried straight couples? > \*\* Let homosexuals marry, and that wouldn’t be a problem, now would it? ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2000, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/190 "2000-02-16T17:10:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by StarvinMarvin: > > Who INVENTED the term homophobia, I mean it was obviously someone homosexual, using it to make others feel as though they are “sick” if they dont accept homosexuality. > > What I am asking is who is credited with the invention of this “illness”? I dont see it listed in the DSM, which I think makes its use invalid, but its so mainstream now, that it almost falls in the UL (urban legend) category. > > But I want to be proved wrong, or shown evidence. Please help me on this. As I posted in “Homosexuality and Genetics” in Great Debates; from [www.merriam-webster.com:](http://www.merriam-webster.com:) > [@](#): > > Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia > Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-& > Function: noun > Date: 1969 > : irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals > > - ho·mo·pho·bic /-'fO-bik/ adjective According to [http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/5393/dictionary.html,](http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/5393/dictionary.html,) “homophobia” was coined by George Weinberg in _Society and the Healthy Homosexual_, evidently sometime around 1969 according to the M-W entry. From [www.religioustolerance.org:](http://www.religioustolerance.org:) > [@](#): > > The word “homophobia” originally meant “fear of homosexuals or of homosexuality.” But the English language is in a continuous state of flux. Words develop different meanings as people develop a new consensus on their definition… Most people agree that: > > [ul][li]Racism means hatred of, or discrimination against, persons of a specific race, usually a minority.[/li][li]Sexism means hatred of or discrimination against persons of a specific gender, usually female or intersexual.[/li][li]Xenophobia means hatred of or discrimination against persons of another nationality, usually a minority…[/ul][/li] > Homophobia is rapidly changing its meaning to: hatred of or discrimination against persons of a specific sexual orientation, usually homosexual or bisexual. Homophobia is an attitude; homophobe is a person who exhibits homophobia; homophobic is an adjective. > > But the word “homophobia” is hopelessly inadequate to cover the full range of people’s negative beliefs about individuals of minority sexual orientations. For example, some people: > > [ul][li]actively work towards defining homosexuals as a minority group which should be deprived of those fundamental human rights which are enjoyed by heterosexuals e.g. the right to marry, or have their jobs protected in the workplace, or be free of discrimination in accommodation.[/li][li]attempt to love the homosexual even while condemning homosexual activity as a sin that they feel is hated by God.[/li][li]hate all persons with a homosexual orientation, even though they remain celibate.[/li][li]feel that persons with a homosexual orientation are sub-human and can be physically attacked with impunity.[/li][li]have an irrational fear of gays and lesbians.[/ul][/li] > Unfortunately, there is only one word, “homophobia” in general use. And it is rapidly becoming a “snarl” word like racism or sexism. Many conservative Christians see themselves in category 2 above, feel that their beliefs and practices are Biblically based, and deeply resent being called homophobes for simply carrying out what they believe are God’s wishes. I honestly could not find the proper etymology of the word, but I’m sure its out there. Esprix * * * Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2000, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/191 "2000-02-17T06:39:00Z")
> [@](#): > > But the word “homophobia” is hopelessly inadequate to cover the full range of people’s negative beliefs about individuals of minority sexual orientations. The term “heterosexism” is also used. In the otherwise execrable book “After the Ball,” the authors suggest abandoning the word “homophobia” (the etymology is the prefix “homo-” as in “homosexual” paired with the traditional -phobia" suffix meaning fear) in favor of “homo-hatred.” ---
**Author:** ![StarvinMarvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7993a0/32.png) [@StarvinMarvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StarvinMarvin)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2000, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/192 "2000-02-16T19:09:00Z")
Okay, now that Mr administrator is fired J. I can go back to my work, and my posts. Now back to homophobia. Heterophobia? Seems that this word has taken on a slant and made those that use it, anti-hetero bigots. BUT I do have proof that no such condition exists. Homophobia is not in DSM, nor in the Encyclopedia of Psychological Diagnosis. I also note that is use once by one not-so-world-renowned writer, makes it “official”? Oh Really? So then I can begin making up words, and ASSUME that they should be used hence forth, even if they are misnomers, and have no legitimate business even existing. The word is divisive, and serves no purposes but to attempt to coerce through fear, those who don’t accept homosexuality, into acceptance. I do think that Homo-hatred is much more correct or appropriate, as it is not a disease, nor is it treatable by counseling and medication, it’s a choice. Made and changed, only by the will of the person feeling it. So since we are SDMB and want the truth, the truth is that HOMOPHOBIA doesn’t exist, but that HOMOHATRED does. Now back to your regularly scheduled arguments, errr I mean debates. