Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You links show nothing to equal 0bama, or leading democrats calling a supreme court justice a liar or homophobic The POTUS is even singling out private American citizens, like Rush and Hannity.
Every other word out of his mouth is "crisis" to fear people into supporting his plans for trillions in wasteful spending.
After all, you never want to let a good crisis to go to waste. If you are 0bama, you exacerbate the current "crisis" just to keep the gravy train going.
homophobia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
Any phobia is an irrational mental state.
The term "irrational" looms large in this post.
Care to elucidate? For example, by offering examples of "rational" fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals?
Or is the point of this "definition" that anyone who fears, is averse to, or discriminatory toward such a sexual oriientation and its manifestations is by definition irrational (which would seem to be your argument, since you describe "phobias" as by definition irrational)
If the former, then why does the term "irrational" appear in the "definition."? If the latter, you may have an argument on your hands. There is nothing irrational, for example, in being averse to homosexuality if one is not homosexual, or averse to homosexuals if one is seeking a mate for the purpose of procreation.
Thus, the use of the suffix "-phobia" in this context is subject to some degree of skepticism. Its misuse demonstrates both a serious flaw in -- well, usage -- and a reminder that words have meanings which are ignored or glossed over at considerable risk to one's credibility.
The original definition of "homophobia" (i.e., "fear of sameness" or "fear of becoming homosexual") carried some logical and demonstrable weight. The latter, politically correct version, is a loose pejorative used to denigrate those with whom one disagrees in the area of sexual politics. It is thus doubly demeaning, in that it slurs both the object for his/her alleged insensitivity, and the user for his/her obvious shallowness of thought and semantic perspicacity.
I recommend finding another term which is perhaps less satisfyingly dismissive but more accurate in describing exactly what one is critical of in this context. Doing so will not only be more euphuistic; it also affords the possiblity that one may be contributing in some small way to fighting off the ongoing dumbing down of our poor native tongue.
Barney Frank is a disgrace to our nation-not because he is Gay, but because of his corrupt politics and continued work in helping screw over the American Taxpayer-he is a travesty to our federal political body.
If you are referring to my post as looming large with irrationality, I fail see your point. I simply quoted a definition from Merriam Webster’s dictionary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
Care to elucidate? For example, by offering examples of "rational" fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals?
If a person was a man of small stature, and was being sent to prison, I think a rational fear of whether or not your cell mate is a hulking homosexual who thinks “your cute” might be a rational fear.
If you fear that politicians may declare gay marriage is equal to traditional marriage, and that your tax dollars, and charitable contributions will now go towards promoting, encouraging, and supporting gay marriage, it is not an irrational fear.
If you fear, once government endorses gay marriage, that the function and purpose of marriage will be degraded, then it is a rational fear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
Or is the point of this "definition" that anyone who fears, is averse to, or discriminatory toward such a sexual oriientation and its manifestations is by definition irrational (which would seem to be your argument, since you describe "phobias" as by definition irrational)
If the former, then why does the term "irrational" appear in the "definition."? If the latter, you may have an argument on your hands. There is nothing irrational, for example, in being averse to homosexuality if one is not homosexual, or averse to homosexuals if one is seeking a mate for the purpose of procreation.
Thus, the use of the suffix "-phobia" in this context is subject to some degree of skepticism. Its misuse demonstrates both a serious flaw in -- well, usage -- and a reminder that words have meanings which are ignored or glossed over at considerable risk to one's credibility.
I agree that the loose way in which people toss around the word “homophobe” is an attempt to denigrate anyone who disagrees with the notion that gay marriage is equal in all respect to traditional marriage. Its also used to denigrate anyone who feels it is ridiculous, declaring a group as deserving minority status, simply based upon the gender they prefer to have sex with.
It no different then the way many of these same people toss around the word “racist” to describe anyone who has the opinion that the official language in America should be English, or that people who violate our immigration laws should be deported.
