The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

HofT wrote:

Direct quote from Noam's class on AI, since Blatham likes him, written exactly as it was said:

"Which is the word that all educated people spell incorrectly?"

No human has ever been able to answer this question, but all machines have answered without difficulty; the word is, quite simply, "incorrectly".

Our brains automatically consider the word as part of the phrase, while computers must parse all elements individually and so insert the quotation marks. And btw, thanks again for sending those docs to G!

helen
Docs sent to the Irish Tenor this morn. Thanks for the wonderful anecdote!

0 Replies

Chrissee wrote:

Gay marriage opponents your participation is requested here.

Easy Chrissee, nobody's perfect.

0 Replies

All heads turn towards george..."hmmm....just how self-referential is he being here?....hmmmm".

0 Replies

Quote:

CHICAGO (AP) -- Illinois on Friday became the 14th state with a law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed a bill that adds ``sexual orientation'' to an existing law that protects people from bias based on race, religion and other traits. It bans discrimination in areas including jobs, housing and credit.

``What we're doing today is older than Scripture: Love thy neighbor,'' Blagojevich said to a cheering group of about 150 gay rights supporters and community leaders.

Opponents had argued the law would be the first step toward the legalization of gay marriage and would infringe on the rights of churches and civic groups to oppose homosexuality on moral grounds.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-BRF-Gay-Rights.html?oref=login

0 Replies

Lately, I've noticed that Evagelical conservatives enjoy making themselves out to be the victims in this issue by saying that their right to political freedom is infringed by their religious convictions. They say that the government enjoys barring them from political forums because of their beliefs and are using the notion of a secular state as an esxcuse to do so.

What they don't seem to understand is that the government is not trying to bar them from political forums because of their religious inclincations, but because they want those inclinations to made into laws. The government isn't trying to tell them that they can't be religious, but that they aren't going to allow them to use the mechanisms of the state to enforce their religious views on others.

0 Replies

Canada, now, is witnessing the same dynamics as we've been discussing.

A christian right activist movement has arisen in the last two decades, and they've targeted and influenced our right side parties (now amalgamated into the Conservatives).

This party is now attempting to duplicate what has gone on in the US...to use gay marriage as a divisive, vote-gaining strategy.

This is very interesting to watch, as they are using exactly the same rhetoric and techniques. For example, "forcing gay marriage on Canada"..."activist judges", etc. It's word for word.

Here, we have as our foundational national legal document the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is a fairly recent document, written and put into place in the early 80s when it supplanted The British North America Act.

The high courts in five provinces and one territory (territories are simply our northern and less organized regions) have already heard cases on gay marriage and all have found that denying gay people the right to marry violates the equality principles and statutes of the charter.

Our previous PM requested that the federal Supreme Court rule on whether the existing definition of marriage as between a woman and man was constitutional, and the SC found that, under the Charter, the government could allow marriage between two people of the same gender.

In speaking to the issue of 'tradition', they found...

"Several centuries ago it would have been understood that marriage should be available only to opposite-sex couples. The recognition of same-sex marriage in several Canadian jurisdictions as well as two European countries belies the assertion that the same is true today."

(Belgium and the Netherlands are the other two countries mentioned)

Where that puts us now is...our present PM plans to forward a bill to our Parliament, this month, which will specifically allow marriage between gay people.

0 Replies

Homophobia?
I leave for a week and nobody has countered my argument that opposition to same sex marriage can be based on a rational fear of the potential impact to society, especially children. If my POV is too foolish then this should be easy. There seems to be plenty of people with plenty of free time. So what gives? Again ,if the fear is well founded then it is not a phobia.

Also in catching up I read someone(maybe CY) ask for evidence that a homosexual couple could not raise a child as well as a heterosexual couple. IMO The burden of proof should be placed on the homosexual since the evidence for successful heterosexual parenthood goes back thousands of years.

0 Replies

Mind linking some data about gay parenting harming children. Your "argument" has no merit.

0 Replies

Chrissee wrote:

Mind linking some data about gay parenting harming children. Your "argument" has no merit.