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2000, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/193 "2000-02-16T19:41:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by StarvinMarvin: > > BUT I do have proof that no such condition exists. Homophobia is not in DSM, nor in the Encyclopedia of Psychological Diagnosis. I also note that is use once by one not-so-world-renowned writer, makes it “official”? Oh Really? So then I can begin making up words, and ASSUME that they should be used hence forth, even if they are misnomers, and have no legitimate business even existing. I believe the meaning of the word has very clearly been pointed out to not specifically only refer to “fear of homosexuals,” but that its current dictionary definition includes bias against and discrimination towards homosexuals. Nowhere was it said it was a medical condition. Regardless of who coined the word, its current usage is both well-known and acceptable. Arguing etymology just makes you look petty and pointless. Personally, I prefer the term “heterosexist” or “heterocentrist.” * * * Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you. ---
**Author:** ![StarvinMarvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7993a0/32.png) [@StarvinMarvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StarvinMarvin)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2000, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/194 "2000-02-16T19:49:00Z")
Petty and Pointless? SO an URBAN LEGEND of a word gets out, and rather than change it, we leave it?!?! Then you have the nerve to call me petty and pointless for wanting the truth to shine some light on this term? Shame on you! You who admits above that the word is infact not correct since you yourself use “heterosexist” or “heterocentrist”. So if you think I’m being petty, why do you object to the use of words like queer, faggot, and the like. BECUASE IT IS A MALICIOUS TERM!?!?! so when homosexuals lobbied to hve that fixed, it was. So now I lobby for the same courtesy and am told that I am being petty and pointless. Under that banner of thought then I ask you to apply your own SELECTIVE decision on whats iportant to some may not be to all, on your marriage requests. stop being petty? Now does that comment show the double standard that you claim heterosexuals in fact used? Seems that WHAT IS GOOD FOR YOU, is all that you care about not what is good for all. Thats petty. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2000, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/195 "2000-02-16T19:59:00Z")
Observation: StarvinMarvin engaging in troll-like activities Conclusion: StarvinMarvin=TROLL Suggestion: Do Not Feed ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2000, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/196 "2000-02-16T20:17:00Z")
Marvin, you do make a good point. I recall a really tortured essay on the same subject in which someone undertook to suggest that Lesbians were not “homosexuals” (which he considered by Latin derivation to mean “man-lovers”) but “homoeosexuals” (“similar-lovers” with reference to same-sex orientation). Esprix is correct on the dictionary usage of the term…which is descriptive, not prescriptive, by the way. You may be right that some alternative term is needed to describe hatred of gay people. But let me note that homophobia, in the literal meaning, does in fact exist. Vestal Blue, in a poignant post in this same thread, made that very clear. Molested as a boy by an older boy, and unreasoningly fearful of undesired homosexual advances. “Unreasoning fear” spells “-phobia” in my book. I also know, very well, a young man with the same difficulty. He does not hate homosexuals, he is just very uncomfortable around them, though he knows consciously there is no problem, because of his early experience. But don’t mistake the term for its referent. The average gay person has experienced a fair amount of anti-gay attitudes from others. The current term in use is “homophobia.” If that’s not an appropriate term for such people in your view, you’re free to suggest an alternative. But you cannot say that he is unable to resent the attitude that whatever term you suggest describes, because it does exist. And no, if you are not being “homophobic” – or, if you prefer, practicing homohatred – he should not misjudge your remarks as doing so. But what you’ve posted to date would make it seem to an unbiased observer (me) that you are indeed indulging in homohatred. If you are in fact not, and just objecting to something homosexual activists are suggesting be done, then make that much clearer than you have been doing to date. All we have to go on is what words you post to the screen. And they sound very much like hate words to me. Ball’s in your court; fix the problem. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2000, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/197 "2000-02-16T22:08:00Z")
