NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a post by someone else on another forum that I wanted people on here to see what they made of

Oh, and homophobia is also a deceptive term. It used to be a clinical terms to desrcibe a mental disorder that resulted in an irrational, instinctual fear of homosexuals like other "phobias" tend to be. Like Acrophobia- Fear of heights, Amathophobia- Fear of dust, Amaxophobia- Fear of riding in a car, Ambulophobia- Fear of walking.

Opposition on moral grounds to a Homosexual Rights agenda is not based on an irrational, instinctual fear of homosexuals. Opposing Gay marriage is not a mental disorder. And ascribing it to homophobia is an effort to marginalize the other side of a debate so that their opinions can just be discarded as the ravings of crazy people. There is a certain soft fascism present in the Gay Rights agenda; people who make a moral objection are nuts while the Gay Rights people are rational and sensible.

I hate it when people use "facism" to describe anything remotely bad or displeasing these days.

The assertion that a particular opposition stems from mental illness sounds more like communism. They used to put political critics of the regime in "mental assylums", though the general point that you make is certainly correct. The Gay Lobby consistantly refuse to address their opponents' arguments, or even recognise that they are intelligent people capable of expressing a reasoned opinion.

Sadly for that goober, common usage always wins.

This is a post by someone else on another forum that I wanted people on here to see what they made of
I'll bite.

Simply saying that irrational arguments & behaviour isn't irrational isn't good enough. You have to demonstrate that what this "other poster" is claiming is actually true.

So...

In a secular society where the Bible is no more relevant when considering gay marriage than Shaia(sp?) religious law is for determining whether rape victims should be stoned to death, how do you defend depriving homo's of equal rights?

If it's because they're icky, then your argument is shot.
If it's because you're afraid your kids will see it and become homo's, then your argument is shot...

If it's for any of the multitude of fobia-related reasons uttered by homo opponents, then your argument is shot. Basically you'll have to invent a new reason altogether.

So the word "fascism" is being used to exaggerate the imaginary feat of marginalization of the impact of gay rights by using the word "homophobic" for the opposition. I declare hypocrisy.

So the word "fascism" is being used to exaggerate the imaginary feat of marginalization of the impact of gay rights by using the word "homophobic" for the opposition. I declare hypocrisy.

You declare hypocrisy? Well, thank you Mr. Chief Justice of the High Court of the Entire Universe.

The difference between the charge of soft fascism (in reality soft communism, but we'll let that slide), and the charge of "homophobia" is that the charge is soft fascism is backed by the facts. The Gay Lobby never address the arguments laid out against them, they merely accuse their opponents of having a mental illness. The charge of "homophobia" bears no relation with the facts, and no attempt is ever made to prove that such a phobia exists. The charge is made for the simple reason that the Gay Lobby cannot conceive that someone can legitimately make an argument against them.

I'm sensing some soft fascism toward fascism, tut tut.

Never the less, i'm not really sure how anyone can claim that the term homophobia is being used to marginalize people who are themsleves attempting to marginalize homosexuals, what are you supposed to say, tolerance impaired ?

Simply saying that irrational arguments & behaviour isn't irrational isn't good enough. You have to demonstrate that what this "other poster" is claiming is actually true.

No, if someone wishes to charge that a particular behavior, or argument is irrational, it is for the person making the charge to substantiate it. The person being so charged has no obligation to refute it.

What you are doing is nothing more than insulting anyone who should commit the most grievous offence in the universe: disagreeing with you.

Never the less, i'm not really sure how anyone can claim that the term homophobia is being used to marginalize people who are themsleves attempting to marginalize homosexuals, what are you supposed to say, tolerance impaired ?

Strawman. There is nothing to suggest that any disagreement with the gay lobby, and their agenda, automatically constitutes an attempt to marginalise homosexuals.

You also proceed from the false premise that the gay lobby is actually representative of homosexuals, and always advocates what is in their best interest, when there is no real proof of either.

Whatever the agruements on either side, homophobia has a different meaning now and there's nothing anyone can do about it. It may well be an attempt to discredit the arguements of the other side, but then thats a common practice in every arguement and quite frankly its the least of anyones problems.

You declare hypocrisy? Well, thank you Mr. Chief Justice of the High Court of the Entire Universe.
I'm not wearing pants under this robe.


The difference between the charge of soft fascism (in reality soft communism, but we'll let that slide), and the charge of "homophobia" is that the charge is soft fascism is backed by the facts. The Gay Lobby never address the arguments laid out against them, they merely accuse their opponents of having a mental illness. The charge of "homophobia" bears no relation with the facts, and no attempt is ever made to prove that such a phobia exists. The charge is made for the simple reason that the Gay Lobby cannot conceive that someone can legitimately make an argument against them.
You seem to miss the fact that the issue is being exaggerated with the use of the flash word "fascism," while it is claiming another issue is being exaggerated by using "homophobia" to label opponents. This is a moot issue. Why? Because who honestly cares or has ever thought of this besides the people who are being labeled homophobic and are trying to make up defenses once the logic barrel ran out.


All this serves to prove is that they are homophobic.
Phobia - an exaggerated and often disabling fear usually inexplicable to the subject and having sometimes a logical but usually an illogical or symbolic object, class of objects, or situation.
Merriam-Webster's medical dictionary.
What better way to prove you have homophobia than to make up rediculous, illogical reasons why you arn't and to claim fascism for being labeled such? At least the religious people can claim it is against their religion.

Nothing wrong with it because (according to you) everyone does it?

Not buying it.

The idea that there's nothing we can do about it is absurd. Why can't we? Why should we accept a definition that is wrong? Everytime someone uses the word "homophobe", question it, ask for proof that the person being referred to actually has such an illness. Inform then that their use of the word is not appropriate, and that anyone has a right to dislike homosexuals, provided that no violence is initiated. They may say what they please.

Don't use it as an insult. You wouldn't say that someone had HIV as an insult?

If there's a single person on Earth who has actually been diagnosed, by a medical specialist in phobias, as being homophobic, then the use of the word is appropriate in regard to that person, and it should not be treated as something reprehensible to be punished, because it is simply a disease. A problem for medicine to solve. Nothing more.

The incorrect use of the word "homophobe" got into the lexicon, it can be removed, along with rubbish like "thine".

Another point, you say the use of the word "homophobe" is an attempt to discredit opponents? This is plain rubbish. It is nothing more than an attempt to slander opponents as being incapable of making a legitimate, rational argument.

No, if someone wishes to charge that a particular behavior, or argument is irrational, it is for the person making the charge to substantiate it. The person being so charged has no obligation to refute it.

What you are doing is nothing more than insulting anyone who should commit the most grievous offence in the universe: disagreeing with you.
So basically you're backing me up, you just don't realize it.

Avalon II, among a host of others, have previously voiced every single argument against equal rights I've ever heard. The only one that haven't been torn to peices as being nothing more than irrational fear - that is, an argument based on a fear of something despite all evidence shows the particular thing which instills fear in the individual won't come to pass - is the Biblical "God hates fags" argument. Though plenty of Bible scholars disagree over the validity of this, it isn't relevant for the argument in a secular state where the constitution strongly implies freedom from religion, and guarantees of religion. Many branches of many faiths have no reservations about performing marriage ceremonies for homo's, and both technically & historically speaking, marriage is promarily a secular institution.

Thus, when the only widely known argument against same-sex marriages, that isn't based on irrational fear, isn't applicable, either the OP can shove his "borrowed" post where the sun don't shine, he can present an argument for why the commonly used irrational reasons aren't irrational, or he can present a hitherto unknown argument.

Otherwise he is doing exactly what you (and I) are objecting to.

Edit: Yea, I'm sorry I'm commiting the ultimate crime in the universe; agreeing with you.

You seem to miss the fact that the issue is being exaggerated with the use of the flash word "fascism," while it is claiming another issue is being exaggerated by using "homophobia" to label opponents. This is a moot issue. Why? Because who honestly cares or has ever thought of this besides the people who are being labeled homophobic and are trying to make up defenses once the logic barrel ran out.

Why should they meekly accept slander merely because they hold an unfashionable position?

The issue is not that the initial poster (incorrectly because such conduct is more typical of communist regimes) described labelling anyone who should disagree with the Gay Lobby as being mentally ill.

All this serves to prove is that they are homophobic.
Phobia - an exaggerated and often disabling fear usually inexplicable to the subject and having sometimes a logical but usually an illogical or symbolic object, class of objects, or situation.
Merriam-Webster's medical dictionary.
What better way to prove you have homophobia than to make up rediculous, illogical reasons why you arn't and to claim fascism for being labeled such? At least the religious people can claim it is against their religion.

The only acceptable proof that someone has a particular disease is a diagnosis from a doctor of good standing who is specialised in the field.

The point made in the initial post is correct, and you are providing yet more proof by accusing anyone who objects to being labelled homophobic as being homophobic, in exactly the same way as the Soviet Union accused people who opposed them of being mentally ill.

Since I just posted a dictionary definition of phobia, would you care to explain why it is wrong to accuse those people of being homophobic. They are exhibiting irrational fears of homosexuals as well as making illogical defenses as to why they arn't homophobic and there is a grand conspiracy by the apparent Homosexual Legion of Doom to discredit anti-homosexual sentiments by declaring those irrational, illogical fears homophobia.

you are providing yet more proof by accusing anyone who objects to being labelled homophobic as being homophobic, in exactly the same way as the Soviet Union accused people who opposed them of being mentally ill.
Wrong. I am declaring that anyone who makes ridiculous, obviously and overwhelmingly illogical claims like saying the gay agenda is fascist for calling them homophobic is a homophobe.

Since I just posted a dictionary definition of phobia, would you care to explain why it is wrong to accuse those people of being homophobic. They are exhibiting irrational fears of homosexuals as well as making illogical defenses as to why they arn't homophobic and there is a grand conspiracy by the apparent Homosexual Legion of Doom to discredit anti-homosexual sentiments by declaring those irrational, illogical fears homophobia.
It's because in the nightmare world of mister D. We're only allowed to call insanity insanity, if we happen to be certified to make a professional diagnosis.

So I'm planning on calling them The-Mud-People-Who're-Living-In-Dread-Of-Ass.
It's not quite as correct as calling them homophobes, but I wager most of these people are males who get off to lesbian porn, so...

Avalon II, among a host of others, have previously voiced every single argument against equal rights I've ever heard. The only one that haven't been torn to peices as being nothing more than irrational fear - that is, an argument based on a fear of something despite all evidence shows the particular thing which instills fear in the individual won't come to pass - is the Biblical "God hates fags" argument. Though plenty of Bible scholars disagree over the validity of this, it isn't relevant for the argument in a secular state where the constitution strongly implies freedom from religion, and guarantees of religion. Many branches of many faiths have no reservations about performing marriage ceremonies for homo's, and both technically & historically speaking, marriage is promarily a secular institution.

Thus, when the only widely known argument against same-sex marriages, that isn't based on irrational fear, isn't applicable, either the OP can shove his "borrowed" post where the sun don't shine, he can present an argument for why the commonly used irrational reasons aren't irrational, or he can present a hitherto unknown argument.

Otherwise he is doing exactly what you (and I) are objecting to.

Edit: Yea, I'm sorry I'm commiting the ultimate crime in the universe; agreeing with you.

