Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Obama, Gay Marriage, Original Sin, Founding Fathers, Catholics, and Pearls

Obama, Gay Marriage, Original Sin, Founding Fathers, Catholics, and Pearls (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 12:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
How is bigotry a "traditional moral value?" It did take the Republican party almost 100 years to get the other political parties in step with rational thinking in regards to equal rights, but that in itself was a 100 year tradition of good moral values.
Yeah, what about the 100 years before that?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 12:24 PM
 
It is Political Science 101 I suppose, Dakar, but just because it's politically obvious doesn't mean it's not worth commenting on. A self-assured president can appeal to the center and even try to gain soft-liners in the opposing party. That's not what we're seeing here.

He sees the polls. He's losing moderate white men, and even the lead he had with women has tightened. He knows Romney can win. So they're going to try to divide the country as much as possible, playing identity and class warfare politics. Not "e pluribus unum" but "from many, even more divided against themselves." And they're going to set things up so that they can commit massive voter fraud, too. Romney's going to have to win by a comfortable margin for it to be seen as a razor thin victory. Leftists, Obamaists if you will, play the politics of power. They'll do whatever they have to do in order to keep their grip on it. They don't care about individual rights, the law or honor, if any of it gets in the way of their power grab. Fundamental transformation of the United States. Just wait and see if anyone doubts me.
( Last edited by Big Mac; May 10, 2012 at 12:34 PM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 12:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
It is I suppose, Dakar, but just because it's politically obvious doesn't mean it's not worth commenting on. A self-assured president can appeal to the center and even try to gain soft-liners in the opposing party. That's not what we're seeing here.
...and I'm sure if he was "self-assured" you wouldn't criticize him for his "arrogance." C'mon dude, this is nothing but stock partisanism.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 12:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I'm guessing that's not the case with the majority of Americans who do not support "gay marriage."
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 12:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
...and I'm sure if he was "self-assured" you wouldn't criticize him for his "arrogance." C'mon dude, this is nothing but stock partisanism.
No, there's a difference between self-assured and arrogant. If his campaign were self-assured, it wouldn't be operating in this fashion. But even if he were coming off as arrogant, that would tell us something very different about how things are shaping up electorally.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 12:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by gradient View Post
Are you saying that there isn't a homophobic segment of the black community? I'm fairly certain that there's a homophobic segment of every community (aside from the gay community, heh). Besides that, he didn't characterize it as "large"; that was a notable inference on your part.
You would be surprised how much homophobia also comes out from closet case gay people struggling with there identity.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 01:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
That should put us in the win column, as most of the people who oppose gay marriage have lower than average intelligence. They can't come up with anything objective, so they keep regurgitating all the same old tripe.
I'm gay and I am opposed to gay marriage. I'm opposed with government having any role in marriage. Marriage is a religious arrangement. Let the religions deal with marriage on there own independent of the state. If a church decides to marry men before god so be it. If not some gay people can create a gay church for all I care to solve the symbolic part of the problem.

As for the state side of things, all dependent living partners should have the same access and rights regardless of anything. If its a husband and wife, or a gay couple, or brothers, or 2 roommates, co-habitation (common law) should apply. The perks and benefits currently limited to married couples should apply to all co-dependent living situations.

That separates the symbolic part and the state. Religion can do what it wants with the symbolic part while the state can deal with the other stuff while not mixing itself up in religion.

Oh the reason I am against Gay Marriage being forced upon a church is because a Church is a private members club no different from any other club. (Should be taxed like any other club too)
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 01:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I'm gay and I am opposed to gay marriage. I'm opposed with government having any role in marriage. Marriage is a religious arrangement. Let the religions deal with marriage on there own independent of the state. If a church decides to marry men before god so be it. If not some gay people can create a gay church for all I care to solve the symbolic part of the problem.
You are making contradictory arguments.

How can you be opposed to gay marriage because marriage is a religious arrangement.
Yet you support gay marriage if marriage is a religious arrangement by some gay church.


You are not oppose to gay marriage.
Your are oppose to government having any role in marriage.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 01:37 PM
 
I don't view marriage as a religious institution.

