The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Sam1951 wrote:

One of the reasons many people find pederasty revolting is that they judge others by their own standards. Yes? Therefore, some one who believes that a shortage of women would lead to pederasty is likely to be so inclined themself. Projection sounds like a good term for this situation.

Yes, sam, we know, they know too but they will not admit it.

Now we know (by we I mean sexually aware, self and society in general) that it is almost a statistical impossibility that not a single homophobe who opposes same sex marriage has logged into this thread. Yet we still haven't found one man to admit what I believe is the truth. That most people who oppose same sex marriage are homophobes and possess a fear of their own sexual proclivities.

I cannot say for sure whether or not any single poster here is a homophobe. I can only say that it is obvious to me reading many of the posts here, and the repeated convoluted arguments, that the authors are indeed homphobes. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

If it is projection (and if they are then so inclined) where is the fault? Do you claim that such things are themselves perversion?

Could it not also be merely a rational forecast of the behavior of some people based on the observation of human nature and behavior? On what basis do you exclude that possibility?

Are you saying that it is human nature that men, when the supply of women is reduced, will turn to boys? I know all you guys have some sort of kink but I doubt very seriously that most men would start chasing boys. Now if you are asking me if men would turn to boys if females and adult males were not present , I would guess that a lot of you would go after boys but that most of you would not just based on the nauseatingly abhorrence of the act.

The more I think about the more I am convinced that this "brilliant jurist" is projecting and a would-be perv.

0 Replies

One would have thought that this thread would have died many moons ago. Of course, we know that it is still alive (or was) and we all know why, don't we, guys. Hopefully, your wives don't know. Yet.

0 Replies

Chrissee wrote:

One would have thought that this thread would have died many moons ago. Of course, we know that it is still alive (or was) and we all know why, don't we, guys. Hopefully, your wives don't know. Yet.

You're posting here more than anyone else, Chrissee.
And I think all your accusations of latent homosexuality must say something about your level of security about men. "He's projecting", "he's a perv"... You don't sound all that dang emotionally healthy yourself.

0 Replies

Don't be too harsh on her, snood -- I think she's just projecting. Smile

0 Replies

I don't know if Chrissie is projecting or not. I do know that her posting expressing surprise that the thread hasn't died was Chrissie responding after no response was made to her previous post eleven hours earlier,

0 Replies

flyboy804 wrote:

I don't know if Chrissie is projecting or not. I do know that her posting expressing surprise that the thread hasn't died was Chrissie responding after no response was made to her previous post eleven hours earlier,

The thread has been alive for like 6 months with or without my help. Now, if someone wants to respond to what I posted, feel free, I just ignore the ad hominems.

0 Replies

Chrissee wrote:

I just ignore the ad hominems.

Really??? You certainly throw them out liberally.

0 Replies

Chrissee wrote:

Sam1951 wrote:
One of the reasons many people find pederasty revolting is that they judge others by their own standards. Yes? Therefore, some one who believes that a shortage of women would lead to pederasty is likely to be so inclined themself. Projection sounds like a good term for this situation.

Yes, sam, we know, they know too but they will not admit it.

Now we know (by we I mean sexually aware, self and society in general) that it is almost a statistical impossibility that not a single homophobe who opposes same sex marriage has logged into this thread. Yet we still haven't found one man to admit what I believe is the truth. That most people who oppose same sex marriage are homophobes and possess a fear of their own sexual proclivities.

I cannot say for sure whether or not any single poster here is a homophobe. I can only say that it is obvious to me reading many of the posts here, and the repeated convoluted arguments, that the authors are indeed homphobes. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Actually what you said is not true. I happen to be Christian and I believe that we should keep moral and religious beliefs out of the secular laws of the land. However, a lot of people of all kinds of faiths feel that saying that they support gay marriages is saying that they believe homosexuality to be ok when they don't believe it to be ok.

My own father and I had this conversation and both of us are christians and we are both democrats in politics yet we come down on different sides in this one issue.

But he thinks that the republicans used it as a whipping post during the elections.

