Is support for a Constitutional ban on gay marriage homophobic?

[IndianaJones]

Perhaps I am unclear on the definition of the term.

[ulysses]

1. can you explain how it might not be?

[wuushew]

2. um...yes

isn't it obvious?

[youthere]

3. ya' think?

[Captain Hilts]

4. In the US a lot of it is about money. I.e. spouses from gay marriages wanting benefits.

That's why it's legal in Canada. You don't have businesses afraid of having to cover more healthcare expenses.

[Rosemary2205]

5. not every anti-gay person is a homophobe.

I would suspect most are but they don't necessarily go together. Having a religious belief about right and wrong does automatically make one "afraid" of gays.

[ulysses]

7. from merriam-webster:

Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

It isn't limited to fear.

[Rosemary2205]

22. Aha! I stand corrected!

Thanks :hi:

[Sapphire Blue]

23. And from ReligiousTolerance.org...

Meanings based on actions:

Actively work towards defining homosexuals as a minority group which should be deprived (or kept deprived) of fundamental human rights which are enjoyed by other groups. This can be as simple an action as voting in a referendum to ban same-sex marriage. It can be as involved as being part of an anti-gay organization. Some rights being sought by many homosexuals include e.g.:


The right to marry.

Job security -- to be not fired because of their sexual orientation,

Being free of discrimination in accommodation,

Being included as a protected group in hate-crime legislation.

(snip)

In our web site, we choose to define these words in terms of actions, not beliefs:

homophobia as engaging in a behavior aimed at restricting the human rights of persons who have a homosexual orientation and/or who engages in homosexual behavior. This behavior can take many forms: signing a plebiscite; sending an Email to one's senator or representative; participating in a demonstration; voting on a school board; voting to elect a homophobe; talking to coworkers or friends, delivering a sermon; etc. These rights include what many believe to be the most important human right: to be married; to have their spousal status recognized and registered; and to be assigned benefits and obligations by the government. Other rights are protection from hate-motivated crimes, protection in accommodation, and employment security.

homophobe as a person who engages in homophobic behavior.

homophobic, an adjective referring to a behavior which attempts to maintain special rights for heterosexuals.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_phob.htm

[dmallind]

11. technically true

but several "phobe" words have meanings beyond pure "fear". If you look at that definition as including comtempt or hate as several dictionaries do it's much more applicable. It's possible to be against gay marriage without fearing gays, and maybe without even hating them, but it's pretty tricky to deny them the rights benefits and privileges open to non-gays without having at least some contempt for them in that obviously their equal rights and happiness would have to be seen as less important than the homophobe's religion-inspired distaste.


So to answer the OP I'd say "yes, yes it is".

[Madspirit]

108. It Does Make someone a PIG OPPRESSOR...

Keep your religious CRAP off my laws and off my body.
Lee

[Solon]

123. Whoa! Talk about a broad brush!

Having a religious belief about right and wrong does automatically make one "afraid" of gays.

I have a religious belief about right and wrong, and it automatically makes me oppose oppression in ALL its forms, in addition, homosexuality isn't immoral in my religion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

136. I suspect there's a 'not' missing from that sentence

(ie 'does not automatically ...'). It would fit better with the rest of what that poster says.

[Rosemary2205]

137. Thank you

it's nice to know some on DU still have more than one functioning brain cell. :)

[Solon]

152. Thanks for the fucking insult. n/t

[Beer Snob-50]

6. why do you feel that such a ban should be in place?

does this qualify in your mind for a constitutional amendment like women's rights, voting rights, freedom of speech, or the right to bear arms?

[Ian David]

8. Why would it be homophobic to declare that gay people are inferior and undeserving...

of equal rights and protections under the law?

Gee.

If you really need it explained to you, then perhaps you'd be more comfortable on another message board.