Nope, you're proceeding from the false premises that you have heard all the arguments, and that they are all based on fear.

Secondly, labelling someone's beliefs (religious, secular, or marshmallow-related) as irrational fear is not justified.

Your qualification of "widely-known" simply destroys your argument.

Since I just posted a dictionary definition of phobia, would you care to explain why it is wrong to accuse those people of being homophobic. They are exhibiting irrational fears of homosexuals as well as making illogical defenses as to why they arn't homophobic and there is a grand conspiracy by the apparent Homosexual Legion of Doom to discredit anti-homosexual sentiments by declaring those irrational, illogical fears homophobia.\

Yet more strawmen. No one has proven that all opposition to the agenda of the Gay Lobby automatically constitutes irrational fear. You've neither proven that fear exists in all cases, or that such fear is irrational.

When you can prove that absolutely everyone opposed to the agenda of the Gay Lobby, and absolutely every argument against it is rooted in irrational, then your argument might hold water, however in such a case, it is refuted simply by pointing out the simple fact that ad-hominem attacks don't impact on the arguments.

There is simply no medially acceptable proof of homophobia, and that is proven by the fact that everyone who uses the label homophobic uses it as an accusation. Why make accusations against someone who is simply ill? Surely sympathy is the obvious response to seeing someone who is ill.

No one has proven that all opposition to the agenda of the Gay Lobby automatically constitutes irrational fear.
Neither has anyone even asserted that.

It's because in the nightmare world of mister D. We're only allowed to call insanity insanity, if we happen to be certified to make a professional diagnosis.

So I'm planning on calling them The-Mud-People-Who're-Living-In-Dread-Of-Ass.
It's not quite as correct as calling them homophobes, but I wager most of these people are males who get off to lesbian porn, so...

Why are you and the chap without trousers so intent on proving my thesis for me?

The way the Gay Lobby, and their supporters meet counter-arguments with insults, and suggestions of mental illness is clearly shown by you two.

Wrong. I am declaring that anyone who makes ridiculous, obviously and overwhelmingly illogical claims like saying the gay agenda is fascist for calling them homophobic is a homophobe.

I didn't say their agenda was fascist, I said the people in the Gay Lobby act like communists.

I didn't say their agenda was fascist, I said the people in the Gay Lobby act like communists.
Which no one even understands, and the topic quote declared fascism.

Neither has anyone even asserted that.

Horseshit.

I'll quote:

The only one that haven't been torn to peices as being nothing more than irrational fear

Strike One.

They are exhibiting irrational fears of homosexuals

Steeeeeeeeriiiiiiiiiiiiiike Twooooooo!

This next one is really good, the suggestion is that anyone who objects to being slandered by the Gay Lobby is homophobic.

You seem to miss the fact that the issue is being exaggerated with the use of the flash word "fascism," while it is claiming another issue is being exaggerated by using "homophobia" to label opponents. This is a moot issue. Why? Because who honestly cares or has ever thought of this besides the people who are being labeled homophobic and are trying to make up defenses once the logic barrel ran out.


All this serves to prove is that they are homophobic.

Strike Three. You're both out.

Nope, you're proceeding from the false premises that you have heard all the arguments, and that they are all based on fear.
Which is why I invited the OP to supply a reason I haven't heard before. Sorry, but the argument you present here applies only to your response to my post.
Secondly, labelling someone's beliefs (religious, secular, or marshmallow-related) as irrational fear is not justified.
Which I didn't do. I simply stated that religious arguments for denying a minority equal rights isn't relevant in a secular society, where the constitution guarantees freedom of religion, especially in the case of marriage, which is primarily a secular institution. I never claimed the argument was irrational or had anything to do with fear. You may believe that religious reservations are irrational, but it's without relevance in this debate.
Your qualification of "widely-known" simply destroys your argument.
It does not, since I have already clarified that the OP & I share a history of debating this subject, and I invite him (and everyone else) to present a rational argument.

Now would you kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth, or shall I start doing the same?

Steeeeeeeeriiiiiiiiiiiiiike Twooooooo!

This next one is really good, the suggestion is that anyone who objects to being slandered by the Gay Lobby is homophobic.

Strike Three. You're both out.
Not quite. I am referring to the people making these claims of fascism, as I have pointed out in every single post. If you are so obsessed as to declare a conspiracy (because a conspiracy is what this is) and fascism by the "Gay Lobby," chances are you are homophobic because that is the epitome of irrational and illogical thought brought on by exaggerated fears.

Which no one even understands, and the topic quote declared fascism.

If I thought as you do, I'd accuse you of having dyslexia, because you've clearly not read my post.

I said the initial post's label of "fascism" isn't correct. The conduct of accusing critics of being mentally ill is something communists are renowned for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psikhushka (Psikhushka is a Russian term for psychiactric hospital).

The official explaination the Soviets used was: "no sane person would declaim against Soviet government and communism", just as no person who wasn't homophobic would disagree with the Gay Lobby's agenda.

No one's asserted that the gay lobby's agenda is itself fascist.

If I thought as you do, I'd accuse you of having dyslexia, because you've clearly not read my post.

I said the initial post's label of "fascism" isn't correct. The conduct of accusing critics of being mentally ill is something communists are renowned for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psikhushka (Psikhushka is a Russian term for psychiactric hospital).

The official explaination the Soviets used was: "no sane person would declaim against Soviet government and communism", just as no person who wasn't homophobic would disagree with the Gay Lobby's agenda.

No one's asserted that the gay lobby's agenda is itself fascist.
Then you arn't even on topic and let me requote the topic.

There is a certain soft fascism present in the Gay Rights agenda; people who make a moral objection are nuts while the Gay Rights people are rational and sensible.
And you still hold to a conspiracy against those opposed to homosexual riught composed by the "Gay Lobby."

And for the third time, I have never said I am referring to all people who oppose homosexuality, only the ones claiming this reasoning to "marginalize" their irrational beliefs.

You seem to miss the fact that the issue is being exaggerated with the use of the flash word "fascism," while it is claiming another issue is being exaggerated by using "homophobia" to label opponents. This is a moot issue. Why? Because who honestly cares or has ever thought of this besides the people who are being labeled homophobic and are trying to make up defenses once the logic barrel ran out.



This is bullshit.

The notion that there is something aberrant about holding and/or espousing an attitude that finds homosexuality to be unacceptable is, in itself, facist. This kind of "thought police" action is every bit as reprehensible as the holier-than-thou set's apparent campaign to moralize the world in their image. Disliking the homosexual lifestyle is not an illness or a disease, and providing that this mindset does is not accompanied by actions which quantifiably harm gays, is part and parcel of the guaranteed right to believe whatever one damned well pleases. It is every bit as wrong to disparage the person who finds homosexuality unpalletable as it is to disparage the homosexual.

If we proclaim that the individual who finds homosexuality objectionable to be mentally ill, we are every bit as wrong as those who would claim, who have claimed, that homosexuals are mentally ill.

Political correctness, which gave birth to this situation, is decidedly facist. It's just framed in terms which would suggest that the repressions implicit in it's mandates are set in motion out of compassion, when in fact, it's just one group of people who want to dictate behavior for another group.

Not quite. I am referring to the people making these claims of fascism, as I have pointed out in every single post. If you are so obsessed as to declare a conspiracy (because a conspiracy is what this is) and fascism by the "Gay Lobby," chances are you are homophobic because that is the epitome of irrational and illogical thought brought on by exaggerated fears.

Ye Gods! Just when I thought you couldn't get lower, you got lower.

Who spoke of a conspiracy? You only. I merely spoke of slander.

Accusing me of being homophobic won't advance your arguments, it in fact advances mine.

Which I didn't do. I simply stated that religious arguments for denying a minority equal rights isn't relevant in a secular society, where the constitution guarantees freedom of religion, especially in the case of marriage, which is primarily a secular institution. I never claimed the argument was irrational or had anything to do with fear. You may believe that religious reservations are irrational, but it's without relevance in this debate.

Since the initial post didn't specify where the accusation was made, in which argument it related to, your assumption that it happened in a secular society, or that society is in general is secular isn't supportable. Nor is the idea that marriage is a secular institution, the only secular thing about it is that it is a contract.

It does not, since I have already clarified that the OP & I share a history of debating this subject, and I invite him (and everyone else) to present a rational argument.

Now would you kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth, or shall I start doing the same?

Rubbish.

If we proclaim that the individual who finds homosexuality objectionable to be mentally ill, we are every bit as wrong as those who would claim, who have claimed, that homosexuals are mentally ill.
No point in continuing to post if no one is going to bother to pretend they read said posts.

Then you arn't even on topic and let me requote the topic.

Bollocks. My thesis (which I've made clear several times) is that the practices of the Gay Lobby, in the instance to which the OP pointed, are reminiscent of the practices of communists. A thesis which I have proven, and no one has made a real attempt to refute.

And you still hold to a conspiracy against those opposed to homosexual riught composed by the "Gay Lobby."

Conspiracy? Who said conspiracy? I have referred to slander.

You also still adhere to the false premises that the Gay Lobby is representative of homosexuals, that what they are pushing is in the interests of homosexuals, and they are engaged in a defence of rights. That premise has never been proven, and you've shown no interest in proving it.

Chyornabog, good post.

The supposed conspiracy is the term "homophobia" is being used to insult the opposition as well as make them look "mentally ill," and I have already refuted with the point no one thinks like this but those being accused. There is no accusation of mental illness. There is, however, an accusation of irrational and illogical fears, which is being fit to a tee.

How ironic that this person critiques a contemporary use of a word by employing one themself. "Homophobia" has exapnded to people who are just ordinary bigots towards queers, likewise "gay" has changed in its meaning and application. As a student of fascism however i have to say it still grates me when people devale the specific menaing of fascism by inserting it as just a general put-down. Then again i'm also annoyed by people (who always seem to at least 50) bemoan the way homosexual's have taken 'gay' from them. A living language is a changing language - deal with it i suppose, just don't touch fascism ;)

If there's a single person on Earth who has actually been diagnosed, by a medical specialist in phobias, as being homophobic, then the use of the word is appropriate in regard to that person, and it should not be treated as something reprehensible to be punished, because it is simply a disease. A problem for medicine to solve. Nothing more.Not to mention, someone with homophobia would be someone who fears "sameness" or similarity, or humans perhaps...

Edit: But it doesn't seem such a phobia has been defined, and if it were to be, it would probably use a different name anyway (the psychologists well knowing that homophobia means something else already).

Haha, what a ridiculous thread. It's the same sort of bullshit rhetoric based in etymology that homophobes always use - "I'm not afraid of them, so I'm not homophobic" disregarding that the word is not used only for clinical cases.

But if the term is so offensive to homophobes, I'm willing to use some other like "anti-gay bigot." Shift the discussion to semantics, but you'll not get past the fact that as per the current definition of homophobia (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=homophobia), you are homophobic, but, sure, "bigot" works fine too. No one is fooled by the futile calls to a usage that is no longer common.

I hate it when people use "facism" to describe anything remotely bad or displeasing these days.


