pope made homophobic slur

[Argentbear]

Yet being labeled homophobic, which can be demonstrably proven -even from this very thread- does not distinguish between dislike of homosexual acts and hatred for the person. The word is derogatorily applied to anyone who dissents against homosexual acts period.
Its been applied to me and I don't wish homosexuals harm. Nor do I fear them in any reasonable sense of that word any more than I fear someone who likes to have sex with other species of animals.

You just compared homosexuals to people who have sex with animals nd that is a fine example of homophobia.

And in case I haven't made myself clear...reread what I said above. Just observing all the protests happening as we speak we can see that many many people are confusing that difference. I think that's because its easier to stereotype and hate those that disagree with ourselves than it is to think through an issue reasonably even if it means our opinions must change.

Look...you've tried to realign the term in a more favorable light but that attempt is just not realistic. And part of the reason why you yourself stated.
Homosexuals, demonstrably, have taught society to equate their particular preference for how and who they prefer to have sex with with their humanity to the point that in your own words...

Do you think being straight is only a preference for who they have sex with?

"If I say to (gay) John "I don't like homosexuality" he probably will, because you are criticizing something that is an essential part of him. "

IF you made an equivalent statement about skin color to an African American how would you expect them to respond?

 

[setarcos]

You just compared homosexuals to people who have sex with animals nd that is a fine example of homophobia.

Not unreasonably, and this is a fine example of rendering homophobia a tool of oppression - the very thing most people seem to wish to prevent. By calling me homophobic I'm supposed to be ashamed of my own convictions because its being pushed as a derogatory statement about a group of people, ironically the very thing that homosexuals seem to be protesting against.

This may perhaps also be psychologically telling about how you parse comparisons while diminishing a consideration of the reasonable aspects of what's being said.
The comparison is a deconstruction of how ridiculously politicized the word has become. Let me walk you through my reasoning in order that I may more clearly communicate what I meant for you.
Do you have zoophobia (Intense fear of animals)? Do you practice bestiality? What's wrong with bestiality in your mind? Perhaps you have a list. Lets suppose you detest bestiality, if so then...
If you hate bestiality but you do not have an intense fear of animals does it make any sense to say that you suffer from zoophobia because you hate bestiality? Must you fear animals because you hate bestiality?
Yet, as has been shown here, if you hate the practice of homosexuality then you must be homophobic.
If you deconstruct the word a phobia is by definition per Johns Hopkins Medicine... "A phobia is an uncontrollable, irrational, and lasting fear of a certain object, situation, or activity.
"Hate or intense dislike of" and "fear of" are two distinctly difference emotional responses. I've already said I do not fear homosexuals nor wish them harm. I am a heterosexual so it is not unreasonable that I should find homosexual practices distasteful.

Here's one professors take on the matter which sheds further light on what I'm getting at...
"...when taken literally, homophobia may be a problematic term. Professor David A. F. Haaga says that contemporary usage includes "a wide range of negative emotions, attitudes and behaviors toward homosexual people," which are characteristics that are not consistent with accepted definitions of phobias, that of "an intense, illogical, or abnormal fear of a specified thing."[26] Plummer, David (2016). One of the boys. NY, NY: Routledge. ISBN 9781317712121. Retrieved 15 August 2019.

I chose bestiality because of its striking characteristics as a sexual preference and its hyperbolically ridiculous comparisons to homosexuality when labeling someone homophobic and bestiality when labeling someone as having zoophobia.

Do you think being straight is only a preference for who they have sex with?

No. Being straight indicates what healthy instinctual preferences one has that one chooses to comply with as a cognitively reasoning, high functioning human animal. Such animals typically have the reasoning capacity to choose not to comply with their instinctual preferences since
that functioning, while being influenced by those preferences, is not equated to those instinctual preferences.

Something which homosexual advocates seem to be equating. I think that is a mistake. Both in factuality and if those advocates wish to succeed in civil progress towards equality of acceptance as dignified human beings.

What we're seeing instead is an explosion of hyper vigilant crusaders hell bent on ensuring the protective coddling of a vulnerable group at the expense of unreasonable persecutions of those who show anything less than the greatest celebration, support, and admiration for every little homosexual expression out there while at the same time ignoring, or rendering reasonable, generally bad behavior.
The results will be a continued angst and antagonistic response within society by diminishing reasonable communication and ensuring there will always be diametrically apposed sides to take.
The best you might hope for is indifference toward homosexuality until homosexuals or others press the issue resulting in the potential for a never ending antagonistic cycle.

IF you made an equivalent statement about skin color to an African American how would you expect them to respond?

I don't know if you realize but I quoted that statement from someone else.
I certainly wouldn't make an overtly antagonistic statement such as that without good reason. Forced confrontation or deliberate prompting for instance.
In such offensive cases I would no more tell a black man I don't like black skin -seemingly unreasonable in any case- than I would seek out a homosexual just to tell them I don't like how they have sex -a reasonable fact in my case.
I certainly wouldn't expect them to take offense that I don't like homosexual practices anymore so than I should take offense that they don't like heterosexual practices.
However, IF I were to make a similar statement about skin color to an African American I would hope they would respond with a reasonable...."So?" That would be the most expedient and probably productive end to that conversation. However if such ignoring of the statement were not possible by the African American then they could reasonably conclude one of two things.
1) The statement was made in order to be deliberately antagonistic and initiate a aggressive response. A desire for violence.
2) The statement was made for a reason other than being deliberately antagonistic. A desire for reasonable discourse based on a false opinion perhaps, or a true opinion the African American hadn't thought of.
I think if the goal were to have a lasting and peaceful resolution to such interaction, both propositions would best be handled ,if possible, through reasoning, or if capable, in the face of overt violence, retreat.
I suppose you think and/or would expect them to respond with violence? Perhaps so, but again that would be because of the perpetual state of angst and antagonism that some would be crusaders are ensuring is the normal state of civilization.
As soon as society learns that one doesn't need a PhD before one can be therapeutic in society by simply listening, attempting to understand, and responding respectfully to each other then perhaps people like that African American could respond with "Why is that?" in order to further a peaceful resolution, instead of "You have no right to that opinion...I'm gonna beat you silly!" in order to ensure a continued dissonance among people of differing experiences and opinions.
We do have to learn to pick our battles. Some people are just deliberately unreasonable and antagonistic. We shouldn't automatically assume as much though.

 

[Shaul]

Homosexuals make many, many more Papalphobic statements all the time.

 

[setarcos]

It's a descriptive term

Its a prescriptive term that is unreasonably pushed as derogatory when indiscriminately applied to all who appose homosexual practices.

What people are saying is that "disapproving of homosexuality" IS homophobia.

And what I'm saying is that IS unreasonable. If disapproving of homosexuality is homophobia then disapproval of anything is a phobia. That is unreasonable.

There is no rational reason to have that opinion.

It is the most rational opinion to have as a heterosexual. Why should I like homosexuality if I'm not a homosexual? THAT would be irrational or an empty attempt at placating someone who is offended that I don't celebrate their sexual practices in some manner.

Maybe homosexuality repulses you. If so, and you must say something about your rejection, say that. Maybe you consider homosexuality a sin. Same answer. Say that if you must express an opinion for your unhappiness with homosexuals. But saying "I don't agree with their lifestyle" or something similar is to reject who they are and their humanity. It's to demean their character. It's destructive and irrational.

It does repulse me. I do place homosexuality into a religious characterization. I don't feel a need to search out homosexuals to express my opinions with on homosexuality unless prompted or forced in some manner. This thread and a disagreement with what's been expressed in some of it was a prompt. I don't know what you mean by "unhappy with homosexuals". I wouldn't be happy practicing homosexuality. I wouldn't be happy seeing homosexuals practice homosexuality. I'd be perfectly fine with interacting with homosexuals as human beings absent those other two factors during the interaction.
Do you equate the entirety of their lifestyle with their homosexuality? I'm not sure what a homosexual lifestyle is. Is it how they get sexual pleasure?
If so then I think its destructive and irrational to expect a heterosexual to to celebrate how homosexuals prefer to express themselves sexually.
Imagine if I requested all homosexuals to celebrate heterosexuality. What would be the point of that?
There are reasons beyond - I'm not one of them. - that dictate why it would be unreasonable for me to agree with homosexuality.
What does "I agree with the homosexual lifestyle." even mean?

And those who insist on "dissenting" about homosexuals being homosexuals will just have to wear the label homophobe whether they disagree or not.

Dissenting about homosexuals being homosexual and dissenting about homosexual practices are, in reality, two different things.
I'm not disagreeing with the fact that homosexuals exist. I'm not dissenting that homosexuals are homosexual. I'm dissenting against expecting me to celebrate homosexual practices. I'm disagreeing with the opinions of those who think that all dissention against homosexual practices are homophobic. I'm dissenting against the attempted subjugation of all other opposing opinions in favor of elevating the celebratory status of a particular sexual preference. I'm dissenting against the use of the term "homophobia" as a political ploy to demonize all those "dissenters" of homosexual practice in order to further the agenda of celebrating homosexual practices.

