The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

I left the republican party because they seem to be spearheading this assault on homosexual rights. I WILL NOT be a part of that... NO SIR... They keep calling me on the phone several times a day to renew my party membership. I will still vote for Olympia Snowe (our great Maine senator) even though she may side possibly with the republicans on this issue. I don't think in her heart of hearts that she agrees with the republicans. I may be a fool and it won't be the first time. I voted for George Bush and he did nothing to help gays and lesbians... Ronald Reagan did nothing to help gays with aids. This hatred for homosexuals seems to be a trend in the republican party. Many religious democrats also have no consideration for gays and lesbians. Dick Cheney stood idly by while gays were being persecuted for wanting to marry. I don't go along with all of the homosexual agendas but the major ones like gay marriage and aids research I am all for.

I just hope that someday in my own lifetime gays all over the world will be free to marry their soul mate without looks of disapproval from errr religious "hypocrites". I had a rough time growing up gay, yet, it just made me stronger and more aggressive toward the things in my life I am really passionate about. I believe in Obama, I just wish i had voted for him now. Obama will save us gays and lesbians from marriage discrimination.

Well, look who he had as his personal legal adviser! The most notorious right-wing gay hypocrite in USA history (see "Angels in America"). Only Mrs. Reagan, who had a plethora of gay male friends, finally got something started to fight AIDS during that administration. I attended a private AIDS fund raiser in West Hollywood during those times where Nancy was present. The home it took place in belonged to Elton John.

Now Cheney is pro-gay marriage -- is he trying to get Log Cabin Republicans to become Hawks (phony-baloney Hawks at that, when even under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell, many have served or are serving in the armed forces and getting killed or maimed whether they are gay or not in the Iraq fiasco, not to mention what Cheney/Bush/Rove contributed to ultimately, just like the Russians, lose in Afghanistan). Sorry, off the subject.

Did you actually believe George Bush would do any more for gays than Bill Clinton? He pointedly got behind AIDs prevention in Africa, but really did little to help in the US. One of his usual ruses, but what to expect from a one-step, dry drunk.

What are these "other homosexual agendas?" I hope nothing as sinister as "recruiting," which goes back to purposefully misunderstanding the message of Harvey Milk.

Andrew Sullivan, who is more libertarian than conservative (just see his guest appearances on Bill Maher), believes Obama will eventually stick his neck out on gays in the military and gay marriage (which he has stated, for now, he is against -- Michelle might come into play there). He's got to get that albatross of health care off his neck and only someone with a working crystal ball can call that one.

One of my oldest gay friends from Laguna Beach who is a dyed-in-the-wool OC conservative (his family started Farmer's Insurance in the OC) hasn't, to my knowledge, contributed any money to fight AIDS even while he is positive. He did fund the building of the huge organ (!!! ) in the new concert hall in the OC Performing Arts Center and the PBS production of the American Ballet Theater "Swan Lake" -- no, he wasn't Odelle.

The "religious democrats" in the OC are mainly in the Methodist Church and welcome not only AA meetings, but gay AA meetings.

However, those Christian still mired in the ridiculous compilation and editing by Constantine's church thugs of the Old Testament, still consider it a sin. The ones who are Democrats I have encountered do not believe the "sins" (like eating shrimp at The Red Lobster) over-rule human rights which is a social/political matter, not a religious matter. The hunkered-in right wing Republicans, especially the died-in-the-wool hypocrites like my wealthy gay friend, whether they go to church or not (to my knowledge, he is agnostic), are adamantly nearly all anti-gay marriage, anti-gays in the military, anti gay anything. How many are "bisexual" closeted queens? A lot of them.

Saint Blatham said so and so it must be true.

Let's for a moment examine the term "homophobic"

It clearly implies fear.

This matches up well with the argument expressed by homophiles.

One cannot have any rational objection to homosexuality, and therefore any objection must be based in fear.

The common sub-text is that the fear is merely a smokescreen for the self-loathing of actual homosexuals.

Interestingly enough all of these self-loathing homos have a place in Homo (and asexual) Heaven if they might just acknowledge their sexual preferences - Frankly, this is a good thing, because God could not care less whether you pipe a woman or a man.

So given that homosexuality may be a natural occurrence and that two homos should be able to enjoy the same special consideration given to any heterosexual, let's take a look at homo marriage and whether or not opposition to same involves fear.

On the one hand, we have thousands of years of custom that concludes that "marriage" means a union between two people of the 0pposite sex. Associated with this trend we have thousands of years of human survival and flourishment. I would make the argument that traditional family structure has supported if not led mankind's advancement and that there is absolutely no evidence that homosexual society has been an irrefutable boon to human advancement

You're gay -A-OK
You want a lasting relationship with a member of your same sex - A-OK
You want the same legal protections for your union that are provided for the unions of heteros -A-OK

You wish to insist that society recognize your union as "normal" and in furtherance of the path of humanity. NO WAY

Say what you want about my expressed opinions, but I defy you to draw any connection to fear.

