Florida Pulse gay club attacked in Orlando

[pErvinalia]

He can't even get his pants on straight. In his response to you he said there's no inherent unreasoning in homophobia. Then to MM he says that homophobia is unreasoned fear.

[Scot Dutchy]

He can't even get his pants on straight. In his response to you he said there's no inherent unreasoning in homophobia. Then to MM he says that homophobia is unreasoned fear.

He never knows what he is spouting. Back in the RD days he was the same and still after all those years has never changed. I wonder if he has health insurance these days?

[Seth]

This is nothing more than folk etymology and doesn't reflect actual usage of the term. That you have a beef with modern usage is not my problem. Your faux etymology means nothing. Your complaint has no merit.

Your argument has no merit and dictionary definitions are hardly "folk etymology," they are the basis of human understanding of language. However, I understand that you desperately want to engage the Marxist Big Lie tactic of repeating a lie so often that it becomes the perceived truth in order to gain some lexicological advantage in your quest to disparage and demean those who do not bow to your preferred sociopolitical agenda. It's quite a common tactic. I, however, will continue to speak the truth and apply logic, reason and rationality to the issue.

Nobody cares what you think the word 'should' mean.

By "nobody" you mean "I" and by "should mean" you mean "I want to mean." What the word actually does mean is not defined by you.

Already answered. The church's de facto policy of discriminating against homosexuality is evidence of homophobia.

No, you just wish it were so.

That Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of homosexuality is an arbitrary interpretation. ("While the Jewish prophets spoke only of lack of charity as the sin of Sodom, the exclusively sexual interpretation became so prevalent among Christian communities that the name "Sodom" became the basis of the word sodomy, still a legal synonym for homosexual and non-procreative sexual acts, particularly anal or oral sex." ~ Wikipedia) Show me one such passage where God or Jesus condemns homosexual acts. I think you're making shit up.

It's not my interpretation so no, I'm not. Feel free to argue with Christian theological authorities if you like. I'm merely pointing out that it's an issue of faith for the Catholic church and as such it's perfectly acceptable for the church to deny the sacrament of marriage within the Catholic church to gay couples. It's against the club rules, you see. They don't have to justify their rules to anyone because it's a private club. If you don't like the rules, don't be a member of the club.

Your argument with the dictionary is noted and ignored.

Your Marxist Big Lie attempt to redefine language is noted and ignored.

homophobia

noun
1. unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

False definition. For one thing, dislike of homosexuality or homosexuals is not inherently "unreasoning" to begin with, and the homosexual attempt to redefine the meaning of the word "phobia" as associated with homosexuality is nothing more than political gamesmanship and, as I said before, a lefty-liberal fascistic poisoning of the well fallacy that has a specific and mendacious purpose and intent.

More arguing with the dictionary.[/quote]

Yup. That's the appropriate argument to be used when addressing Marxist Big Lie tactics that try to redefine words outside of their actual meaning.

[Seth]

He can't even get his pants on straight. In his response to you he said there's no inherent unreasoning in homophobia. Then to MM he says that homophobia is unreasoned fear.

A lie from you, as usual. What I said was that a dislike or distaste for homosexual acts and/or homosexuals is not "homophobia" because such opinions do not meet the DSM standards for qualification as a phobia, and that the word "homophobia" has a specific defined and well-understood meaning that does not include within its ambit simple dislike or distaste for homosexuality.

The agenda of context-shifting and attempted redefinition of the term "phobia" in association with, and only in association with negative social or individual opinions with respect to homosexuality is mendacious and obviously calculated and intentional, and its sole purpose is to engage Marxist tactics (not that gays are necessarily Marxists, just that the tactic is one most often used by Marxists) to redefine negative public perceptions of homosexuality as a mental disorder (phobia), thereby disparaging and demeaning those who refuse to accept the equally obvious homosexual activist agenda of attempting to normalize homosexuality in public perception by casting those who disagree as mentally unbalanced.

It's a hoary old disinformation and propaganda tactic and it remains as mendacious and illegitimate as it has always been.

This is not to say that normalizing homosexuality is a bad thing. It's not. As has been pointed out, by and large an individual's sexual preferences and activities are generally nobody's business but their own, unless and until that activity poses a legitimate risk to other individuals or the public or violates the rights of others during such activities.