And what's your objection to the label? That it demeans you, or that it demeans you unfairly?

Both. It not only attempts to demean anyone apposed to homosexual practice but it does so arbitrarily.
The definition of the word itself is not rationally defensible as to be aptly applied to all dissenters of homosexuality.
It implies that all dissenters against homosexual practices suffer from irrationality, intense fear of, and/or intense hatred for all homosexuals.
I do not fear homosexuals. I have rational reasons for dissenting against homosexual practices and I do not hate any particular person because of their homosexuality. Nor do I wish any of them harm.
Now you tell me how that term can be rationally applied to me or others of like ken.
The term itself literally being a mash of "fear" and "homosexuals has morphed into a demanding moniker of "non-compliant".
It seems the geniuses that be in their concern for a marginalized and persecuted minority decided that they would get better results by labeling all dissenters against homosexual practice with a derogatorily reformulated term instead of reasonable discourse about that dissention.
Instead of chipping away at the mountain of dissention and hatred in order to make it into a mole hill they've succeeded in creating a mountainous Ice burg with the majority of unforeseen negative consequence lurking beneath an ocean of ignorance.

I'll disagree with you, but I won't object or go on defending myself. It's as meaningless as being called baby killer or Marxist, because such terms don't apply to me.

I would say it would be prudent of you to go on defending yourself as long as you haven't addressed what needs defending.
Reputations are one of the very few things that a person has that is inherently valuable about themselves.
You may know your not a baby killer but that means little if you don't defend that knowledge against those who think you are. They will otherwise go on treating you as if you were, to your detriment as well as theirs. Why wouldn't you care if your reputation has been rendered worthless?

So why are you objecting to being labeled a homophobe but I wouldn't mind being called a baby killer? Why is this an emotional issue for you but isn't for me? Why do you feel the need to defend yourself when called a homophobe, but I don't when labeled Marxist? There's an answer to that.

It would seem that the answer to that is that I care about my reputation and whether or not I hold a true opinion whereas you apparently don't.
I understand what your trying to say. But I think its the wrong approach to ignorance. I think we should be concerned with false impressions about ourselves. I think we should be bothered by how accurately others see us as being versus how we wish to be seen. I think we should always be concerned if we have a true opinion about how we should be in comparison to how others are.

One is not being called a homophobe because he is a heterosexual. If he were, then your comment would be correct. He's being called a homophobe because he disapproves of homosexuals and homosexuality.

That is my point. Homophobia does not distinguish between disapproval of the homosexual as a person and disapproval of homosexual practices. It equates the two things. The statement in question indicated that homosexual sex is the essence of homosexuality and an essential part of his being. I do not approve of homosexual sex because I am a heterosexual. If I approved of homosexual sex then my heterosexuality would only be a choice but since according to the quote in question my heterosexual practices is an essential part of my being I cannot approve of practicing homosexuality. Since no true heterosexual can deny the essence of their being then they cannot approve of practicing homosexuality. Therefore anyone who is a heterosexual by definition must also be a homophobe according to how the term is being used.
Homophobic is only appropriately used in my opinion if we do away with sexual categorization altogether and just go with sexual chaos as the norm.

Nobody's teaching gay people to hate heterosexuals, and many have heterosexual family members that they love and approve of. I can see why they would fear and resent heterosexuals, but that's not bigotry. That's an appropriate reaction to persecution.

What does hate of heterosexuals as persons have to do with hating the practice of heterosexual sex? Have you considered that not all heterosexuals who hate homosexual practice are bigoted or persecute homosexuals. Dissent does not equal persecution. Have you considered that some who were indifferent to homosexuals came to hate homosexuals because of their consistently being indiscriminate in lumping those who dissent from celebrating a particular sexual practice in with those who actually persecute homosexuals?
And how do you know nobodies teaching gays to hate heterosexuals? I think you mean be overtly aggressive towards heterosexuals.
Given numbers and herd mentality I imagine homosexuals are just as capable of expressing hatred towards those that don't agree with homosexual practices.

I'd say that it reduces the homophobe down to seeing the homosexual only in terms of his or her sexuality. Homophobe is not a criticism of homosexuals.

Oh but it is. Applying the term homophobia to any dissenter of homosexuality no matter what it is about homosexuality they have dissent against is apt only if we equate the homosexual as a person with their sexuality. If we reduce the essence of being homosexual only to their preference to who and how they wish to have sex then we must necessarily subsume any other part of their being human into that essence.
I think its a criticism to think homosexuals are little more than how they prefer to get sexual satisfaction.

Or, you could write, "It's just political posturing in order to serve an agenda. That agenda is the demonization of [snip] homosexuality. In doing that homophobes just diminish their own worth as a person." Why is your comment more valid than the revised version?

One reason is that the critique is of the applied term homophobia and who applies that term to whom.
Does it make sense to say that the political posturing of homophobes is to further their agenda to be called homophobes in order to demonize homosexuality by diminishing their own worth as a person?
I mean, its pretty obvious to me that if I diminish my own worth as a person I'll definitely increase my authority in the eyes of others to demonize somebody else.

I'm sorry if I offend you. Alas its inevitable in these types of discussions.
I'm just trying to work through my reasonings here for how I feel about the subject.

 

[Argentbear]

Not unreasonably, and this is a fine example of rendering homophobia a tool of oppression - the very thing most people seem to wish to prevent.

Comparing an entire minority to people who sexually abuse animals a tool of oppression. It serves to both demonize and dehumanize LGBT people promoting hate, prejudice and discrimination. You claim to somehow be a victim citing I am failing to distinguish between dislike of homosexual acts and hatred for the person. but your statements had nothing to do with any "homosexual acts" and was instead an attack on people. If you had made the same comparison between people who sexually abuse animals and African American's you would have rightly been called on the carpet for racism. If you don't want your statements labeled homophobic then don't post homophobic statements.

By calling me homophobic I'm supposed to be ashamed of my own convictions because its being pushed as a derogatory statement about a group of people, ironically the very thing that homosexuals seem to be protesting against.

Comparing any minority to people who sexually abuse animals is derogatory. And you should feel ashamed about making such a statement.

This may perhaps also be psychologically telling about how you parse comparisons while diminishing a consideration of the reasonable aspects of what's being said.

comparing a minority to people who sexually abuse animals is not reasonable, it is disgusting.

The comparison is a deconstruction of how ridiculously politicized the word has become. Let me walk you through my reasoning in order that I may more clearly communicate what I meant for you.
Do you have zoophobia (Intense fear of animals)? Do you practice bestiality? What's wrong with bestiality in your mind? Perhaps you have a list. Lets suppose you detest bestiality, if so then...
If you hate bestiality but you do not have an intense fear of animals does it make any sense to say that you suffer from zoophobia because you hate bestiality?

No.

Must you fear animals because you hate bestiality?
Yet, as has been shown here, if you hate the practice of homosexuality then you must be homophobic.

Racists often try to defend their views by saying they don't the black people, they just hate what they do, (usually that involves acting as the social or moral equals of white people.) That claim doesn't change racism into something noble or even justifiable.

If you deconstruct the word a phobia is by definition per Johns Hopkins Medicine... "A phobia is an uncontrollable, irrational, and lasting fear of a certain object, situation, or activity.

Compound words don't necessarily derive their meaning from the meanings of their root words. You don't have to be standing beneath something to understand it. Firing diary products from a catapult doesn't produce a butterfly.

In chemistry oil is a hydrophobe, it won't mix with water. are you suggesting that oil has an irrational fear of water?

"Hate or intense dislike of" and "fear of" are two distinctly difference emotional responses. I've already said I do not fear homosexuals nor wish them harm.

Comparing them to those who have sex with animals is harmful

I am a heterosexual so it is not unreasonable that I should find homosexual practices distasteful.

So when racists say I am not black to is is not unreasonable that I should find the practices of African American's distasteful you would agree with them.

Here's one professors take on the matter which sheds further light on what I'm getting at...
"...when taken literally, homophobia may be a problematic term. Professor David A. F. Haaga says that contemporary usage includes "a wide range of negative emotions, attitudes and behaviors toward homosexual people," which are characteristics that are not consistent with accepted definitions of phobias, that of "an intense, illogical, or abnormal fear of a specified thing."[26] Plummer, David (2016). One of the boys. NY, NY: Routledge. ISBN 9781317712121. Retrieved 15 August 2019.

It would have been nice if you actually researched this passage rather than just do a cut and paste from Wikipedia. Haaga was talking about the problematic use of the word homophobia in that those "with an antihomosexual bias restricting the word to literal interpretation only. The meaning of homophobia is multiple, changeable and determined by its use in society" (page 293)

I chose bestiality because of its striking characteristics as a sexual preference and its hyperbolically ridiculous comparisons to homosexuality when labeling someone homophobic and bestiality when labeling someone as having zoophobia.

No.

