Political Crossfire Forums

callous · Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 11:00 pm Post subject:

armstrong001 wrote: callous wrote: armstrong001 wrote: callous wrote: armstrong001 wrote: callous wrote: Phazzle wrote: ^^ While it means those things posted above, it's used time and time again as a derogatory term used to anyone who is anti-gay marriage.

Thats actually why I stopped participating in gay marriage debates.

Its a very annoying term that is like the ultra-nuke the pro-gay marriage folks use to bash anti-g.marriage. Then the topic changes from people not wanting to gay marriange, to why they feel that way, and if they are afraid of homosexuals.

This term is the ultimate discussion killer. A nuke everyone pro-gay marriage can carry with them.

being anti gay marraige is at minimum an indifference to commonly interpreted civil rights for your fellow americans.

What rights are you referring to?

oh liberty and the persuit of happiness come to mind. Or did you actually want me to interpret the Bill of rights for you.

There is nothing that says it shouldn't be allowed, except religion. And that is absolute destruction of individual liberty.

Please be more specific. You have the right to the persuit of happiness. You have no right to happiness. What liberties (other than not being able to say that they are married) are they losing?

you sluff off being able to say your married as if its a detail that they dont need to worry about.

would a married man and woman have something to say about not being able to say they are officially married?

a ban on gay marraige is a blockade to the persuit of happiness. Is there any clearer message that it should be allowed? if an american is promised the persuit of happiness should they be forcefully guided down one particular road?

How is it a blockade to the persuit of happiness? Are homosexuals kept from each other by the law? Are they banned from living together? Are they banned from having sex with each other? I don't see why, if homosexuals have every right that married couples have, except for the right to actually say that they are married, what the big deal is? Or is there something else that is denyed to them?

No one has the right to discount the value of any aspect of holy matrimony on behalf of any faction of people living within these borders.

Why would you even comment on whether being able to call themselves married is a big deal?

why do you think you have the right to comment on that?

Probably the same reason you think you have the right to decide what a woman does with her body.

danman2000 · Joined: 22 Jun 2005 Posts: 494

Chymical wrote: It has to do with enforcing old religious bullcrap by the back door more like

True, but I was talking strictly official

Melchior · Joined: 01 Oct 2004 Posts: 9614 Location: Palm Beach

armstrong001 wrote: I don't oppose equality of homosexuals.

But...

armstrong001 wrote: But I do oppose gay marriage.

...you do oppose equality for homosexuals. If you can get married, but they can't, then you are NOT equal.

armstrong001 wrote: I don't think what they do is right, but that's their deal.

Totally cool.

armstrong001 wrote: Question my intentions all you want.

I will continue to do so, since you really didn't defend them.

armstrong001 wrote: Other than just being married, I'd like to know exactly what they are being kept from doing, other than saying that they are legally married?

Not much, with marriage comes benefits (visiting your partner in the hospital, etc). Current laws aren't the challenge for the homosexual community, the current society is, and that can lead to more laws (outlawing the homosexual couples right to adopt, etc).

armstrong001 wrote: By using that same argument (unlimited right to contract), what is to stop someone from marrying more than one person?

Nothing really, polygamy shouldn't be illegal. (although, I'm talking about the actual definition, not the cults you see in Utah).

armstrong001 wrote: What about marrying a child?

A child is too young to consent and make that decision for him/herself.

Consenting adults only.

armstrong001 wrote: What about marrying an animal?

An... animal can't possibly consent to marriage. Animals are not consenting human adults.

With these examples I'm already sick of the debate. Like PJ said, some people can't go far into the gay rights debate without mentioning marriage to a toaster.

armstrong001 wrote: By not limiting what it means to be married, the term marriage ceases to have any meaning.

Spare me the sanctity of marriage crap.

Chymical · Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 11:07 pm Post subject:

danman, your right, that's the official fudge

Hephaestus, you own man, wicked argument, concisely and perfectly made. I think I'm gonna have to find an 'owned' pic :)

DavidXV · Joined: 01 Oct 2004 Posts: 9828

The politics of fear. It's root is the most elementary of all tactics used by small children to manipulate. If it is not the first act of deception that is learned, it is certainly among the first and is learned at a very young age.

Childish psychology 101:

A very young boy, who has been raised reasonably well by fortunate and competent parents, wants to be a "good" kid. He is playing in a sandbox, and another very young boy arrives, who has for whatever reasons not received the same level of high quality upbringing, does not want to be "good' but perhaps would rather break a window or scratch the paint on a shiny new car, or even worse, throw a kitten out in front of a moving car.