[IndianaJones]

25. I believe we are on the same page on this issue. nt.

[LeftHander]

53. Technically not "Homophobic" but bigoted....

To think that you can exclude people from rights that others enjoy simply because of who they choose to love is bigoted. so in general and in the real worlkd I would lump bigots with homophobes, typically the two walk hand in hand.

[kevinbgoode]

74. I prefer to call it. . ..

heterosupremacist.

[Richard Steele]

9. EDIT: I get it now; you're continuing your argument from this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1301761

Weak, dude. Seriously weak.

[IndianaJones]

20. Not really. Just getting input into my usage of a term.

I could be wrong after all. I did not mention names or link to another thread. I am happy to have that discussion in that thread.

[Ian David]

29. The originator of that thread is on my ignore list. Guess I'm not missing much. n/t

[IndianaJones]

32. No...you are not. nt.

[Bridget Burke]

60. Why can't we derail YOUR thread?

Your silly posts did just that to the thread about Senator Byrd.

[IndianaJones]

66. You could certainly attempt to do so. I cannot control what you post here. nt.

[yardwork]

37. Oh, for crying out loud. Yes, anyone who voted for the bill is homophobic.

That includes Senator Byrd. Happy now?

[IndianaJones]

40. not happy...saddened at the adoration of such a man. nt.

[yardwork]

48. I don't adore him.

[indie_voter]

10. yes. n/t

[mmonk]

12. Yep.

[jobycom]

13. It would be fundamentally unAmerican and anti-Constitutional, in spirit.

Even if one could argue that it is not homophobic, it is certainly discriminatory, and it violates the Constitutional prohibition of creating levels of citizenship, by only allowing certain couples to enjoy full rights of citizenship.

It's also basical gender discrimination, telling someone they can't marry another person because of their gender. I really don't care about the whole "choice vs nature" argument, and don't see it as relevant. If a straight man wants to marry a straight man, I don't care--to say that they can't have the same relationship as a man who wants to marry a woman makes no sense to me, in the context of America and the values upon which we were founded. This is America, and the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right that government can't infringe upon, and telling someone they have to live as a second-class citizen because their pursuit of happiness involves creating a family with someone of the same gender instead of someone of the opposite gender infringes on that right. It's just not America.

So I don't care what label or nuance of a concept is applied to such an amendment, it is just self-evidently wrong.

[MindPilot]

14. Not necessarily, but it is on its face unconstitutional.

The Constitution is a document which establishes how the government works and what powers it has. The Bill of Rights limits those powers. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not instruments for controlling individual citizen's behavior; they are for establishing and limiting governmental powers.

A Constitutional amendment prohibiting the government from interfering with the right of gays to marry, now that would make sense.

[eggman67]

140. Well no, it wouldn't be "unconstitutional"

A Constitutional amendment, by definition, cannot be unconstitutional.

Wrong yes, but not unconstitutional.

[NMMNG]

15. You don't support equal rights for gay people

What do you think?

[IndianaJones]

24. untrue...but I admire your confrontational attitude. nt.

[NMMNG]

38. I apologize for that

After encounters with so many homophobes, trolls and other miscreants who post baiting questions for which the answers seemingly should be obvious it sometimes gets to be automatic. After reading your other thread I realize the real intent of this post.

:hi:

[IndianaJones]

47. I seriously think that there needs to be more confrontation on...

more subtle forms of racism and homophobia in our society. When these smaller forms of hatred become acceptable or overlooked, it paves the way for wide ranging and more serious breaches. As long as it remains acceptable in our leaders to display these attitudes, no progress will be made.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. Yes. And fundamentally discriminatory and contrary to basic principles of equality and freedom.

Beyond that, who gives a shit if it's "homophobic" or not- what I'd like to see is a cogent explanation of why the marriage of two consenting adults, neither of whom are YOU, is any of YOUR fucking business at all.

[melody]

28. Well said, as usual

The Bob people make the best posts. :)

[Warren DeMontague]

107. Thanks!

He is missed.

[Occulus]

116. "Bob people"?

