Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Oh my how things have changed!!!
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 46 of 125 (348321)
09-12-2006 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by riVeRraT
09-11-2006 5:59 PM


I wrote:
How are Christian marriages affected if gay marriages are recognized by the government?
quote:
That has nothing to do with what I said or this thread, stop it.
kuresu wrote:
and that amendment is so much more worthwhile than one on marriage.
since when did we decide we should insert christian morality into a secular constitution?
...to which you replied:
quote:
Since we decided to insert our "secular" constitution into our Christian morality.
I'm sorry if I thought you were responding to kuresu's comment regarding the Christian-led ban on gay marriage, considering that's exactly what you did.
Then I wrote:
Nobody is forcing Christians to change their morality.
quote:
When did I say they were? Also off-topic
You said it here:
quote:
Since we decided to insert our "secular" constitution into our Christian morality.
quote:
Marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman for a very long time. Change does not come easy. Although I have decided to live and let live, I think others need convincing that people are genetically gay, and deserve the same rights based on something they cannot change about themselves.
It doesn't matter if they are "genetically gay" or not.
quote:
I also wouldn't use the term Christians, and would use the term people. Since we cannot determine what a true Christian is, and that there are Christians who are fine with it, then you have to stop discrimination, and lumoing all Christians into a category, it's called predjudice.
I'll use the word "homophobe".
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by riVeRraT, posted 09-11-2006 5:59 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by riVeRraT, posted 09-12-2006 9:49 PM nator has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 47 of 125 (348528)
09-12-2006 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by CK
09-11-2006 6:04 PM


What if they just like being gay? what's the issue then?
If they just like being gay, then it's just a choice, and we all know how gay people feel about it being called a choice.
Plus then we would have to marry everyone based on what they like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by CK, posted 09-11-2006 6:04 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by nator, posted 09-14-2006 7:10 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 48 of 125 (348530)
09-12-2006 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by nator
09-12-2006 7:29 AM


I'm sorry if I thought you were responding to kuresu's comment regarding the Christian-led ban on gay marriage, considering that's exactly what you did.
Your statement:
quote:
How are Christian marriages affected if gay marriages are recognized by the government?
Has nothing to do with mine.
quote:
Since we decided to insert our "secular" constitution into our Christian morality.
Kuresu's comment is just another lame stab at a lie. And has no respect for who or where we came from. My response has nothing to do with gays, but with the constitution, and where it came from.
The whole world is not gays vs Christians, you need to stop that BS.
It doesn't matter if they are "genetically gay" or not.
It sure does.
I'll use the word "homophobe".
Most people are not afraid of gays, they just don't like them, don't agree with it, do not understand it, hate it, etc.
Homophobe is another aggresive term used by you, to do nothing more than start trouble between two groups of people. Grow up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by nator, posted 09-12-2006 7:29 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Taz, posted 09-13-2006 7:03 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 51 by nator, posted 09-14-2006 7:18 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 49 of 125 (348911)
09-13-2006 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by riVeRraT
09-12-2006 9:49 PM


riverrat writes:
Homophobe is another aggresive term used by you, to do nothing more than start trouble between two groups of people.
I seem to recall that on several occasions in both chat and forum you have identified yourself as a homophobe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by riVeRraT, posted 09-12-2006 9:49 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by riVeRraT, posted 09-14-2006 7:23 AM Taz has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 50 of 125 (349007)
09-14-2006 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by riVeRraT
09-12-2006 9:42 PM


quote:
If they just like being gay, then it's just a choice, and we all know how gay people feel about it being called a choice.
I actually don't know how gay people feel about that.
Do you?
quote:
Plus then we would have to marry everyone based on what they like.
Currently, we allow two consenting heterosexual adults to marry based upon what they like.
What problems do you forsee if we allow any two consenting adults, regardless of gender, to marry?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by riVeRraT, posted 09-12-2006 9:42 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Taz, posted 09-14-2006 12:36 PM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 51 of 125 (349009)
09-14-2006 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by riVeRraT
09-12-2006 9:49 PM


quote:
Most people are not afraid of gays, they just don't like them, don't agree with it, do not understand it, hate it, etc.
LOL!
People who don't like, don't agree with, do not understand, or hate something do so out of fear, rat.
Fear is at the heart of that entire list.
quote:
Homophobe is another aggresive term used by you, to do nothing more than start trouble between two groups of people. Grow up.
I use the term because it is accurate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by riVeRraT, posted 09-12-2006 9:49 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by riVeRraT, posted 09-14-2006 7:24 AM nator has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 52 of 125 (349010)
09-14-2006 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Taz
09-13-2006 7:03 PM