He wants the good kid to come and be bad with him, and he will try to manipulate this good kid by calling him names and ridiculing him if he does not comply. He will accuse the good kid of being afraid, will call him a chicken or a scaredy cat, to try to topple the prevailing judgment of the good kid, that it is better to not engage in bad behavior.

The good kid has the upper hand, believes it is wrong to do certain things, and will resist the invitation to be bad and will give the bad kid absolutely no positive affirmation, will never give the bad kid what he is really looking for, but the bad kid believes that it is he who holds the superior position, is more bold and adventurous, and the kid who will not come and be bad with him or look up to him for being a rebellious delinquent must be the one who is wrong, must be weak, must be afraid. Yet it is a weak and lesser disciplined youth that will give into this tactic, out of a desire to not be characterized as being afraid.

This behavior and tactic is normal in a sense, that it is commonplace among juvenile delinquency, but usually outgrown before the child reaches high-school age, except there appears to be a development problem among many liberals... they have held on this into adulthood and have even invented a new word to facilitate a similar tactic in disparaging those that believe that homosexuality is wrong, a word to accuse those that disagree with them, of being afraid.

There really isn't anyone who is afraid of homosexuality or homosexuals, but there is the vast majority of people who see it as something that deviates quite far from normal sexuality and sexual relations, and the tactic is purposed to make them the ones that are not normal and out of step, to make them the ones who have an affliction, the affliction of unreasonable fear. I didn't fall for it when i was five and I'm certainly not going to fall for it now. Well maybe i did fall for it when I was eight and busted out some perfectly good windows, but that was the last time, and I quickly came to realize that what the bad kid thought or said really never mattered.

Gdawg007 · Joined: 06 Jul 2004 Posts: 15292 Location: Albuquerque, NM

artk wrote: Quote: Hatred and fear are one and the same.

Not true. I can fear something without hating it, and can hate something without fearing it. For example, i hate spinach, but i certainly don't fear it.

A better statement would've been hatred and fear often go hand in hand. When we fear something, we grow strong dislikes for it, such as hate, to keep ourselves away from it. I think it's part of a built in defense mechanism. Though your spinach example is a good point, I would ask, do you really HATE spinich? Or do you simply not care for it's taste? I mean, if you hate spinich, that implies very strong feelings, which you may have. :-)

Gdawg007 · Joined: 06 Jul 2004 Posts: 15292 Location: Albuquerque, NM

DavidXV wrote: The politics of fear. It's root is the most elementary of all tactics used by small children to manipulate. If it is not the first act of deception that is learned, it is certainly among the first and is learned at a very young age.

Childish psychology 101:

A very young boy, who has been raised reasonably well by fortunate and competent parents, wants to be a "good" kid. He is playing in a sandbox, and another very young boy arrives, who has for whatever reasons not received the same level of high quality upbringing, does not want to be "good' but perhaps would rather break a window or scratch the paint on a shiny new car, or even worse, throw a kitten out in front of a moving car.

He wants the good kid to come and be bad with him, and he will try to manipulate this good kid by calling him names and ridiculing him if he does not comply. He will accuse the good kid of being afraid, will call him a chicken or a scaredy cat, to try to topple the prevailing judgment of the good kid, that it is better to not engage in bad behavior.

The good kid has the upper hand, believes it is wrong to do certain things, and will resist the invitation to be bad and will give the bad kid absolutely no positive affirmation, will never give the bad kid what he is really looking for, but the bad kid believes that it is he who holds the superior position, is more bold and adventurous, and the kid who will not come and be bad with him or look up to him for being a rebellious delinquent must be the one who is wrong, must be weak, must be afraid. Yet it is a weak and lesser disciplined youth that will give into this tactic, out of a desire to not be characterized as being afraid.

This behavior and tactic is normal in a sense, that it is commonplace among juvenile delinquency, but usually outgrown before the child reaches high-school age, except there appears to be a development problem among many liberals... they have held on this into adulthood and have even invented a new word to facilitate a similar tactic in disparaging those that believe that homosexuality is wrong, a word to accuse those that disagree with them, of being afraid.

There really isn't anyone who is afraid of homosexuality or homosexuals, but there is the vast majority of people who see it as something that deviates quite far from normal sexuality and sexual relations, and the tactic is purposed to make them the ones that are not normal and out of step, to make them the ones who have an affliction, the affliction of unreasonable fear. I didn't fall for it when i was five and I'm certainly not going to fall for it now. Well maybe i did fall for it when I was eight and busted out some perfectly good windows, but that was the last time, and I quickly came to realize that what the bad kid thought or said really never mattered.

So you think it's those who support homosexuals who are the ones acting this way?

