Oh my how things have changed!!!

I didn't say you were afraid of gay people - I said you were afraid of being called "homophobic".
It makes no difference whether you are homophobic or not.
You have a fear that people will think you are.My example was that I am afraid of heights, but I don't mind acknowledging that fear. As far as EvC is concerned, everything.All we know about you is what you tell us. What you really feel is irrelevant unless you can express it unequivocally. And nobody is forcing you to participate in them. Take responsibility for your own actions. If that was really your fear, you'd probably want to be more careful about what you say, instead of using "I'm a New Yorker" as an excuse.

---

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

They don't have to have a fear of people being gay to think that liberalizing marriage will have negetive affects. I think its more of a worry about marriage, in general, which I guess is heterosexual, in general, but its not neccessarily about the heterosexual part specifically. I don't know what diluting the purity really is but it defenitely increases genetic diversity, no? I think he means that the liberal changes to marriage are gradual and the results are subtle. These are changes that I would prefer to not be made, too. I think its the fear of change, or the desire for conservation that is at the heart of it, not a hate of gay people. I don't see why specific damages need to be listed, especially when some of them might not be able to be foreseen. Its more of a conservative vs liberal approach, IMHO.Its usually the liberals who start throwing the word 'hate' out there first. I, personaly, don't hate any group of people.

Isn't this a little hypocritical? I mean, aren't you passing judgement on RR's view when you say he shouldn't be passing judgement on people's views(which I am now doing to your view). It seems you're doing what you say people shouldn't be doing, and I too.

I knew I shouldn't have posted ><Especially since I'm gona get the gay hater label now too.

Not from me, you won't.
Your position against same-sex marriage is too ludicrous to be called "hate".

---

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

Well, you did call RR a homophobe. Thanks, I'll take that as a compliment

Have you been taking reading lessons from riVeRraT?I think it's pretty clear that he is a homophobe.
What does that have to do with calling you a homophobe?In spite of his loud protestations, riVeRraT does come across as a homophobe. Unfortunately, he chooses to be defensive about the label instead of trying to alter the perception.

---

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

No. I don't remember the last time I took a reading lesson. Do you think maybe I should? I just figured if the label is getting thrown at him then it'll get thrown at me too. He shouldn't have to alter the perception, just like gay people shouldn't.I guess I just don't know what the word 'homophobe' means. I guess I thought I'd get the label to because its so easy for some people to think you are comming across as a homophobe and they take the comming across as one to be actually being one.I think some people have opinions about gay people that other people don't fully understand so they get unfairly lumped into the gay hater(homophobe) crowd. I just figured the same would happen to me.

I guess I should have worded it more carefully.I have no problem with people passing judgement. That is the right that we all have and noone can ever take that away from us (unless you can control other people's minds).But RR's view is beyond just simply passing judgement. He's been opposing gay relationships to be legally recognized, and that's beyond simply passing judgement. It's requiring that his opinion be made into law.Now that he's passed that point, he is still going to pass on his homophobia (call it whatever you want, i still see it as a phobia) to his children. And like I said, god forbids if one of his kids turn out to be gay. That's beyond simply passing judgement. That's outright manipulating your children to hate. I see no difference between that sort of attitude and the attitude of the parents of the two racist singing girls.

I also called him a "New Yorker". Are you expecting that label too? I didn't say that he "has" to alter the perception, or even that he "should". I said that if he doesn't like the way people perceive him, it's his responsibility to try to change their minds. If only there was a place where you could look up the meanings of words. As I've been saying: if you're concerned about how you "come across", then be careful how you express yourself. The only picture of you that we have is the one that you paint. Don't make assumptions about what other people understand.I used to be a homophobe myself, so I know the drill. (If anybody still sees homophobic tendencies in me, I have the convenient excuse that I'm not fully "cured" yet. ) If you walk like a duck and talk like a duck, keep your head down during hunting season.

