Political Correctness: Make a Judgment

I agree, sort of. I really cannot understand how anyone can conclude that the use of "tar baby" in the above described context had any racial intent. Of course, that's not to say that it was said without any racial over- or undertones, but there is no real proof of racial malicious intent. So why use time trying to determine if it was said with malice?

Now, I agree it was insensitive of Mr. Romney to utter "tar baby" only if he was aware of the racial connotation associated with that word. However, if ignorant of its potential to racially offend, it would seem his political aspirations have suffered a set-back as a result of his ignorant use of a word he thought racially benign. In either case, the onus was incumbent upon Mr. Romney to act diplomatically and use sensitive language- he didn't, and now he'll have to shoulder the political fallout, whatever it may be. In other words, the situation he finds himself in is his fault and his fault alone.

Lash, here is the post of mine which offended you (minus only an aside to edgarblythe agreeing with his comment that people seemed to want Obama to be "flawless") I've bolded the remarks that offended you:

You are in error. The remark you bolded didn't offend me. What irked me is that you were clearly talking about me, but didn't have the cajones to either address me or drop the pretense and refer to me directly. It's just one of a few admitted pet peeves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My intent was only to defend Obama for not having settled in his mind about gay marriage.

Had that been true, you wouldn't have expanded to negative characterizations of me. Therefore, I say you had additional intentions... I don't mind so much that you did--but that you tried to avoid admitting it.

We disagree about the amount of damage he can and will do to the cause of gay marriage, especially compared to some of the other candidates.

How do you know what damage I think he can do? I've never addressed that issue. I'm pissed that he doesn't view gay people as equal to him and you and me, and thinks he should add in on the side of those who would deny civil rights to roughly 5% of the general population. It pisses me off.
I think his freedom to come to his own conclusions about that issue is similar to your or anyone's freedom of speech.

You are in error again. He has a right to his own opinion. He has a right to his own vote. But, as Blatham's thread indicates, exercise of that right in the form of activism or voting against the full rights of citizens who are gay makes him a homophobe and an oppressor of a segment of our society. I'm not trying to change your mind about homosexuality--but you must see how denying someone rights to equality is more than speech.
If I was insulting to use the example of "demanding to use any word they damn well want" in trying to defend someone...
A reminder. That wasn't insulting at all. I actually think you are pretty clear on that. I think your entire re-angled approach is intentionally dishonest.

I don't think I deserved to be called a coward or a homophobe, but since I first offended you, perhaps we can call it even, accept that we differ on the significance of Obama's view, and move on.

Had that been true, you wouldn't have expanded to negative characterizations of me. Therefore, I say you had additional intentions...

I don't mind so much that you did--but that you tried to avoid admitting it.

Good knows I have my problems with Snood's politics, but I've never considered him a coward...
When you have an agreement not to make personal remarks to another poster--and then you see where they have made personal remarks about you, but by not naming you, followed the letter of the agreement--if not the spirit, you may consider that fine. I consider it dishonest and in the realm of cowardly. I may not be "right," but that is my honest opinion.
and I don't see evidence he's a homophobe here either.
If you read blatham's thread {paraphrased}: "Anti-Gay Marriage Is Homophobic," you'll understand my comment. I thought Blatham's thread title was over the top, or that there was some bit of light in the anti-gay marriage issue, which could save those against gay marriage from the charge of homophobia, but as I read and thought, I discovered Blatham was correct. The only reason to be against gay marriage is because the people wanting to get married are gay--and that is the definition (to me) of homophobia--hence my former remark which you take issue with. If you can prove me wrong, please do so. I'm open to it, but quite skeptical of your ability to do so.
Interestingly, I attacked that same post for being overly sensitive about Obama. I don't think someone who supports Civil Unions could, or rather should, be considered to be denying anyone civil rights.
Civil Unions are lesser, not equal. That is quite simple.

Nor do I think a black man should necessarily have to stand shoulder to shoulder with gay men for gay rights (I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with either, but I'm more opposed to bullies than I am to confrontation). Frankly, I find this supposition absurd. I don't even think a gay man should necessarily have to stand shoulder to shoulder with gay men for gay rights.
The military imagery sort of clouds the issue. My remark sourced from my opinion that those who have suffered abuse should be more sensitive when they see others suffer it. This is just an opinion, but one closely held. You KNOW the suffering. You've FELT the suffering. And you choose to INFLICT the suffering, unable to claim the ignorance of most racists and homophobes. Whether or not you agree, I hope you at least understand why I made those remarks.