Marriage was a contract between families in exchange for power and property rights.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 01:59 PM
 
No I'm opposed to the state telling a religion what it has to accept for equality purposes. You can't tell the Catholic church or any other church that you must accept and marry Gay people. If the Catholic church says marriage is only between a man and a woman so be it. Gay people belonging to the Catholic church have to accept that they wont be marred before that Church. They can either petition the Church and its community to recognize it or not get have a Catholic marriage. That does not mean that Gay people can't start there own Church that does recognize gay Marriage.

I don't support the state being involved in any way with any kind of marriage. Be it Christians, Muslims, Hindu's. None of them. Marriage belongs to the private member clubs that created it.

State involvement should be limited to
- Parental Contract between 2 or more parties, natural born children the 18 year contract is automatic. Adopting families or non natural born parental contracts have to be applied for. But entails the same commitment and requirements.
- Property Contracts for Co-Habitation, is automatic after 2 years of continuous co-habitation and is a 50/50 split unless a voluntarily contract is created by the parties.

All the things the state offers married people now can be separated into contractual obligations. A family can go through a Marriage divorce in the eyes of god and still live together under the state contracts relating to property and children. A Couple stay married in the eyes of god and still separate there lives through a legal process to divide Property and Parental roles. A Natural father can transfer his contractual obligations of his child to a step father that is caring for the child.

More importantly these fundamental contracts apply to all. Muslims, Christians, non religious people, gay people, straight people.


I think Obama is going to be hurt by his position on gay marriage. Looking at how ugly the fight has been from state to state, I have a feeling it will back fire for him losing support.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 02:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
I don't view marriage as a religious institution.

Marriage was a contract between families in exchange for power and property rights.
It started out as a religious institution, today the state has made it more a family contract. I think states should deal with civil unions of contracts and only call it that. Marriage licenses, or papers can be obtained by the church and have nothing to do with the state.

It would remove a lot of conflict and the politics of it, while creating a different kind of conflict.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 02:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I will. Especially considering that even you admit that it's an example of clear propaganda, and not an honest definition used to illustrate an actual "phobia."
I don't think you read my post very carefully. I understand though, you're getting dogpiled and have a lot of text to churn through. I'm willing to work through this slowly.

I can only assume the reason you didn't address most of my post is you are working under the assumption the term "propaganda" is mutually exclusive with the word "truth". This is simply just not the case.

As I stated, when the coin was termed, homosexual sex was such a frightening prospect to most people, it was illegal in every state.

This fits your dictionary definition of phobia exactly.

"[P]ersistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational."

These laws were passed and allowed to stay on the books by heterosexual males. In other words, these people needed to commit to zero effort to avoid having homosexual sex, but they responded with extreme irrational disproportion.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 02:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Yeah, what about the 100 years before that?
There were people of faith, even before the creation of the Republican party, that fought for people's civil rights. Again, there's a long moral tradition. Moses might have been the guy who started it all.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 02:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I'm gay and I am opposed to gay marriage. I'm opposed with government having any role in marriage
Stop being such a homophobe! lol
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 02:12 PM
 
Nothing is saying that the Catholic church will be forced to marry gay people. Heck, the catholic church won't marry anyone who's been divorced, or not Catholic. They aren't forced to. So gay people will find gay-friendly marriage officiants, just like divorced or interfaith couples find friendly officiants. It's much happier for everyone.

Will someone try to sue and make a big deal about forcing the Church? Maybe, but they'd be jerks for ruining it for everyone.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 02:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I don't think you read my post very carefully. I understand though, you're getting dogpiled and have a lot of text to churn through. I'm willing to work through this slowly.

I can only assume the reason you didn't address most of my post is you are working under the assumption the term "propaganda" is mutually exclusive with the word "truth". This is simply just not the case.

As I stated, when the coin was termed, homosexual sex was such a frightening prospect to most people, it was illegal in every state.
Why is it because it was "frightening," and not simply the kind of conduct that communities didn't want to allow due to moral reservations and standards?

This fits your dictionary definition of phobia exactly.