I missed something, apparently.

What does that mean? I'm just curious...

[melody]

121. His avatar is of Robert Anton Wilson

Bob was a brilliant man from whom many have stolen while not understanding a thing he said. lol

[buddhamama]

17. it is homphobic

human rights and equality for me but not for thee should be the mantra of every person opposed to gay marriage.

[IndianaJones]

18. Thanks for the responses. It seems I am not alone in my understanding of that terms meaning. nt.

[maxsolomon]

19. if it was a ban on all state-licensed marriage, period, then no

but otherwise, yes.

[Beelzebud]

21. Not only is it homophobic, it's anti-freedom. It's anti-American.

We don't add amendments to the constitution to LIMIT freedom. At least we didn't used to.

[NashVegas]

26. It Can Be, But Doesn't Have To Be

It could be out of simple pettiness, I suppose.

[melody]

27. Yup n/t

[terrya]

30. In my book, it is

There are no reasons whatsoever to oppose equality for gay and lesbian people...unless you hate gay and lesbian people.

[Az]

31. It depends on the individuals motivation

But I would be hard pressed to imagine a motivation to ban such a thing that was not linked in some way to homophobic rhetoric. But I do not believe it can be said automatically that someone opposed to gay and lesbian marriage is homophobic. Very very likely. But I think you would at least have to probe them to find out what their reasons are.

[dysfunctional press]

33. not necessarily.

for some it's a deeply held religious issue.


just one more way that religion ultimately fucks up a society.

[Az]

45. A religious belief can be homophobic

Siting religion does not free them of the label. I agree it depends but it would take motivation based on a different set of criteria. Take for example someone that is opposed to the idea of government regulating marriage at all. They would be opposed to heterosexual marriage as well as homosexual marriage and thus not be homophobic in their opposition.

[dysfunctional press]

63. but it doesn't have to be.

and that was the question.

[Az]

69. If a religious belief opposes homosexuality

then it is homophobic. Unless it opposes all relationships such as the Shakers did it has singled out homosexuals and relegated them to 2nd class citizenship. That is homophobic.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

126. Sorry, QA, I'm religious myself, and the traditional doctrines on

homosexuality are as misinformed as the creation story in Genesis.

They treat homosexuality as a "sin" that can be changed at will, not as a normal variation of the human race and one that is neither willed nor limited to sexual behavior.

Anyone who still insists on a literal reading of the first chapters of Genesis is wilfully ignorant, and anyone who chooses to ignore the historical background for the Biblical prohibitions on homosexuality (in short, the ones in Leviticus were intended to ban any sexual behavior that couldn't possibly result in pregnancy, and the ones in Paul are a condemnation of exploitive relationships between older men and teenage boys) after having them explained is a bigot.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

34. Yes, you hate Robert Byrd and think....

he should not hold office. We get it. :eyes:

[IndianaJones]

36. To be clear, I don't hate him. I just think he's a racist and homophobe..and should retire. nt.

[Matsubara]

43. He is a product of his times.

Problem is that if he retires his seat may have a better chance of going to a repug.

With all his faults, Byrd is still preferable to that, since all republicans are sworn to steal from the poor and give to the rich.

[IndianaJones]

52. I may even be able to accept your argument, but the adoration and praise?

Is it really appropriate?

[Matsubara]

56. What "adoration and praise?"

What are you on?

[IndianaJones]

61. you are more than welcome to make that discussion in that thread. I will respond there. nt.

[dmallind]

51. Just wondering

how many people you need to convince of that? I mean it's no secret he's not exactly been the most socially progressive guy on earth.

He has some good moments on the floor and he votes the "right" way on most things but not even Democratic Senators get to be perfect in all ways, and I don't know why too many people would want to defend his vote.

[yardwork]

35. Yes. Changing the U.S. Constitution to prevent gay people from getting married is homophobic.

[Matsubara]

39. It's a sure sign of bigotry.

Maybe it's more hatred than phobia in some cases, but denying people the right to marry the person of their choice because they are of the same gender is discriminatory.