Hey I thought it was pretty nifty myself. The dude starting the thread gave us a truly awesome piece of unintentional irony when he decided that the best way to complain about gay rights lobbyists using slippery language to demonize their opponents would be to call them fascists Seriously, is there like a prize for the most amusing case of Godwin's Law? Because this has to be a front runner :D

The supposed conspiracy is the term "homophobia" is being used to insult the opposition as well as make them look "mentally ill," and I have already refuted with the point no one thinks like this but those being accused. There is no accusation of mental illness. There is, however, an accusation of irrational and illogical fears, which is being fit to a tee.

No, a conspiracy is a group of people planning to commit, and/or committing a crime. I have referred to slander.

A phobia is a mental illness (specifically, its an anxiety disorder), so saying someone has a phobia is saying someone has a mental illness.

Since the initial post didn't specify where the accusation was made, in which argument it related to, your assumption that it happened in a secular society, or that society is in general is secular isn't supportable. Nor is the idea that marriage is a secular institution, the only secular thing about it is that it is a contract.
Since I, as already stated a few times, share a prehistory with the OP, I took the liberty of making a few assumptions.

This may well render my posts meaningless to you, however that isn't the case for the OP, which is the person I specifically addressed.

I suggest you read up on the history of what marriage is & the practical implications of it in modernday USA, before you persue that specific part of my post any further.
In a secular society where the Bible is no more relevant when considering gay marriage than Shaia(sp?) religious law is for determining whether rape victims should be stoned to death, how do you defend depriving homo's of equal rights?
Let's see... You read this as me saying biblical arguments against same-sex marriage is based on irrational fear?
And there's no invitation to present alternative arguments?

Have fun assaulting your keyboard & conjuring moreRubbish.I'm not gonna continue thisRubbish.with you.

No, a conspiracy is a group of people planning to commit, and/or committing a crime. I have referred to slander.

A phobia is a mental illness (specifically, its an anxiety disorder), so saying someone has a phobia is saying someone has a mental illness.
We should just call the bigots then?

But if the term is so offensive to homophobes, I'm willing to use some other like "anti-gay bigot." Shift the discussion to semantics, but you'll not get past the fact that as per the current definition of homophobia, you are homophobic, but, sure, "bigot" works fine too. No one is fooled by the futile calls to a usage that is no longer common.

Most people who arse around with appeal-to-authority "arguments" usually appeal to great minds, and works, not what the common mob has been indoctrinated to believe. That people use "homophobic" as a buzz word matters not in the least to me.

Bigotry, and phobia are two completely different things. I would describe many critics of homosexual rights as being bigots, and I would be justified in doing so. I would not be justified in saying they were mentally ill.

If idiots, and bigots can put rubbish into the lexicon, then intelligent reasonable people can remove it.

Hey I thought it was pretty nifty myself. The dude starting the thread gave us a truly awesome piece of unintentional irony when he decided that the best way to complain about gay rights lobbyists using slippery language to demonize their opponents would be to call them fascists Seriously, is there like a prize for the most amusing case of Godwin's Law? Because this has to be a front runner

Hence the reason I compared their conduct with communists, who did essentially the same thing (the only difference is that the communists had the power to actually commit their critics to lunatic assylums)

We should just call the bigots then?

YES!

If you can show that what they're saying comes from hatred, and that they've no legitimate concerns, call them bigots, say it until their ears burn!

Call a spade a spade, don't call it three raspberrys, a bottle of Moet, and a large pink thing.

Of course, another idea would be to refute their arguments. It shouldn't be that hard, as most are based on rubbish. I say, if people want to enter into a contract that doesn't violate the rights of anyone else, let them.

Most people who arse around with appeal-to-authority "arguments" usually appeal to great minds, and works, not what the common mob has been indoctrinated to believe. That people use "homophobic" as a buzz word matters not in the least to me.

Bigotry, and phobia are two completely different things. I would describe many critics of homosexual rights as being bigots, and I would be justified in doing so. I would not be justified in saying they were mentally ill.

If idiots, and bigots can put rubbish into the lexicon, then intelligent reasonable people can remove it.

Yeah, sure, because making yourself the authority on how words should be used and decry those that use them in the most common and widest accepted way is not at all an appeal-to-authority. Etymology does not govern the meaning of words. It can at times, but it does not have to. Or else the word "smorgasbord" would mean "butter goose table" and not "buffet." Your etymological argument is flawed, as it presupposes that etymology governs the meaning of this word, when clearly, as per the definition given, it doesn't.

A phobia is a mental illness (specifically, its an anxiety disorder), so saying someone has a phobia is saying someone has a mental illness.
Your not even worthy of the insult I had lined up. Good day to you, sir.

Your not even worthy of the insult I had lined up. Good day to you, sir.

That's another kill mark in the side of the Spitfire.

Your etymological argument is flawed, as it presupposes that etymology governs the meaning of this word, when clearly, as per the definition given, it doesn't.

Why should etymology not govern the definition of the word, especially when there is not justification for the other definition, and the etymology is so cut-and-dried

Why should etymology not govern the definition of the word, especially when there is not justification for the other definition, and the etymology is so cut-and-dried

Why shouldn't "smorgasbord" mean "butter goose table," when its etymology (smör = butter, gås = goose, bord = table) is so cut-and-dry? Because it doesn't. Words have the meaning their usage gives them, not their etymology, and while the etymology may be close to the actual meaning in certain cases, it doesn't have to be in all, and simply isn't in this case. You can bitch about it, but it doesn't make your etymological argument any less flawed.

I hate it when people use "facism" to describe anything remotely bad or displeasing these days.
Yeah I like how he is bitching about the in-correct usage of one term by incorrectly using another :rolls eyes:

Why shouldn't "smorgasbord" mean "butter goose table," when its etymology (smör = butter, gås = goose, bord = table) is so cut-and-dry? Because it doesn't. Words have the meaning their usage gives them, not their etymology, and while the etymology may be close to the actual meaning in certain cases, it doesn't have to be in all, and simply isn't in this case. You can bitch about it, but it doesn't make your etymological argument any less flawed.

Damn it Fass, stop letting the facts get in the way here. Who cares about common use and the way words evolve over time? If homophobia has "phobia" in it and one guy on the internet says it's a deliberate conspiracy by the 'soft fascists' of the homosexual agenda, then we should all be far too busy agreeing with him to point out that maybe he's wrong, maybe there was no deliberate plan, maybe the word just ended up being used that way, maybe it's just an accident of the english language like "metrosexual" and "yuppie", and maybe implying that there's a smear campaign afoot is nothing but a cheap shot aimed at (ironically enough) smearing the gay rights movement.

Nonsense, if the accusation was mere hatred, why suggest mental illness? Why not simply say hatred? Because accusing someone who objects, or disagrees of being mentally ill carrys with it the idea that everyone who is mentally fit would agree.

implying that there's a smear campaign afoot is nothing but a cheap shot aimed at (ironically enough) smearing the gay rights movement.

Implication? There's no maybe about it, anyone who disagrees publically with the Gay lobby's agenda is labelled a homophobe. There are even "behavior codes" that label anything short of total acceptance of their agenda "homophibia", it even calls those who think "who cares, they can do what they like provided it doesn't affect me" homophobic.

You cannot deny that the accusations are made, and that no attempt is made to justify them.

Nonsense, if the accusation was mere hatred, why suggest mental illness? Why not simply say hatred? Because accusing someone who objects, or disagrees of being mentally ill carrys with it the idea that everyone who is mentally fit would agree.



Implication? There's no maybe about it, anyone who disagrees publically with the Gay lobby's agenda is labelled a homophobe. There are even "behavior codes" that label anything short of total acceptance of their agenda "homophibia", it even calls those who think "who cares, they can do what they like provided it doesn't affect me" homophobic.

You cannot deny that the accusations are made, and that no attempt is made to justify them.


Perhaps you could try to avoid using the term 'Gay Lobby' every other sentence? It makes you come across as a bit hysterical.

The assertion that a particular opposition stems from mental illness sounds more like communism. They used to put political critics of the regime in "mental assylums", though the general point that you make is certainly correct. The Gay Lobby consistantly refuse to address their opponents' arguments, or even recognise that they are intelligent people capable of expressing a reasoned opinion.

They're arguing that gay people are evil because they're not attracted to the same sex. Would you take your critics seriously if they told you that you were evil for being attracted to the opposite sex? Obviously not.

The term "homophobia" seems to be more because there isn't a short word for sexual preference the way there is for race or sex, so "sexual preferencism" doesn't really work. Don't take the term too literally, it would be like insisting that manga is actually surrealist art because of the literal meaning of the word.

They're arguing that gay people are evil because they're not attracted to the same sex. Would you take your critics seriously if they told you that you were evil for being attracted to the opposite sex? Obviously not.

Not everyone who opposes the gay lobby thinks that. It is in any case irrelevant, and does not justify slander.

The term "homophobia" seems to be more because there isn't a short word for sexual preference the way there is for race or sex, so "sexual preferencism" doesn't really work. Don't take the term too literally, it would be like insisting that manga is actually surrealist art because of the literal meaning of the word.

I don't think so, the key difference is the use of the term "phobia", a mental illness. The term "racism" doesn't imply the cause of the racism, merely the fact of it. Homophobia isn't neutral in that sense, it directly implies an incapacity.

Not everyone who opposes the gay lobby thinks that. It is in any case irrelevant, and does not justify slander.



I don't think so, the key difference is the use of the term "phobia", a mental illness. The term "racism" doesn't imply the cause of the racism, merely the fact of it. Homophobia isn't neutral in that sense, it directly implies an incapacity.
Main Entry: -phobia
Function: noun combining form
Etymology: New Latin, from Late Latin, from Greek, from -phobos fearing, from phobos fear, flight, from phebesthai to flee; akin to Lithuanian begti to flee, Old Church Slavonic bezati
1 : exaggerated fear of <acrophobia>
2 : intolerance or aversion for <photophobia>

While thoes dubed homophobes may not always fit the first deffinion of phobia they often fit the second

There is no reasonable or sensible or ethical and sane rationale behind depriving gay people of their rights.

Considering that it is irrational to have an aversion to homosexuals even on moral grounds, I would say that the term homophobia applies to a great deal of people. Especially when one considers the amount of people who use religion as a convenience and pick and choose the tenets they obey.

Considering that it is irrational to have an aversion to homosexuals even on moral grounds, I would say that the term homophobia applies to a great deal of people. Especially when one considers the amount of people who use religion as a convenience and pick and choose the tenets they obey.

Arguing the rationality of morals won't get you anywhere. Anyway, it is only your opinion that not liking homosexuals is irrational.

I would also add that you, and others are basing your arguments on the false presmise that opposition to the gay lobby is indicative of an aversion to homosexuals. What this means is that even if I accepted that "homophobia" meant an aversion to homosexuals, the accusation would still be unjustified.

There is no reasonable or sensible or ethical and sane rationale behind depriving gay people of their rights.

Another false premise. No one has shown me the slightest scrap of evidence that the gay lobby is arguing for rights.

I don't think you understand the issue at hand, the issue is the accusation made by gay lobbyists that the people who disagree with then are homophobic.

No one has shown me the slightest scrap of evidence that the gay lobby is arguing for rights.




Its hard to take you seriously after posting something like this.

All the same,

Because there is no reasonable basis to deprive homosexuals of their rights, the only basis is the emotional one, which is roughly a "fear and hatred of homosexuals." An unreasonable, irrational aversion.

Its hard to take you seriously after posting something like this.