0 Replies

The title of this thread is ridiculous. I oppose "same-sex" marriage & will vote accordingly until a reasonable argument surfaces compelling me to do otherwise. I'm part of the anti-"same-sex" movement & hardly a homophobe (unless the definition has recently changed to 'a person who opposes same-sex marriages').

To slingers of the "homophobe" tag: Sticks & stones. In addition to lacking any reasonble argument for me to support SSMs, proponents of SSM fail to convince me opposing SSM is homophobia.

The worst part, I'm not a Christian or otherwise religious. I think homosexuality is immoral to Christians, but certainly is not by my own moral compass.

It doesn't help the half-baked arguments for SSM when the arguments are riddled with pejoratives & inflammatory ultimatums. If ever a point was made by them, I might hold out a moment longer just to piss them off.

0 Replies

Omar de Fati wrote:

The title of this thread is ridiculous. . . .

It doesn't help the half-baked arguments for SSM when the arguments are riddled with pejoratives & inflammatory ultimatums. If ever a point was made by them, I might hold out a moment longer just to piss them off.

You fail to state any reason why you are against same-sex marriages other than for the sake of being arbitrary.

0 Replies

Debra, I don't think the main thrust of Omar's post was the fact that he is against SSM, but rather the ridiculous notion that being against SSM makes one a homophobe. Now maybe if he were promised by Chrissee and her like **(those who attack anyone who does not agree with their personal position) not to be personally attacked and accused of being homophobic or having latent homosexual feelings, then maybe he would state his reasons. Otherwise, why come here and post your reasons about anything just to be insulted by others?

**Edited for clarity. Did not want my meaning misunderstood.

0 Replies

I think he was just making the point that opposition to same-sex 'marriage' is not necessarily a result of homophobia. It seems to me this is a reasonable position for him to take - unless you implicitly assert that opposition to same-sex 'marriage' implicitly constitutes homophobia and therefore implies a burden of proof on one who asserts otherwise.

The author of this thread has emphasized that he asserts only that the leadership and driving forces behind the political movement opposing same-sex 'marriage' are homophobic, while many of its adherents (usually politely including his interlocutor of the moment) are merely their dupes. However, the dialogue here quickly degenerated to one in which the unstated presumption of proponents was that opposition itself constitutes homophobia. This, of course, is yet another mindless semantical evasion by the forces of political correctitude and thought control which are increasingly being rejected by an electorate that, after all this, has managed to retain a good deal of its common sense.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Omar de Fati wrote:
The title of this thread is ridiculous. . . .

It doesn't help the half-baked arguments for SSM when the arguments are riddled with pejoratives & inflammatory ultimatums. If ever a point was made by them, I might hold out a moment longer just to piss them off.

You fail to state any reason why you are against same-sex marriages other than for the sake of being arbitrary.

No, I didn't "fail to state any reason why" I am against SSM. It wasn't my intention. I wasn't aware I was required to do so in order to participate in the thread. My response was directly to the initial post. Just as I excluded a gazillion other things, for example, my home address, are you going to consider excluding my home address a failure to disclose it, too? Also, I didn't state my position is held arbitrarily.

The points I attempted to communicate are:

1) Same-sex marriage is more appropriate language than "gay-marriage" (this works in the proponents of SSM favor, not mine, except where it helps sling the homophobe buzzword around);

2) There's nothing less than silliness behind the suggestion people who oppose same-sex marriage are homophobes;

3) I'm not convinced or compelled by the arguments for same-sex marriage. With a special note, the tendency by SSM proponents is (as you've just shown) I should be arbitrarily for same-sex marriage. This raises point 3.1: Why should I be arbitrarily for it? There's no reason because this is arbitrary;

4) I'm not homophobic, or Christian, & I don't think homosexuality is immoral;and,

5) Proponents of SSM who are accessible for discussion tend to be tactless, angry, & too willing to make use of pejorative terms & ultimatums.

I don't see how stating "any reason why" I'm against SSM or my address for that matter, has to do with communicating my points.

0 Replies

I believe without going back and rereading the beginning of this thread what started the whole homophobic idea was the phrase pushed out by those in congress and administration. The phrase was something like wanting "preserve the Sanctity of marriage."