Yes, there are people who are afraid of homosexuals. They fear that homosexuals are trying to redefine THEIR society as something else. Perhaps some are trying to do that and those fears are justified. We usually only fear what we don't know. Most people who say homosexuals are immoral or make bad parents or whatever know very few personally. If I didn't know, I would have a hard time telling who was gay and wasn't. People are people, gay or not, and if both sides realized this and made an effort to understand each other, there would be fewer problems and less fear. Doesn't mean anyone has to like the other.

armstrong001 · Joined: 11 Mar 2005 Posts: 648 Location: Grand Junction, CO

Hephaestus wrote: armstrong001 wrote: I don't oppose equality of homosexuals.

But...

armstrong001 wrote: But I do oppose gay marriage.

...you do oppose equality for homosexuals. If you can get married, but they can't, then you are NOT equal.

Again, how is not being married making them unequal, other than they cannot say that they are legally married? They lose no right by not being married.

Quote: armstrong001 wrote: Question my intentions all you want.

I will continue to do so, since you really didn't defend them.

They need no defense.

Quote: armstrong001 wrote: Other than just being married, I'd like to know exactly what they are being kept from doing, other than saying that they are legally married?

Not much, with marriage comes benefits (visiting your partner in the hospital, etc). Current laws aren't the challenge for the homosexual community, the current society is, and that can lead to more laws (outlawing the homosexual couples right to adopt, etc).

That is just not true. If only married people could visit loved ones in hospitals, then what about boyfriends or girlfriends, or, hell, just friends visiting loved ones? Are you telling me that ONLY married couples can visit each other? Try visiting a hospital sometime. You can go visit strangers if that floats your boat. There is no law keeping homosexuals from visiting their partners.

What else have you got?

Quote: armstrong001 wrote: By using that same argument (unlimited right to contract), what is to stop someone from marrying more than one person?

Nothing really, polygamy shouldn't be illegal. (although, I'm talking about the actual definition, not the cults you see in Utah).

Another position I will respectfully disagree with.

Quote: armstrong001 wrote: What about marrying a child?

A child is too young to consent and make that decision for him/herself.

Consenting adults only.

A person can adopt a child from another person. The child has no say in that. What would be the difference with marriage?

Quote: armstrong001 wrote: What about marrying an animal?

An... animal can't possibly consent to marriage. Animals are not consenting human adults.

With these examples I'm already sick of the debate. Like PJ said, some people can't go far into the gay rights debate without mentioning marriage to a toaster.

These examples illustrate the problem. By saying ok, homosexuals can get married, then ok, you can marry more than one person, you twist the idea of marriage so that it no longer means anything.

Quote: armstrong001 wrote: By not limiting what it means to be married, the term marriage ceases to have any meaning.

Spare me the sanctity of marriage crap.

That's just it. Marriage is more than just an agreement to live together, and to split the assets if you decide to go your separate ways. If you believe that marriage is just a contract between two people, then why do you actually need marriage? Homosexuals can live together, and nobody stops them. What more do they need? There is nothing other than being able to say that they are legally married that they cannot do anyways. However, if you believe that marriage is more than just living together, then the actual meaning of what marriage is is important. I choose to draw the line in a different place than you.

00timh · Joined: 08 Nov 2004 Posts: 13037 Location: upstate NY

God, I feel like I stepped into one of those made up, dumbed down politically correct tapings of a real world show on MTV. Blah blah blah...

People can generally tell who is gay and who isn't. You are either pro gay marriage or you are not and no one "owns" anyone else for their beliefs.

This should be moved to the gay forum.

patrickt · Joined: 07 Jul 2004 Posts: 1777 Location: Oaxaca, Mexico

If a marriage were simply a contract between people it wouldn't be very important for gays to marry. Unfortunately, the government assigns benefits and protections to those who are married. So, denying gays the right to marry means they are being denied those benefits and protections and I believe that's a violation of the Constitution.

Kumar · Joined: 21 Jul 2004 Posts: 16289 Location: Prague

00timh wrote:
This should be moved to the gay forum.
Don't know why, but this just made me chuckle. :lol:

leftneckredwing · Joined: 13 Nov 2004 Posts: 32350 Location: North America

Many people would rate me as, at the very least, somewhat homophobic. But, to be honest, I've met some gay people that I respect and like.

I've since decided that my views on gay issues, are best handled the same way as my views on abortion, they aren't my business. Live and let live.

Pimpkie_69 · Joined: 29 Jan 2005 Posts: 2022 Location: Toronto

The term "homophobia" to describe hatred of homosexuals, is ridiculous. Hatred and fear are two different things. Some big hairy guy who beats up a scrawny little gay guy for being gay, sure as hell isn't afraid of the gay guy, he just hates him. If people who hate gays are "homophobes" then the KKK should be called "negrophobes" and I should be called a "myexgirlfriendphobe". Hating someone and fearing them are two different things.