All the same,

Because there is no reasonable basis to deprive homosexuals of their rights, the only basis is the emotional one, which is roughly a "fear and hatred of homosexuals." An unreasonable, irrational aversion.
Main Entry: -phobia
Function: noun combining form
Etymology: New Latin, from Late Latin, from Greek, from -phobos fearing, from phobos fear, flight, from phebesthai to flee; akin to Lithuanian begti to flee, Old Church Slavonic bezati
1 : exaggerated fear of <acrophobia>
2 : intolerance or aversion for <photophobia>
Or number 2 could fit the anti-gay rights side as well

For some reason my deffintion seems to have been ignored by the poster claming phobia was only a mental disorder

ZOMG! It's the Gay Lobby come to overthrow our society again! They're soft fascists, I tell you!

As they say in the States: Puh-lease.

Here you are arguing that a word should not be used in such a way that it implies a meaning other than its strict etymological definition, while spouting a bunch of terms that where you are implying a meaning that is at odds with the eytmology.

"Gay" - Happy; elated; bright; lively.
"Lobby" - Hall; foyer, usually near the entrance of a building.
"Fascist" - An adherent or advocate of a specific political ideaology; to describe something or someone as of or similar to that political idealogy
"Phobia" - An irrational fear or aversion
"Homo" - Meaning simply "same"

Let's review. The rather bright and lively foyer, perhaps of a hotel or similar establishment, and possibly belonging to El Duce himself, or an advocate of his preferred political system, is involved in some kind slanderous conspiracy to discredit it's detractors by accusing them of irrationally fearing or disliking what is similar or indentical to themselves.

That's a pretty damned intelligent foyer, if you ask me, and even seems to have achieved some form of sentience. We should all be frightened if our halls and foyers have developed to the point of being willing and able to slander human beings. What is the world coming to?

I don't think so, the key difference is the use of the term "phobia", a mental illness. The term "racism" doesn't imply the cause of the racism, merely the fact of it. Homophobia isn't neutral in that sense, it directly implies an incapacity.

Then start a new trend by using the word "homocism" or something. Empower yourself! Bitching about the use of a word isn't going to do much good unless you can come up with a word that better describes the reality of bigorty and discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Start calling people "homocists" about you, and when they frown and ask what that means, explain it. If you're lucky, the usage will widen and maybe it'll make it's way into the dict.

Until then, people are still gonna use homophobia, if only for the fact that there is a lack of a better term to use.

I would also add that you, and others are basing your arguments on the false presmise that opposition to the gay lobby is indicative of an aversion to homosexuals. What this means is that even if I accepted that "homophobia" meant an aversion to homosexuals, the accusation would still be unjustified.

Another false premise. No one has shown me the slightest scrap of evidence that the gay lobby is arguing for rights.

I don't think you understand the issue at hand, the issue is the accusation made by gay lobbyists that the people who disagree with then are homophobic.

Then, what exactly is that "gay lobby" of yours arguing for, if not for equal rights for homosexuals? Which of their demands do you oppose, and on what grounds? If you do not answer these questions, well of course it's gonna be a bit hard to put things into perspective.

So, tell us what of the "gay lobby" you oppose, and on what grounds, so we may try to understand why they may have deemed fit to label you "homophobic" unfairly.

All this serves to prove is that they are homophobic.
Phobia - an exaggerated and often disabling fear usually inexplicable to the subject and having sometimes a logical but usually an illogical or symbolic object, class of objects, or situation.
Merriam-Webster's medical dictionary.
What better way to prove you have homophobia than to make up rediculous, illogical reasons why you arn't and to claim fascism for being labeled such? At least the religious people can claim it is against their religion.

That isn't actually the proper definition to use. In words like homophobia, hydrophobia, etc, phobia is not a word, but a root. Thus, you must look up the definition of the root: -phobia.

Main Entry: -phobia
Function: noun combining form
Etymology: New Latin, from Late Latin, from Greek, from -phobos fearing, from phobos fear, flight, from phebesthai to flee; akin to Lithuanian begti to flee, Old Church Slavonic bezati
1 : exaggerated fear of <acrophobia>
2 : intolerance or aversion for <photophobia>

As you can see, there are two different possible uses for the root. One of them is the same as the definition when used as a word.

The other, however, is the way the root is used in the word homophobia. "Intolerance or aversion for". Thus, it is perfectly correct to call someone with an intolerance or aversion towards homosexuals - homophobic.

This is a post by someone else on another forum that I wanted people on here to see what they made of
So the people who support more individual freedom are fascists? What's the world coming to?

"Gay" - Happy; elated; bright; lively.
"Lobby" - Hall; foyer, usually near the entrance of a building.
"Fascist" - An adherent or advocate of a specific political ideaology; to describe something or someone as of or similar to that political idealogy
"Phobia" - An irrational fear or aversion
"Homo" - Meaning simply "same"

Let's review. The rather bright and lively foyer, perhaps of a hotel or similar establishment, and possibly belonging to El Duce himself, or an advocate of his preferred political system, is involved in some kind slanderous conspiracy to discredit it's detractors by accusing them of irrationally fearing or disliking what is similar or indentical to themselves.


Haha... that was priceless. Well done.

By the way, did anyone else notice that this thread started off on a Godwin? The only way it can happen sooner is if a forum is programed to send a new topic starter a message saying "Your a fascist."

This is a post by someone else on another forum that I wanted people on here to see what they made of

The fact remains though that it's no one's business to get involved in the love life of a gay individual other than that gay individual themself. You people might be opposed to such marriage and coupling, but you have no right to dictate the love life of another human being. Just fuck off.

Bollocks. My thesis (which I've made clear several times) is that the practices of the Gay Lobby, in the instance to which the OP pointed, are reminiscent of the practices of communists. A thesis which I have proven, and no one has made a real attempt to refute.

You have proven nothing, as homophobia does not refer to a mental illness. Thus, someone calling another person homophobic has not accused them of having a mental illness any more than calling another person racist or sexist is accusing them of having a mental illness. It is a way to point out bigotry.

Why should etymology not govern the definition of the word, especially when there is not justification for the other definition, and the etymology is so cut-and-dried

Even the eymology is not as cut-and-dried as you seem to think. You are using the definition of the word phobia, rather than the roote -phobia. Never mind that it is the root we are referring to, and one of it's definitions is "Intollerance or aversion for..."

Okay well I think this thread is begging for some clarification...

Homophobia is not a mental illness. It's a phobia derived from childhood experience.

That said, I still have no respect for people who are homophobic. Honestly, what business is it of yours to get involved in gay love life? Sheesh.

ZOMG! It's the Gay Lobby come to overthrow our society again! They're soft fascists, I tell you!



Yay! Be aware of their Pink Brigades! They might be after you! :eek:

While thoes dubed homophobes may not always fit the first deffinion of phobia they often fit the second

Ack! UT beat me to it! =)

This is a post by someone else on another forum that I wanted people on here to see what they made of

I can't say as I disagree with that post. Since when does being in opposition to an issue automatically make you a racist/homophobe/misogynist? When did that happen? And, pray tell, why is it always someone on the right who gets tarred with that brush? The hypocrisy of some folks astound me......

I can't say as I disagree with that post. Since when does being in opposition to an issue automatically make you a racist/homophobe/misogynist? When did that happen? And, pray tell, why is it always someone on the right who gets tarred with that brush? The hypocrisy of some folks astound me......

Probably because those on the right, such as yourself, are intolerant of people who experience different sexual lives? Why do you even give a shit about what another human being does with another consenting human being? I find intolerance of any kind to be repulsive; it just fuels an already hate-filled world.

"Since when does being in opposition... make you a homophobe?" Because you are intolerant of gays? That's pretty fucking homophobic to me. Or are you trying to redefine the definition?

Why should etymology not govern the definition of the word, especially when there is not justification for the other definition, and the etymology is so cut-and-dried
Because English is a deregulated and evolving language.

Probably because those on the right, such as yourself, are intolerant of people who experience different sexual lives? Why do you even give a shit about what another human being does with another consenting human being? I find intolerance of any kind to be repulsive; it just fuels an already hate-filled world.

"Since when does being in opposition... make you a homophobe?" Because you are intolerant of gays? That's pretty fucking homophobic to me. Or are you trying to redefine the definition?

Not intolerant. Just more than a little reluctant to having someone else's agenda force fed down my throat, and having that force feeding governmentally mandated by a highly vocal minority. That smacks of fascism.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/19/opinion/polls/main589551.shtml

That smacks of fascism.

Meh... it's broadly authoritarian. It would be fascist for someone to force hatred of homosexuals down your throat.

Another false premise. No one has shown me the slightest scrap of evidence that the gay lobby is arguing for rights.
The right to marry someone of the same sex, presumably.

Not intolerant. Just more than a little reluctant to having someone else's agenda force fed down my throat, and having that force feeding governmentally mandated by a highly vocal minority. That smacks of fascism.
So you believe that it is less authoritarian for a government to ban gay marriage than for them to permit it?

Meh... it's broadly authoritarian. It would be fascist for someone to force hatred of homosexuals down your throat.

I stand corrected.

Not intolerant. Just more than a little reluctant to having someone else's agenda force fed down my throat, and having that force feeding governmentally mandated by a highly vocal minority. That smacks of fascism.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/19/opinion/polls/main589551.shtml

Agenda? They just want to be left the fuck alone. People like yourself get involved in their lives, pushing your agenda on them, telling them they can't marry or engage in sexual acts involving only themselves. Who is the one with the agenda? The people who want to be left alone and live their life, or people who get involved and say what one individual can and cannot do? I find the latter to be the fascist one. And perhaps the gays are a vocal minority. THEY DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO TELL THEM WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO? Do you understand? They want to be left alone.

The right to marry someone of the same sex, presumably.


So you believe that it is less authoritarian for a government to ban gay marriage than for them to permit it?

You're putting words in my mouth. Didn't say that. You did.

You're putting words in my mouth. Didn't say that. You did.
Yes well, when you are forced by the government to engage in homosexual sex, or marry someone of the same sex, I'll feel sorry for you and truly believe your rights are being trampled. Until then...vale!

Agenda? They just want to be left the fuck alone. People like yourself get involved in their lives, pushing your agenda on them, telling them they can't marry or engage in sexual acts involving only themselves. Who is the one with the agenda? The people who want to be left alone and live their life, or people who get involved and say what one individual can and cannot do? I find the latter to be the fascist one. And perhaps the gays are a vocal minority. THEY DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO TELL THEM WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO? Do you understand? They want to be left alone.

I propose we do exactly that. Leave them alone. Up to and including changing the laws regarding marriage. The federal government has no business legislating marriage. What-so-ever.

It's almost as if people on the right think it's fascist to be tolerant. Apparently, they don't think that people who are different from themselves have the right to be married. And yet they still think the tolerant side is fascist? This is sad. I wonder what the Founding Fathers would say about such blatant bigotry and intolerance...

I propose we do exactly that. Leave them alone. Up to and including changing the laws regarding marriage. The federal government has no business legislating marriage. What-so-ever.

Indeed. However, they certainly have a right to be married, as they are consenting invididuals in a relationship. Considering that the religious side will not allow the gays to marry, I think that it is the responsibility of the government to remove that barrier. Simply let them marry and get on with their lives. Do you think Jesus would deny a loving, gay couple the right to have their love sealed in marriage?