Wow! I’m loving this thread… 🙂 First, let me say to Rousseau and Otto that your pissing contest is insipid and inane, but hey, it’s the Pit, so have fun. Personally, I find it embarassing. But on to some issues: **CHOICE:** > [@](#): > > Rousseau: Yes, I do [honestly think homosexuals choose to be so]. > > Esprix: Then how do you explain that the medical community disagrees with you? > > Rousseau: Like this: I don’t care. {blinking} Pardon me? Surely this can’t be the Rousseau I’ve been speaking with lo these past many days, for I was under the impression that he was a logical person who, when presented with a rational opposing point of view might actually take it under consideration, and who might even change his views when presented with new, factual statistics. But what’s this? He says, “I don’t care.” Now, isn’t this exactly what you’ve been puttering around with Otto about - not listening to opposing arguments? You’re dismissing factual, scientific evidence from the entire medical community out of hand. Rousseau, I’m not asking you to change your opinions, but for heaven’s sake, concede the experts might be right and you might be wrong. > [@](#): > > Esprix: Since the psychological profession seems to agree that sexual orientation is determined at a very, very young age, and it seems to be such a complex combination of genetics, biology, physiology, environment, neurology, ad nauseum, it’s an argument that really doesn’t count much towards civil rights in the US… > > Rousseau: Aha! You admit that it is determined sometime after birth. It follows that it can be un-determined. Even if it is “determined” during the early developmental period, I can easily provide you with articles about neurological re-wiring, that is, that things learned during this period can be “un-learned.” Perhaps you missed the point - _no one knows_ why people are homosexual; it is simply too complex to understand. Furthermore, it is determined before we, as a human, can even comprehend our own selves, let alone our sexual orientation - we’re talking under 2 years old here, probably much younger. It is something that is determined beyond our control or choice. There is nothing to “change,” as it is as inherent as any other aspect of our personality - niceness/badness, outgoingness/introvertedness, happiness/sadness, etc. > [@](#): > > Rousseau: What I’m saying, and what others have said, is that I believe that homosexuality is a choice made by free will. I’m not gay, but if I woke up tomorrow and decided to be, then I could. And it works in reverse as well. Well, that has to be the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read. Rousseau, any respect I had for your intellect just went right out the window at such a boldly asinine statement. > [@](#): > > Andros: {Does Rousseau} find men attractive now and simply don’t act upon those attractions? > > Otto: Why don’t you try a little experiment? When you wake up tomorrow, decide to be gay just for the day. I’m with Otto. Is it possible we’ve been dealing with a repressed closet case this whole time? > [@](#): > > Andros: Do you have any proof that gays can voluntarily become hetero? The only ones that have so claimed are the proponents of the quackery known as “reversion therapy,” a wholly ostracized and debunked tool that relies almost entirely on accepting Jesus as your savior. The first and most famous of these groups, Exodus, was hit by scandal when its founders, who touted for years that they were “cured,” became lovers, and spent just as much time saying mea culpa, we were SO wrong. > [@](#): > > Esprix: Oh, yes, I meant to mention - isn’t religion a choice? So how come churches are tax-free? > > Rousseau: > > 1. To preserve the separation between church and state. > 2. Because, theoretically, churches are non-profit organizations. So you get special rights for your choice? Hmmm… **HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM:** > [@](#): > > Rousseau: Every study that I have encountered that showed blatant and recurring homosexual behavior occuring amoung primates was run under “isolation” conditions. > > Esprix: Then we’re reading very, very different studies - the ones I’ve read document homosexuality among higher primates in their natural habitat… > > Rousseau: I think you’ll find that the ones you’ve read refer to “homosexual behaviors” as things like nuzzling, or performing something that resembles a pre-mating ritual, or lip contact. or some other action that could have other meanings. True homosexual sex only really occurs under isolation conditions. > > Rousseau: I need to see a scientific report. Book reviews don’t prove anything to me. Besides, all the researchers who have found significant evidence of homosexual behavior among animals have been looking for it. That is, they expected to see it. So now you’re dismissing Gaudere’s relevant cites and factual anthropological observations out of hand, saying they are obviously biased towards “finding” homosexuality where presumably none exists? I am truly, truly astonished at this dip in your fine argumentative skills. > [@](#): > > Rousseau: My feelings about scientific research in the field of animal homosexuality has nothing to do with my open mind. Although we were talking about homosexuality being a choice among humans seperately from finding homosexuality among higher primates, it seems you’re refuting both anthropological evidence (animals) and medical/psychological evidence (humans) and maintaining your belief that gay men and lesbians choose to be gay. Once again, I’m shocked. **CONSTITUTIONALITY AND THE LAW:** > [@](#): > > Rousseau: You can’t just ignore the opinion of the majority. And when the MAJORITY of the people say no to homo marriages, there shalt be no homo marriages. > > Esprix: Well, the Supreme Court has been known to make non-majority popular decisions in its time (i.e., separation of church and state, “separate but equal” being unconstitutional, etc.), but in general, yes, I’d say you’re right… > > Rousseau: The Supreme Court doesn’t make the laws. Plus, Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, and so they’re not politicians. They represent their own personal views, whereas politicians (Reps, CEs), have a responsibility (theoretically) to represent the views of their