But you have no problem reducing LGBT people to a "preference"

Being straight indicates what healthy instinctual preferences one has that one chooses to comply with as a cognitively reasoning, high functioning human animal. Such animals typically have the reasoning capacity to choose not to comply with their instinctual preferences since
that functioning, while being influenced by those preferences, is not equated to those instinctual preferences.

Being straight is a healthy instinctual preference? So what does that make being gay? again if you don't want your statements labeled homophobic then don't post homophobic statements.

Something which homosexual advocates seem to be equating. I think that is a mistake. Both in factuality and if those advocates wish to succeed in civil progress towards equality of acceptance as dignified human beings.

What we're seeing instead is an explosion of hyper vigilant crusaders hell bent on ensuring the protective coddling of a vulnerable group at the expense of unreasonable persecutions of those who show anything less than the greatest celebration, support, and admiration for every little homosexual expression out there while at the same time ignoring, or rendering reasonable, generally bad behavior.

Bad behavior like comparing a minority to those who sexually abuse animals.

The results will be a continued angst and antagonistic response within society by diminishing reasonable communication and ensuring there will always be diametrically apposed sides to take.
The best you might hope for is indifference toward homosexuality until homosexuals or others press the issue resulting in the potential for a never ending antagonistic cycle.

Why should any group accept hateful attacks and rhetoric?

I don't know if you realize but I quoted that statement from someone else.
I certainly wouldn't make an overtly antagonistic statement such as that without good reason. Forced confrontation or deliberate prompting for instance.
In such offensive cases I would no more tell a black man I don't like black skin -seemingly unreasonable in any case- than I would seek out a homosexual just to tell them I don't like how they have sex -a reasonable fact in my case.

Yet you had no problem posting such a statement here.

I certainly wouldn't expect them to take offense that I don't like homosexual practices anymore so than I should take offense that they don't like heterosexual practices.
However, IF I were to make a similar statement about skin color to an African American I would hope they would respond with a reasonable...."So?" That would be the most expedient and probably productive end to that conversation. However if such ignoring of the statement were not possible by the African American then they could reasonably conclude one of two things.
1) The statement was made in order to be deliberately antagonistic and initiate a aggressive response. A desire for violence.
2) The statement was made for a reason other than being deliberately antagonistic. A desire for reasonable discourse based on a false opinion perhaps, or a true opinion the African American hadn't thought of.

and what reasonable discourse do you think woudl come from making racist statements?

I think if the goal were to have a lasting and peaceful resolution to such interaction, both propositions would best be handled ,if possible, through reasoning, or if capable, in the face of overt violence, retreat.
I suppose you think and/or would expect them to respond with violence? Perhaps so, but again that would be because of the perpetual state of angst and antagonism that some would be crusaders are ensuring is the normal state of civilization.
As soon as society learns that one doesn't need a PhD before one can be therapeutic in society by simply listening, attempting to understand, and responding respectfully to each other then perhaps people like that African American could respond with "Why is that?" in order to further a peaceful resolution, instead of "You have no right to that opinion...I'm gonna beat you silly!" in order to ensure a continued dissonance among people of differing experiences and opinions.
We do have to learn to pick our battles. Some people are just deliberately unreasonable and antagonistic. We shouldn't automatically assume as much though.

Can you explain how comparing a minority to those who sexual abuse animals is respectful?

 

[Argentbear]

Its a prescriptive term that is unreasonably pushed as derogatory when indiscriminately applied to all who appose homosexual practices.

What practices are you opposing exactly?

And what I'm saying is that IS unreasonable. If disapproving of homosexuality is homophobia then disapproval of anything is a phobia. That is unreasonable.

But it is not disapproval. Homophobia - an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. It includes antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and hatred of homosexuals

It is the most rational opinion to have as a heterosexual. Why should I like homosexuality if I'm not a homosexual? THAT would be irrational or an empty attempt at placating someone who is offended that I don't celebrate their sexual practices in some manner.

Celebrate what exactly? Give us some real world examples.

It does repulse me. I do place homosexuality into a religious characterization. I don't feel a need to search out homosexuals to express my opinions with on homosexuality unless prompted or forced in some manner.

Forced how exactly?

This thread and a disagreement with what's been expressed in some of it was a prompt. I don't know what you mean by "unhappy with homosexuals". I wouldn't be happy practicing homosexuality. I wouldn't be happy seeing homosexuals practice homosexuality.

What exactly would that entail?

I'd be perfectly fine with interacting with homosexuals as human beings absent those other two factors during the interaction.
Do you equate the entirety of their lifestyle with their homosexuality? I'm not sure what a homosexual lifestyle is. Is it how they get sexual pleasure.
If so then I think its destructive and irrational to expect a heterosexual to to celebrate how homosexuals prefer to express themselves sexually.

Is the heterosexual lifestyle only about getting sexual pleasure?

Imagine if I requested all homosexuals to celebrate heterosexuality. What would be the point of that?
There are reasons beyond - I'm not one of them. - that dictate why it would be unreasonable for me to agree with homosexuality.
What does "I agree with the homosexual lifestyle." even mean?

if you don't know how can you say it is unreasonable to "agree with homosexuality?

and what are these other reasons?

Dissenting about homosexuals being homosexual and dissenting about homosexual practices are, in reality, two different things.

The n why do you continue to treat both as a quest for sexual gratification?

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that homosexuals exist. I'm not dissenting that homosexuals are homosexual. I'm dissenting against expecting me to celebrate homosexual practices.

Like what?

I'm disagreeing with the opinions of those who think that all dissention against homosexual practices are homophobic. I'm dissenting against the attempted subjugation of all other opposing opinions in favor of elevating the celebratory status of a particular sexual preference. I'm dissenting against the use of the term "homophobia" as a political ploy to demonize all those "dissenters" of homosexual practice in order to further the agenda of celebrating homosexual practices.

Again homophobia is an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. It includes antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and hatred of homosexuals

Both. It not only attempts to demean anyone apposed to homosexual practice but it does so arbitrarily.
The definition of the word itself is not rationally defensible as to be aptly applied to all dissenters of homosexuality.

Obviously not true.

It implies that all dissenters against homosexual practices suffer from irrationality,

No just those that are irrational and say compare LGBT people to those individuals who sexually abuse animals for example

intense fear of, and/or intense hatred for all homosexuals.
I do not fear homosexuals. I have rational reasons for dissenting against homosexual practices

what are they?

and I do not hate any particular person because of their homosexuality. Nor do I wish any of them harm.

As noted above, comparing LGBT people to those who abuse animals is harmful.

Now you tell me how that term can be rationally applied to me or others of like ken.
The term itself literally being a mash of "fear" and "homosexuals has morphed into a demanding moniker of "non-compliant".
It seems the geniuses that be in their concern for a marginalized and persecuted minority decided that they would get better results by labeling all dissenters against homosexual practice with a derogatorily reformulated term instead of reasonable discourse about that dissention.
Instead of chipping away at the mountain of dissention and hatred in order to make it into a mole hill they've succeeded in creating a mountainous Ice burg with the majority of unforeseen negative consequence lurking beneath an ocean of ignorance.

Again how is comparing a minority to the sexual abuse of animals reasonable discourse?

I would say it would be prudent of you to go on defending yourself as long as you haven't addressed what needs defending.
Reputations are one of the very few things that a person has that is inherently valuable about themselves.
You may know your not a baby killer but that means little if you don't defend that knowledge against those who think you are. They will otherwise go on treating you as if you were, to your detriment as well as theirs. Why wouldn't you care if your reputation has been rendered worthless?

It would seem that the answer to that is that I care about my reputation and whether or not I hold a true opinion whereas you apparently don't.
I understand what your trying to say. But I think its the wrong approach to ignorance. I think we should be concerned with false impressions about ourselves. I think we should be bothered by how accurately others see us as being versus how we wish to be seen. I think we should always be concerned if we have a true opinion about how we should be in comparison to how others are.

That is my point. Homophobia does not distinguish between disapproval of the homosexual as a person and disapproval of homosexual practices. It equates the two things. The statement in question indicated that homosexual sex is the essence of homosexuality and an essential part of his being. I do not approve of homosexual sex because I am a heterosexual. If I approved of homosexual sex then my heterosexuality would only be a choice but since according to the quote in question my heterosexual practices is an essential part of my being I cannot approve of practicing homosexuality. Since no true heterosexual can deny the essence of their being then they cannot approve of practicing homosexuality. Therefore anyone who is a heterosexual by definition must also be a homophobe according to how the term is being used.
Homophobic is only appropriately used in my opinion if we do away with sexual categorization altogether and just go with sexual chaos as the norm.

Racism does not distinguish between disapproval of the nonwhite as a person and disapproval of the practices of nonwhites. It equates the two things. A racist does not approve of being black because they are not black. If they I approved of being black then their caucasioness would only be a choice but since that is an essential part of a racists being they cannot approve of practicing blackness. Since no true Caucasian can deny the essence of their being then they cannot approve of anyone being black. Therefore anyone who is a Caucasian by definition must also be a racist.

What does hate of heterosexuals as persons have to do with hating the practice of heterosexual sex?

why do you keep focusing on sex?