Not intolerant. Just more than a little reluctant to having someone else's agenda force fed down my throat, and having that force feeding governmentally mandated by a highly vocal minority. That smacks of fascism.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/19/opinion/polls/main589551.shtml

So, by your view, the people who opposed allowing black people to marry weren't racist, they just didn't like the agenda?

What about those who opposed interracial marriage? They weren't racist, right? They just didn't like it that a minority of people wanted to marry people of other ethnicities and get equal protection under the law!

And all those people who opposed women's suffrage, they were misogynist at all! They just didn't like the women's agenda of being able to vote!

I propose we do exactly that. Leave them alone. Up to and including changing the laws regarding marriage. The federal government has no business legislating marriage. What-so-ever.

These two statements are incompatible. If you believe that the federal government has no business in legislating marriage, then we need to change the laws regarding marriage - in fact, we need to get rid of them completely.

We should just throw out all marriage laws! Never mind that the interests of the people and of the government are better served by having legal recognition of such a union.

Of course, doing away with legal recognition of marriage altogether would be equal treatment under the law, so if that is what most people want, I would support it. Of course, those opposed to same-sex marriage don't want that. They want marriage protections for themselves, and not for "teh gays."

You're putting words in my mouth. Didn't say that. You did.
Then please explain your position. You think government should pull out of marriage, yet you applaud the outright banning of gay marriage and civil unions that has come to pass in several places?

I propose we do exactly that. Leave them alone. Up to and including changing the laws regarding marriage. The federal government has no business legislating marriage. What-so-ever.
I agree. The government should just grant everyone a civil union whether they are joining with someone of the same sex or the opposite sex. Marriage should be left to non-governmental groups including but not limited to churches.

....These two statements are incompatible. If you believe that the federal government has no business in legislating marriage, then we need to change the laws regarding marriage - in fact, we need to get rid of them completely.

We should just throw out all marriage laws! Never mind that the interests of the people and of the government are better served by having legal recognition of such a union.

Of course, doing away with legal recognition of marriage altogether would be equal treatment under the law, so if that is what most people want, I would support it. Of course, those opposed to same-sex marriage don't want that. They want marriage protections for themselves, and not for "teh gays."

Interesting idea. Personally, I don't find anything special about marriage besides certain tax benefits and things of that nature. But besides that, there's no real reason why the State recognizes marriages from religious institutions, seems to violate separation of Church and State.

So the people who support more individual freedom are fascists? What's the world coming to?

david neiwert has some useful writing on this subject. check out his response (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2005/10/ultimate-newspeak.html) to some new book entiled 'Liberal Fascism'. it's also worth reading through his full series of articles on fascism linked on the sidebar and in those linked in the article itself.

Interesting idea. Personally, I don't find anything special about marriage besides certain tax benefits and things of that nature. But besides that, there's no real reason why the State recognizes marriages from religious institutions, seems to violate separation of Church and State.

Tax benefits??? You are aware, I would assume, that most married couples in this country pay more in taxes than they would filing separately?

The reason that the state has a need to recognize marriage comes in more in the legal distinctions. A spouse is the legal next-of-kin and power of attorney should a citizen become incapacitated or killed. Because of the nature of marriage, this is usually the intent of the citizen, and it is safe to assume that, if they did not specify someone else, that is the wish of the citizen. When two people live as a single entity (as most married couples do), ownership lines get very blurred. It isn't "her house" or "his house", it is "their house." They don't take on individual debts, as taking on a debt is generally the result of an agreement of both - and both will contribute to paying back the debt. The government needs a way to distinguish these things - and a specified legal way to split things up if the relationship goes sour.... Other factors that enter into it are child custody, spousal immunity (A person will tell a spouse things they would not tell another, and they are one legal entity, so a person can "plead the fifth" in response to questions about their spouse), and so on.

david neiwert has some useful writing on this subject. check out his response (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2005/10/ultimate-newspeak.html) to some new book entiled 'Liberal Fascism'. it's also worth reading through his full series of articles on fascism linked on the sidebar and in those linked in the article itself.
Jonah Goldberg is just another loudmouth American "pundit" who will say anything to make the other side looks bad.

You could draw any number of parrallels between liberals, conservatives and fascism.

It's almost as if people on the right think it's fascist to be tolerant. Apparently, they don't think that people who are different from themselves have the right to be married. And yet they still think the tolerant side is fascist? This is sad. I wonder what the Founding Fathers would say about such blatant bigotry and intolerance...

The idea that anyone who disagrees with you is automaticaly 'stupid' is wrong. Thats what they Gay lobby has a case of at the moment

The idea that anyone who disagrees with you is automaticaly 'stupid' is wrong. Thats what they Gay lobby has a case of at the moment

What is this nebulous "gay lobby"?

People on both sides of any argument have this problem, but that doesn't mean that any particular movement (as a whole) does. Most people who rally for the rights of homosexuals don't think that people who are opposed to those rights are "stupid", we just think that they are generally bigots. And, as per the definition of bigot, we are generally right.

I don't necessarily think that someone who thinks we should deny blacks the right to vote is "stupid". They may be very intelligent. However, I have yet to see any logical argument for such a position - so it ends up as a case of an intelligent person ignoring logic and going with emotion instead. Happens to everyone, both intelligent and unintelligent....

Oh, and homophobia is also a deceptive term. It used to be a clinical terms to desrcibe a mental disorder that resulted in an irrational, instinctual fear of homosexuals like other "phobias" tend to be. Like Acrophobia- Fear of heights, Amathophobia- Fear of dust, Amaxophobia- Fear of riding in a car, Ambulophobia- Fear of walking.

Opposition on moral grounds to a Homosexual Rights agenda is not based on an irrational, instinctual fear of homosexuals. Opposing Gay marriage is not a mental disorder. And ascribing it to homophobia is an effort to marginalize the other side of a debate so that their opinions can just be discarded as the ravings of crazy people. There is a certain soft fascism present in the Gay Rights agenda; people who make a moral objection are nuts while the Gay Rights people are rational and sensible.


Well, this is complete crap. He's right to state that "opposition on moral grounds to a homosexual rights agenda is not based on...fear of homosexuals." I believe that can be true. It isn't always, but it can be. When it becomes homophobia is when this "moral opposition" goes from opposition to repression, attacks, false propaganda and active marginalization. Nobody acts like that around something of which they're unafraid. The irrational mandate that everyone believe the same things and in the same way as the Moral Majority (which is, by the way, neither) is of course based on fear -- fear that their children will be somehow "recruited" by homosexuals, among other ludicrous fictions from the paranoid religious Reich -- sorry, Right.

I've got no beef with someone who is morally opposed to homosexuality. That's as much their personality as a homoesxual who is anything from a sterotypical flamer or average as any straight. It's when these petty moralists begin to imagine that what they believe is what's inflexibly and indelibly right for the entire nation (if not the world). Live and let live does not exist with these people. Thing is, these restrictive whack-a-loons are not the majority, they just make a lot of noise and have co-opted a major political party to get their own paranoid agendae through Congress. They're also awash in money, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of hypocrisy and moneychanging in the temple.

The idea that anyone who disagrees with you is automaticaly 'stupid' is wrong. Thats what they Gay lobby has a case of at the moment

"Everyone who thinks homosexuals should not have the same rights as others without giving an argument besides fear, hatred or religious doctrine has an aversion to homosexuals."

Yep, it's plain to see.:rolleyes:

Oh, and homophobia is also a deceptive term. It used to be a clinical terms to desrcibe a mental disorder that resulted in an irrational, instinctual fear of homosexuals like other "phobias" tend to be. Like Acrophobia- Fear of heights, Amathophobia- Fear of dust, Amaxophobia- Fear of riding in a car, Ambulophobia- Fear of walking.
Welcome to the world of mental illness or as some would say behaviors classified as diseases. In the most recent DSM(I might be wrong on the abreviation) racisim is now a mental disorder. I could go on about this but its was done in another dead thread.

Opposition on moral grounds to a Homosexual Rights agenda is not based on an irrational, instinctual fear of homosexuals. Opposing Gay marriage is not a mental disorder. And ascribing it to homophobia is an effort to marginalize the other side of a debate so that their opinions can just be discarded as the ravings of crazy people. There is a certain soft fascism present in the Gay Rights agenda; people who make a moral objection are nuts while the Gay Rights people are rational and sensible.
Your problem is not with gay rights supportors rather with psychologists and other mental health professionals. The people who support gay rights aren't the ones who put this view in the books. Hell if we look back years ago homosexuality was a mental illness. Your accusing the wrong people avalon of continuing the view that homophobia is a disease.

The idea that anyone who disagrees with you is automaticaly 'stupid' is wrong. Thats what they Gay lobby has a case of at the moment
You say it like it is some sort of conspiricy ... wear tinfoil hats often? Some say they are a fassion statement.

Everytime someone uses the word "homophobe", question it, ask for proof that the person being referred to actually has such an illness. Inform then that their use of the word is not appropriate, and that anyone has a right to dislike homosexuals, provided that no violence is initiated. They may say what they please.

Don't use it as an insult. You wouldn't say that someone had HIV as an insult?

If there's a single person on Earth who has actually been diagnosed, by a medical specialist in phobias, as being homophobic, then the use of the word is appropriate in regard to that person, and it should not be treated as something reprehensible to be punished, because it is simply a disease. A problem for medicine to solve. Nothing more.


Let's see what American Heritage has to say courtesy of www.dictionary.com:

pho·bi·a
n.
A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.
A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.

---------------
[From -phobia.]

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


So, nowhere in that definition do you see the word "disease." There are no medical specialists in phobias, save the MD in Psychiatry who runs the initial diagnosis and can prescribe meds.

I've got no problem with folks who disagree with me -- in fact, I welcome them because that's how I learn and adapt in this world. However, the post to which I'm replying is so completely flawed and full of shit that I felt compelled to refute it. Either learn to express yourself in a way that makes sense or, please, stay the hell out of the argument.

Let's see what American Heritage has to say courtesy of snip
Webster says the same thing ... I have TWICE posted it yet people keep right on saying the word is misused

By the way, strictly speaking the "homo" in the psychiatric realm of "homophobia" doesn't mean "same sex". It means "human." As in the species nomencalture for modern humanity, homo sapiens (a name which I am beginning to find more and more inaccurate as I age, because "sapiens" derives from the Latin for "wisdom"...). So homophobia in it's clinical sense (which has been twisted out of recognition by those promoting the whole "Gay Agenda" paranoia) really means "fear of (other) humans."

Point is, we can bandy semantic volleyballs about all day -- it still doesn't change the fact that zealots on both -- BOTH -- sides of this thorny issue make reasonable people cringe.

Let's see what American Heritage has to say courtesy of --snip
Webster says the same thing ... I have TWICE posted it yet people keep right on saying the word is misused

Yeah, I know. I guess it's among the last vestiges of my hope for a reasonable humanity that made me want to post another definition. The only way EITHER side can seem to be winning an argument anymore is to adopt the Karl Rove strategy of "repeat it often enough and it will become reality." Now it's being used by both sides, and I am even more disgusted.

Anyone seen Sancho? He's got my lance. Fuckin' windmills.