I agree that the loose way in which people toss around the word “homophobe” is an attempt to denigrate anyone who disagrees with the notion that gay marriage is equal in all respect to traditional marriage. Its also used to denigrate anyone who feels it is ridiculous, declaring a group as deserving minority status, simply based upon the gender they prefer to have sex with.
I will admit that, although I know the dictionary definition of "homophobia" includes both hatred and contempt for homosexuality, I have shied away from using the word over the last couple of months. I agree with those who say that the word is a misnomer. I now try to use "anti-gay" instead. I think it's a lot more accurate and precise than the word "homophobe".
So, if you think that liberals can't learn anything from conservatives, think again. I did.
If you are referring to my post as looming large with irrationality, I fail see your point. I simply quoted a definition from Merriam Webster’s dictionary.
I referred to the use of "irrational" as open to debate in this context. I remain secure in that reference. Perhaps the real irrationality exists in the decline in accuracy (or, more likely, the vulnerability to political pressure) among the editors of this particular dictionary.
Quote:
If a person was a man of small stature, and was being sent to prison, I think a rational fear of whether or not your cell mate is a hulking homosexual who thinks “your cute” might be a rational fear.
Indeed. Hence my rejection of the unquestioned use of the qualifier "irrational" above. I doubt, though, that the fear in this case could be adequately described as fear of homosexuality or homosexuals; it might better be described as a fear of homosexual assault.
Quote:
If you fear that politicians may declare gay marriage is equal to traditional marriage, and that your tax dollars, and charitable contributions will now go towards promoting, encouraging, and supporting gay marriage, it is not an irrational fear.
I agree. See above. Such fears (if they can be so characterized), however, can hardly be described as "homophobia."
Quote:
If you fear, once government endorses gay marriage, that the function and purpose of marriage will be degraded, then it is a rational fear.
I would avoid the term "degraded" in this context. I prefer "mocked." Degradation, while possible, is not automatic. Either way, I would agree that changing the definition of marriage to embrace same-sex unions is fraught with possibilities, only one of which is positive: namely, that such a wrenching away of our culture from its current standards might thave the serendipitous effect of shutting some unpleasant people up and keeping them off the streets and out of our sight.
Quote:
I agree that the loose way in which people toss around the word “homophobe” is an attempt to denigrate anyone who disagrees with the notion that gay marriage is equal in all respect to traditional marriage. Its also used to denigrate anyone who feels it is ridiculous, declaring a group as deserving minority status, simply based upon the gender they prefer to have sex with.
Well, you can hardly deny that they are a minority (notwithstanding the number of posts on this Forum which yammer on and on about all things gay). I believe that you are arguing against according protected minority status of some sort based on sexual preference. While I sympathize with your viewpoint, I do feel that in some circumstances, people whose sexual proclivities are offensive to the majority require some additional protection against violence and systemic discrimination. A good start might be for them to keep their mouths shut occasionally and practice a little reticence; but that seems to be too much to ask of nearly every segment of our population, so singling out our gay brothers and sisters as especially distasteful hardly seems fair.
Quote:
It no different then the way many of these same people toss around the word “racist” to describe anyone who has the opinion that the official language in America should be English, or that people who violate our immigration laws should be deported.
I agree with you on the comparison with the "racist" usage (see my post, above). Shifting terminology to address the fashion of the moment is a dangerous way for us to proceed as a culture, both linguistically and politically. The linguistic threat lies in the cheapening and dulling of our rhetorical and semantic abilities; the political aspect points the way inescapably to fascism.
Barney Frank took kickbacks from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while totally IGNORING the warnings that there were problems with these institutions. He had a boyfriend running a freakin' ESCORT SERVICE out of his apartment! And his refusal to WEAR TEETH makes him sound like an absolute moron.
But it absolutely FIGURES that libs like you admire him. Again, I'm just AMAZED that the gay community wants anything to do with him because he's absolutely disgusting and a poster boy for gay stereotypes.
There's a reason why he doesn't use false teeth. Frank is a talking, walking sphincter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Frank is a talking, walking sphincter. 