Have you considered that not all heterosexuals who hate homosexual practice are bigoted or persecute homosexuals. Dissent does not equal persecution. Have you considered that some who were indifferent to homosexuals came to hate homosexuals because of their consistently being indiscriminate in lumping those who dissent from celebrating a particular sexual practice in with those who actually persecute homosexuals?

Oh it the gays fault that they are hated.

And how do you know nobodies teaching gays to hate heterosexuals? I think you mean be overtly aggressive towards heterosexuals.
Given numbers and herd mentality I imagine homosexuals are just as capable of expressing hatred towards those that don't agree with homosexual practices.

Oh but it is. Applying the term homophobia to any dissenter of homosexuality no matter what it is about homosexuality they have dissent against is apt only if we equate the homosexual as a person with their sexuality.

Fortunately it isn't applied that way.

If we reduce the essence of being homosexual only to their preference to who and how they wish to have sex then we must necessarily subsume any other part of their being human into that essence.
I think its a criticism to think homosexuals are little more than how they prefer to get sexual satisfaction.

yet its what you have and continue to do

One reason is that the critique is of the applied term homophobia and who applies that term to whom.
Does it make sense to say that the political posturing of homophobes is to further their agenda to be called homophobes in order to demonize homosexuality by diminishing their own worth as a person?

No.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm sorry if I offend you.

Not at all. And I regret offending you, but I don't see how I can avoid that if I'm arguing that your position is homophobic as I use the term, and that term offends you.

You may know your not a baby killer but that means little if you don't defend that knowledge against those who think you are.

I feel no need to do so.

They will otherwise go on treating you as if you were, to your detriment as well as theirs.

I still don't see a problem. People that consider pro-choice advocates baby killers don't impact my life at all.

I asked you if it was meaningful to you that you're offended at being called homophobic but that I wasn't offended at being called a Marxist or baby killer and didn't see an answer.

If disapproving of homosexuality is homophobia then disapproval of anything is a phobia. That is unreasonable.

The suffix -phobia refers to an aversion. In the original psychiatric sense, it meant aversion with fear. Claustrophobes fear and avoid enclosed spaces. Agoraphobes avoid going out. Each of these is a type of fearful aversion, but the word is now also used in a nonclinical way to describe aversion with repulsion. Anything that one finds fearful or repulsive can be called a phobia.

I find being in a church during services off-putting. It's not a fear. It's a kind of repulsion. The word ecclesiophobia in the clinical sense refers to a literal fear of churches or religion, but I would expand that usage to include people like me who are simply annoyed by church services.

It is the most rational opinion to have as a heterosexual. Why should I like homosexuality if I'm not a homosexual? It does repulse me. I think its destructive and irrational to expect a heterosexual to to celebrate how homosexuals prefer to express themselves sexually.

You are asked to lovingly tolerate homosexuals and homosexuality, not to find homosexuality appealing or to engage in it, and not to celebrate it.

If I approved of homosexual sex then my heterosexuality would only be a choice but since according to the quote in question my heterosexual practices is an essential part of my being I cannot approve of practicing homosexuality.

I don't know what approved of means to you here. Once again, you are only asked to lovingly tolerate homosexuals. Why not? I do. I have many gay acquaintances. I am not sexually attracted to them, but neither am I repulsed by them. I do get a little uncomfortable like I described in church above, which can also be called homophobia. I don't know why that is, but I know it's irrational and something I don't want to express or reveal. I hate that their lives are made worse by homophobes. I hate that their sexuality is on my mind more than when with heterosexuals. It shouldn't be, but my feelings are out of my control. My behavior, however, is not.

You can be the same if you want to. Just recognize that your feelings are irrational and expressing them is destructive. It contributes to making the lives of some others more marginalized and more difficult. Aversion be damned. Be a friend.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

These threads demonstrate why RF is a horrible place to be Abrahamic.

These pile-ons are destructive, depressing and offensive.

There is no camaraderie here.

^ this would have made an interesting OP.

But, briefly:

(a) These threads demonstrate why RF is a horrible place to be Abrahamic.

I consider "Abrahamic" a horrible label but, being Jewish, I don't find RF to be a horrible place at all.​

(b) These pile-ons are destructive, depressing and offensive.

I find reams of antiscientific creationist nonsense destructive, depressing and offensive. RF has never promised me a rose garden.​

(c) There is no camaraderie here.

I've been a member since May, 2004, and can think of perhaps four people that I would characterize as friends. I do not participate in an anonymous, uncurated discussion board looking for camaraderie.​

 

[Debater Slayer]

I've been a member since May, 2004, and can think of perhaps four people that I would characterize as friends.

 

[setarcos]

Comparing an entire minority to people who sexually abuse animals a tool of oppression. It serves to both demonize and dehumanize LGBT people promoting hate, prejudice and discrimination.

Now you’re getting there. Just replace "sexually abuse animals" with "have dissent against homosexual practices" and LGBT with "ditto" and you’re coming closer to understanding what I've been saying. The only things using the homophobic slur against every dissenter does is widen the prejudicial and discriminatory gap between the groups while increasing the hatred. It doesn't bring anyone closer to a peaceful coexistence.

You’re basically trying to belittle one group of people in order to elevate another one. That, in my opinion, isn't a very productive policy.

You claim to somehow be a victim citing I am failing to distinguish between dislike of homosexual acts and hatred for the person. but your statements had nothing to do with any "homosexual acts" and was instead an attack on people.

Um...my statements have consistently attempted to distinguish between the humanity of a person and that persons practices. I wasn't the one who suggested equating a persons preferred sexual gratifications with being the primary essence of their personhood.
I haven't and don't claim to be a "victim". How am I attacking a people? I'm stating what I thus far claim is true opinion. Unless you think any disagreeing position is an attack I wouldn't consider it an attack. I would consider it more of a parry against the attack of labeling me something I don't consider myself to be.

If you had made the same comparison between people who sexually abuse animals and African American's you would have rightly been called on the carpet for racism.

You’re mistaking what the comparison was. The comparison was in reference to my "fear of" as concerns how homophobia is being used.

But for some reason you seem to believe that homosexual rights supersede all rights of others to express their opinions to the point of reading into any perceived dissenting remark as a direct attack on homosexual people.

I couldn't make that same comparison between bestiality and African Americans for the simple reason that being African American is not specifically a condition of sexuality. That is an example of why I think your misunderstanding and misapplying what I was comparing and why.

Or you’re deliberate trying to diminish my arguments by unreasonably connecting me to racism through repetitive comparison. Is that how you attempt to win debates?

If you don't want your statements labeled homophobic then don't post homophobic statements.

Do me a favor and look up the etymology of the word and then tell me how it fits me. Then explain how homosexuals aren't all heterophobes.

Then tell me what the point of labeling people these things is?

Comparing any minority to people who sexually abuse animals is derogatory. And you should feel ashamed about making such a statement.

Awe hogwash. You’re doing what so many so called crusaders for equality or what have you always do. You’re twisting the reasoning to fit your agenda of ad hominem attacks against all dissention against what you believe. It would be more prudent for you to reason with me about what I've said so that we may come to an agreeably peaceful understanding between ourselves. My comparison was referencing my purported fear of homosexuality not homosexuals being bestial.

comparing a minority to people who sexually abuse animals is not reasonable, it is disgusting.

But since you keep referencing the sexual nature of such references let’s just for the sake of argument travel down that road a smidge.

What exactly do you have against bestiality? I mean, I've asked… where do we draw the line in our sexual practices? Abuse of lower animals? How do you define abuse? It might be argued that many animals are willing partners. Is that any more disgusting than using ones sexual organs for purposes they were not intended to be used for? Like placing them inside an orifice that is normally used for waste disposal and worse?

What about the cattle industry where Bulls are artificially stimulated to produce semen, is that animal abuse? Would we call that technically bestiality? What about the horse racing industry or any other semen selling or sexual enticing for breeding purposes industry? Bestiality? Animal abuse? Is that all disgusting to you? That humans would force animals to copulate for our own purposes, does that disgust you?

Perhaps you think that because homosexual practices have been observed in other species it might be considered normal but bestiality is abnormal?

Interspecies attempted sexual copulation has been documented between species other than Homo sapiens as well. So does that make bestiality normal?

If a person is born with a sexual attraction for other species should we condemn them or just the practice? What makes a homosexual any better than such a person if both were born that way? Why do you think sodomy is perfectly fine but bestiality is not even though it might be considered "normal" since people can be born with that inclination and we can see it in other species? Do YOU suffer from zoophobia since you apparently don't like bestiality? And what do you have against - as a person - those who practice it if they were born that way? What gives you the right to be bigoted or prejudiced against such people if it can be shown that it doesn't harm the other species and is performed elsewhere in nature?

You think it’s disgusting. Someone else doesn't. What makes you right and them wrong?

We have to draw a line somewhere don't we. And that line can always be challenged somehow by someone can't it.

If we don't draw a line somewhere and respect those that respect that line instead of arbitrarily insulting them with accusations of being bigoted or prejudiced or whatever then we are heading towards chaos, confusion, and collapse.