It is homophobic to think you have to keep gays from marrying in order to "preserve the sanctity of marriage."

On the whole though; I think in the end it will all be settled in the courts and there is no way to rule negativily on this without using emotions of some sort to keep homosexuals from having the same rights as others.

0 Replies

Out of curiosity, why is it homophobic for anyone to claim to be against SSM in order to "preserve the sanctity of marriage"?

0 Replies

I'm not sure what SSM means - but the "sanctity of marriage" is something what belongs to churches (here: church ceremony/sacrament and/or whatever).

0 Replies

I can totally understand and can see how that can be a valid point Walter. But how does using that as a reason make one a homophobe? Maybe my definition of homophobic is different from Revel's, I don't know. But I see no connection.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

I believe without going back and rereading the beginning of this thread what started the whole homophobic idea was the phrase pushed out by those in congress and administration. The phrase was something like wanting "preserve the Sanctity of marriage."

It is homophobic to think you have to keep gays from marrying in order to "preserve the sanctity of marriage."

On the whole though; I think in the end it will all be settled in the courts and there is no way to rule negativily on this without using emotions of some sort to keep homosexuals from having the same rights as others.

No, no, no, no. That's no homophobia. Maybe it's religious zealotry, but it's certainly not homophobic. Preserving the sanctity of marriage also means disallowing polygamy, marriage between siblings, between children & adults, & a small host of other inventive relationships. Homosexuality is one of many ways people carry on relationships. The uniqueness of homosexual relationships are no more "different" than any abnormal relationship is "different" (except homosexuals are squeakier hinges, which by the way, doesn't mean they *deserve* to be oiled).

This whole *angle* about homosexuals having the same rights as others is ridiculous. This is either about two people of the same sex being able to marry, or it's about two "homosexuals" being able to marry. And I'll tell you right now, I'll NEVER, under any circumstances (except being high on crack) vote to pass legislation based on someone's sexuality.

And no one is trying to "keep homosexuals from having the same rights as others". For god's sake. Hell, if anything, I'm trying to keep homosexuals & other people from enjoying more rights than I have. Homosexuals already have the same rights as others. In fact, it can be argued when doing a comparision, a homosexual male or female has *more* rights than their heterosexual counterparts in terms of protection.

This *new* variation of marriage is about "same sex", not "homosexuality". Why? Because two straight men will be able to marry despite being heterosexual. SSM won't give homosexuals "the same rights as others", it'll give everybody a right that currently doesn't exist for anyone.

0 Replies

You're all over the road with that. Homosexuals do not have more rights than anyone else. Neither do they have more protection. If someone assaults a homosexual, without otherwise commenting, they are subject to be charged with assault. If they do so while screaming "Kill all fags!"--then they are subject to an additional hate crimes charge. Were someone black to assault me, and provide evidence that they did so because i'm white, then an additional hate crime charge could be laid against that individual. If a woman assaulted me, and provided sufficient evidence that she did so because i'm male, then an additional hate crime charge could be laid against her. Your ranting about extra rights or more protection could justifiably lead one to suspect that you imbibe from the same fountain as gay-bashers, if to a lesser degree.

You use the expression "preserving the sanctity of marriage" which tips your hand about your own religious scruples. Being married by a priest or minister without the registration of that marriage by the state, without a license, may reek of sanctity, but it would accord no legal rights which were not present beforehand. Marriage is all about rights in property, and it always has been. Your comments about marrying near relations are hilarious to me. When Eleanor of Acquitaine wanted a divorce from King Louis of France, she obtained it on the grounds of consanguity in the fifth degree. She had in fact obtained a papal dispensation to marry him in the first place. She subsequently married Henry Plantagenet, soon to be King of England, and obtained a dispensation from the Pope, owing to consanguity in the fourth degree.

Marriage is a contract, and as such it is regulated by the state; religious overtones have no meaning in secular law. It is the moral cowardice of politicians, or their pandering to homophobic religious freaks which makes a big issue of this, and prevents the regularization of marriage between any two consenting adults.

0 Replies

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know