---

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

Then what's the deal with labeling someone with a negetive term (homophobe) for judging someone's actions as wrong when they have the right to make the judgement. Is it because you think they are judging incorrectly? I think you are judging his judging incorrectly, but I wouldn't call you a homophobe-phobe. I'm sure a lot of laws are just opinions, its that we think they should be legally inforced opinions that makes them laws. I don't see why simply making an opinon on something a law is a problem. I mean, we could talk about what our opinions are about what the speed limits should be and make laws about it. Would you argue that there's something wrong with saying that ones opinion about how fast we should be allowed to drive should be made into a law?If someone opposes gay marriages being legally recognized for reasons that have nothing to do with passing judgement, would you still have a problem with it? Its not manipulating your children to hate. Especially if you don't hate them and you don't teach your children to hate them. Perhaps its just a moral opposition. You don't have to hate things that you're morally opposed to, for example, christians love their enemies.The difference between teaching your children 'homophobia' and those two girls is that those two girls teachings require hating and 'homophobia' does not, unless you use the word 'homophobia' as including hating, which I would then argue that he isn't neccessarily teaching 'homophobia', but perhaps some kind of hate-free homophobia.Make sense?

Go ahead and call me a homophobe-phobe. I really don't mind. And I do admit that this is an area that really pushes my buttons. It's a problem when people like RR and others like him try to legislate laws that impose their own personal moral values on the rest of us without considering what effects they would have on the nation.For example, I pointed out in another thread that I have tried the southeast asian fruit called Durian and thought it was absolutely nasty. I can't imagine myself ever want to smell that thing again, let alone eat it. Yet, I also realize that that's just my personal opinion and, unlike some people, I don't require that my opinion be made into the law. However, if we find out that Durian causes people to go crazy and go on shooting sprees, then I will consider the possibility of banning such a fruit.People like RR, apparently, just don't understand that the law has nothing to do with your personal opinion. When you want to legislate something, you need to consider how it will affect the nation as a whole and not just your own personal bias. Driving too fast puts other people's lives in danger. You know that. Now, whether how fast the speed limit should be I will leave that to the experts and keep my mouth shut.However, if we start talking about wearing seatbelts, then I will argue for people's rights to not wear seatbelts. After all, it's their own lives and they have a right to decide. But that's just it, I have never seen an argument against gay marriage that isn't involve some kind of religious or personal bias against gay people. The arguments for banning gay marriage have significant resemblance to the past arguments for banning interracial marriage. I beg to differ. I have not met a racist (and I have talked to quite a few) that have admitted to hating people of color, or mud people as they'd like to call them. They all say the same thing. It's all somewhere along the line of "we don't hate, we just blah blah blah..." Read that article and watch that movie again. The greatest emphasis those girls and their parents tried to make was that they don't "hate".What you present to children at a very early age may leave a life long impression on them. Call it intolerance, hate, not accepting, or whatever. Every generation, we always have people like RR that insists on carrying on the message of having negative attitude or intolerating people who are different than them.Just because they have changed their names from slave traders to slave owners to nationalists to racists to fascists to christian fundies to "people-who-don't-hate-gays-but-by-golly-their-kids-will-never-accept-them-gays-as-real-people" doesn't mean those messages of hate are gone.Again, you can call it whatever you want, but it's still hate taking on a more politically acceptable face.Added by edit.I keep seeing the theme of "moral objection" coming up over and over.RR and everyone else has the right to morally object to whatever they want. I am one of those that really has no problem with neo-nazis spouting their messages of hate simply because it's their right to free speech. What I do have a problem with, and this is still my personal opinion, or rather what ticks me off is people having moral objections to things that can't be changed. It's like having a moral objection against sun flowers being yellow. It's like having a moral objection to me liking boobies. It's like having a moral objection to the sky being blue during the day.Like I said, I've been around gay people long enough to be convinced that they can't be changed the same way that I can't be made to start liking other men. I can't think of any possible way that someone could do to make me start liking other men in a sexual way. As if having a moral objection to people being white or black or whatever is going to change their skin color. Just doesn't make any sense to me.And by the way, I do have a moral objection with RR infecting his children with the hate germ.Edited by gasby, : No reason given.