I asked....

"If you hate bestiality but you do not have an intense fear of animals does it make any sense to say that you suffer from zoophobia because you hate bestiality?"

You said No.

Likewise then does it make any sense to say that I have to hate homosexual persons because I hate homosexual practices just because the two are related?

 

[setarcos]

Racists often try to defend their views by saying they don't the black people, they just hate what they do, (usually that involves acting as the social or moral equals of white people.)

According to your statement those racists are equating what all black people do with them being black. There's multiple fallacies in that kind of thinking or at least a lot of opinion based upon a lot of ignorance. For instance it is demonstrably true that not all black people behave or do the same kinds of things, what do they consider to be moral action, is it actually, and has it been applied without bias.

That claim doesn't change racism into something noble or even justifiable.

No it doesn't. However it also doesn't make those racists specifically wrong. Just generally wrong. They may not be wrong in assessing a particular person but they are certainly wrong in assessing a people.

We all make mistakes but hating a person because they make mistakes is itself immoral whereas hating a person because they relish their immorality may be justifiable.

For me, I don't hate all homosexuals because homosexuals are capable of being moral and would expect them to be as moral with me as I am with them. Again...for me, I consider homosexual practices to be immoral and therefore do not practice nor wish to witness such things. Should a homosexual insist on me celebrating or otherwise relishing in some manner what I consider to be immoral I would find that person to be themselves acting immoral. I don't think homosexuals have to practice homosexuality in order to productively interact with others.



Racists make the mistake of acknowledging the immorality of a person at the cost of ignoring the morality of a people. And often those that are accused of being racist are actually just generally immoral.

Compound words don't necessarily derive their meaning from the meanings of their root words.

In this case it did. I've looked up several definitions and the etymology of the word. People seem to be trying to morph the thing into whatever sounds the most irrational and despicably discriminatory condition to be in. The key words always related are "fear" of, "irrational", and "discriminatory". Those words are demonstrably not aptly applied to every dissenter against homosexual practices.

In chemistry oil is a hydrophobe, it won't mix with water. are you suggesting that oil has an irrational fear of water?

Fair question.

Your example doesn't account for the class of object you are apply the word to. There are many words whose definition depends upon the subject upon which they are commenting.

Here are some examples...ALIEN: ecology, ALUM: Chemistry, BELT: Geography, Astronomy, CALCULUS: Medicine, DEPOSITION: Geology, FAMILY: Biology, GALL: Botany, INSULT: Medicine, LISP: Programming, MOLE: Chemistry, VITRIOL: Chemistry...etc. etc.



Should you look up the word hydrophobia as applied to human beings it indeed does mean "fear of water".

In this discussion unless otherwise noted all definitions looked up are concerning living beings such as humans in some manner.

Comparing them to those who have sex with animals is harmful

Why? Because you think it’s disgusting? To you maybe. Not to them.

So when racists say I am not black to is is not unreasonable that I should find the practices of African American's distasteful you would agree with them.

I do not agree with irrational racism.

Paraphrasing...I think your statement says, "I am white so it is not unreasonable that I should find the practices of African Americans distasteful."

As that statement stands I believe that it is irrational. It does not necessarily follow that being white dictates whether or not I find any particular practice distasteful. It would depend on the practice. It also does not follow that all African Americans only do what is distasteful to whites.

I know of no "practice" that determines skin color nor vice versa.

It would have been nice if you actually researched this passage rather than just do a cut and paste from Wikipedia. Haaga was talking about the problematic use of the word homophobia in that those "with an antihomosexual bias restricting the word to literal interpretation only. The meaning of homophobia is multiple, changeable and determined by its use in society" (page 293)

Thanks for the info. Always willing to learn more.

In what I quoted Haaga used the phrase "contemporary usage". The quote speaks for itself. If you've been paying attention to what I've been saying....I've said that the word has been morphed into being what is the most usefully denigrating to those its being applied against.

Just reading the last sentence of what you've quoted here ought to clue you into that fact and the fact that it’s being twisted into a political tool in order to serve a homosexual agenda.

Heck...I want its application towards me to make me sound like a civil hero so can we just change it up a little in meaning? After all, and I quote "The meaning of homophobia is multiple, changeable and determined by its use in society" (page 293)

And by the way...page 293 of what? I'll research some more.

But you have no problem reducing LGBT people to a "preference"

Um...not sure what you’re referencing here?

Being straight is a healthy instinctual preference?

Yes. If you wish to have a healthy psychological profile in connection with the natural instinctual preference of all life to propagate.

Note: I fully acknowledge the above is my opinion. The actual psychological effects of homosexuality and the natural instinct for an organism to propagate is currently in debate. Any one of us can talk ourselves into being happy with our situation but there are numerous subconscious factors which come into play whose effects may be misdiagnosed. The main point above is…in “connection with the natural instinct for life to propagate”. I believe that if you’re perfectly happy with sexual pleasure solely for its own sake no matter what form it takes then you’re disconnected from what a naturally healthy species is. Having the choice to propagate or not is healthy. Having that choice instinctually removed is unhealthy. That is one reason paradoxically that many homosexuals yearn to adopt in light of the fact that they cannot produce progeny as a couple themselves. They seek to align themselves with what is naturally healthy. IMO

Incidentally, why do you refer to such things as being "straight"?

So what does that make being gay?

In direct comparison to life's intention, unhealthy. Gays cannot propagate normally and that is because their sexuality only serves one purpose. The fulfillment of pleasure.

again if you don't want your statements labeled homophobic then don't post homophobic statements.

Again, how is that statement irrational, fearful, or discriminating? Unless you consider facts or the debating thereof discriminating in some fashion?

We obviously can debate whether or not what I say is true opinion but never the less my thinking it is does not render it deliberate discrimination any more than my saying if you wish to win a foot race the person that has legs is a better bet. In such a case I’m not discriminating against the legless person, I’m stating what I believe to be true.

Bad behavior like comparing a minority to those who sexually abuse animals.

Your statement here is an emotional response not a logical response. I understand the offense. But let me clarify…

Justification of bad behavior like, you can't evict a homosexual or else you’re homophobic. A man can't defend himself against a woman for attacking you or else you’re a misogynist. An Arab can't be x-rayed at the airport or else you’re an Arabophobe. A black person can't be fired or else their boss is racist. A white person can't...um wait...hmmm. If your white I guess your automatically all these things go figure. So...the homosexual trashes the rental, the woman attacks, the Arab terrorizes, the black is insubordinate at his job, and the white person can't do anything without being labeled derogatorily....I somewhat jest about whites. Whites of course equally justify their bad behavior it’s just typically justified with other means.

These things seem to be because we're irrationally rushing to elevate all people to equality without differentiating between those that deserve equal status and those that are using equal status for preferential treatment in order to serve their own immoral agendas.

 

[setarcos]

Why should any group accept hateful attacks and rhetoric?

I don't think they should. I think they should attempt to reason it out with those that disagree to see if it’s actually intentionally and or unreasonably hateful.

A few things to note...not all disagreeable rhetoric is bad and not all dissent is a hateful attack.



In reference to what you've asked here reread what I said and try to reason through what I'm saying, sometimes I don’t make my thoughts that clear.

Here's what I said...

"What we're seeing instead is an explosion of hyper vigilant crusaders hell bent on ensuring the protective coddling of a vulnerable group at the expense of unreasonable persecutions of those who show anything less than the greatest celebration, support, and admiration for every little homosexual expression out there while at the same time ignoring, or rendering reasonable, generally bad behavior."



It's not that one should not address what one sees as hateful rhetoric and an attack it’s how the majority seem to be addressing such things.

We need a reexamination of what the goal actually is and how best to get there between the various dissonant groups.

Labeling all dissenters homophobic in order to further a particular agenda is not a good path to start on. It'll only cause more discord.

Especially because it does not fit a lot of the people it’s been applied to and as its being used does not productively address anything problematic.

Yet you had no problem posting such a statement here.

I said unreasonably. There is a reason for posting such statements here. This thread is specifically for such things to be debated.

what reasonable discourse do you think woudl come from making racist statements?

Dissent is not racist. Debate is not a display of racism. By reasonable discourse I mean to say that that African American, if 2. in my statement is the case, needs to realize that the person doesn't think their being racist just honest which deserves further discourse.

I understand these debates necessarily involve intense emotions but accusations of racism do not in themselves prove much of anything let alone their accuracy. What it is is a way to shut down an uncomfortable conversation you don't wish to have. Seems everything is racist, discriminatory, or biased these days. It’s getting ridiculous and society is suffering from such unreasonably arbitrary mudslinging.

Pray tell what have I said that is racist that couldn't apply to any other group of people in debate you wish to label with it?

Can you explain how comparing a minority to those who sexual abuse animals is respectful?

I never said it was respectful. I also never directly compared the two. I compared MY feelings concerning homosexuals with MY feelings of those who practice bestiality.

Can you tell me how it is respectful for calling me homophobic because I don't celebrate homosexual practices?