"[P]ersistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational."
You are CLAIMING fear without being able to show it. As I've explained, people can have differing moral standards without the root cause being fear. There's no doubt that some people oppose what they fear, but the problem is that people who are dishonest, intellectually lazy, or just plain bigoted are stereotyping ALL people in opposition as having that "fear" when it's likely that the majority do not. They are engaging in such bigotry under the auspices of protecting civil rights, which is quite ironic.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 02:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Disagreeing in regards to sexual moral values is not a mental disorder. As such, applying a medical definition (which you've provided) which describes a mental disorder is wrong and dishonest. A "phobia" is a mental disorder, "homo" or otherwise. I'm quite sure there are people who disagree entirely because they have such an irrational fear. I'm guessing that's not the case with the majority of Americans who do not support "gay marriage."
Your strawman argument is now reaching epic proportions. The definition of Homophobia does in no way imply an explicit mental disorder. An aversion to homosexuality based on emotion (i.e. "that's gross, it creeps me out") is by definition homophobia, for example, as is the statement "it's wrong because it's unnatural" (homosexuality has been observed in nature, making that an irrational statement). Both of these examples are common reactions amongst the anti-gay movement. Certainly homophobia and mental disorders can co-exist but one is by no means inherent in the other.

To turn it around and call me "wrong and dishonest" for stating this is laughable.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 02:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Nothing is saying that the Catholic church will be forced to marry gay people. Heck, the catholic church won't marry anyone who's been divorced, or not Catholic. They aren't forced to. So gay people will find gay-friendly marriage officiants, just like divorced or interfaith couples find friendly officiants. It's much happier for everyone.

Will someone try to sue and make a big deal about forcing the Church? Maybe, but they'd be jerks for ruining it for everyone.
No but the church wants the legal definition of marriage to be that of a man and a woman. Some gay people don't want that change. Other people just couldn't care less. Some gay people are fine with a Civil Union name while others want exactly what hetro couples have. The state involvement does interfere with the church. Even if its in the naming and definition of "marriage" And then it comes down to rights and obligations. Some states that are very hard core anti Gay marriage leaves gay couples in a special limbo. Does my partner get dental benefits. Is my partner a legal parent of our child. And many of that has to do with what is recognized as a marriage which in those states is between a man and a woman. If the state didn't deal in the marriage business at all the matters of parents, property and other family items could be dealt with differently with out sparking a ton of emotion.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 02:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
It started out as a religious institution, today the state has made it more a family contract. I think states should deal with civil unions of contracts and only call it that. Marriage licenses, or papers can be obtained by the church and have nothing to do with the state.

It would remove a lot of conflict and the politics of it, while creating a different kind of conflict.
How do Atheists get married? Atheist Church?

Marriage is a social institution and started as a social institution.

Religion just likes to get their greedy hands in everything.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 02:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
How do Atheists get married? Atheist Church?

Marriage is a social institution and started as a social institution.

Religion just like to get their greedy hands in everything.
It's also symbolic institution, denoting long term commitment.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 03:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
No I'm opposed to the state telling a religion what it has to accept for equality purposes. You can't tell the Catholic church or any other church that you must accept and marry Gay people. If the Catholic church says marriage is only between a man and a woman so be it. Gay people belonging to the Catholic church have to accept that they wont be marred before that Church. They can either petition the Church and its community to recognize it or not get have a Catholic marriage. That does not mean that Gay people can't start there own Church that does recognize gay Marriage.

I don't support the state being involved in any way with any kind of marriage. Be it Christians, Muslims, Hindu's. None of them. Marriage belongs to the private member clubs that created it.

State involvement should be limited to
- Parental Contract between 2 or more parties, natural born children the 18 year contract is automatic. Adopting families or non natural born parental contracts have to be applied for. But entails the same commitment and requirements.
- Property Contracts for Co-Habitation, is automatic after 2 years of continuous co-habitation and is a 50/50 split unless a voluntarily contract is created by the parties.

All the things the state offers married people now can be separated into contractual obligations. A family can go through a Marriage divorce in the eyes of god and still live together under the state contracts relating to property and children. A Couple stay married in the eyes of god and still separate there lives through a legal process to divide Property and Parental roles. A Natural father can transfer his contractual obligations of his child to a step father that is caring for the child.

More importantly these fundamental contracts apply to all. Muslims, Christians, non religious people, gay people, straight people.