Surely, along with the right to protest we have the right not to.
Surely.
I don't see how Obama should have any less right to choose his battles than anyone else and I most certainly don't see cause to label Snood coward or homophobe based on his support of Obama.
I see. You were not privy to many facts as you wrote this post. Snood's support of Obama wasn't the reason for my remarks--although they are related.
That's waaaaaaaay over the top, Lash.
Maybe you understand now.

I don't see what's lesser about Civil Union than Marriage . . .

I sure didn't mean to reopen any worms-cans between you two. I understand you just fine, Lash. Seems I always do. I don't see what's lesser about Civil Union than Marriage...

Then, you support the heterosexuals being limited to Civil Unions and the homosexuals adopting the term marriage...

I couldn't rightly care less, myself, but I can understand how some religious people wish to keep the word Marriage to themselves... not the "Rights" mind you.

I don't think they have the right to exclude the word from use by people they don't like. It's unchristian.

I remember Nimh making an excellent argument that the homophobe angle is not unlike the racist angle of years ago. The difference is choice. It has not been definitively proven that there is no choice involved in homosexuality.

OK, to move forward, what if it is 100% choice? Consenting adults shouldn't be discriminated against because of what they like to do in bed, should they? Who gets to decide who is worthy of marriage? Do you feel comfortable telling other people they don't have the rights you do?

Don't bother convincing me I'm wrong; I do believe there are millions with NO choice... but also believe there are fence sitters as well that could be encouraged one way or another.

Why would you want to encourage someone who to ****? That seems bizarre.
I've known too many women (and probably more men than I know) that have dabled in it, only to learn they were straight all along... or even mostly straight. This being the case, and with the subject being anathema to so many religious folks... I think it reasonable to respect gay rights while not encouraging homosexuality.

This is sad. Your argument puts you in a position of superiority, as if you are the arbitor of how people should live. "Encouraging homosexuality...?" How about living your life and letting others live theirs? What if you were the minority group here and the homosexuals were concerned with your life--and worried about "encouraging" your football viewership or pool playing habits? It's so frighteningly easy for some of us to actually buy into this hideous social hierarchy and not see how easily it could be turned on us. Don't approve them or their "lifestyle" if you don't want to--but don't assume superiority over them. They are as human as you are--they should have all the rights you have. It is so hard for me to understand how you can deny that.
While such an admission, or position, in your mind may make me a bigot; I'll remind you that's only your opinion and each of us are entitled to our own.
True.

I still think "coward" was, at least, the wrong word as your justification doesn't support it. I'd also be curious to learn if you think I, too, am a homophobe?

As your comment on my post preceded your knowledge of what I referenced, I'm not impressed with your opinion on the particular point re "coward". As to homophobe, the definitions vary greatly. Some require that homosexuals are hated, some require only that the homophobe in question seeks to reduce a homosexual's enjoyment of their full rights as a citizen.

So, depends on the context. Blatham's thread did convince me that people who seek to reduce gay rights are homophobic. Does that define you?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I sure didn't mean to reopen any worms-cans between you two. I understand you just fine, Lash. Seems I always do. I don't see what's lesser about Civil Union than Marriage...

Then, you support the heterosexuals being limited to Civil Unions and the homosexuals adopting the term marriage...

I couldn't rightly care less, myself, but I can understand how some religious people wish to keep the word Marriage to themselves... not the "Rights" mind you.

I don't think they have the right to exclude the word from use by people they don't like. It's unchristian.

I remember Nimh making an excellent argument that the homophobe angle is not unlike the racist angle of years ago. The difference is choice. It has not been definitively proven that there is no choice involved in homosexuality.

OK, to move forward, what if it is 100% choice? Consenting adults shouldn't be discriminated against because of what they like to do in bed, should they? Who gets to decide who is worthy of marriage? Do you feel comfortable telling other people they don't have the rights you do?

Don't bother convincing me I'm wrong; I do believe there are millions with NO choice... but also believe there are fence sitters as well that could be encouraged one way or another.

Why would you want to encourage someone who to ****? That seems bizarre.
I've known too many women (and probably more men than I know) that have dabled in it, only to learn they were straight all along... or even mostly straight. This being the case, and with the subject being anathema to so many religious folks... I think it reasonable to respect gay rights while not encouraging homosexuality.

This is sad. Your argument puts you in a position of superiority, as if you are the arbitor of how people should live. "Encouraging homosexuality...?" How about living your life and letting others live theirs? What if you were the minority group here and the homosexuals were concerned with your life--and worried about "encouraging" your football viewership or pool playing habits? It's so frighteningly easy for some of us to actually buy into this hideous social hierarchy and not see how easily it could be turned on us. Don't approve them or their "lifestyle" if you don't want to--but don't assume superiority over them. They are as human as you are--they should have all the rights you have. It is so hard for me to understand how you can deny that.
While such an admission, or position, in your mind may make me a bigot; I'll remind you that's only your opinion and each of us are entitled to our own.
True.