By the way, strictly speaking the "homo" in the psychiatric realm of "homophobia" doesn't mean "same sex". It means "human." As in the species nomencalture for modern humanity, homo sapiens (a name which I am beginning to find more and more inaccurate as I age, because "sapiens" derives from the Latin for "wisdom"...). So homophobia in it's clinical sense (which has been twisted out of recognition by those promoting the whole "Gay Agenda" paranoia) really means "fear of (other) humans."


Not really,homo is the prefix for things that are the same,where as hetero is the prefix for things that are different.so homosexuals are sexually attracted to members of the same sex,and vice versa.another example is heterotrophs,organisms which get their food from other (different,get it) organisms.

So im pretty sure fear of other humans would be homohomsapienophobia.quite the mouthful,so it would surely be shortened to homosapienophobia.

Anyone seen Sancho? He's got my lance. Fuckin' windmills.

Don Quixote are teh roxors

This is a post by someone else on another forum that I wanted people on here to see what they made of

You're right. I wish I would have noticed they were doing this. It's like black people, calling people racist when they are called "niggers" instead of just debating the point rationally. Those damn gays are their soft fascist agenda of calling people out for attempting to deny them rights because they're "icky". I consider myself educated from the quoted information. I'm so glad you offered it to us. I feel like my brain is no longer washed. Thank you. Good thing the person you quoted would never do such a thing like calling the gay rights agenda fascist.

You're right. I wish I would have noticed they were doing this. It's like black people, calling people racist when they are called "niggers" instead of just debating the point rationally. Those damn gays are their soft fascist agenda of calling people out for attempting to deny them rights because they're "icky". I consider myself educated from the quoted information. I'm so glad you offered it to us. I feel like my brain is no longer washed. Thank you. Good thing the person you quoted would never do such a thing like calling the gay rights agenda fascist.
Ouch the sarcasm burnzes :fluffle:

You declare hypocrisy? Well, thank you Mr. Chief Justice of the High Court of the Entire Universe.

The difference between the charge of soft fascism (in reality soft communism, but we'll let that slide), and the charge of "homophobia" is that the charge is soft fascism is backed by the facts. The Gay Lobby never address the arguments laid out against them, they merely accuse their opponents of having a mental illness. The charge of "homophobia" bears no relation with the facts, and no attempt is ever made to prove that such a phobia exists. The charge is made for the simple reason that the Gay Lobby cannot conceive that someone can legitimately make an argument against them.

Hmmmm... does anyone have a term for taking a group and treating them like they are all one homogenous group all thinking the same thing. I've seen plenty of the arguments addressed by the 'gay lobby'. Unfortunately, it's really hard to address all the strawman argument that are made, but the arguments that are genuine are addressed all over the place. You just don't like the answers.

How about instead of making blanket claims you mentions your arguments here, and I'll be glad to address them?

Hmmmm... does anyone have a term for taking a group and treating them like they are all one homogenous group all thinking the same thing. I've seen plenty of the arguments addressed by the 'gay lobby'.

Hasty or undue generalization?

Perhaps to some extent, fallacy of composition?

Unrepresentative sample?

Strawman. There is nothing to suggest that any disagreement with the gay lobby, and their agenda, automatically constitutes an attempt to marginalise homosexuals.

You also proceed from the false premise that the gay lobby is actually representative of homosexuals, and always advocates what is in their best interest, when there is no real proof of either.

Ha. This is great. I wish I had a webpage to put this on. Actually, everyone operates on the assumption that the gay lobby represents *gasp* gays. If you wish to assert otherwise, provide evidence.

The express goal of the gay lobby is to get equal rights for homosexuals and if you disagree with that goal then, yes, you are attempting to marginalize homosexuals. Now, if you address individual behaviors then your argument would have more merit, instead of blanket statements about this homogenous gay lobby.

Hasty or undue generlization?

Perhaps to some extent, fallacy of composition?

Thanks. I giggled. I was hoping someone would play straightman.

Arguing the rationality of morals won't get you anywhere. Anyway, it is only your opinion that not liking homosexuals is irrational.

All of morality is rationality, and the twisting thereof.

What is your wonderful rational explanation for not liking an individual because they are sexually attracted to members of the same sex. Would you say that is rational to not like individuals who are attracted to redheads?

I would also add that you, and others are basing your arguments on the false presmise that opposition to the gay lobby is indicative of an aversion to homosexuals. What this means is that even if I accepted that "homophobia" meant an aversion to homosexuals, the accusation would still be unjustified.

There is absolutely no reason to oppose the gay lobby short of an irrational aversion to homosexuals and homosexuality.

Strawman. There is nothing to suggest that any disagreement with the gay lobby, and their agenda, automatically constitutes an attempt to marginalise homosexuals.

I just noticed this.

Disraeliland, you're going to have to help me through this one. Generally speaking I agree with your proposition. If you disagree with the arguments of a person or generally of a group then you are not attempting to marginalize that person/group.

However, you should consider context here. This is about the rights of said group being recongnized in the mainstream. If you do not agree with their arguments, without providing arguments of your own to recongnize their rights, then you are marginalizing that group. You may not want to but you certainly are doing so.

Thanks. I giggled. I was hoping someone would play straightman.

Wait. If I'm not playing the straightman does that mean that I'm... :eek:

Not intolerant. Just more than a little reluctant to having someone else's agenda force fed down my throat, and having that force feeding governmentally mandated by a highly vocal minority. That smacks of fascism.




Constitutional rights are not subject to the vote of local majorities, only to the process of constitutional amendment.

Regarding the 'why do right-wingers get called intolerant' spam:

Because that's their official position.

Nothing wrong with it because (according to you) everyone does it?

Not buying it.

The idea that there's nothing we can do about it is absurd. Why can't we? Why should we accept a definition that is wrong? Everytime someone uses the word "homophobe", question it, ask for proof that the person being referred to actually has such an illness. Inform then that their use of the word is not appropriate, and that anyone has a right to dislike homosexuals, provided that no violence is initiated. They may say what they please.

Don't use it as an insult. You wouldn't say that someone had HIV as an insult?

If there's a single person on Earth who has actually been diagnosed, by a medical specialist in phobias, as being homophobic, then the use of the word is appropriate in regard to that person, and it should not be treated as something reprehensible to be punished, because it is simply a disease. A problem for medicine to solve. Nothing more.

The incorrect use of the word "homophobe" got into the lexicon, it can be removed, along with rubbish like "thine".

Another point, you say the use of the word "homophobe" is an attempt to discredit opponents? This is plain rubbish. It is nothing more than an attempt to slander opponents as being incapable of making a legitimate, rational argument.

Hmmm... kind of like calling them fascists. I'll tell you what, until you can prove that this homogenous gay lobby is actually either fascist or communist then you can't use those terms either. You would obviously question the use of anyone using those terms to keep that ridiculous use out of the lexicon. You wouldn't let wrong terms be used just to represent people who only marginally have something in common with the people represented by the term, right?

The assertion that a particular opposition stems from mental illness sounds more like communism. They used to put political critics of the regime in "mental assylums", though the general point that you make is certainly correct. The Gay Lobby consistantly refuse to address their opponents' arguments, or even recognise that they are intelligent people capable of expressing a reasoned opinion.

The difference between the charge of soft fascism (in reality soft communism, but we'll let that slide), and the charge of "homophobia" is that the charge is soft fascism is backed by the facts.

Pull your pants up, son, your hypocrisy is showing and the girls are starting to giggle.

I didn't say their agenda was fascist, I said the people in the Gay Lobby act like communists.

Kind of like we're saying that some anti-gay people act like homophobes.

I mean if you just have to have one thing in common with a group to be considered part of that group. More importantly, you aren't representing a belief of communism but a belief of a government that happened to be communist. I guess the belief that blowing up buildings in Oklahoma is rational is a white male belief. Hey, Osama, quit acting like a white male. I don't know how you can type this stuff and expect people not to laugh.

Disliking the homosexual lifestyle is not an illness or a disease, and providing that this mindset does is not accompanied by actions which quantifiably harm gays, is part and parcel of the guaranteed right to believe whatever one damned well pleases.

I'm curious. Can you explain to me what the 'homosexual lifestyle' is exactly? Is there a heterosexual lifestyle? I'm a heterosexual and you're a heterosexual (it sounds as if anyway, but I'm guessing). I wonder how similar our lifestyles are.

I'm curious. Can you explain to me what the 'homosexual lifestyle' is exactly? Is there a heterosexual lifestyle? I'm a heterosexual and you're a heterosexual (it sounds as if anyway, but I'm guessing). I wonder how similar our lifestyles are.


After much searching I was able to find it: The Gay Agenda (http://www.markfiore.com/animation/agenda.html).

(Warning might not be suitable for all ages. Viewer discresion advised.)

Not really,homo is the prefix for things that are the same,where as hetero is the prefix for things that are different.

I stand corrected. "Homo" means of the genus of extant and extinct humans only when capitalized.

Thanks for catching my goof.

JH

And you still hold to a conspiracy against those opposed to homosexual riught composed by the "Gay Lobby."
It's not a conspiracy, more of a general mentality that pervades the scene. It happens in any close-knit community, most often seen in places like policemen, the peace corps, etc... The tighter knit a group, the higher the probability of a group mentality, positive or negative, it matters not, appearing.

Bollocks. My thesis (which I've made clear several times) is that the practices of the Gay Lobby, in the instance to which the OP pointed, are reminiscent of the practices of communists. A thesis which I have proven, and no one has made a real attempt to refute.

HAHAHAHA! That's great. Can you show any communist documentation that suggests that all dissidents should be thrown in mental institutions? Can you show any 'gay lobby' documentation suggesting that these people are actually mentally-ill and not just being referred to as having an irrational fear of gays? Also, I'll state again suggesting that all of the actions of USSR represents communism is to say that it is Christian if anyone wants to assassinate the leader of a country they don't agree with just because Pat Robertson said it. But that misusage of communism doesn't seem to bother you at all. Interesting dichotomy. By interesting I mean ridiculous, just to be clear.

Can you show any 'gay lobby' documentation suggesting that these people are actually mentally-ill and not just being referred to as having an irrational fear of gays?

They generally aren't even being suggested to having any fear at all of gays. They are being said to be intolerant of gays, or to have an aversion to them, as per the definition of the root -phobia.

Would you say that is rational to not like individuals who are attracted to redheads?


Oh, you know those redheads and their agenda.

They're out to get our kids! We have to stop them!

SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!

:headbang:

Oh, you know those redheads and their agenda.

They're out to get our kids! We have to stop them!

SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!

:headbang:

We can't let them reproduce and create more unclean children!

Nothing wrong with it because (according to you) everyone does it?

Not buying it.

The idea that there's nothing we can do about it is absurd. Why can't we? Why should we accept a definition that is wrong? Everytime someone uses the word "homophobe", question it, ask for proof that the person being referred to actually has such an illness. Inform then that their use of the word is not appropriate, and that anyone has a right to dislike homosexuals, provided that no violence is initiated. They may say what they please.

Don't use it as an insult. You wouldn't say that someone had HIV as an insult?

If there's a single person on Earth who has actually been diagnosed, by a medical specialist in phobias, as being homophobic, then the use of the word is appropriate in regard to that person, and it should not be treated as something reprehensible to be punished, because it is simply a disease. A problem for medicine to solve. Nothing more.

The incorrect use of the word "homophobe" got into the lexicon, it can be removed, along with rubbish like "thine".