(PS: I have no doubt that I can beat the **** out of any fag and so cannot be homophobic ---- unless they are bleeding)

Language is routinely used to frame questions in a pejorative way, as a means to short circuit debate. The required answer is determined before the question is asked, anyone not conforming to the requirement is deemed defective and not worth listening to. The demand for debate on the wisdom of granting gays what they want will get you the twofer deal, homophobic AND Bigoted.

or descrimination against" is the key phrase. There can't be a fear of ones own mental health, wellbeing, status in the community -- that would be irrational. However, that's exactly what is happening. Caucasians are going to be a minority in the next decade or two in this country. Racism isn't the only thing that still exists -- there's always been a xenophobia that is also irrational in this country.

pretty much sums up the world according to finn.

Yep. Alpha male drivel which is entirely suppositional as I know many gay males that would crush him. King King beats his chest but turns out to have a tender, caring side -- obviously something the Finn is missing. However, he still made quiet a mess of New York over some flashbulbs. If Finn intends to do some fag bashing to prove he's not homophobic, just what would the motive be? Crazier and crazier -- we need a better developed referral system at A2K to the local asylum.

(That's irrational fear, not fear itself).

the ending "phobia" always denotes dysfunction in the one who suffers from it. The use of the word to describe those who are against altering the penalty for gay behaviour assumes that there can be no reasonable/rational debate on the subject. Language is used to marginalize one half of the possibilities, to squash debate, the engineer the result which is desired.

What is this altering gay behavior issue? There is no longer an issue in nearly every state and in those, it's not being inforced. Getting married is not a behavior.

From my medical dictionary:

Phobia: An unreasonable sort of fear that can cause avoidance and panic. Phobias are a relatively common type of anxiety disorder.

Since there is no rational reason to deny a civil marriage without church involvement -- they are non-profit organizations and can turn down any wedding for any reason to be held on their premises with their staff. However, there are already churches, at least here in California, that will perform a religious marriage rite. The world-wide Metropolitan Church is a gay church -- I doubt they are going to turn down gay marriages.

Therefore, not wanting to grant this basic right is irrational and there is no word I can find that can follow that but fear. All the reasons that have been stated here are all fears.

man, are you confused or what!! It is well known that humans are both irrational as well as rational. Reasonable takes this into account, it does not negate the irrational. When you go before a jury of your peers and they are to decide your guilt or innocence all involved note that the irrational opinions of the jury members are used to judge you.

The demand that human individuals be rational only is a form of abuse, it attempts to take away half of what we are. Not allowing gays what they seek on partly irrational grounds is reasonable human behaviour...it is within the norms of human behaviour.

Not one person here has conclusively shown that all the reasons against gay marriage are not irrational and unreasonable. If that's your definition of normal human behavior than attraction towards the same sex is also normal human behavior. Ya can't have your cake and eat it too.

we have an entire huge thread where reasonable rational questions about the wisdom of allowing gay marriage were voiced. The fact that you were not persuaded by any of them to change your mind that we must do it, and do it now, does not negate their existence. The very fact that nearly half of Americans are against gay marriage is on its own conclusive proof that the opinion is reasonable. YOu can't dismiss one half of your peers by calling them unreasonable, you need to change minds. You may well feel that they are unreasonable, as they may think of you, but that is besides the point.

Considering just your postings on this subject, Finn, I'd say that that's self-evident. But if you're willing to put forward something that you think is rational, we're here to listen.

Too bad over half of Americans aren't for eating healthy and then we probably wouldn't even need universal health care.

Holy ****!

I love how the first part of this passage is intended to temper the crazy **** to come right after. So as to color you as a human being with empathetic faculties, feelings, a soul, etc.

Anyway, no risk of any of us perceiving you a coward! Whenever I scroll to one of your posts, the air in my office is suddenly perfumed with the smell of blood, sweat, gunpowder, and cheeseburgers. I'm not even sure how you manage to type at all--I'd imagine your biceps would get in the way. Of course I've never seen you. But alas, such is the nature of the medium. I must judge merely by your syntax and vocabulary--in your case, totally ripped, testosterone-laden, queer-slaying syntax and vocabulary.

P.S. I defy you to walk down Halstead street here on the north side of Chicago and repeat the sequence quoted above through a megaphone. 80% of the dudes living there are pumped as ****. I seriously only ever see them walking their poodles or working out. Even a hulking internet menace like yourself might get turned into a pretzel.

What a ******* joke you are, John.

Cycloptichorn