Is this even a serious question?

[IndianaJones]

42. It is serious. I have always used the term much as the term "racist" is used...

as not only fear of homosexuals, but intolerance, discrimination and hatred of any kind. I was just curious as to others understanding of the word.

[Matsubara]

50. I see now that it's serious but disingenuous - just couching for an attack on Byrd.

Funny you would pick today, just when Byrd made a notable speech on the illegal Iraq invasion.

Why not just come right out and post a pic of some guy in a KKK robe with the headline "RETIRE ALREADY, KKK BYRD"

It would save a lot of time and wasted keystrokes talking to you.

Enjoy your visit. :eyes:

[IndianaJones]

58. I made no mention of Byrd in this thread until he was brought here...

I responded to all posts in that thread. I did not link to it or mention it in this one, until others did so. Gauging the opinion of homophobia as a term for more than just fear of gays is a legitimate discussion to me.

[Bridget Burke]

64. But you derailed the other thread about Byrd's speech on Iraq.

Turn about is fair play.

[IndianaJones]

71. I'm not complaining. Derail away. nt.

[Matsubara]

65. Yeah, it's sure to be scintillating.

The only issue regarding that word is the boring semantic question of whether it refers strictly to a "fear" of gays or to all bigotry, hatred, fear, etc. of gays. And who cares, really.

That's not the point of this OP and you know it.


I should have known. What a preposterous question.

[nini]

41. Can you be a bigot against gays but not homophobic?

?

[Orsino]

44. Have you found another motivation that might explain it better? n/t

[Az]

46. Here is one

Lets say a person rejects the idea that government should be involved in marriage. That it is dependent on whatever social/religious institution the individuals belong to. This would mean they oppose both heterosexual and homosexual marriages being governed by the state and thus are not homophobic.

[yardwork]

54. Then why amend the Constitution to specifically ban one type of marriage?

Right now, the U.S. Constitution doesn't mention marriage.

How would amending it to mention marriage be taking government out of the issue?

[Az]

62. Because they don't have the support to ban the other type yet

I am not saying its a rational ploy. Just that you have to move beyond the simple opposition and ask them what their motivation is.

[yardwork]

72. I don't think that their thinking is on that high a level.

The people trying to ban gay marriage are using "defense or "normal" heterosexual marriage" as their rallying cry.

[Az]

75. So you believe them to be one monolithic entity

With a single thought amongst all of them? Thats rather interesting.

[yardwork]

85. LOL! Yes - I think that the fundy right-wing trying to ban gay marriage have the intellects of ants

And about the same ability to think independently.

[Az]

89. Sigh

And you don't think that you have a bias yourself? The idea of being tolerant is to let every person be a representation of themselves. To believe that you know a person because of some label or affiliation is the heart of intolerance. You have to probe a little deeper than just some label to find out who or what a person is. Or would you rather all homosexuals be placed under one easy to define label where all their personality traits and individual beliefs are distilled down into one singular position.

[yardwork]

90. Pfft. Straw man. No, I don't spend time thinking about the subtle nuances of bigoted thinking.

Anyone who pushes a Constitutional amendment to ban marriage isn't worthy of my time. I know that sounds intolerant, but there it is. I am intolerant of bigots.

[Az]

93. Actually no

You don't know if a person is a bigot or not. You lump them into the category without finding out who or what they are. Intolerance of intolerance I understand. But you seem to be jumping the gun and dumping any who don't agree with you into the bigot category whether you know what their stance is or not.

[yardwork]

97. Let's define the terms again. We're talking about the people pushing a constitutional amendment

to ban gay marriage. This would be the first time in the history of our nation that the Constitution was rewritten to exclude some people from rights, rather than extending rights. The people pushing this agenda are not talking about "getting the government out of marriage." Oh no. With their bumper stickers and their picnic rallies and their emails and their direct mail brochures they are pounding the message that "one man plus one woman equals marriage." In case anyone misses the point they expand on that by reminding us that "the Bible talks about Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve."