Another point, you say the use of the word "homophobe" is an attempt to discredit opponents? This is plain rubbish. It is nothing more than an attempt to slander opponents as being incapable of making a legitimate, rational argument.

Hence the reason I avoid the use of the word 'homophobe', its a non-descripter that doesn't actually accurately describe the individual, and ontop of that, its struck out at a moments notice in defence of anything - its right up there with a person who calls another person racist because they can't get away with something - that reminds me of a party at my house at the last year of high school/college.

A bunch of maori guys came to the gate and wanted in, I turned around and said that this is a private party, and that they weren't invited - they had the gaul to then turn around and call me a racist; they felt like a right bunch of nitwits when my friends came out, wondering what the fuss was all about - it was a sea of colours, from european to maori, from Polynesian to Asian; these gate crashers eventually left.

One word I'd like fixed is the use of tolerance; there is a defining difference between tolerance and acceptance; for the love of god, could people here actually research the difference; I tolerate a cold, I tolerate the current government, but that doesn't mean I like it.

We can't let them reproduce and create more unclean children!

That's funny, because redheads are recessive genes. I seem to recall seeing a geneticist who said that over the course of the next few centuries, redheads would eventually disappear because darker heir colors systematically take precedence in the genome of their children.

That's also funny regarding gays and lesbians. And very, very ironic.:p

Because there is no reasonable basis to deprive homosexuals of their rights, the only basis is the emotional one, which is roughly a "fear and hatred of homosexuals." An unreasonable, irrational aversion.

Prove it. Prove that absolutely every single person who has objected to their agenda does it from a position of hatred.

Then, what exactly is that "gay lobby" of yours arguing for, if not for equal rights for homosexuals? Which of their demands do you oppose, and on what grounds? If you do not answer these questions, well of course it's gonna be a bit hard to put things into perspective.

I've no need to do anything of the sort. Like all lobby groups, they claim to be arguing for right, truth, justice etc.

The point is that A: We don't have to believe them, and frankly, I'm suspicious of any lobby group, and B: Mere opposition to their arguments does not constitute an aversion to gays.

So, tell us what of the "gay lobby" you oppose, and on what grounds, so we may try to understand why they may have deemed fit to label you "homophobic" unfairly.

Since when have I commented on their agenda, or homosexuals in general? Don't put words in my mouth. I object to the methods of the gay lobby. Is that "homophobic"? :rolleyes: Perhaps it is also "homophobic" to object to the sugar lobby telling everyone that free trade with the US will cause a global cataclysm?

You have proven nothing, as homophobia does not refer to a mental illness. Thus, someone calling another person homophobic has not accused them of having a mental illness any more than calling another person racist or sexist is accusing them of having a mental illness. It is a way to point out bigotry.

Nonsense, terms like racism and sexism (as I have pointed out before) are neutral with regard to the cause, a word like homophobia isn't.

"Since when does being in opposition... make you a homophobe?" Because you are intolerant of gays? That's pretty fucking homophobic to me. Or are you trying to redefine the definition?

Nonsense. Prove that mere opposition to the gay lobby's agenda is intolerance of gays. I'll prove it isn't, one of the things they argue for in Australia is state-funded access to IVF for lesbians. I could oppose it on libertarian grounds, namely there's no obligation for the taxpayers to fund other people's dreams of children, and all state-funding of IVF should be abolished (regardless of whether the people seeking the services are hererosexual, or homosexual, or dendrophiliacs). No intolerance of homosexuals there, no indication of any attitude to them one way or the other towards homosexuals, merely an attitude to the role of the state. I can see their argument for equal entitlement with non-homosexuals, I argue (in this case) for no entitlement. A homosexual could make such an argument himself, if he held libertarian views.

Prove that holding libertarian views is homophobic.

Agenda? They just want to be left the fuck alone

Arguing for state entitlements hardly constitutes wanting to be left alone, and as I remind you, the gay lobby in Australia does argue for state entitlements.

And all those people who opposed women's suffrage, they were misogynist at all! They just didn't like the women's agenda of being able to vote!

Not at all, they may have favoured the notion that voting rights should attach to property ownership (hence an opposition to universal female suffrage), or they may have been communists, or held to some other totalitarian ideology (hence opposition to the democratic process, and therefore to any extension of it)

These two statements are incompatible. If you believe that the federal government has no business in legislating marriage, then we need to change the laws regarding marriage - in fact, we need to get rid of them completely.

Good idea.

We should just throw out all marriage laws! Never mind that the interests of the people and of the government are better served by having legal recognition of such a union.

Wonderful idea! Callooh, Callay! The government is not there to protect people's interests, just their rights, in this case, their right to be together, and enter into a contract.

Of course, doing away with legal recognition of marriage altogether would be equal treatment under the law, so if that is what most people want, I would support it. Of course, those opposed to same-sex marriage don't want that. They want marriage protections for themselves, and not for "teh gays.

So, all people opposed making same-sex marriage laws think this? No, I don't. I take the view that the government is there to protect people's rights, so the only role the government could have is protecting their contract rights, and providing a court system in which disputes over that contract can be fought out.

Tax benefits??? You are aware, I would assume, that most married couples in this country pay more in taxes than they would filing separately?

There are benefits in the code. All you prove (quite rightly, I might add) is that of the government can extract money out of someone, it will extract money out of someone.

The reason that the state has a need to recognize marriage comes in more in the legal distinctions. A spouse is the legal next-of-kin and power of attorney should a citizen become incapacitated or killed. Because of the nature of marriage, this is usually the intent of the citizen, and it is safe to assume that, if they did not specify someone else, that is the wish of the citizen. When two people live as a single entity (as most married couples do), ownership lines get very blurred. It isn't "her house" or "his house", it is "their house." They don't take on individual debts, as taking on a debt is generally the result of an agreement of both - and both will contribute to paying back the debt. The government needs a way to distinguish these things - and a specified legal way to split things up if the relationship goes sour.... Other factors that enter into it are child custody, spousal immunity (A person will tell a spouse things they would not tell another, and they are one legal entity, so a person can "plead the fifth" in response to questions about their spouse), and so on.

All that's needed is public notice of the contract between the couple, it doesn't have to be a state drafted contract, why should a private lawyer not draft a particular contract tailored to the needs of the couple?

So, nowhere in that definition do you see the word "disease." There are no medical specialists in phobias, save the MD in Psychiatry who runs the initial diagnosis and can prescribe meds.

A phobia is an anxiety disorder.

Actually, everyone operates on the assumption that the gay lobby represents *gasp* gays. If you wish to assert otherwise, provide evidence.

Why? There's no reason to assume such a thing. They claim to, but every lobby claims to represent some group who desparately needs to be heard. I've no need to produce evidence, it is for you to show evidence that the gay lobby really does represent gays generally, and that opposition to their agenda is always based on an aversion or fear of gays.

What is your wonderful rational explanation for not liking an individual because they are sexually attracted to members of the same sex. Would you say that is rational to not like individuals who are attracted to redheads?

Where have I indicated a specific attitude to homosexuals. Opposing the gay lobby, and its agenda and methods doesn't indicate.

There is absolutely no reason to oppose the gay lobby short of an irrational aversion to homosexuals and homosexuality.

Prove it. I already disproved it, through the use of libertarian arguments against a part of their agenda (state-funded IVF)

I just noticed this.

Disraeliland, you're going to have to help me through this one. Generally speaking I agree with your proposition. If you disagree with the arguments of a person or generally of a group then you are not attempting to marginalize that person/group.

However, you should consider context here. This is about the rights of said group being recongnized in the mainstream. If you do not agree with their arguments, without providing arguments of your own to recongnize their rights, then you are marginalizing that group. You may not want to but you certainly are doing so.

The simple answer is that they are arguing for more than just rights. Its not so apparant in the US because the spectrum of state entitlement is less, there is not, for example, any state funding of IVF. In countries that are more "leftist", there are these things. The Australian Government funds IVF for married heterosexual couples. The gay lobby here argues for state funded IVF for homosexuals. I oppose this on libertarian grounds, the exact argument runs along the lines of: Its bad enough that the taxpayer is extorted to pay for heterosexual couples without extending it. Entitlements should be eliminated, rather than extended.

In that argument, there is no marginalising of homosexuals, no evidence of a specific attitude to them at all, merely an attitude to the appropriate role of the state.

Kind of like we're saying that some anti-gay people act like homophobes.

I mean if you just have to have one thing in common with a group to be considered part of that group. More importantly, you aren't representing a belief of communism but a belief of a government that happened to be communist. I guess the belief that blowing up buildings in Oklahoma is rational is a white male belief. Hey, Osama, quit acting like a white male. I don't know how you can type this stuff and expect people not to laugh.

If I thought as you do, I'd call you dyslexic, as you clearly haven't read, or comprehended my arguments. It is well established that it is the practice of communists to regard opposition as a sign of mental illness.

If I thought as you do, I'd call you dyslexic, as you clearly haven't read, or comprehended my arguments. It is well established that it is the practice of communists to regard opposition as a sign of mental illness.

So now I'm dyslexic? You do know what dyslexic is, yeah? What evidence do you have that I'm dyslexic. Is it a habit of yours to accuse people who disagree with you of have a disorder? I thought that's what you were opposing?

Again, pull up those pants.

Now, since it's a policy of communism and not just a particular state that happens to be communist, you should be able to find some documentation that says it is a communist policy and not the policy of a corrupt nationstate. Unless denying gay rights is a democratic policy. Is it? I was under the impression that we treated individuals as individuals. Isn't that what you're arguing should be done? The hypocrisy of some people. Now would you like to actually support your argument or are we going to have some more ad hominems. I would prefer ad hominems because they make you look silly.

So now I'm dyslexic? You do know what dyslexic is, yeah? What evidence do you have that I'm dyslexic. Is it a habit of yours to accuse people who disagree with you of have a disorder? I thought that's what you were opposing?

You don't comprehend my posts.

Unless denying gay rights is a democratic policy.

Who said the argument was al about rights? Only those unwilling to prove it. I have already shown that part of it is about entitlements.

In any case, the actual agenda of the gay lobby is not the topic at hand. The topic at hand is their methods.

That's funny, because redheads are recessive genes. I seem to recall seeing a geneticist who said that over the course of the next few centuries, redheads would eventually disappear because darker heir colors systematically take precedence in the genome of their children.

[palpatine voice]Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design.[/palpatine voice]

In any case, the actual agenda of the gay lobby is not the topic at hand. The topic at hand is their methods.


Please, tell us WHICH methods they are using and you are objecting too. Keep staying vague like that, and we can't possibly know what you,re talking about.

What do they do that you object upon? Be precise. Give examples. Tell us why it's wrong. Discuss, dammit :p

You don't comprehend my posts.


Assuming that is true (I've demonstrated it isn't, but), how does that translate to dyslexic? Considering your objection to the word homophobe, I should think if you were even remotely consistent, you would have just said, "it seems like you're not reading my posts properly". Instead, ad hominems. Hypocrite.

I noticed you ignored the rest of my points. What was that about reading comprehension?

Now, would you care to demonstrate where it can be found in any communist documentation, in any form, that communism supports the concept of placing dissidents in asylums? Can you show it is a universal practice of communists? Oh, wait, I get it, you only require that of the Gay Lobby. You on the other had don't actually have to be accurate when you call people names or make spurious accusations. That's nice and consistent of you.