I think Obama is going to be hurt by his position on gay marriage. Looking at how ugly the fight has been from state to state, I have a feeling it will back fire for him losing support.
Who is forcing the Church to recognize gay marriage?
We are asking the government to recognize gay marriages.

I'm an Atheist. Am I forcing the Church to recognize my marriage? No. I'm asking the government to recognize my marriage.

I don't give a sh*t whether the Christians, Muslims, Hindu Church or Temples recognizes my marriage since I don't belong to any of them.


I don't know why you think asking the government to recognize marriage among Atheist or gays is forcing the Church to accept gay and atheist marriages.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 03:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
You would be surprised how much homophobia also comes out from closet case gay people struggling with there identity.
That's quite true, though I guess my thinking was that those struggling with their sexuality wouldn't really be considered a part of the gay community at that point in their lives. I'm sure there are exceptions to that, though, now that I think about it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 04:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by gradient View Post
Your strawman argument is now reaching epic proportions. The definition of Homophobia does in no way imply an explicit mental disorder.
Being controlled by an irrational fear most certainly is a mental disorder. People go to mental health professionals in order to seek relief from phobias all the time.

An aversion to homosexuality based on emotion (i.e. "that's gross, it creeps me out") is by definition homophobia, for example, as is the statement "it's wrong because it's unnatural" (homosexuality has been observed in nature, making that an irrational statement).
No, it's not. By definition, it's caused by a specific emotion, "fear." And the "fear' must be irrational.

Your point about things being "unnatural" is a semantic argument. The use of the term in that regards does not normally refer to whether or not something can be "observed in nature", but rather it's referring to the word's defintion of "at variance with what is normal or to be expected."

Given that only a very small percentage of human beings are compelled to prefer same sex relations, it most certainly is not the norm or generally expected, even if it is within the realms of possiility.

So, you wish to change the definition of homophobia to fit your arugment, and ignore multiple meanings of other words in order to make your point. Not really a strong position from which to debate.

Both of these examples are common reactions amongst the anti-gay movement. Certainly homophobia and mental disorders can co-exist but one is by no means inherent in the other.

To turn it around and call me "wrong and dishonest" for stating this is laughable.
Could be wrong OR dishonest. Homophobia is a medical term, as shown above. It's proper use is to describe a mental condition caused by irrational fear. Until you can show that the people in question who are opposed are compelled to act out of fear for irrational reasons, and not just that they have moral differences of opinion, stereotyping them as having that medical disorder is either based on a desire to falsely accuse due to bigotry, or due to ignorance of what homophobia is. EIther way, its' not helpful to anything.
( Last edited by stupendousman; May 10, 2012 at 04:28 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 04:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Who is forcing the Church to recognize gay marriage?
We are asking the government to recognize gay marriages.

I'm an Atheist. Am I forcing the Church to recognize my marriage? No. I'm asking the government to recognize my marriage.

I don't give a sh*t whether the Christians, Muslims, Hindu Church or Temples recognizes my marriage since I don't belong to any of them.


I don't know why you think asking the government to recognize marriage among Atheist or gays is forcing the Church to accept gay and atheist marriages.
The churches want the definition of Marriage to remain between a Man and a Woman. A Atheist marriage between a Man and a Woman fits that. A Marriage between 2 men or 2 woman does not. This is the political issue around the term Gay Marriage. This is why some jurisdictions have used the term Civil Union (Not Marriage) when dealing with Gay Couples. A large fight in the Gay community is to have there Civil Unions or domestic partnerships seen as Marriages not civil Unions. Any law that makes a union between a gay couple into a official Marriage goes against the churches who are fighting very hard to have the term Marriage reserved for only heterosexual couples. This is a large part of the debate. The protecting of the definition of what it means. The fight for equal benefits is only one part of the battle.