Nobody - not one person - leading this movement has ever said anything about banning all marriages because they don't think that government should have anything to do with marriage.

Lots of people agree that the government should get out of the business of marriage. I am one of them. Currently, all marriages are handled by states. I think that they should call them civil unions and leave it up to religious institutions to call it a marriage or not. None of this discussion - which contains a lot of subtle differences - is happening among the "ban gay marriage with a constitutional amendment" crowd.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Or, may I say, ants to intelligent people. The ants scurry around and do what their leaders tell them to do. The ants slap one man one woman stickers on their minivans.

[Az]

100. Scale

I agree that the people leading the pack on this issue are clearly homophobic. But we have their actions and rhetoric with which to judge if they are homophobic. And it speaks volumes. But the question is not about those leading the cause or those out in the public arena holding signs declaring "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve". The question was specifically concerning the vote itself. And you cannot tell a person's reasons for a vote from the vote itself. You need other context such as them jumping up and down declaring homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of the lord.

From just the vote you do not have enough information to know why they voted that way. I am not saying its not likely that they are a bigot. Just that you cannot make an absolute blanket conclusion from it.

[yardwork]

104. If you find someone who supported the constitutional amendment for reasons other than bigotry

let me know.

I have to go count some angels on another pinhead right now.

[Az]

106. Have the fun

You have to keep a steady hand when counting those pesky angels though. I recommend taking a little breather and relaxing a bit first.

[Toasterlad]

141. I Can Make THIS Claim

Anyone voting for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is wrong for doing so, regardless of their reason. Split hairs about rationale all you like: it comes down to a vote FOR basic rights vs. a vote AGAINST basic rights. It's not terribly difficult to tell right from wrong in this case.

[Orsino]

122. ...but in the meantime they're happy to discriminate?

Nope. This smells like homophobia, too.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

55. I ain't buying it.

Nobody had a problem with state sanctioned heterosexual marriages until homosexual marriages became an issue.

[Az]

68. Thats not true

Lots of people have questioned the reason behind having the government regulate marriage. It just hasn't had an issue come forward that has galvanized anyone. The hoopla over same sex marriage has merely brought the issue of state run marriage into discussion and this has brought those who were silently against it out into the open.

[yardwork]

73. What, all one of you? I can guarantee that eliminating state run marriage

isn't a plank in the Republican Party.

[Az]

76. Are you assuming that this is my position?

I am merely offering a rational that may fit the question.

[yardwork]

81. You're the only one talking about it.

:shrug:

[Az]

84. I suspect

You are letting your emotions get the better of you. This is understandable as the issue is heinous in many regards. But you seem to want to vent this anger at those who are your allies but do not say the right things in your opinion. Let me try to clarify what I am saying.

Homophobia is the act of singling out homosexuals for mistreatment, hatred, or limiting their rights. If a person's motivation for establishing a limiting law does not focus on homosexuals and instead covers both heterosexuals and homosexuals then it is not homophobic. You may disagree with their political position but they are not a homophobe.

To be specific I am prohomosexual rights. I believe that people are people and that we all deserve the same chances at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I believe that a loving homosexual couple is just as beautiful as a loving heterosexual couple. It is the love that makes it beautiful and who cares what parts go where.

[yardwork]

91. Sorry to disappoint you, but the main emotion I'm feeling is laughter!

It's hilarious to see you tie yourself in twisty knots trying to make me feel badly about thinking mean thoughts about bigots. But keep trying, it's greatly entertaining.

[Az]

94. Knots?

I am not aware of any twisting I am doing. I merely am positing that from just a single vote you cannot determine a person's rational or whether they are a bigot or not. I don't like leaping into the dark. And that seems to be what you are doing. From a single observation of an action you leap to the conclusion that they must be a hate filled bigot. I say get to know the person before you decide who or what they are. You say hate them because of a label or a single action.