I still think "coward" was, at least, the wrong word as your justification doesn't support it. I'd also be curious to learn if you think I, too, am a homophobe?

As your comment on my post preceded your knowledge of what I referenced, I'm not impressed with your opinion on the particular point re "coward". As to homophobe, the definitions vary greatly. Some require that homosexuals are hated, some require only that the homophobe in question seeks to reduce a homosexual's enjoyment of their full rights as a citizen.

So, depends on the context. Blatham's thread did convince me that people who seek to reduce gay rights are homophobic. Does that define you?

The reference to "separate but equal" is not as between one marriage and another, but as between marriage and civil union (if you are responding to my post). Marriage and civil union are not equal in terms of how the two descriptions of contract are and can be distinguished by the law as put into practice in the thousands of jurisdictions which make up the United States.

I think it reasonable to respect gay rights while not encouraging homosexuality.

I do not presume to put myself in a position of superiority.
When your argument included "dabblers" in sexual orientation, who you deemed "fence-sitters," who could be encouraged to fornicate with the opposite sex-- I can't be held responsible for whatever I say to that. LOL. I can't believe you said that. I thought the homos were the ones recruiting. From my reading of your statements, you have a superior attitude toward gay people.

Contrarily, I'd say that description fits better with those who view all who are less progressive than they are with contempt.
Equality is a basic human right.

I think you're on a hypocritical path when you recognize gay rights while treating those indoctrinated in religion for millennium's views with wanton disregard.
If the gays were preventing the religionists from marrying, I'd be saying the same thing.

I'm neither gay nor religious, but have no trouble empathizing with either.
Yes, you do.

Quote:

Then, you support the heterosexuals being limited to Civil Unions and the homosexuals adopting the term marriage...
Lash, this is idiotic and demonstrative of a total disrespect for religious tradition

.
It shows your error. If Civil Unions and marriage were the same,as you said, you should have no problem switching them. But, you know they aren't, and you knew it when you suggested they were equal. However, I am glad I've at least been able to communicate to you my total lack of respect for religious tradition.

Back to your "this is sad"; BS. I don't have any problem with people who smoke pot, or drink alcohol nor consider them bad in any way shape or form but I can understand that religious folks think neither should be encouraged... and I respect their right to think this way.
I respect their right to think that way, too. But I draw the line and making laws to enforce it.

I don't seek to reduce gay rights but neither do I feel it just to totally disregard millennium's of religious tradition... and moreover consider it foolhardy to ask a minority politician, with plenty of hurdles to negotiate as it is... to be bullyragged into championing a cause that contradicts his own religious beliefs. IMHO, there is room for disagreement here that doesn't require homophobia.
....bullyragged...?

Last time I encountered genuine homophobia at a wedding; I slow danced with a gay man in solidarity... and thoroughly enjoyed the bewilderment on bigoted faces. Yours and Blatham's definition for homophobe needs some work.
I'm comfortable that denying someone equal rights due to their same sex orientation is homophobia, irrespective of who they dance with.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I think it reasonable to respect gay rights while not encouraging homosexuality.

What in Jesus's name is "encouraging homosexuality"? What does that even mean?

Is telling people growing up and fearful about admitting they're homosexual that it's OK to be gay - as OK as it is to be straight - "encouraging homosexuality"?

Is wanting to give gays the same rights and opportunities as straight people "encouraging homosexuality"?

Is saying that gay people should be able to get married just the same as straight people are "encouraging homosexuality"?

Is including gay characters on the same footing in the same kind of roles in TV series or, say, cartoons, "encouraging homosexuality"?

If it's not any of that, then what is it, and is it even halfway something that happens on a relevant scale? And if it is any of the above, how does treating being gay as just as OK and normal as being straight amount to "encouraging" it?

How could one argue that treating gay people as equal to straight people - which is basically what saying that being gay is as OK as being straight comes down to - means "encouraging" it?

And by far most importantly of all - doesnt the whole notion that homosexuality is something you shouldnt "encourage" imply or admit that being gay is in fact something less than OK, something less valuable or right than heterosexuality?

Isnt a rejection of the equal rights of gay people as equally worthy citizens implied in the very notion?

How can one say that one is for equal rights for gays , but that they shouldnt be encouraged? Sounds like an oxymoron to me.