Gay 'Marriage' vs. 'Civil Unions': What's in a Name? - Hit & Run : Reason.com

For Obama, then, a "civil union" was the same as a "civil marriage," but for the name. As he recognized, the name really does matter to some opponents, mainly because they conflate civil marriage—the legal arrangement recognized by the state—with "the sacred institution of marriage" (as Mitt Romney, among others, puts it), which is defined by religious traditions that date back a lot further than marriage licenses. In my view, this confusion is another argument for taking marriage—the word and the institution—back from the state and giving what today is known as civil marriage a new name (civil union, domestic partnership, or something else) that would apply to gay couples and straight couples alike
It also seems a feasible response to the equal protection argument against California's ban on same-sex marriage, whose opponents complain that the state's "domestic partnership" option, though quite similar to civil marriage, is not an acceptable substitute because the difference in terminology implies a difference in status.
Keeping in mind that a "civil union" or "domestic partnership" means different things to different people, ranging from a few specific benefits to marriage by a different name, what do the survey data indicate about support for such alternatives vs. support for gay "marriage"? In a February New York Times/CBS News poll, 40 percent of respondents supported "legal marriage" for gay couples, while an additional 23 percent favored "civil unions"; 31 percent said there should be "no legal recognition at all," and 6 percent were undecided. An August 2010 Fox News poll had similar results, with 37 percent saying gay couples "should be allowed to get legally married," 29 percent saying they should be "allowed a legal partnership similar to but not called marriage," 28 percent favoring "no legal recognition," and 6 percent undecided. So Obama's support for "strong" civil unions straddled two positions that together account for more than 60 percent of voters (and an even bigger majorty among people apt to vote for him). By contrast, "no legal recognition" for same-sex couples is clearly a minority position—a fact that Romney, who talks a lot about protecting marriage but very little about fair legal treatment of gay couples, may have to contend with as he repositions himself for the general election.
The name is a very big part of the debate. If the state exited Marriages all together and dealt with all couples as civil unions it would solve a lot of the debate. Would go a long way to making religion happy as well.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 04:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by gradient View Post
That's quite true, though I guess my thinking was that those struggling with their sexuality wouldn't really be considered a part of the gay community at that point in their lives. I'm sure there are exceptions to that, though, now that I think about it.
The Metro or 24 hours, cant remember which one it was had a story a few months ago about a UK study that found a good portion of violence against UK homosexuals where in fact committed by those struggling with there sexuality. And I have personal experience in this area too. A friend I've slept with a couple times now is struggling with his identity. He says he is straight and was just curious but many things about him (which I have not told him) makes him come across as gay let alone the fact we have slept together. But at the same time acts like one of the more homophobic people I know, always trying to be manly to, well, be manly. Over compensating in many ways. I know hes bi or gay but at the same time I can easily see him beating up a gay person.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 04:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Being controlled by an irrational fear most certainly is a mental disorder. People go to mental health professionals in order to seek relief from phobias all the time.
Show me where I mentioned fear. I didn't. The level of control at play is also subjective and varies tremendously. In extereme cases this could lead to a diagnosis of mental disorder, in milder cases not.

No, it's not. By definition, it's caused by A EMOTION, "fear." And the "fear' must be irrational.
Fear is not the only emotion that can be involved. My example clearly stated something based on emotion, so your point here is redundant.

Your point about things being "unnatural" is a semantic argument. The use of the term in that regards does not normally refer to whether or not something can be "observed in nature", but rather it's referring to the word's defintion of "at variance with what is normal or to be expected."

Given that only a very small percentage of human beings are compelled to prefer same sex relations, it most certainly is not the norm or generally expected, even if it is within the realms of possiility.

So, you wish to change the definition of homophobia to fit your arugment, and ignore multiple meanings of other words in order to make your point. Not really a strong position from which to debate.
It is you who, above, just tried to change the definition of "unnatural". I most certainly have not ignored other coloquial meanings for the term, however. I have simply heard this justification used according to the proper definition many times, so the line of thinking does exist. Your statement here also implies that the term is sometimes used according to definition, so you have clearly ceded this point to me even though you continue to fight it.

Homophobia is a medical term, as shown above. It's proper use is to describe a mental condition caused by irrational fear.
Show me this exclusive definition, which trumps all other definitions. You have made this claim several times now in this thread so the burden of proof now lies in your court. Besides that, you've now changed your definition to state that it is a mental "condition", not disorder; these are two considerably different things. Which is it?