I am not afraid of gays, and have never refered to myself as a homophobe. I have been called that many times, but that does not make me one.
I have explained in great detail that I do not understand the attraction between same sex couples, or their desire to have sex with each other. That does not make me a homophobe. It just doesn't make any sense to me, I don't see it as being normal.
All that is completely separate from my religious view of it. In my religious view, I have decided to let God deal with it, and I will not judge, but just love everyone, as I always have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Taz, posted 09-13-2006 7:03 PM Taz has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 53 of 125 (349012)
09-14-2006 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by nator
09-14-2006 7:18 AM


Fear is at the heart of that entire list.
Bullshit.
I use the term because it is accurate.
Only in your mind, and the minds of other predujice people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by nator, posted 09-14-2006 7:18 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by nator, posted 09-14-2006 8:24 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 54 of 125 (349016)
09-14-2006 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by riVeRraT
09-14-2006 7:24 AM


Fear is at the heart of that entire list.
quote:
Bullshit.
How so?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by riVeRraT, posted 09-14-2006 7:24 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by riVeRraT, posted 09-14-2006 6:36 PM nator has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 55 of 125 (349051)
09-14-2006 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by nator
09-14-2006 7:10 AM


schrafinator writes:
What problems do you forsee if we allow any two consenting adults, regardless of gender, to marry?
I think what riverrat said to me is very telling of what his answer to your question would be.
quote:
In my religious view, I have decided to let God deal with it, and I will not judge, but just love everyone, as I always have.
He's probably afraid of god's wrath on this nation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by nator, posted 09-14-2006 7:10 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Jazzns, posted 09-14-2006 4:13 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 62 by riVeRraT, posted 09-14-2006 6:43 PM Taz has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 56 of 125 (349093)
09-14-2006 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Taz
09-14-2006 12:36 PM


I think you guys are giving RR a hard time.
I am straight, I am supportive of homosexuals right to marry, but I have a severe distaste for the practices of homosexuals. I don't think I qualify as a homophobe anymore than a homosexual who has a severe distaste for my relationship with my wife can be called a heterophobe.
RR is simply rejecting the strenghth of what the words imply. In his situation it looks quite convincingly that there is no "fear" to warrent the term homophobia.
In RR's case he goes a little further to openly condem the practice. This still does not mean that he fears it. It is simply part of his religious beliefs.
In general I think people give RR a hard time. It seems like most of the time he is grouped with some of the more extreme fundy types when in actuality he is just an average Christian guy.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Taz, posted 09-14-2006 12:36 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by ringo, posted 09-14-2006 5:03 PM Jazzns has replied
 Message 63 by riVeRraT, posted 09-14-2006 6:44 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 57 of 125 (349098)
09-14-2006 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Jazzns
09-14-2006 4:13 PM


Two things:
First, the usage of the word "homophobe" doesn't necessarily refer to "fear" per se. A phobia is an irrational fear or aversion. "Homophobe" is generally used to emphasize the irrationality rather than the fear.
(If we were going by the strict etymology of the word, it would be something like "fear of sameness" - with no reference to sexuality at all.)
Second, the fear that "homophobe" does imply is not necessarily a fear of being accosted by queer gangs and given a makeover. It's often a fear that same-sex marriage will "make a mockery of the institution of marriage" - which is a very real fear.
So, I think on both counts riVeRraT is definitely a homophobe.
I would hesitate to say whether or not your "severe distaste" qualifies as a phobia. Myself, I have a severe distaste for cashews, but I wouldn't call it a phobia. I also have a fear of heights, but I wouldn't call that a phobia either. On the other hand, I also have a fear of spiders, which is definitely a phobia.
I do agree that riVeRraT is often given a hard time by some (present company included), but it's mostly because of his own ham-fisted approach.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Jazzns, posted 09-14-2006 4:13 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Jazzns, posted 09-14-2006 5:33 PM ringo has replied
 Message 64 by riVeRraT, posted 09-14-2006 6:52 PM ringo has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 58 of 125 (349105)
09-14-2006 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by ringo
09-14-2006 5:03 PM