For that matter can you tell me why it is respectful of you to consider those who practice bestiality disgusting and what in comparison to homosexuality is disrespectful? Again...I agree, we must draw lines but how do you draw yours? Is it at the point where anyone that disagrees with you crossed some sort of disrespecting racist line? Why shouldn't we protect the bestiality minority group’s rights the way we do homosexual rights?

Why do homosexuals get the right to have a national holiday when Native Americans get nothing let alone umpteen other minority groups? Why in the world does a sexuality get a holiday in the first place? Are homosexuals somehow more deserving than Native Americans and what they've gone through? Is it more important to give a sexuality a holiday than it is to give a people a holiday regardless of their sexuality? People seem to want to rush into heroic crusader endeavors through politically pushing an agenda without thinking these things through.

The results are often worse than the original problem. People want to be heroic but that heroism is often deliberately myopic.

The above is just one example of the insanity and irrational politicization of particular agendas sweeping through the nation which is going to bring it crumbling down. I'll stand up for a homosexual’s right to exist but I'd sooner embrace my moral beliefs in death than be unreasonably forced or expected to celebrate a sexual practice versus an entire people. Unfortunately I'm afraid that day too is coming. I’ll have to choose between living in lunacy or dying for sanity.

 

[Argentbear]

Now you’re getting there. Just replace "sexually abuse animals" with "have dissent against homosexual practices" and LGBT with "ditto" and you’re coming closer to understanding what I've been saying. The only things using the homophobic slur against every dissenter does is widen the prejudicial and discriminatory gap between the groups while increasing the hatred. It doesn't bring anyone closer to a peaceful coexistence.

IF you had made the same disgusting and hateful comparison between people who sexually abuse animals and black people it would be rightly considered racist and bigoted. No one would buy that what you said wasn't racist just because you try to say is has nothing to do with skin color but you are just objecting to "African American practices".
Just as bad is your sad attempt to paint yourself as the victim.

You’re basically trying to belittle one group of people in order to elevate another one. That, in my opinion, isn't a very productive policy.

If i wanted to do that i would just compare that group to people who sexually abuse animals.

Um...my statements have consistently attempted to distinguish between the humanity of a person and that persons practices. I wasn't the one who suggested equating a persons preferred sexual gratifications with being the primary essence of their personhood.

When you say things like "dissent against homosexual practices" that is exactly what you are doing

I haven't and don't claim to be a "victim". How am I attacking a people?

Comparing them to people who sexually abuse animals

I'm stating what I thus far claim is true opinion. Unless you think any disagreeing position is an attack I wouldn't consider it an attack. I would consider it more of a parry against the attack of labeling me something I don't consider myself to be.

Comparing a minority with the sexual abuse of animals isn't disagreeing it is an attack.

But for some reason you seem to believe that homosexual rights supersede all rights of others to express their opinions to the point of reading into any perceived dissenting remark as a direct attack on homosexual people.

You can express your opinions all you like you can say ay hateful sick or nasty thing you care to about gays or blacks or Jews or Arabs or the handicapped. That is your right. It is also the right of those listening to you to express their opinions and call you on the carpet for them.

For some reason you seem to beleive that you can say what you like without facing any consequences.

I couldn't make that same comparison between bestiality and African Americans for the simple reason that being African American is not specifically a condition of sexuality. That is an example of why I think your misunderstanding and misapplying what I was comparing and why.

and again you show just how your statement ".my statements have consistently attempted to distinguish between the humanity of a person and that persons practices." is just so much hot air.

Or you’re deliberate trying to diminish my arguments by unreasonably connecting me to racism through repetitive comparison. Is that how you attempt to win debates?

Racism is the act of prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic or minority group.

Homophobia is the act of prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular minority group.

Do me a favor and look up the etymology of the word and then tell me how it fits me. Then explain how homosexuals aren't all heterophobes.

Why? Words shift meaning over time and come to mean different thing based on their usage.

but you know this why else try to ignore current usage of homophobia and try to bring up the irrelevant history of the word.

Then tell me what the point of labeling people these things is?

What is the point of labeling racist remarks as racist?

Awe hogwash.

comparing any minority to people is sexually abuse animals is derogatory.

But since you keep referencing the sexual nature of such references let’s just for the sake of argument travel down that road a smidge.

You are the one who keeps focusing on sex as if that defines anyone

What exactly do you have against bestiality? I mean, I've asked… where do we draw the line in our sexual practices? Abuse of lower animals? How do you define abuse? It might be argued that many animals are willing partners. Is that any more disgusting than using ones sexual organs for purposes they were not intended to be used for? Like placing them inside an orifice that is normally used for waste disposal and worse?

What about the cattle industry where Bulls are artificially stimulated to produce semen, is that animal abuse? Would we call that technically bestiality? What about the horse racing industry or any other semen selling or sexual enticing for breeding purposes industry? Bestiality? Animal abuse? Is that all disgusting to you? That humans would force animals to copulate for our own purposes, does that disgust you?

Perhaps you think that because homosexual practices have been observed in other species it might be considered normal but bestiality is abnormal?

Interspecies attempted sexual copulation has been documented between species other than Homo sapiens as well. So does that make bestiality normal?

If a person is born with a sexual attraction for other species should we condemn them or just the practice? What makes a homosexual any better than such a person if both were born that way? Why do you think sodomy is perfectly fine but bestiality is not even though it might be considered "normal" since people can be born with that inclination and we can see it in other species? Do YOU suffer from zoophobia since you apparently don't like bestiality? And what do you have against - as a person - those who practice it if they were born that way? What gives you the right to be bigoted or prejudiced against such people if it can be shown that it doesn't harm the other species and is performed elsewhere in nature?

Homophobia - an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. It includes antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and hatred of homosexuals

You have managed to check all the boxes here.

You think it’s disgusting.

I always find bigotry disgusting. Why don't you?

We have to draw a line somewhere don't we. And that line can always be challenged somehow by someone can't it.

If we don't draw a line somewhere and respect those that respect that line instead of arbitrarily insulting them with accusations of being bigoted or prejudiced or whatever then we are heading towards chaos, confusion, and collapse.

you just went on a bigoted rampage

I asked....

"If you hate bestiality but you do not have an intense fear of animals does it make any sense to say that you suffer from zoophobia because you hate bestiality?"

You said No.

Likewise then does it make any sense to say that I have to hate homosexual persons because I hate homosexual practices just because the two are related?

What practices are you hating?
that they breathe?
that they have families?
that they have jobs?
that they shop for groceries?

exactly what do you hate?

 

[Argentbear]

According to your statement those racists are equating what all black people do with them being black. There's multiple fallacies in that kind of thinking or at least a lot of opinion based upon a lot of ignorance. For instance it is demonstrably true that not all black people behave or do the same kinds of things, what do they consider to be moral action, is it actually, and has it been applied without bias.

And homophobes think that all LGBT people behave or do the same kinds of things. But I guess it's not bias when you do it.

No it doesn't. However it also doesn't make those racists specifically wrong. Just generally wrong. They may not be wrong in assessing a particular person but they are certainly wrong in assessing a people.

you are breaking the irony meter here.

We all make mistakes but hating a person because they make mistakes is itself immoral whereas hating a person because they relish their immorality may be justifiable.

and again racists defend their views by saying they don't hate black people, they just hate the immoral actions they insist on engaging in.

For me, I don't hate all homosexuals because homosexuals are capable of being moral and would expect them to be as moral with me as I am with them. Again...for me, I consider homosexual practices to be immoral and therefore do not practice nor wish to witness such things. Should a homosexual insist on me celebrating or otherwise relishing in some manner what I consider to be immoral I would find that person to be themselves acting immoral. I don't think homosexuals have to practice homosexuality in order to productively interact with others.

What are you being forced to celebrate?

Racists make the mistake of acknowledging the immorality of a person at the cost of ignoring the morality of a people. And often those that are accused of being racist are actually just generally immoral.

In this case it did. I've looked up several definitions and the etymology of the word. People seem to be trying to morph the thing into whatever sounds the most irrational and despicably discriminatory condition to be in. The key words always related are "fear" of, "irrational", and "discriminatory". Those words are demonstrably not aptly applied to every dissenter against homosexual practices.

They sure apply to you

Fair question.

Your example doesn't account for the class of object you are apply the word to. There are many words whose definition depends upon the subject upon which they are commenting.

Like homophobe

Um...not sure what you’re referencing here?

Yes. If you wish to have a healthy psychological profile in connection with the natural instinctual preference of all life to propagate.

Note: I fully acknowledge the above is my opinion. The actual psychological effects of homosexuality and the natural instinct for an organism to propagate is currently in debate. Any one of us can talk ourselves into being happy with our situation but there are numerous subconscious factors which come into play whose effects may be misdiagnosed. The main point above is…in “connection with the natural instinct for life to propagate”. I believe that if you’re perfectly happy with sexual pleasure solely for its own sake no matter what form it takes then you’re disconnected from what a naturally healthy species is. Having the choice to propagate or not is healthy. Having that choice instinctually removed is unhealthy. That is one reason paradoxically that many homosexuals yearn to adopt in light of the fact that they cannot produce progeny as a couple themselves. They seek to align themselves with what is naturally healthy. IMO

I know many heterosexuals cannot produce progeny. Are they to be disparaged for "sexual pleasure solely for its own sake"?
Is the infertile heterosexual couple who want to adopt bad or unnatural?
or do you want this "argument" to apply only to one particular group and not everyone?