That doesn't mean that I or anyone else is obliged to tolerate mendacity or rudeness on the part of homosexual activists who wish to disparage others for no better reason than that they disagree with the social and/or moral acceptability of homosexual activities and/or homosexual orientation.

Legal discrimination should not be based on sexual orientation of course, but then again individual sexual orientation and activity is a quintessentially private matter to begin with and probably ought to be kept that way.

Social discrimination on the other hand is an individual and personal constitutional right, whether or not some other person wishes not to be socially discriminated against or not, and the law has no power to interfere with the right of any individual to exercise their First Amendment right of freedom of association (and therefore their right NOT to associate) with whomever they please, regardless of the desires of any person or group for social acceptance by others.

[rasetsu]

This is nothing more than folk etymology and doesn't reflect actual usage of the term. That you have a beef with modern usage is not my problem. Your faux etymology means nothing. Your complaint has no merit.

Your argument has no merit and dictionary definitions are hardly "folk etymology," they are the basis of human understanding of language. However, I understand that you desperately want to engage the Marxist Big Lie tactic of repeating a lie so often that it becomes the perceived truth in order to gain some lexicological advantage in your quest to disparage and demean those who do not bow to your preferred sociopolitical agenda. It's quite a common tactic. I, however, will continue to speak the truth and apply logic, reason and rationality to the issue.

Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It has been defined as contempt, prejudice, aversion, hatred or antipathy, may be based on irrational fear, and is often related to religious beliefs.

Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of sexual orientations that are non-heterosexual. Recognized types of homophobia include institutionalized homophobia, e.g. religious homophobia and state-sponsored homophobia, and internalized homophobia, experienced by people who have same-sex attractions, regardless of how they identify.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia (emphasis mine)

[Seth]

This is nothing more than folk etymology and doesn't reflect actual usage of the term. That you have a beef with modern usage is not my problem. Your faux etymology means nothing. Your complaint has no merit.

Your argument has no merit and dictionary definitions are hardly "folk etymology," they are the basis of human understanding of language. However, I understand that you desperately want to engage the Marxist Big Lie tactic of repeating a lie so often that it becomes the perceived truth in order to gain some lexicological advantage in your quest to disparage and demean those who do not bow to your preferred sociopolitical agenda. It's quite a common tactic. I, however, will continue to speak the truth and apply logic, reason and rationality to the issue.

Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It has been defined as contempt, prejudice, aversion, hatred or antipathy, may be based on irrational fear, and is often related to religious beliefs.

Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of sexual orientations that are non-heterosexual. Recognized types of homophobia include institutionalized homophobia, e.g. religious homophobia and state-sponsored homophobia, and internalized homophobia, experienced by people who have same-sex attractions, regardless of how they identify.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia (emphasis mine)

Wikipedia is not a credible source of information for just about anything, particularly not the meaning of words, and especially not this word or other associated radical homosexual propaganda. We have authoritative resources for the meaning of words, they are called "dictionaries."

As I said, this is nothing more than a lame attempt to demonize those who do not approve of homosexuality by using false and misleading pseudo-psychological propaganda and it's counter-productive to the goal of normalizing homosexuality in social acceptance. Calling people who disagree with you about the propriety of homosexuality "homophobes" does nothing to persuade them that you are a reasonable, rational person worthy of social respect and interaction. If you misuse language to insult the people you are trying to persuade to like you out of pique or anger at past wrongs you're not likely to succeed.

[rasetsu]

This is nothing more than folk etymology and doesn't reflect actual usage of the term. That you have a beef with modern usage is not my problem. Your faux etymology means nothing. Your complaint has no merit.

Your argument has no merit and dictionary definitions are hardly "folk etymology," they are the basis of human understanding of language. However, I understand that you desperately want to engage the Marxist Big Lie tactic of repeating a lie so often that it becomes the perceived truth in order to gain some lexicological advantage in your quest to disparage and demean those who do not bow to your preferred sociopolitical agenda. It's quite a common tactic. I, however, will continue to speak the truth and apply logic, reason and rationality to the issue.

Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It has been defined as contempt, prejudice, aversion, hatred or antipathy, may be based on irrational fear, and is often related to religious beliefs.

Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of sexual orientations that are non-heterosexual. Recognized types of homophobia include institutionalized homophobia, e.g. religious homophobia and state-sponsored homophobia, and internalized homophobia, experienced by people who have same-sex attractions, regardless of how they identify.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia (emphasis mine)

Wikipedia is not a credible source of information for just about anything, particularly not the meaning of words. We have authoritative resources for the meaning of words, they are called "dictionaries."