Right, objecting to legalizing gay marriage because of moral issues is wrong, I agree. Ummm, yeah, it does. But I don’t think this point is very important so we can leave it at disagreeing on this one. That is how you should look at people’s opposition to gay marriage. Upon considering how it will affect the nation as a whole and leaving personal bias out of it, one could think that we should not open up marriage to homosexuals. Now, against that position, you should leave your out your personal bias, about how you feel about people who think gay marriage would negatively affect the nation as a whole (someone you might call a homophobe), and stop calling them names or telling them how they feel and say that they hate people. You’re doing exactly what you’re bitching about, thus the hypocrisy. Instead of being so hateful, you should try to understand why they hold their position and discuss that. But no, as soon as someone opposes gay marriage, they get called names and accused of hate. Saw that reply coming from a mile away and figured you wouldn’t answer the question. It’s the same way all the homophobe-phobes answer that question. Do you really think there are no reason outside of personal bias for opposing gay marriages? Do you think they could exist but you just haven’t seen them. (the next reply I expect is for you to tell me to provide you with those reasons, well how about you answer the question first) Wow, ever been to Missouri? They’ll tell ya they hate ”em straightforward. Another typical tactic, though, is if someone opposes gay marriage then pull out the race card and equate their position to racism .........haters. Oh, I’m not too familiar with them. I don’t really care enough about that point to discuss it further, I was probably wrong. That’s one of the big things though. I don’t have to tolerate people that I don’t want to tolerate. For example, when I was in college there was a guy of a different race than me who rarely bathed and smelled really bad, enough that walking by his room was nauseating. I shouldn’t have to tolerate that but when if I were to bitch about it then people would say that I was intolerant or racist, which wasn’t the case. I just didn’t want to smell B.O. Just because someone doesn’t approve of a behavior doesn’t mean the hate the person who behaves that way. I didn’t hate the guy who didn’t shower, I just thought he smelled bad. Well fuck me then, it doesn’t matter how I really feel, its that I don’t agree with you so I must be hateful. Ain’t that about a bitch. I say you are the one being hateful, to the homophobes. Not really. Its pretty easy to fake being gay but I can’t fake the color of the sky or a flower. Reminds me of that Chris Rock joke about gays not being allowed in the military, he said “Well, then call me a faggot.” Point is, people would fake being gay if the reward was worth it, like, some of the benefits of being married perhaps. How do you know you can’t start liking sex with men. Have you tried? Maybe you could like it, no? How about a ridiculously huge monetary compensation or to save your own life, but you have to like it? What if you were forced to do it for long enough that you got used to it and you didn’t dislike it anymore? How about those straight guys that go to prison and start having sex with each other, you don’t think some of them like it? Well while we’re by the way, I have a moral objection to people mislabeling things they disagree with as hate.

nevermind Oh, I thought you were saying that if he didn't like the way people were perceiving him then he should change HIS ways. The dictionary says its people who fear or hate gays, but its not always right in how people use the word. Maybe I'm a bad painter or my paintings are easily misinterpreted. Or maybe the genre that I'm painting in has a lot of misrepresentation going on in it. It does seem that people aren't seeing the picture I'm trying to paint. I do it all the time at work when a I present people with technical informations. I have to guess what they can understand so I know how to present it.But when I paint that picture and people get it all wrong, it makes me think they don't understand it. I'm aware of the possibility that what I see myself painting is not what the picture really is, but I don't think that's what's happeneing. I've never considered myself a homophobe. It just feels like the brim on my baseball cap is being mistaken for a duckbill and I think I'm walking straight but others are accusing me of waddling.

As gasby has been trying to explain, "hate" doesn't always involve chopping people up with an axe. Trying to dictate who they can and cannot marry is pretty hateful too. Tell me about it. It seems like every second sentence I post starts out, "My point is...."
If only I could paint a point that looks like a point. So I know more about it than you do. And I shoot at anything that moves.

---

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