Incidentally, why do you refer to such things as being "straight"?

In direct comparison to life's intention, unhealthy. Gays cannot propagate normally and that is because their sexuality only serves one purpose. The fulfillment of pleasure.

Just like those disgusting infertile heterosexuals.

Justification of bad behavior like, you can't evict a homosexual or else you’re homophobic.

if a landlord is evicting a tenant just because they are LGBT then it is homophobic.

A man can't defend himself against a woman for attacking you or else you’re a misogynist.

?

An Arab can't be x-rayed at the airport or else you’re an Arabophobe.

if the only reason they are being x-rayed is they are of Arabic decent then that is racism

A black person can't be fired or else their boss is racist.

If they are denied employment just because they are black that is also racism

A white person can't...um wait...hmmm. If your white I guess your automatically all these things go figure.

you are only a racist is you engage in racist behavior and racist rhetoric.

So...the homosexual trashes the rental, the woman attacks, the Arab terrorizes, the black is insubordinate at his job, and the white person can't do anything without being labeled derogatorily....I somewhat jest about whites. Whites of course equally justify their bad behavior it’s just typically justified with other means.

These things seem to be because we're irrationally rushing to elevate all people to equality without differentiating between those that deserve equal status and those that are using equal status for preferential treatment in order to serve their own immoral agendas.

and LGBT people don't deserve equal status because?

 

[setarcos]

No one would buy that what you said wasn't racist just because you try to say is has nothing to do with skin color but you are just objecting to "African American practices".

Do you not understand that homosexuality is not a race of people? It’s a category of sexuality.

Why do you keep going back to African Americans and being racist? African American is not a sexual categorization. Apples to oranges as the saying goes.

Just as bad is your sad attempt to paint yourself as the victim.

Where in the world does this painting myself a victim come from? Because I logically object to being labeled homophobe? How am I a victim if the label doesn't fit? For that matter how am I a victim if the label does fit?

YOU may try to victimize me by derogatorily mislabeling me and then turn it around and claim that I'm claiming to be a victim but I haven't claimed that and I don't feel like I am a victim. At least in the sense that whether or not my reasoning is sound and people agree with it nothing of my personhood has been successfully victimized. If I am right then you’re victimizing yourself by insisting on ignorantly misapplying a label. If I am wrong then what is being victimized in myself? My ignorance?

Sad attempt...please. Let’s not stoop to little unnecessary snipes. That only betrays ones uncomfortableness with the direction the conversation is taking its subject matter and a lack of a reasonable response.

If this is too emotional of a subject for you to reason with me instead of attempting to insult me then perhaps you shouldn't be involved in this kind of thread.

Comparing a minority with the sexual abuse of animals isn't disagreeing it is an attack.

Hmmm. I think you've fixated on this imagined direct comparison beyond good reason.

Reread my reference. I'll say it again, I never directly compared homosexuality with bestiality. I compared MY feelings about the two in order to prove a point. A point which you apparently refuse to or are incapable of acknowledging. That is, I no more fear one sexuality than I do another. How is not fearing homosexuality possibly construed as an attack

You’re wasting the opportunity here to have a productive discussion by repetitively fixating on what you perceived as a direct comparison. At least give me some reasoning. Is it only because the two were mentioned in the same sentence? Reread the sentence to see what I was actually comparing.

What does being a minority have to do with it? Bestiality is a minority as well.

What justifies a minority’s right to dictate what true opinion is? Consider this...can a homosexual be a pervert? Can they be mistaken? Can they be justifiably proven A-holes? Bigots? Racists? Are all these things attacks on the homosexual if reasonably proven just because he is a member of a minority?
I've repeatedly explained the reasoning. You repeatedly fail to respond to that explanation. That says it all. You’re stuck in an emotional rut concerning this reference which does no one any service. Homosexuals or me.


Again, I haven't directly compared the two sexualities. You've yet to show how I have. For that matter you've yet to respond to any of my questions concerning bestiality. What gives you the right to call it sick beyond your own opinion? You haven't even defined how the animals are being abused or what actually constitutes bestiality as I've asked.

I don't think you want to go down that rabbit hole because you know you'll end up in some pretty hard to answer situations which just might be comparable to questions concerning homosexuality.

When you say things like "dissent against homosexual practices" that is exactly what you are doing

Only if you consider homosexuals little more than the way they practice sex. Is that all you consider homosexuals to be?

You can express your opinions all you like you can say ay hateful sick or nasty thing you care to about gays or blacks or Jews or Arabs or the handicapped. That is your right. It is also the right of those listening to you to express their opinions and call you on the carpet for them.

This is a typical tactic in uncomfortable discussions. Ad hominem attacks and unreasoned accusations. In this one paragraph you've tried to connect me with hateful, sick, and nasty and listed a slew of minorities suggesting I've disparaged them all. YOU should be ashamed of YOUR tactics here.
Okay, you've called me on the carpet. Now standing on this carpet in order to answer for my sins I have the right to be given a reasoned explanation of why and what I'm being accused of so that I may defend myself. How have I unreasonably disparaged any minority listed? Try, if possible, to give an explanation of how whatever you think is disparagement is actually disparagement. How have I been unreasonably hateful towards any people? How have I been nasty or sick?

For some reason you seem to beleive that you can say what you like without facing any consequences.

Ridiculous. I say what I feel is correct. In doing so I understand the consequences may be to be shown that I am incorrect. What do you think the consequences should be? Violence towards me? Forced silence? Banishment to the nether realms of existence?
Thank God you are not in a dictatorial position of power and we are not trying to have an honest discussion face to face. I can only imagine what draconian measures you'd choose to get your point across.

This here now is an example of one person expressing with honesty, not hatred, what they understand to be true. Attempting to silence or demonize honest expression instead of responding as respectfully and reasonable as one can -given the subject- is what gives life and longevity to actual hate and bigotry and discrimination and racism.

These forums, it is my understanding, are to be used as a safe environment to express ones true feelings on a subject matter without deliberate insult or belittlement of others opinions.

I also understand that others opinions may be irksome to me in some fashion. That alone does not prevent me from hopeful anticipation of productive discourse. I welcome discussions with bigots, racists, and any other seemingly discriminatory persons in the hope of getting to understand why they think the way they do and why I think the way I do and if there is any common ground in truth we may reach.

One certainly shouldn't expect productive results by simply accusing someone of being racist, bigoted, sick, nasty, hateful, or whatever as if that alone will make them and others see the wrongness of their thoughts and actions. What ends up happening is you have two or more groups of foolish people yelling vile accusations at each other across a police line that more often than naught ends up in violence.

and again you show just how your statement ".my statements have consistently attempted to distinguish between the humanity of a person and that persons practices." is just so much hot air.

I welcome your fair criticism. But you’re not explaining anything here. You’re not giving me a reasoned response that I can think about. In that sense your criticism is hardly fair nor justifiably reasoned out.
Should I not be able to distinguish the whole person from their preferred method of sexual gratification? Am I giving you that impression? That is not how I see homosexuality.

 

[setarcos]

Racism is the act of prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic or minority group.

I think your tweaking the definition to fit your needs somewhat.
Here's why I think that...

What is a racist or racism? Some various definitions...

(Oxford Languages)
:characterized by or showing prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

(Merriam Webster)
1 : a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
also : behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief : racial discrimination or prejudice
2 a : the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another
b : a political or social system founded on racism and designed to execute its principles

(Cambridge Dictionary)
noun : someone who believes that their race makes them better, more intelligent, more moral, etc. than people of other races and who does or says unfair or harmful things as a result:
adjective: coming from or having the belief that people who belong to other races are not as good, intelligent, moral, etc. as people who belong to your own race :
relating to policies, behaviors, rules, etc. that result in a continued unfair advantage to some people and unfair or harmful treatment of others based on race :

(Collins Dictionary)
If you describe people, things, or behavior as racist, you mean that they are influenced by the belief that some people are inferior because they belong to a particular race.

(National Institutes of Health)
Race:The term race refers to the concept of dividing people into populations or groups on the based on various sets of physical characteristics (which usually result from genetic ancestry).

Now, it’s true that definitions can change over time. Why those definitions changed takes a bit of etymological sleuthing. What agenda may be the cause is something to consider. Perhaps we will see the beginnings of that with “racism”. Consequently there will be a period of semantic confusion. As the word is understood now though, hopefully I have shown you that while its possible for certain homosexuals to be victims of racism because they are members of various races, I cannot be racist against homosexuality since homosexuality is not a race of people.