[yardwork]

99. Who said "hate" or "hate-filled"?

[Az]

103. Hate usually accompanies bigotry

Or did I assume too much from a single label?

[porphyrian]

49. Not necessarily, but everything about it is wrong.

The Constitution is the wrong place for such a ban, "homophobia" isn't really a phobia at all in its most common usage, and the idea that anyone should be able to ban any people in love from marriage is wrong.

[Marr]

57. Inherently, yes.

[sniffa]

59. yes

you're probLem is not with the term, it's with not recognizing a hatefuL, bigoted amendment.

[wuushew]

67. Can you please outline your thesis?

You provide no structure or direction to the course of debate.

[IndianaJones]

70. I use the term homophobia in much the same way "racist" is used...

An accusation I made of homophobia due to support of an amendment banning same sex marriage was challenged as incorrect. I wanted to see others opinions on usage of the term, specifically in relation to support of banning what I see as a civil right.

[Midlodemocrat]

77. Yup. Next question.

[kevinbgoode]

78. I consider it heterosupremacist

When 1400 laws are passed and interpreted as only-valid-if-you-engage-in-a-state-sanctioned-heterosexual-only institution - and they govern universal human experiences like life, taxes, death, health and immigration. . .I consider it just as supremacist as assigning a different water fountain, assigning blacks special days at the movie theater while banning them the rest of the time.

Only a supremacist would advocate one set of rules for some citizens, and another set of rules for those considered unclean.

[Balbus]

79. Absolutely - and Senator Byrd is a racist and a homophobe.

You've proved your point.

[Matsubara]

80. His point is getting Byrd out of office...

...and an (R) in.


I see no other reason to bring this up EXACTLY when Byrd just made a big speech on Iraq.

The whole point is to steal his thunder and hopefully get closer to having an (R) in his seat.

Byrd has been in office for like 70 years. There have been plenty of times people could have brought this shit up about him, but no, it has to be TODAY.

Geez you people are played like violins.

[yardwork]

82. Well, I don't vote in West Virginia, so my support is moot.

I agree with you that the timing for this "concern" is interesting.

[ContraBass Black]

83. Though it doesn't have the same formal ring,

"Anti-gay" might be a more apt descriptor.

[mitchum]

86. Bigoted and unconstitutional (n/t)

[Bluebear]

87. "Perhaps I am unclear" - - well, aren't you coy. nt

[Matsubara]

88. Yeah, I got sucked in for a minute myself.

This guy doesn't give a crap about semantics, and I sure as hell don't think he cares a whit about gay rights...

[IndianaJones]

92. I've been mistaken on usage of terms before...nt.

[trashcanistanista]

95. Yes, it is. n/t

[MessiahRp]

96. Yes. Most obvious answer ever.

Rp

[wicket]

98. Yes it is.

n/t

[goodgd_yall]

101. Of course! n/t

[Oeditpus Rex]

102. Not necessarily

It could be from blind obedience to one's religious or other fucked-up teachings. I'd call that simple ignorance.

[Toasterlad]

143. If Your Religion is Homophobic, and You Blindly Follow It, YOU'RE Homophobic, Too.

Not YOU you, the "you who blindly follows" you.

[Oeditpus Rex]

145. Let me tell you a story

In 1936, Lucille Ball signed a form indicating she intended to vote Communist in the elections that year. Her grandfather was big on workers' rights, etc., and her whole family signed the form to make him happy — like, "Yeah, grandpa, whatever."

Some 17 years later, someone dug this up and leaked it to Walter Winchell, the famous radio reporter. Within hours it was in many newspapers, and Ms. Ball was called to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee, which was in the midst of its Hollywood witch-hunt. HUAC cleared her completely, but by your logic, she was a commie.

Have a nice day.