Yes, dictionaries from which Wikipedia drew the material, which you'd have known if you'd checked the references.

homophobia, n.2

Fear or hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality.

[Seth]

This is nothing more than folk etymology and doesn't reflect actual usage of the term. That you have a beef with modern usage is not my problem. Your faux etymology means nothing. Your complaint has no merit.

Your argument has no merit and dictionary definitions are hardly "folk etymology," they are the basis of human understanding of language. However, I understand that you desperately want to engage the Marxist Big Lie tactic of repeating a lie so often that it becomes the perceived truth in order to gain some lexicological advantage in your quest to disparage and demean those who do not bow to your preferred sociopolitical agenda. It's quite a common tactic. I, however, will continue to speak the truth and apply logic, reason and rationality to the issue.

Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It has been defined as contempt, prejudice, aversion, hatred or antipathy, may be based on irrational fear, and is often related to religious beliefs.

Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of sexual orientations that are non-heterosexual. Recognized types of homophobia include institutionalized homophobia, e.g. religious homophobia and state-sponsored homophobia, and internalized homophobia, experienced by people who have same-sex attractions, regardless of how they identify.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia (emphasis mine)

Wikipedia is not a credible source of information for just about anything, particularly not the meaning of words. We have authoritative resources for the meaning of words, they are called "dictionaries."

Yes, dictionaries from which Wikipedia drew the material, which you'd have known if you'd checked the references.

Er, wrong. As the entry states, the term "homophobia" was "Coined by George Weinberg, a psychologist, in the 1960s." Source: Wikipedia

While the conflation of "homo" and "phobia" is not at all inappropriate when describing mental states that meet the criteria found in the definition of "phobia" in the DSM or standard dictionary, the problem occurs when homosexual activists try to apply the term where it does not apply because the individuals or organizations the term is being used against do not exhibit the actual symptoms of a phobia as defined by the DSM. Thus, the common usage of the term as applied by most homosexual activists is simply false, misleading and deliberately offensive.

Weinberg's term became an important tool for gay and lesbian activists, advocates, and their allies.

As we see, gays immediately latched onto this coinage as a "tool" (weapon actually) in their battle for homosexual normalization. His coinage does not change the meaning of the word "phobia," which does not even begin to accurately describe simple dislike of the concept of homosexuality. Dislike is not a phobia, it's a choice, just like engaging in homosexual activities is a choice. Using "homophobia" to describe any resistance to homosexual social normalization is as irrational as using "heterophobia" to describe homosexual sexual orientation. It's just ignorant and mendaciously false.

[JimC]

One can be a bit uneasy about homosexuality in practice, but can make an effort to suppress such a conditioned response, particularly when considering aspects of public policy such as gay marriage. I would bet that many who voted in Ireland to legalise gay marriage (particular older people) were not automatically comfortable with being around gay people, but thought through the issue in an ethical way, and voted appropriately. I certainly would not call such people "homophobic", a term best left to those who fear and dislike gays, and make no effort to change...

[Seth]

One can be a bit uneasy about homosexuality in practice, but can make an effort to suppress such a conditioned response, particularly when considering aspects of public policy such as gay marriage.

Yes, one can, but one is not compelled to do so. Just as one may hold firmly to the notion that fucking three-year old children is a moral outrage, one may hold firmly to the notion that same-sex marriage is likewise a moral outrage, and one may do so without it being "homophobia."

I would bet that many who voted in Ireland to legalise gay marriage (particular older people) were not automatically comfortable with being around gay people, but thought through the issue in an ethical way, and voted appropriately. I certainly would not call such people "homophobic", a term best left to those who fear and dislike gays, and make no effort to change...

I would bet that many who voted in Ireland to legalize gay marriage, (particularly older people) had no discomfort at all at the prospect of gay civil marriage, including Catholics. On the other hand, I'm sure there were those who voted against it because they value the traditional institution of marriage, which includes children, families and the perpetuation of the species and who think that whatever the civil relationship gays might rightfully enjoy under secular law, marriage is a uniquely religious institution that should be preserved and reserved for the traditional man/woman pair bonding intended to solidify the family unit and the raising of children.

