The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

from dictionary.com

Quote:

3 entries found for homophobia.
This proves that the word is being misused.

Quote:

1) Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.

If I was afraid of homosexuals raping me or my family then I agree this would apply. But I have no such fear. I had a homosexual living in our house with 2 of my kids. He baby sat for us. So my fear is not of homosexuals themselves. My fear is of the effects to society of legalized same sex marriage. This is no diiferent than if I fear the repeal of helmut laws will cause more deaths. I am not afraid of bikers. I am afraid of the effects of the legislation.

I have no contempt for homosexuals.
So the first definition is not met.

Quote:

2)Behavior based on such a feeling.

Since I do not have these feelings there can be no behavior based on those feelings
Second definition does not apply.

Quote:

I have no irrational fear.
I have no irrational aversion.
I have no irrational discrimination.
So again I do not meet the requirement for a phobia

Please note that the first two definitions are from The American Heritage Dictionary copyright 2000.
The 3rd is from Mirriam Webster's Dictionary copyright 1993. This same definition appears in 2002 and also in their Medical Dictionary copyright 2002

Quote:

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

This one comes from Worldnet 2.0 copyright 2003 Princeton University.
According to this definition even a dislike of homosexuality is homophobic. This one does not even require fear. How odd the a phobia can have nothing to do with fear, since phobia is the greek for fear. How can this be?
What is even more strange is that this same dictionary gives the following definitions for these other phobias.

Agoraphobia: an abnormal fear of open or public places.

Claustrophobia: an abnormal fear of being in narrow or enclosed spaces.

Acrophobia: an abnormal fear of high places.

Notice that all these other phobias require fear. Also they require the fear to be abnormal. Only homophobia we are told does not require fear.
So why would homophobia be any different? Why would one definition disagree with the others? Because this one dictionary only reflects how the word is currently being used or in this case misused.

I find it humorous that you would pick this book (ebook) to be infallible.

Keep trying. You can always follow the lunatic Hitler who said "if you say a lie loud enough and often enough people will believe it".
You've convinced one dictionary eventually you may convince others.

Quote:

Quote:

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

On what basis do you disagree with this. Be specific.

Quote:

Of course, Kara's question re these statistics (source unknown, unverified) is rather pertinent.

I gave the reference for the study.

Quote:

And revealing... Child molestation = homosexuals at work.

I never said homosexuals at work would amount to child molestation. where did you get this?

Quote:

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

What do jews and blacks have to do with this? Those are your words not mine.
I have not seen you refute my assertion that children will be at greater risk if same sex marriage is legalized. Are you unable to address this?

To imply that repulsion to homosexuality is an innate human trait is absurd.

How do you explain it then?
Innate or not, it still helps to protect children. It is no different than young girls being less willing to become sexually active than young boys. The fact that she is not willing to participate helps make her less vulnerable to male predators than if she was willing. In the same way a young boy who is repulsed by homosexuality should be less vulnerable than one who has been told that it is perfectly normal.

Rather than dismissing this argument, why don't you address it.[/QUOTE

I'll address it. I think the attitude that it's "absurd" that repulsion from homosexuality is natural, is [i]itself[/i] absurd. The first time a young boy is accosted sexually by another young boy (or young man), I don't think it absurd at all to think he might naturally draw away from the touch, the advance, the whole idea.

I don't know why people who are the most flaming homophobes are the ones to spend the most energy trying ot convince others they are not.

I'll address it. I think the attitude that it's "absurd" that repulsion from homosexuality is natural, is itself absurd. The first time a young boy is accosted sexually by another young boy (or young man), I don't think it absurd at all to think he might naturally draw away from the touch, the advance, the whole idea.

dadothree

I have no interest in talking with you. Frankly, you are neither intelligent enough, educated enough, nor independent-minded enough to think outside of your biases or even to recognize them. You make a pretense of logical process, but are untutored in logic, your arguments fallacious and your analogies inappropriate. You are wedded to a worldview and a particular version of evangelical theology which you will not be able to question to any depth because the cognitive dissonance will likely be too unpleasant.

I should note that I have violated site rules in my post above. It's not an example others ought to follow.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 - A coalition of major conservative Christian groups is threatening to withhold support for President Bush's plans to remake Social Security unless Mr. Bush vigorously champions a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

The move came as Senate Republicans vowed on Monday to reintroduce the proposed amendment, which failed in the Senate last year by a substantial margin. Party leaders, who left it off their list of priorities for the legislative year, said they had no immediate plans to bring it to the floor because they still lacked the votes for passage.

But the coalition that wrote the letter, known as the Arlington Group, is increasingly impatient.

In a confidential letter to Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, the group said it was disappointed with the White House's decision to put Social Security and other economic issues ahead of its paramount interest: opposition to same-sex marriage.

"It's fine for the White House to champion overhauling Social Security and the tax code, said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, according to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, "but voters really want a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage." Perkins added that voters also desire confirmation of conservative judges, who will create the impetus to overturn the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision that established abortion rights more than 30 years ago. "These value issues, which have gotten very little play from the White House since the election, need to be kept front and center," Perkins said. "After traveling the nation for a year campaigning for re-election, the president heard a resounding message from the American people: They want marriage protected.

Perkins' FRC joined a network of conservative Christian groups last week in sending a pointed message to the Bush White House on the issue. The coalition, known as the Arlington Group, credits itself with instigating the 11-state sweep of ballot measures against same-sex marriage last November, and includes some of President Bush's most influential conservative supporters: Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, Gary Bauer of the American Values Committee, Dr. James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family (who also recently set his sites on taking down a cartoon character he considers a little too light in the loafers) and the Rev. Jerry Falwell.