[Toasterlad]

146. Umm...What?

It's pretty clear from your story that Lucy just signed the paper to shut the old man up...she didn't BELIEVE in communism, and my logic doesn't say she was a communist.

I'm talking about people who blindly BELIEVE anything their religion tells them to believe. If that religion is homophobic, than the people that BELIEVE it are, by default, homophobic. Seems pretty cut and dried, no?

Thanks for the good wishes.

[Oeditpus Rex]

149. I guess I didn't explain very well what I meant by 'blindly'

I was thinking of a parishioner, or a member of an organization that claims some system of beliefs (I used to be in one), who believes A, B and E and says "Yeah, whatever" to C, D and F because they like being part of the congregation or membership or whatever.

The organization I was in had a creed of six "We believe"s, two of which I strongly disagreed with. Still, I was in the organization for 10 years because I enjoyed it, and those two "beliefs" had no bearing on that. I just considered them "Yeah, whatever."

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Toasterlad]

153. No Problem

In your case, though, if one of those beliefs that you "yeah, whatevered" was that gays shouldn't be married, would you vote for a constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage? Or would it depend if your vote was private or public?

[LeftishBrit]

105. Yes.

After all, it implies not even just opposition to gay marriage but regarding it as SUCH an important issue as to justify amending the Constitution. Which has only been done less than 30 times in the last 200 years, and is a difficult process. So to these people, gay marriage is not just wrong, but an IMPORTANT threat.

[Madspirit]

109. Yes and it also makes them a PIG OPPRESSOR!

How DARE you try to restrict MY LIFE.
Lee

[EFerrari]

110. Hey -- lay off pigs already!

lol

[Madspirit]

112. Ack

Damn and I am a big animal rights person. All my pig friends are going to be SO pissed off...

Hi! :hi:
Lee

[wicket]

118. Amen Lee!!!!

:hug:

[BlooInBloo]

132. mmmm...... Bacon. (drool)...

[Madspirit]

138. Bad BlooInBloo

Saying such things to a vegetarian. :rofl:

Someone in our neighborhood was barbecuing ribs last night. I thought I was going to die I wanted some so badly.

Lee

[BlooInBloo]

151. Oddly enough, I went thru about 5 should-I-shouldn't-I cycles....

... I take it it's clear how that debate ended. :)

[Madspirit]

111. Politically/Psychologically

Politically a "homophobe" is ANYONE who interferes in my having ALL the rights, including the fucking right to fucking marry the woman I have spent 15 fucking years of my life with.

Psychologically a "homophobe"...(homophobia is an Anxiety Disorder)..anyway a homophobe from the shrink's view...is so afraid of their own possible homosexual tendencies, they become afraid of gays and violent toward gays. They have done psychological tests where the ones who rated the highest anti-gay have also been the ones who get erections at pictures of gay sex. For whatever reason, the way they were raised, religious beliefs, whatever, they hate it in themselves AND TAKE IT OUT ON GAYS AND LESBIANS.

So the political term is different than the psychological term.

Either way, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PIGS WHO OPPRESS ME AND MY EXISTENCE. I don't give a fuck about their religious beliefs, their political beliefs or their neurosis. Keep your nasty laws and religions off MY BODY and I DEMAND the same rights as everyone else, including the right to marry the woman I have spent 15 years of my life with.

...and fuck this query too. I wonder about anyone who has to ask.

Lee

[marmar]

113. It's support for writing discrimination into the Constitution....

....Homophobic is the mildest way I could describe it.

[WindRavenX]

114. Absolutely.

NT

[Jed Dilligan]

115. Do hemophiliacs love blood?

If not, it seems quite possible that homophobes do something other than just fear gay people.

[Pastiche423]

117. In the weeks before the IWR vote

The Senator Robert C. Byrd, stood alone on the senate floor w/his copy of our Constitution. This 84 year old man was trying to educate his fellow senators on the illegality of the war that they were about to vote on.