Ethnicity is more easily manipulated to fit your agenda I think. But that too takes a bit of tweaking. Sexual preference is not an ethnicity. Homosexuals are not an ethnic group because they can and do come from various different ancestors, haven't a common language, and come from various cultures.
I could find no definitions or listings in which homosexuality is considered an ethnicity. Minority groupings as concerns racism are always in relation to that group’s ethnicity or race. Alas, I suspect you will be stuck on insisting I'm a racist regardless.

Homophobia is the act of prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular minority group.

I see why you’re equating the two words definitionally. You simply copied the definition you gave for racism verbatim minus "racial" and "ethnic". How convenient. Do you realize that by the definition you give here for homophobia anyone who is biased against ANY minority group, be it the police or girl scouts is homophobic? I think nothing more need be said.

Why? Words shift meaning over time and come to mean different thing based on their usage.

Like I said, they sure do. And often to fit an agenda's needs. During the attempted transition there will be deliberate semantic confusion.

Human beings can be so communicatively ridiculous. How about this...why does your usage supersede mine? I think we should stick to current common usage. Not current attempts to change the word to fit an agenda. Start with common usage then see if its definition is aptly applied or if so what the implications are.

but you know this why else try to ignore current usage of homophobia and try to bring up the irrelevant history of the word.

The history of a word can be very important in understanding when and why it has changed and what agenda's if any drove those changes. I shall address the ridiculous politicization of the word homophobia in its own post later. It’s getting as ridiculous as the insane attempts to add a billion different meaningless personal pronouns to the lexicon of address.

What is the point of labeling racist remarks as racist?

That is a fair question if somewhat premature to what I asked. The point would be to identify racist remarks as accurately defined.

However answering my question with a question doesn't answer my question, which was contingent upon answering my two questions prior to answering the third in my post. If you didn't get where I was headed...answering the first two questions will hopefully enlighten us on how to answer the third.

comparing any minority to people is sexually abuse animals is derogatory.

Again...you seemingly don't wish to answer my questions about how we determine a standard of animal abuse, how it applies to bestiality, and why one sexuality is superior over another. So your statement above is wholly unsupported in its supposition.

You are the one who keeps focusing on sex as if that defines anyone

And trying to turn it back around. Focus on what’s being said. No wonder people circle round and round and get nowhere.
Here is what I said earlier, on several different occasions.

"Um...my statements have consistently attempted to distinguish between the humanity of a person and that persons practices. I wasn't the one who suggested equating a persons preferred sexual gratifications with being the primary essence of their personhood."

In this case, we are literally talking about a sexuality. Homosexuality. There is no difference between Homosexuality, Heterosexuality, Lesbianism, Bisexuality, etc. except in the way and with whom they prefer to have sex. That is literally how we define the differences in these sexualities. All other expressions of ones interacting with other human beings are inherently similar in all sexualities.
Human sexuality
Wikipedia
Human sexuality is the way people experience and express themselves sexually.

Specifically, as I've said above, ones preferred expressions of sexual gratification.
Are you even reading my responses?

Homophobia - an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. It includes antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and hatred of homosexuals

You have managed to check all the boxes here.

This was your response to my questioning you about your feelings on bestiality. I can't see how this is an answer to anything relevant to that post.
Care to try again?

 

[setarcos]

I always find bigotry disgusting. Why don't you?

So you’re saying homosexuals are all bigoted? I don't think so.

you just went on a bigoted rampage

According to you. But you've yet to show that I am bigoted against homosexual people like you are against those that practice bestiality.

And how is it meaningful to say that one is bigoted against particular practices they don't agree with anyway? Unless....again, you are equating homosexual person’s preferences for how they satisfy their sexual urges with them being a person?

Of course if that’s the case you've opened up a whole big can of worms. For instance I could then be bigoted if I didn't like a particular color, taste, sport, or type of music or whatever that someone else does. Is that a road we should go down?

What practices are you hating?

The practices that specifically define them as homosexuals. The only thing they can "practice" that distinguishes them from other persons as being homosexual is how they get and give sexual gratification. Otherwise, as I said above, they are simply members of the Homo sapient species expressing love, kindness, hate, anger, fear, sadness, cooperation in tasks, and desire for companionship. Things that are uniformly indiscernible throughout all humans and can be expressed to all genders equally without recourse to either recipient or giver being a specific sexuality.

that they breathe?
that they have families?
that they have jobs?
that they shop for groceries?

exactly what do you hate?

As described above...hopefully that is a sufficient explanation of why I can hate homosexual practices but still enjoy the company of a homosexual as a person.
Why are you so intent on proving that I hate homosexual people? Is it because you arguments all hinge on that being true?
Seems your obsessed with ensuring that homosexuals always remain the victims and those that dissent against their practices the victimizers.
Now that is a sad perpetual state to be in. Especially if its a delusion.
Of course, I still reserve the right to dislike specific homosexuals because of the content of their character despite being members of a so called minority group.

 

[Koberstein]

The pope made an horrendous homophobic slur

Vatican remains silent over Pope's alleged homophonic comments

The Pope (pictured today at a World Children's Day event in Rome) has not broken his silence after reports claimed he denounced the 'air of f*****ry' in the church

www.dailymail.co.uk

I'm not angry I'm disappointed

It sends out the wrong message, that such language is acceptable

He should have known better

Shame on him!

You will get over it. Most people do.

 

[Argentbear]

Do you not understand that homosexuality is not a race of people? It’s a category of sexuality.

Why do you keep going back to African Americans and being racist? African American is not a sexual categorization. Apples to oranges as the saying goes.

LGBT people are a minority, just like African American's, just like the handclapped, just like Muslims.

Now it's usually at this time that homophobes try to claim pedophiles are a minority as a justification that it is just fine to hate homosexuals. (and before you deny hate, if you are comparing ANY minority to a child abuser you are engaging in hate)

A minority is a culturally, ethnically, religious or racially distinct group that has a shared sense of collective identity and community that coexists with but is subordinate to a more dominant group with socially shared rules about who belongs and who does not.

Pedophiles are not a culturally distinct group, they do not have a shared sense of collectives identity, they do not have a community or any of the other identifiers of a minority.

I get you don't like the comparison to racism but it is entirely apt. Both LGBT and African American's have a long history of experiencing prejudice and discrimination and persecution often with such things being justified by religion. those attacking both minorities will deny they hate individuals or even the minority themselves they just object to their immoral behavior. Claims of "in my face" or being forced to "celebrate" their lifestyle are echo's of they should know their place and complaints about getting "uppity"

Where in the world does this painting myself a victim come from? Because I logically object to being labeled homophobe? How am I a victim if the label doesn't fit? For that matter how am I a victim if the label does fit?

the lable does fit and you are not a victim you are just invoking victiumhood.

Hmmm. I think you've fixated on this imagined direct comparison beyond good reason.

Nor do I fear them in any reasonable sense of that word any more than I fear someone who likes to have sex with other species of animals.

Reread my reference. I'll say it again, I never directly compared homosexuality with bestiality.

yeah you did.

What does being a minority have to do with it? Bestiality is a minority as well.

and here i thought you woudl go for the pedophile angle.

What justifies a minority’s right to dictate what true opinion is?

what gives you the right?

Again, I haven't directly compared the two sexualities. You've yet to show how I have. For that matter you've yet to respond to any of my questions concerning bestiality. What gives you the right to call it sick beyond your own opinion? You haven't even defined how the animals are being abused or what actually constitutes bestiality as I've asked.

I don't think you want to go down that rabbit hole because you know you'll end up in some pretty hard to answer situations which just might be comparable to questions concerning homosexuality.

When did I say anything about bestiality being "sick"?
Show me an animal that can give informed consent.
You have to be comparing homosexuality to bestiality in order to those comparable questions

Only if you consider homosexuals little more than the way they practice sex. Is that all you consider homosexuals to be?

This is a typical tactic in uncomfortable discussions. Ad hominem attacks and unreasoned accusations. In this one paragraph you've tried to connect me with hateful, sick, and nasty and listed a slew of minorities suggesting I've disparaged them all. YOU should be ashamed of YOUR tactics here.

and you just told a fib about what I said. Shame on you.

 

[Argentbear]

Ethnicity is more easily manipulated to fit your agenda I think. But that too takes a bit of tweaking. Sexual preference is not an ethnicity.

homosexuality isn't a preference any more than heterosexuality is a preference.

Homosexuals are not an ethnic group because they can and do come from various different ancestors, haven't a common language, and come from various cultures.
I could find no definitions or listings in which homosexuality is considered an ethnicity. Minority groupings as concerns racism are always in relation to that group’s ethnicity or race. Alas, I suspect you will be stuck on insisting I'm a racist regardless.

I never said you were a racist. please stop with the dishonesty

I see why you’re equating the two words definitionally. You simply copied the definition you gave for racism verbatim minus "racial" and "ethnic". How convenient. Do you realize that by the definition you give here for homophobia anyone who is biased against ANY minority group, be it the police or girl scouts is homophobic? I think nothing more need be said.

Except neither the police or the girl scouts are not minorities