I guess the problem for me is that there is more baggage that comes along with that word than just "irrational distaste". Homophobe then potentially describes a range from people like me who just don't like it to a band of "good ol'e boys" who like to drag gay guys tied behind pickup trucks.
I mean, even my severe distate may be irrational. I certainly have never tried to be homosexual so I have no logical basis for rejecting it. Is that not also an irrational aversion?
I also reject the concept that a position against homosexual marriage necessitates that someone is a homophobe. I certainly do {NOT} hold such a position but it seems to me that one could and still not be homophobic as they may also hold similar political views against government institutionalization of interpersonal relationships such as polygamy, beastiality, etc.
I guess what I am saying is, who is the arbiter of what is irrational? It certainly is not me nor is it based on the proclamations of RR's antagonists so far on this board.
Edited by Jazzns, : Forgot to add NOT above.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by ringo, posted 09-14-2006 5:03 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by ringo, posted 09-14-2006 6:02 PM Jazzns has not replied
 Message 60 by Taz, posted 09-14-2006 6:17 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 59 of 125 (349110)
09-14-2006 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Jazzns
09-14-2006 5:33 PM


Jazzns writes:
... there is more baggage that comes along with that word than just "irrational distaste".
Somewhere up above, we touched very briefly on the "fear of phobias". If somebody laughs at me for my fear of spiders, I don't consider that a personal "attack" - it is funny. So why do some people have such an aversion to just being called "homophobe"?
Homophobe then potentially describes a range from people like me who just don't like it to a band of "good ol'e boys" who like to drag gay guys tied behind pickup trucks.
I'll venture to speak for gay people until they come out of the closet to correct me. I suspect they do think there is only a very fine line between those "good ole boys" and people who say, "I don't like gays, but I'll deign to let them live".
I mean, even my severe distate may be irrational.
I think a lack of interest in homosexuality is perfectly normal. A lack of understanding of homosexuality is also perfectly normal. But a "severe distaste" for something you can easily avoid certainly does seem irrational. (And it often indicates latent homosexual tendencies, blah blah blah.)
I also reject the concept that a position against homosexual marriage necessitates that someone is a homophobe.
The two don't necessarily have to go hand-in-hand. (Perish the thought.) If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it might be Jim Carrey.
But a lot of the time it's a duck.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Jazzns, posted 09-14-2006 5:33 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 60 of 125 (349116)
09-14-2006 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Jazzns
09-14-2006 5:33 PM


It's not that we are picking on RR for not liking homosexuality. In fact, I would agree with him, and you, in that I don't have any desire to see two men doing it. What bothers us, or at least me, is that RR still refuses to recognize that it isn't any of his bussiness, or mine, to say what's what about it or to pass judgement.
As I understand it, and from the old posts I've been able to dig up, RR started out trying to demonize homosexuals and homosexuality with his bible thumping rants. He then later admitted that people could do what they wanted but he would still try to block any legal recognition of gay relationships. In a great debate that took place not too long ago, he even tried to make the argument against giving legal recognition for gay relationship on the account that they don't reproduce (should my wife and I be tarred and feathered for not having any children yet?). Very recently, he has admitted that he could no longer pass such judgement on the issue but would still teach his children that it's wrong. He even went as far as saying that he would not tolerate it if one of his kids is gay.
Starting from the beginning to the recent admittance of some gay rights, it is very clear to me that his disgust of gay relationships originates beyond the bible. His logical side is trying to tell him that it's not any of his goddamn bussiness to interfere (and I commend him for it), but his irrational side still wants to hang onto him very tightly.
I will go ahead and admit this much. I am picking on him because even after all of this time and 6 freakin' thousand years of civilization someone like riverrat still manages to hang onto some of the darkest primal hate out there. What's worse, he's not the worst of them.
And like I said, I have no desire or have never found another man attractive in that way, but is it any of my bussiness to try to legislate what goes in in someone else's bedroom? And I have been around gay people enough to be convinced that it's more complicated than simply a choice that you have to make: either be straight or gay. God forbids, what if one of his children turns out to be gay? It frightens me to think about it because I have known someone thrown out of the house at age 16 to fend for himself.
I don't know. Perhaps I am reading too much into his posts.
My apology for the harsh language.
Added by edit.
And unless someone can effectively find a way to turn me gay, I will stand by the fact that you can't cure homosexuality anymore than you can cure heterosexuality.
Edited by gasby, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Jazzns, posted 09-14-2006 5:33 PM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by riVeRraT, posted 09-14-2006 7:05 PM Taz has replied
 Message 78 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-15-2006 9:56 AM Taz has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024