Geolibertarian · Joined: 04 Apr 2004 Posts: 4866 Location: Ohio

Walter Sobcheck wrote: Will someone please define this strange term to me?

Afraid of man?

Afraid of what?
In many instances, it seems to be a case of someone being deeply afraid of his own homosexual feelings -- hence the old saying, "thou doth protest too much." To see a perfect (albeit fictionalized) illustration of what I mean, observe the retired Marine Colonel (played by Chris Cooper) in the film, American Beauty.

Quote: These canned expressions prevalent on Internet forums seem to be "impact" words derived to some how outweigh another's position.
Such as screaming "conspiracy theory" the moment someone so much as questions the validity of the government's version of 9/11? Or does a "canned expression" or "impact word" automatically cease to be such when used to attack a viewpoint with which you happen to disagree?

Just curious.

Todd

armstrong001 · Joined: 11 Mar 2005 Posts: 648 Location: Grand Junction, CO

patrickt wrote: If a marriage were simply a contract between people it wouldn't be very important for gays to marry. Unfortunately, the government assigns benefits and protections to those who are married. So, denying gays the right to marry means they are being denied those benefits and protections and I believe that's a violation of the Constitution.

OK! This is what I'm looking for! Now, please be specific: What extra benefits are you referring to? And do you believe that these 'benefits' are the reason that homosexuals want to get married?

Jay2014 · Joined: 31 May 2005 Posts: 1243

in a psychological/sociological sence, homophobia is actually the subconscience or unconscience fear of being percieved as homosexual, manifested through masculinity (or, less commonly, femininity) and openly negative attitudes of homosexuals.

F'losrix · Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 12:53 pm Post subject:

armstrong001 wrote: patrickt wrote: If a marriage were simply a contract between people it wouldn't be very important for gays to marry. Unfortunately, the government assigns benefits and protections to those who are married. So, denying gays the right to marry means they are being denied those benefits and protections and I believe that's a violation of the Constitution.

OK! This is what I'm looking for! Now, please be specific: What extra benefits are you referring to? And do you believe that these 'benefits' are the reason that homosexuals want to get married?
I know you weren't talking to me, but I'm answering anyway.

Here's a link to the GAO (General Accounting Office) report, which goes into great detail regarding the over 1,000 laws in which marital status is a factor:

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

Yes - these are a part of the reason that gay people want their marriages recognized. As to why we get married - for the same reasons that heterosexual couples do, which of course varies from couple to couple. The only solid difference is that we can't biologically reproduce together.

Gryff1nd0r · Joined: 12 Nov 2004 Posts: 2430 Location: Cambridge, MA

Jay2014 wrote: in a psychological/sociological sence, homophobia is actually the subconscience or unconscience fear of being percieved as homosexual, manifested through masculinity (or, less commonly, femininity) and openly negative attitudes of homosexuals.

Yeah, uh, this thread went off on a wild tangent but that's what I was going to say. I don't know why it took so long for someone to say that.

F'losrix · Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 9:00 pm Post subject:

thegriffinator13 wrote: Jay2014 wrote: in a psychological/sociological sence, homophobia is actually the subconscience or unconscience fear of being percieved as homosexual, manifested through masculinity (or, less commonly, femininity) and openly negative attitudes of homosexuals.

Yeah, uh, this thread went off on a wild tangent but that's what I was going to say. I don't know why it took so long for someone to say that.

I would amend it slightly: ...manifested through hyper-masculine behavior (machismo)... - the very trait I find extremely unattractive in a man. When some guy starts going overboard to prove he's a 'manly man', I start to question what it is that he's trying to hide or compensate for. That's why I chose a partner who knows he's a man and feels neither the need to hide it nor prove it to anyone.

assclown · Joined: 22 Jan 2005 Posts: 444

I've been accused of being a homo-phobe. I think a lot of people that have the same opinion of homosexuality that I have, have been accused of
being a homo-phobe or a gay hater.

I'm a heterosexual male that simply considers anal sex to be disgusting whether it is a man and a woman or a man and a man. I don't care if you are a gay man or a straight man, I think it's gross that you like anal sex, if you do in fact like anal sex. I have no idea if there are gay people that do not like anal sex either, I've never asked them because it's none of my business and I really don't want to know.

The few times i've expressed my opinion on it, I've been immediately labeled a homo-phobe. Maybe because that person liked anal sex and is defensive about it? Maybe they are Hetero-phobic? I don't know, and I don't care.