The real question is why gays insist on being "married" rather than simply enjoying all the secular legal benefits that accrue to such couples under "civil union" laws? If the benefits of a civil union between heterosexual couples and between homosexual couples are identical, as should be the case, what exactly is the importance that gays place on the word "marriage" that makes it such a controversial issue?

Could it be that those gays who agitate for "gay marriage" are more interested in making political statements than in entering into a civil union identical to that granted to heterosexuals? Is it possible that the whole "gay marriage" issue, and the concomitant agitation for "gay marriage" to be universally accepted and in fact enforced by rule of law, even against people whose religious scruples prohibit them from recognizing or participating in such marriages has more to do with shoving past discrimination into the faces of those who refuse to capitulate to the homosexual political agenda than it is about gays being treated equally under the law within their intimate domestic relationships?

That's what I conclude as a result of the objections of gay activists to, for example, California's "Civil Union" laws, which grant legal equality to gay couples equal in almost (and it should be all) every way, denying them only the label of "marriage."

If these activists were actually interested in legal equality such laws would be entirely satisfactory, but it's quite evident that the true agenda is to abuse the law to force people to recognize and accept "gay marriage" as not just legally valid but as religiously equal to the quintessentially and traditionally religious institution of marriage not in order to gain the approval of God of that union but to disparage and damage the religious faith and practices of those who view traditional marriage as a specific bonding within the church of a single man and a single woman.

That's why the Catholic church and it's marriage policies were brought up in the first place I suspect. It's not enough for gays to have legal equality in domestic partnerships, they must also succeed in DESTROYING the religious sanctity of the religious (not secular) sacrament of marriage by disparaging it and, where possible, abusing the law to interfere with the religious rights of churches to deny that sacrament as they see fit.

And that agenda is not only selfish, arrogant, cruel and evil, it's harmful to the cause of homosexual normalization and it causes people of faith to harden their hearts and opinions of gays and resist the attempts to demean, debase and destroy their religions and religious beliefs even harder.

And every time one of you uses any argument that claims that religious institutions should be compelled to grant "marriage" to gay couples in violation of that religion's tenets, you do harm to every gay person on earth.

If gays want to marry, let them marry, but let them do it before someone who is willing to marry them and do not force someone who does not want to do so into the untenable position of violating their religious beliefs.

And that is why I believe that the State must get out of the marriage business entirely, at every level, and leave "marriage" to religion, where it originated and where it belongs, and confine itself to registering and regulating the civil aspects of intimate personal domestic relationships, regardless of the sex or gender (or number) of partners involved by defining such relationships as anything BUT "marriage."

That one act would completely eliminate the entire controversy and would (or should) satisfy everyone that everyone is being treated absolutely equally under the law.

And it's a dead-simple thing to do: "The term "marriage" shall not be used in any law, and the term "domestic partnership" shall be used exclusively in law instead. The term "marriage" is hereby declared to be an inherently religious concept and that term is reserved solely for use by religious institutions as a part of religious ceremonies and shall have no legal meaning or application whatsoever."

[JimC]

You can have your own eccentric view of marriage, and the rest of the world will simply ignore it.

As they ignore your other bizarre and extremist views...

[pErvinalia]

He can't even get his pants on straight. In his response to you he said there's no inherent unreasoning in homophobia. Then to MM he says that homophobia is unreasoned fear.

A lie from you, as usual.

Bullshit. You said:

homophobia

noun
1. unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

False definition.

Then in your next post said:

Homophobia is a perfectly natural reaction.

Nonsense. Homophobia by definition (the actual one, not the politically-motivated one) is an irrational and unreasoning fear of homosexuals.

[JimC]

Firmly hoist by his own petard!

[rasetsu]

Civil unions or domestic partnerships were only available in limited states prior to legislation and court rulings granting marriage equality.
In no way were they a solution to unequal rights for same-sex couples.



http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-serv ... tutes.aspx

[laklak]

Just get rid of marriage from a civil perspective. The law should only recognize civil unions. If you want to be 'married' then get some ancient doddering fart to mumble some words over you. The only thing that should concern the government is the contractual obligations inherent in what we currently call 'marriage', like taxes, inheritance, child custody and support, etc. Just take the fucking woo out of the equation. Man/man, man/woman, woman/woman, man/woman/woman/unspecified, whatever floats your boat. It's none of their goddamn business otherwise.