Hours on end. Day after day. Week after week he stood alone. We had Byrd Watch threads, organized by Kef. There were 19 continous threads on the day of the vote.

I love this great stateman for giving his all to stop what has turned into genocide.

I care not one whit about what he did 60 fucking years ago and has since apologized for time and time again.

It might behoove you to come into this century and read his book, Losing America, so that your ignorance is not so blatant.

[IndianaJones]

119. He voted to ban gay marriage and used the n-word in this century. nt.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

127. He's an old guy

If you've ever been around relatives who are in their 80s, you'll know that they wear their prejudices almost as a second skin. They grew up in a time when it was socially acceptable to call all sorts of ethnic groups by derogatory nicknames. They aren't going to change, which is why it's so important to educate younger people.

This doesn't prevent most of these same people from being appalled by the Bush administration. When an 85-year-old tells you that she's never seen the U.S. government this out of control, you've got to sit up and listen. Older people DO know their history, both the history they lived through and the thorough instruction in history that they received in school.

[LanternWaste]

133. How long ago?

How long ago?

Does he still hold to these beliefs?

Does he still use the word "nigger"?

If not, why are they relevant?

If so, please cite the source.


These appear to me to be contextually relevant questions and by sidestepping them, one could be considered at best disingenuous, and at worst... well, something else.

[JerseygirlCT]

120. It's hateful and discriminatory. Is that clear enough for you?

"Phobic" does imply fear. I think that might be a nicer way to describe people who'd happily prohibit others from enjoying the same basic rights they have. I'm not sure it's fear all the time. I think it's also sometimes just plain nasty hate.

[bigwillq]

124. Yes

[Lydia Leftcoast]

125. Yes, it is

because a person who thinks two men or two women pairing up and forming a stable household and having their relationship legally recognized with all the rights and responsibilities that accompany marriage harms them or harms society or harms anyone is seriously misinformed or stubbornly prejudiced.

[LanternWaste]

128. Bigoted and un-American? Absolutely. Homophobic? In my opinion, no.

Bigoted and intolerant? Absolutely. Homophobic? In my opinion, no.

[bigwillq]

131. Why would you say No?

:shrug:

[LanternWaste]

135. I don't believe one necessarily has...

I don't believe one necessarily has to be afraid of alternative lifestyles to legislate against them. Hate, repression, jealousy, greed and repulsion could easily replace fear as the reason.

I'm using the word "homophobic" in it's most classic sense-- "fear of...".


I imagine that many individuals were not afraid of slaves in the 19th century, yet these individuals still maintained second-, third- and worse-class status for slaves. Not out of fear-- out of greed.

[ismnotwasm]

139. I respectfully disagree

Fear was a huge factor in ownership of slaves, and has been well documented. I'm in a bit of a hurry, otherwise I'd find a decent link.

If one takes a small time out to think about it, fear is often behind almost all heinous human behavior, and certainly behind bigotry.

[BlooInBloo]

129. It's thoroughly anti-gay and bigoted. Duh.

[terrya]

130. To reiterate: yes, it is. End of discussion.

If you don't understand that to wish to codify bigotry into the United States Constitution is homophobic, then you're just too stupid to live.

[ismnotwasm]

134. Yup

No matter how you define it, no matter what religion you are, no matter what political persuasion, no matter what type of education, (or lack of) no matter what personal experiences you've had, denying or rejecting marriage to two people of the same sex is homophobic.

[IEatskMeKucinich]

142. it has the appearance of being homophobic, no question

[Vincardog]

144. Yepper

[AlCzervik]

147. it's assaholish is what it is, the Constitution should not be used to deny equal rights

and yeah maybe it's a tad homophobic as well. Gay marriage is no threat to my marriage, it doesn't diminish my marriage, hiring hookers and cheating hurts marriage.

[gollygee]

148. Absofreakinlutely

without a doubt

[KAT119]

150. YES IT IS!