Until you can show that the people in question who are opposed are compelled to act out of fear for irrational reasons, and not just that they have moral differences of opinion, stereotyping them as having that medical disorder is either based on a desire to falsely accuse due to bigotry, or due to ignorance of what homophobia is. EIther way, its' not helpful to anything.
There is zero stereotyping going on here on my part. My statement is, and was from the beginning, that a homophobic segment does exist, not at all that the entire population who is opposed to gay marriage is homophobic.
( Last edited by gradient; May 10, 2012 at 05:24 PM. Reason: Typo.)
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 04:55 PM
 
Homophobia can be from a mental condition such as self identity issues, but a lot of the time its a learned condition. These people hate gay people for the same reason some people believe in a invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. Both to a logical person seem irrational but to the gay haters and to the invisible man followers, they think they are perfectly normal. If either had been born in a tribe of shrunken head hunter societies they would think decapitating heads and shrinking them into trophy was normal. Much of our behavior good or bad comes from what is learned.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 05:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Why is it because it was "frightening," and not simply the kind of conduct that communities didn't want to allow due to moral reservations and standards?

You are CLAIMING fear without being able to show it. As I've explained, people can have differing moral standards without the root cause being fear. There's no doubt that some people oppose what they fear, but the problem is that people who are dishonest, intellectually lazy, or just plain bigoted are stereotyping ALL people in opposition as having that "fear" when it's likely that the majority do not. They are engaging in such bigotry under the auspices of protecting civil rights, which is quite ironic.
Before I answer this, I'm curious. What exactly do you get out of debating here? Do you actually believe all your arguments or is it more about the sport of debate?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 05:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Before I answer this, I'm curious. What exactly do you get out of debating here? Do you actually believe all your arguments or is it more about the sport of debate?
I agree with his statement.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 06:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Before I answer this, I'm curious. What exactly do you get out of debating here? Do you actually believe all your arguments or is it more about the sport of debate?
What kind of question is that? Why does ANYONE debate issues? What does it matter? Either a person can support their positions, or they can't. If they can't, then I think that they should reconsider your positions very carefully or at least not continue to parrot them publicly in ways that might make them look ignorant.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 07:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
What kind of question is that?
A fairly straightforward one, which you didn't answer.

What exactly do you get out of debating here?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 07:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
People, blacks and whites alike have no problem shirking Christian doctrine when it suits them. I maintain there is something more at play. Homosexuality is not as clearly understood as its rights activists would have the collective believe any more than marriage itself is viewed as a right among the collective.

The fact that a large portion of the black community does not advocate gay rights simply illustrates the fact that sexual orientation is not viewed in the same light as race or gender and their related plights of inequality do not bear enough resemblance.

Obama's move was purely political. He's not going to lose the black vote and will pick up a few more disenfranchised gay voters and motivate that bloc of funds. It was as political as his original opposition; just based on a different calculation this time around.
Insightful analysis as usual my friend.

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 10, 2012, 09:19 PM
 
white fundamental Christians will not support Obama after his support for gay marriage...

black fundamental Christians will not support Obama after his support for gay marriage...

the problem isn't race, it's the religion
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2012, 12:49 AM
 
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2012, 07:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by gradient View Post
There is most certainly homophobia in the black community. Get over it. If you want some evidence, here's a taste...
How do you know the bashers weren't gay?
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2012, 07:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
white fundamental Christians will not support Obama after his support for gay marriage...

black fundamental Christians will not support Obama after his support for gay marriage...

the problem isn't race, it's the religion
So... the video posted above with people brutalizing a homosexual were comprised of religious fundamentalists? Your bumper-sticker reasoning doesn't fit here.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2012, 08:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
So... the video posted above with people brutalizing a homosexual were comprised of religious fundamentalists? Your bumper-sticker reasoning doesn't fit here.


All this did is get Obama more campaign cash. The people who appreciate whatever new nuance he added to his position where likely already going to vote for him since it puts him farther to the left on issues. They were never going to vote for Romney. However, Obama is still trying to hedge due to the fact that he knows that many minorities who have strong religious faiths will see this as abandoning a position which they had agreement. Some of the strongest supporters of traditional marriage laws come from minority churches. This also energizes the right towards a guy they suspect might not have the strongest conservative credentials.

