Quote:
Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited
Homophobia, like all phobias, is an irrational fear of something benign. Most spiders cannot kill you, and if one could, your fear of it would not be a phobia but a perfectly rational fear. Similarly, a homosexual in no way affects those in heterosexual relationships, so people feeling insecure about homosexuals is irrational and could easily be called a phobia.
|
That's not what this is about at all. What this is about, is this exact kind of desperate RE-framing of this issue that YOU'RE engaging in RIGHT NOW.
Call it an "irrational fear." Tell them they're "insecure."
Completely transparent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited
Yeah, Christians in general have not earned the reputation of loving people, though they’ve done better lately than they did in the days of the Crusades and Inquisition... but it's hard to do much worse... moving on.
|
Ummm hmm. More transparent hatred coming from you. You don't hide it well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited
To most people, actions define people. We cannot know their intentions; we cannot trust their words; we assess their actions. Thus, saying that you hate an action of somebody that they feel they cannot help, and knows hurts nobody, is ignorant at best, and hateful at worst.
|
Very clever sophistry. So YOU may think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited
That’s nice I suppose, but it’s like a Christian taking an ex-Jew into their home and saying, “See how nice I am, I offer hospitality even to scum like you.” I can see why it might be aggravating to be insulted and helped at the same time. Perhaps the person quoted should just avoid the people whose lifestyle they hate.
|
More hatred.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited
Opposition to homosexuality is homophobic because opposition to it is irrational.
|
No.
That is what your hatred is making you say.
There is nothing 'irrational' about hating a behaviour that hurts people and has ALWAYS hurt people. This is well documented fact. Well documented fact that you'll return and deny with much more hateful language and sophistry I expect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited
There is more than one kind of gay sex, and there is no form of gay sex that isn’t practiced by heterosexuals. Felatio occurs in homosexual and heterosexual relationships, sodomy occurs in homosexual and hetereosexual relationships, cunnilingus occurs in heterosexual and lesbian relationships. You could advise them on lower-risk sexual activity, like 69ing or something, but it doesn’t prove that being gay is inherently unhealthy.
|
Complete sidestepping. Very clever. So YOU may think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited
"Perverse" sexual practices should only be a problem if they hurt somebody against their will... homosexuality does not do this. Bisexuals might have a choice, but I couldn’t become aroused by a man, and I’m sure women could not arouse some men, etc.
|
Sidestepping again.
They don't want us to know that there are more EX "homosexuals" than there are "homosexuals."
This is a fact that they MUST deny, because to do so undermines their want to claim rights to minority status. Which has been
determined by the U.S. supreme court on three criteria:
1. Economic deprivation: No. Those engaged in the homosexual "lifestyle" are among the most advantaged people in the U.S. On average, they have a higher per capita income than heterosexuals and higher household incomes. [ Wall Street Journal, Feb. 10, 1989, and New York Times, Aug. 22, 1990 ]
2. Political powerlessness: No. Homosexuals demonstrate great influential political power far beyond their actual numbers. The human rights campaign fund has annually donated millions of dollars to candidates, more than most other non-corporate PACs [The Economist, Apr. 24, 1993]. Media news and entertainment coverage is overwhelmingly favorable.
3. Immutable characteristics: No. Minority groups share unchangeable, benign, non-behavioral traits such as race, ethnicity, disability, or national origin. Homosexuals are the only group to claim minority status based on behavior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited
When people value something based upon it being “natural” or “traditional,” it might be beacuse there is no real reason to value it.
That’d be your business. Now why won't people like this guy mind their own business and keep personal morality personal? He probably shouldn’t try to be friends with homosexuals, or anybody different from him for that matter.
|
More cleverly cloaked hatred. Very transparent. Still.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited
I’m not sure how accepting that people are different from you and letting them marry has anything to do with fidelity to your friends or religion. You could probably argue that S&M is harmful, but is it your business to prevent people from engaging in S&M voluntarily? Nope.
|
Sidestepping again. I think I've seen and dealt with enough of your cloaked hatred and sidewinding away from the actual subject.
I beleive I can safely say that the rest of what you say below will be more of the same garbage and doesn't need dealt with.
You don't have to hate the rest of the world because they refuse to redefine a stinking WORD. It's a word. ONLY a word.