Do you think 'links' constitute proof? In fact his argument is clear and completee. It doesn't depend on any specific demonstration of facts - unless you wish to challenge the implied assertion that marriage between men qand women is a long-established practice in most human societies.

On what basis to you make your utterly unsupported (and unsupportable) judgement that his argument "has no merit"?

0 Replies

Without evidence, the argumenat has no merit, all the evidence I have seen indicates gays do as well as parents as straights.

0 Replies

Without evidence, the argumenat has no merit, all the evidence I have seen indicates gays do as well as parents as straights.

0 Replies

homophobic?
Chrissee
What evidence are you talking about?

Also you said earlier that my opposition to same sex marriage was based on bigotry and homophobia. You have yet to put forth any agrument that my fears are not rational. As a parent of a child with a developmental disability, I believe my fears are well founded. Again I am not saying that the homosexual is more likely to be a pedophile. I am saying that the common repulsion to homosexuality is a good defense for children.

"more than 90 percent of people with developmental disabilities will experience sexual abuse at some point in their lives" Valenti-Hein& Schwartz1995.
Other studies show that 39-68% of girls with developmental disabilities wil be sexually abused before their 18th birthday. For boys the figures range from 16-30%

So please, will one of you explain to me how my fear is irrational. Will one of you tell me how illogical I am.

0 Replies

Dad, what do your stats have to do with homosexuality?

0 Replies

from dictionary.com

Quote:

3 entries found for homophobia.

1) Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2) Behavior based on such a feeling.

: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals ?-ho·mo·phobe

n : prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality

The element of 'rationality' that the fellow keeps insisting is a part of the definition of homophobia is, we'll note, not present in definitions 1 or 3, and is not a necessary criterion even in defintion 2 (note the 'or').

Selectively defining the term constitutes a red herring in this case.

Quote:

I am saying that the common repulsion to homosexuality is a good defense for children.

Our friend's usage meets the definition of homophobia with ease.

Of course, Kara's question re these statistics (source unknown, unverified) is rather pertinent. And revealing... Child molestation = homosexuals at work.

"The common repulsion/aversion to jews/blacks is a good defence for children"

So, george, our friend is a walking and talking case of the term in question.

0 Replies

Homophobia?
[

Quote:

quote="littlek"]Dad, what do your stats have to do with homosexuality?

[/QUOTE]
Littlek
I used the example earlier of most young boys being more than willing to engage in sex with a female teacher. They would not typically be willing to do so with a male teacher. There is in most cases a repulsion toward homosexuality. I believe this repulsion is a healthy response as it provides a defense against sexual predators. I am NOT contending that homosexuals are more likely to be predators. I am simply saying that as this (I believe) natural repulsion is eroded and the child is more willing to accept homosexuality, he becomes more vulnerable. To me this is not about the rights of adults as much as it is the safety of children.
If a child grows up being told that there is nothing wrong with smoking or drinking it is logical to assume that he would be more likely to engage in those activities before adulthood. Sexual (hetero or homo) activity should be no different. If he is told that it is perfectly normal, then he should be more likely to engage in the activity. The legalization of same sex marriage would send him that message. What people do in their own bedroom is not my concern. What others decide to teach their own kids is their business. But what is taught to kids in public schools and in society as a whole, is as much my business as anyones. So even if my argument is based on fear, it is not an irrational fear. Therefore it is not bigoted or homophobic.

0 Replies

Quote:

So even if my argument is based on fear, it is not an irrational fear. Therefore it is not bigoted or homophobic.

Does everyone here understand how our friend cannot, for his rhetorical purpose, allow himself to be honest regarding how Webster defines the term?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
So even if my argument is based on fear, it is not an irrational fear. Therefore it is not bigoted or homophobic.

Does everyone here understand how our friend cannot, for his rhetorical purpose, allow himself to be honest regarding how Webster defines the term?

I do.

0 Replies

Absolutely. Another hole digger.

0 Replies

Dadofthree's "repulsion theory" is so far-fetched that it doesn't merit serious discussion. To imply that repulsion to homosexuality is an innate human trait is absurd.

0 Replies

(Trying to play semantic acrobatics and redefine words in the dictionary to suit yourself is a foolish pastime).

0 Replies

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know