Are members of the gay community better adjusted, in a moral sense; than homophobes?

was Obama a homophobe in 2016 (at that time he opposed gay marriage)?

Quote:

I think the point of this thread is that your religion is better than their religion. Of course, this type of moral hierarchy is always subjective and everyone thinks their religion is better than other religions.

I will point out the flaws in your particular judgment.

1) You are using the word "homophobe" without defining it.

Do you not have a dictionary?

I offer no new definition.

Quote:

Was Obama a homophobe in 2016 (at that time he opposed gay marriage)?

One does not necessarily lead to the other and gay marriage has many other arguments against.

I do recall his being asked that and said that he had changed his thinking over time.

That is sure better than the right who invoke a G D god to do their thinking for them.

Quote:

2) You are then reading the minds of these purported "homophobes" telling us with certainly what they think and why. This of course assumes that everyone in this group thinks exactly alike.

Yes. I think all homophobes are close enough in thinking to be grouped.
If you want to start splitting hairs, let do.

Quote:

I get it, the purpose is to show that your religion is morally superior... but still, this is the definition of a strawman.

Quote:

Compare what I said to what religious homophobes use as their guiding light.

To lay with another man is an abomination.

You're engaging in logical fallacy. Just because I point out there's a flaw in your reasoning, does not mean I agree with 'the other side'. Nor does the wrongs of another side justify your making statements that lump all gay people together in placing love above sex - the statement is simply not true, and likely not even close to true (in terms of all).

Quote:

You should also know that I intentionally KIS so homophobes could not deflect all over the map and ignore that this is a moral question.

As I said - your initial premise is seriously flawed. As and I said after that - if you had qualified it by using the word 'many' (as in many gays), then there would be little to disagree with in the title of your post. Slanted maybe, ignoring different areas of morality maybe, but but in the end, minor flaws in perhaps an overall true statement...if you'd qualified your statement.

Yes. I think all homophobes are close enough in thinking to be grouped.

If I qualified every statement, all I would get in replies are TLDR.

You want perfect, go read a book.

Greatest I am wrote:

Yes. I think all homophobes are close enough in thinking to be grouped.

Your simplistic thinking puts Orthodox Jewish Rabbis in the same group as Neo-Nazis. You put them along with traditional indigenous African Cultures, Mennonite peace workers, Iranian conservative families and the Pope all together in a group. Their differences, thoughts, beliefs, reasoning, faith and values no longer matter to you. You have set yourself as superior to all of them. It is absolutist "us" vs. "them" thinking.

I don't think you are being reasonable.

Quote:

If I qualified every statement, all I would get in replies are TLDR.

You want perfect, go read a book.

The main problem is one of hypocrisy, yet again.

You are essentially criticising homophobes (which I quite understand), by:
- your using a language structure that paints all peoples of a group with a negative characteristic, in support of your belief...which structure is just as sloppy as homophobes who:
- use of a language structure that paints all peoples of a group with a negative characteristic, in support of their beliefs

(as a sidenote, the 'negative' characteristic' assigned to groups by discriminators is broad <like the phrase 'moral sense'>, which without discussion then omits any admission of the good side of the broad trait <like moral sense> that the group, or individuals may possess. So the words demonise all, totally, as individuals...which, when enough of these language structures support their beliefs... eventually allows 'believers' to use violence, because of the totallity of the 'wrong/evil' they see)

The fact is, many corrupt ideologies engage in this sloppy thinking structure in support of their beliefs (there are other sloppy structures). You are complaining/criticising their beliefs, but using the same sloppy formats in language that they do, in order to support your beliefs.

I'm not asking for perfection, I'm asking for qualifiers that don't make your behaviour hypocritical, which qualifiers will also add clarity and accuracy to your posts - both traits are necessary for other posters to understand you, and both traits are necessary to avoid engaging in discriminatory, demonising behaviour of the whole of a person, rather than specific beliefs of a person.

If you fly a Swastika, or a cross, then take the heat that comes with it.

There's an etiquette to holiday decorations.

The jack-o-lantern should be tossed in the compost on November 1st and the Christmas tree ornaments need to stay in the attic until Thanksgiving dinner is over.

And in my family, there's another holiday tradition to consider: On Diwali, we put out swastikas.

You go ahead and criticise language.

I am here to criticize poor behavior by homophobes.