constituents. Still, what the Supreme Court says goes, whether it is prevailing popular opinion or not, and school integration is a fine example. > [@](#): > > Rousseau: Indeed, the writers of our Constitution and the other documents of its ilk, which form the basis of our idea of “civil rights” today, grounded their writings and ideas in the Bible. > > Esprix: No one is arguing history, and I agree with the above. However, do you still feel that today’s laws are based soley or predominantly on Christian beliefs? Do you feel they should be? > > Rousseau: Not the issue. I was explaining to Otto that our laws have a basis in the Bible, and so to ignore its relevance to our “civil rights” today is short-sighted and stupid. Pardon, but it **is** the issue - the **foundation** may have rested in Judeo-Christian tradition, but since then things have changed dramatically (at least on paper). Is it right and proper for US laws to be passed and enacted solely on religious grounds? To wit, let’s talk about s ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2000, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/198 "2000-02-16T22:21:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by StarvinMarvin: > > SO an URBAN LEGEND of a word gets out, and rather than change it, we leave it?!?! It’s not an urban legend, you pedantic cur, it’s just a _word_, and a misnomer at worst; not every word in the English language correlates 100% to its Latin roots. We all know what the word means in today’s usage, so get off your soapbox and go snivel somewhere else - you bore me. > [@](#): > > … why do you object to the use of words like queer, faggot, and the like. BECUASE IT IS A MALICIOUS TERM!!! so when homosexuals lobbied to hve that fixed, it was. Hmmm, I must have missed that meeting of the Gay Agenda - I don’t remember “lobbying” to have the meanings of “queer” and “faggot” changed. Could you cite me some source on this? My membership must have lapsed… :rolleyes: {singing to the tune of “Spam”} “Troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll, troll…” Esprix * * * Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you. ---
**Author:** ![StarvinMarvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7993a0/32.png) [@StarvinMarvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StarvinMarvin)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2000, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/199 "2000-02-16T22:42:00Z")
Otto/Esprix (whichever persona you are right now) You are a tasteless militant prick. I abhor your existence and your lifestyle, but in no means crossed any lines in my questioning you. You on the other hand engage in Ad Hominem attacks as though there were a discount by the dozen sale only you are aware of. Your comment below in response to my dealing wiht another childish bitchy whining militant homosexual was this: > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## StarvinMarvin: This is like my nightmare come to life!!! > > Good. I hope the big nasty queen whoops your ass. Have a nice day and you call me sophomoric? You are a hypocrite. A hypocrite of the worst order. Additionally you attempt to push YOUR agenda on everyone redgardless of its content. You are offensive, and hostile. You began this thread with a rant, and have continued to rant, despite the calm and thought out nature of others posts. Your endlessly long posts show nothing but that you can quote and cut and paste to your own hearts content. You are the exact type of person that makes the masses become disillusioned with your whole group and lifestyle. As far as you little pink booted champion? I had him fired. Perhaps that may send a clear message to you. He invaded my privacy and my lifestle with his. Hes now unemployed. Dont force yourself upon me or anyone else, and be militant, if you dont want the same in return. I refrain (the best I can) from Ad hominem attacks, you do not. I dont choose to acknowledge your attacks, but better, I highlight them for others to see, thus vindicating me. P.S. Dont play the equality game when asking for marriage and rights, but then “forget” the game was played to make “sexually oriented referances and slurs” illegal because they hurt your delicate constituions. You say you cant find your membership card? Ask your boyfriend for your homosexual membership card, or better yet PRINT this thread out and carry it with you, as you are the Charter member of the Gay Anonymous Militants Society (GAMS). 🙂 I knew you’d love that one. Esprix/Otto- Another name for a black panther-esque homosexual with a rainbow sticker on his bumper ---
**Author:** ![StarvinMarvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7993a0/32.png) [@StarvinMarvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StarvinMarvin)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2000, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948/200 "2000-02-16T22:47:00Z")
## quote: ## … why do you object to the [bold]use[/bold] of words like queer, faggot, and the like. BECUASE IT IS A MALICIOUS TERM!!! so when homosexuals lobbied to hve that fixed, it was. Hmmm, I must have missed that meeting of the Gay Agenda - I don’t remember “lobbying” to have the meanings of “queer” and “faggot” [bold]changed[/bold]. Please note that USE of words does not equal “changed”. You misquoted me purposely, to your advantage. How low will you sink? Especially to do it so blatantly where others can read?!?!? DId you want me to reload the gun you are using to shoot yourself in the foot, or are you doing that now?? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-the-fuck-is-wrong-with-these-homophobic-bigots/4948.md?page=11)