As far as politics go, unless his handlers are just afraid they are going to lose in the money game and never have a chance at all - especially with a candidate whose numbers are bad, this looks like a bad Politics 101 move. They must be desperate from cash and the big spenders in Hollywood must be holding on to their money this season. There's really no reason for them to hand the right such a clear advantage.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2012, 09:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
... people can have differing moral standards without the root cause being fear.
Indeed. What is the rationale behind seeking to impose one's moral standard onto others, when the acceptance, or not, of those moral standards has no direct impact on others?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2012, 09:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Indeed. What is the rationale behind seeking to impose one's moral standard onto others, when the acceptance, or not, of those moral standards has no direct impact on others?
If someone has to give equal treatment to unequal things, that can have a direct impact on their well being. The fear of being forced to uphold and support intellectually dishonest standards against your will, and therefore forcing you to "live a lie" by the government isn't an irrational one.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2012, 09:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by gradient View Post
Fear is not the only emotion that can be involved. My example clearly stated something based on emotion, so your point here is redundant.
People who are genuinely homophobic could well have other emotions as well. However, by definition, the "fear" is what makes it "phobic." Absent the "fear", it's not "homophobia." It's just simple dislike of homosexuals for possibly irrational reasons

Until you become a respected expert on word usage, take the time to create a new dictionary, have it published and excepted as a standard, you really can't just make up words to mean what you want them to. Absent an irrational fear (which has yet to be proven), it's dishonest to call these people homophobic and is an example of bigoted stereotyping because that's exactly what the word means. Attempts to categorize people with negative labels without evidence that they actually fit the appropriate pattern is EXACTLY what stereotyping is as well.

Not because I disagree with you on the issue of marriage, but because that is FACTUALLY what those words mean.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2012, 10:14 AM
 
I have believed for years that the secular state should get out of the occupation of defining "marriage" altogether. It should, for legal purposes, recognize only civil unions of consenting adults, whether hetero or homo, or even unions of more than two. Polygamy is also a biblical institution! Leave the term marriage to individuals and private institutions who want to define and delimit their unions as such.

Problem solved. And for the record, this is one of the stupidest issues to be dominating the national political debate. We have real, extreme, country-threatening problems on our hands that people apparently don't care nearly as much about. These problems will result in untold human misery, destruction and death, but people don't care to tackle them. No, gay marriage is what this pathetic excuse for a president and our pathetic excuse for news media focus on. Oh yeah, and whether Mitt Romney cut some gay guy's hair in 1965 - really important!
( Last edited by Big Mac; May 11, 2012 at 10:30 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2012, 11:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
People who are genuinely homophobic could well have other emotions as well. However, by definition, the "fear" is what makes it "phobic." Absent the "fear", it's not "homophobia." It's just simple dislike of homosexuals for possibly irrational reasons.

Until you become a respected expert on word usage, take the time to create a new dictionary, have it published and excepted as a standard, you really can't just make up words to mean what you want them to. Absent an irrational fear (which has yet to be proven), it's dishonest to call these people homophobic and is an example of bigoted stereotyping because that's exactly what the word means. Attempts to categorize people with negative labels without evidence that they actually fit the appropriate pattern is EXACTLY what stereotyping is as well.

Not because I disagree with you on the issue of marriage, but because that is FACTUALLY what those words mean.
Again, show me this definition where homophobia is the exclusive domain of fear. Are you such a respected expert on word usage, that your statements are to be taken as fact without any burden of proof?

Homophobia - Medical Definition and More from Merriam-Webster
Homophobia | Define Homophobia at Dictionary.com
What is Homophobia
homophobic - definition of homophobic by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Definition for homophobia - Oxford Dictionaries Online (World English)
homophobia - definition. American English definition of homophobia by Macmillan Dictionary
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2012, 11:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
How do you know the bashers weren't gay?
As Athens pointed out earlier, gay people can be homophobic.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2012, 11:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
I have believed for years that the secular state should get out of the occupation of defining "marriage" altogether. It should, for legal purposes, recognize only civil unions of consenting adults, whether hetero or homo, or even unions of more than two. Polygamy is also a biblical institution! Leave the term marriage to individuals and private institutions who want to define and delimit their unions as such.

Problem solved. And for the record, this is one of the stupidest issues to be dominating the national political debate. We have real, extreme, country-threatening problems on our hands that people apparently don't care nearly as much about. These problems will result in untold human misery, destruction and death, but people don't care to tackle them. No, gay marriage is what this pathetic excuse for a president and our pathetic excuse for news media focus on. Oh yeah, and whether Mitt Romney cut some gay guy's hair in 1965 - really important!
LOL that makes 2 topics we totally 100% agree on.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2012, 11:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I don't know of another instance were "phobia" is used in regards to people were it isn't used to define a mental disorder.
How about xenophobia?
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2012, 12:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Oh yeah, and whether Mitt Romney cut some gay guy's hair in 1965 - really important!
If a candidate has shown uncivil behavior in the past I think it informs a decision. Is it ok that he was a bully? Of course not. The bigger question Is he still a bully today? His apology is half-assed, lukewarm, and perfunctory.

Do you condone a group of kids tackling one kid and beating him up?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2012, 12:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
It is Political Science 101 I suppose, Dakar, but just because it's politically obvious doesn't mean it's not worth commenting on. A self-assured president can appeal to the center and even try to gain soft-liners in the opposing party. That's not what we're seeing here.
To be honest, I'm not sure what we're seeing here.

Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
He sees the polls. He's losing moderate white men, and even the lead he had with women has tightened. He knows Romney can win. So they're going to try to divide the country as much as possible, playing identity and class warfare politics. Not "e pluribus unum" but "from many, even more divided against themselves." And they're going to set things up so that they can commit massive voter fraud, too. Romney's going to have to win by a comfortable margin for it to be seen as a razor thin victory. Leftists, Obamaists if you will, play the politics of power. They'll do whatever they have to do in order to keep their grip on it. They don't care about individual rights, the law or honor, if any of it gets in the way of their power grab. Fundamental transformation of the United States. Just wait and see if anyone doubts me.
...and you lost me. So now you're setting up a narrative that anything less than a blowout win by Obama is stealing the election.

I also think it's fundamentally deluded to pretend the Democrats are the only ones trying to trying to rig things in their favor (As if both sides aren't constantly trying to do this). We already had PA's legislature trying to divvy up electoral votes by district, and several other legislatures are passing voter id laws that just coincidentally will disenfranchise those voters that are more likely to vote democratic.

Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
I have believed for years that the secular state should get out of the occupation of defining "marriage" altogether. It should, for legal purposes, recognize only civil unions of consenting adults, whether hetero or homo, or even unions of more than two. Polygamy is also a biblical institution! Leave the term marriage to individuals and private institutions who want to define and delimit their unions as such.
Agreed. However since no one is campaigning to do such a thing, those pushing for equalization are in the right.

Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
And for the record, this is one of the stupidest issues to be dominating the national political debate. We have real, extreme, country-threatening problems on our hands that people apparently don't care nearly as much about. These problems will result in untold human misery, destruction and death, but people don't care to tackle them. No, gay marriage is what this pathetic excuse for a president and our pathetic excuse for news media focus on. Oh yeah, and whether Mitt Romney cut some gay guy's hair in 1965 - really important!
True. However those more important topics aren't cut and dry enough to play in the media.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2012, 12:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
If a candidate has shown uncivil behavior in the past I think it informs a decision. Is it ok that he was a bully.
You know, I don't like any of it, but I have a hard time really pinning this as anything significant. I only see it representative of one thing that could be construed as important – it's obvious conformity is important to Mitt. Not exactly a large revelation.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 11, 2012, 02:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
So... the video posted above with people brutalizing a homosexual were comprised of religious fundamentalists? Your bumper-sticker reasoning doesn't fit here.
i bet religion played a part of it...and of course, homophobia
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2012, 09:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
i bet religion played a part of it...and of course, homophobia
I'd be willing to bet religion had zero to do with it. In fact, I'd bet that if they were regular churchgoers who said they're prayers before going to bed each night; they'd be more peaceful, loving, gratuitous, and understanding. They'd certainly be less apt to hang out with their thug-buddies looking for gays to beat up.

What you're seeing here is that finger-pointing is counter productive. It is exactly the We vs They nonsense you're supposedly chastising.
ebuddy
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:06 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2