Please, tell us WHICH methods they are using and you are objecting too. Keep staying vague like that, and we can't possibly know what you,re talking about.

What do they do that you object upon? Be precise. Give examples. Tell us why it's wrong. Discuss, dammit :p

The method of villifiying those who disagree, for the simple fact of that disagreement, and building a stigma around certain ways of thought (not liking homosexuals). Neither is conducive to debate, both are simply designed to silence opposition.

I noticed you ignored the rest of my points.

You haven't made any points, or at least none worth addressing.

Nonsense, terms like racism and sexism (as I have pointed out before) are neutral with regard to the cause, a word like homophobia isn't.

And, as has been pointed out to you, your assumption that "phobia", as used in this case, has anything at all to do with (a) fear or (b) a mental disorder is completely unfounded. The root -phobia can refer to an irrational fear, but can also refer to an intolerance for, or an aversion to. Racism, sexism, and homophobia are all intolerance for a given group of people. Thus, they are all equally neutral.

Nonsense. Prove that mere opposition to the gay lobby's agenda is intolerance of gays. I'll prove it isn't, one of the things they argue for in Australia is state-funded access to IVF for lesbians. I could oppose it on libertarian grounds, namely there's no obligation for the taxpayers to fund other people's dreams of children, and all state-funding of IVF should be abolished (regardless of whether the people seeking the services are hererosexual, or homosexual, or dendrophiliacs). No intolerance of homosexuals there, no indication of any attitude to them one way or the other towards homosexuals, merely an attitude to the role of the state. I can see their argument for equal entitlement with non-homosexuals, I argue (in this case) for no entitlement. A homosexual could make such an argument himself, if he held libertarian views.

If you are arguing a case for no entitlement, you are not arguing against their point, which is equal entitlement. The case which you bring up is only an issue because there is state funding of IVF. If there was no such funding, there would be no issue of lesbians gaining access to it.

Arguing for state entitlements hardly constitutes wanting to be left alone, and as I remind you, the gay lobby in Australia does argue for state entitlements.

No, their argument is for equal treatment under the law. The law currently provides entitlements, so all citizens should have equal access to said entitlements. If they weren't there, then homosexuals would not be arguing for equal access to them....

Wonderful idea! Callooh, Callay! The government is not there to protect people's interests, just their rights, in this case, their right to be together, and enter into a contract.

And since homosexuals are denied the right to enter into said contract (which, in this case, is called marriage), then the government is obviously not protecting their rights.....

So, all people opposed making same-sex marriage laws think this?

Evey single one I have spoken to does.

No, I don't. I take the view that the government is there to protect people's rights, so the only role the government could have is protecting their contract rights, and providing a court system in which disputes over that contract can be fought out.

(a) Your argument is not against same-sex marriage, but against marriage in general (sort of).

(b) Since marriage is, essentially, a contract, what is your argument against civil marriage?

There are benefits in the code.

Not specifically for marriage. There is a separate code for marriage - one which was written for a single-income household. For that reason, two-income households are generally penalized for being married. It is often referred to as the "marriage tax."

There are benefits (breaks) for children, mortgage interest, etc. which married people tend to get more often than single people, but no specific break for marriage (at least in the federal code - state codes vary).

All that's needed is public notice of the contract between the couple, it doesn't have to be a state drafted contract, why should a private lawyer not draft a particular contract tailored to the needs of the couple?

I don't see any reason this cannot be done. I also see no reason why a couple who would rather a pre-drafted contract cannot enter into one.

A phobia is an anxiety disorder.

When used as a noun, this is essentially correct. However, it is not being used as a noun, it is being used as a suffix. In that case:

Main Entry: -phobia
Function: noun combining form
Etymology: New Latin, from Late Latin, from Greek, from -phobos fearing, from phobos fear, flight, from phebesthai to flee; akin to Lithuanian begti to flee, Old Church Slavonic bezati
1 : exaggerated fear of <acrophobia>
2 : intolerance or aversion for <photophobia>

This is why we have terms in Chemistry like "hydrophobic". No one in Chemistry is suggesting that the material has an anxiety disorder that makes it afraid of the water. However, the material does repel water - it does not mix with water, so it can be said to have an aversion for water.

Prove it. I already disproved it, through the use of libertarian arguments against a part of their agenda (state-funded IVF)

No, all you have shown is that you can argue against state-funded IVF, not an argument against the very specific case of allowing homosexuals access to it when it is already allowed to others.

That's funny, because redheads are recessive genes. I seem to recall seeing a geneticist who said that over the course of the next few centuries, redheads would eventually disappear because darker heir colors systematically take precedence in the genome of their children.

Any geneticist that said this needs to have his degree revoked. Recessive genes don't disappear over centuries. It is precisely because they are recessive that even harmful examples can be perpetuated.

Recessive genes don't disappear over centuries.
Unless of course selective pressures get rid of them, but this can occur to dominant characteristics too.

The method of villifiying those who disagree, for the simple fact of that disagreement, and building a stigma around certain ways of thought (not liking homosexuals). Neither is conducive to debate, both are simply designed to silence opposition.



You haven't made any points, or at least none worth addressing.


"Not liking homosexuals" is not an acceptable basis for policy. This is analagous to "not liking blacks" or "not liking catholics."

If you are arguing a case for no entitlement, you are not arguing against their point, which is equal entitlement. The case which you bring up is only an issue because there is state funding of IVF. If there was no such funding, there would be no issue of lesbians gaining access to it.

Yes, I am. Since this particular entitlement is not justified, there cannot be any justification for extending it. The case is to reduce it. In this case, you are right in one sense that I am not arguing against equal entitlement, I am for it, provided it equals zero. Which is not what the gay lobby wants.

And since homosexuals are denied the right to enter into said contract (which, in this case, is called marriage), then the government is obviously not protecting their rights.....

Who said the government was succeeding in its role. Its role is to protect rights, its success in that role is minimal.

Evey single one I have spoken to does.

Non-falsifiable hypothesis. You should get out more.

(a) Your argument is not against same-sex marriage, but against marriage in general (sort of).

(b) Since marriage is, essentially, a contract, what is your argument against civil marriage?

My argument is not against marriage in general, it is against any state intervention in it (whether that intervention is seen as good, or bad)

I've no argument against people entering into a contract that binds only the parties making the contract.

I don't see any reason this cannot be done. I also see no reason why a couple who would rather a pre-drafted contract cannot enter into one.

In general quite right, though I don't see why I should be forced to pay for others' pre-drafted contracts. This is a case for Krusty Brand Legal Forms.

No, all you have shown is that you can argue against state-funded IVF, not an argument against the very specific case of allowing homosexuals access to it when it is already allowed to others.

As I said, if an entitlement shouldn't exist, it shouldn't be extended. (I'll put it more simply, if having 10 of something is bad, having 20 of it is worse)

"Not liking homosexuals" is not an acceptable basis for policy. This is analagous to "not liking blacks" or "not liking catholics."

No evidence that a specific policy, or attitude is based upon it.

"Not liking homosexuals" is not an acceptable basis for policy. This is analagous to "not liking blacks" or "not liking catholics."
I second that statement.

Nobody's asking to go out be the best friend of every gay guy you meet. But you have to have a reason for disliking someone: because he's a jerk, because he smells, etc.

Not liking someone because he's gay is homophobia(or homocism, if you prefer) , in the same way that not liking a black-skinned person just because his skin is black is racism.

Let's face it, based on the christians I know, the anti-gay rights movement is extremely, clinicaly, homophobic.

Let's face it, based on the christians I know, the anti-gay rights movement is extremely, clinicaly, homophobic.

You should get out more.

You should get out more.
Because that would change the fact that the christians I know at present are homophobic?

Because that would change the fact that the christians I know at present are homophobic?

You might meet others. The point is that your bigotry against Christians is no less wrong than bigotry against homosexuals. Most quarters in society might tell you otherwise, but this is simply fashion.

Unless of course selective pressures get rid of them, but this can occur to dominant characteristics too.

The problem is that said selective pressures generally cannot get rid of them. This is because those who carry them, but do not have two copies will continue to pass them on to offspring, with only a very small chance of having a mate who also carries it who also passes it on, resulting in a child that will be selected against. The vast majority of people carrying the gene will have no selective pressure placed upon them from having it.

And then there are the cases like the Sickle Cell gene, in which being heterozygous for it actually confers a selective advantage...


Yes, I am. Since this particular entitlement is not justified, there cannot be any justification for extending it. The case is to reduce it. In this case, you are right in one sense that I am not arguing against equal entitlement, I am for it, provided it equals zero. Which is not what the gay lobby wants.

You fail to realize that the "gay lobby" (whatever that is) would not even be having this discussion if the entitlement wasn't already there. In other words, you are not arguing against them because you are arguing a completely different point - that the entitlement itself should not be allowed under law.

A person who argues that the government should not be involved in marriage at all is not arguing against same-sex marriage, they are arguing against civil marriage.

Likewise, you are not arguing against IVF for lesbians, you are arguing against goverment funding of it at all - which is a completely different subject from whether or not it is equally distributed.

The method of villifiying those who disagree, for the simple fact of that disagreement, and building a stigma around certain ways of thought (not liking homosexuals). Neither is conducive to debate, both are simply designed to silence opposition.

Kind of like calling people, fascists, communists or suggesting they have dyslexia. I condemn all of those actions. Since you're not a hypocrite I know you do too.

You haven't made any points, or at least none worth addressing.

Hmmm... I just hurt my back and have nothing better to do so let's play a little game.

Ok, my assertion: Communism as a movement does not support sending dissidents to assylums.

Your assertion: They do support it.

My assertion is falsifiable and yours isn't. So unless I put up every piece of communist literature ever made I can't disprove your point and support mine. So the onus is on you to show evidence or sit down. You have yet to do so. You have shown that the soviets did it, but you're not calling them soviets are you?

My assertion: Gay rights activists (the Gay Lobby) are fighting for equal rights for gays and this is what drives them.

Your assertion: They only sometimes do this and other times they are not representing gays.

My assertion is falsifiable again and yours isn't. I can't disprove your assertion because you admit they sometimes do what they say they do, but you can disprove mine by just showing one case where the lobby had a hidden agenda. Again put up or sit down. You have yet to do so.

My assertion: You are hypocrite who uses the same tactics as the people you condemn.

Your assertion: You don't

Mine is not falsifiable and yours is, so the onus is on me to prove it. Let's see if I can, shall we?

The difference between the charge of soft fascism (in reality soft communism, but we'll let that slide), and the charge of "homophobia" is that the charge is soft fascism is backed by the facts.

Yet, you admit they are not fascist in their actions or beliefs. Nor have you shown that they are in fact communists. But I'm sure that's an isolated incident.

The assertion that a particular opposition stems from mental illness sounds more like communism. They used to put political critics of the regime in "mental assylums", though the general point that you make is certainly correct.

There it is again.

So let's set out your own rules.

When you can prove that absolutely everyone opposed to the agenda of the Gay Lobby, and absolutely every argument against it is rooted in irrational, then your argument might hold water, however in such a case, it is refuted simply by pointing out the simple fact that ad-hominem attacks don't impact on the arguments.

So according to you unless everyone in the Gay Lobby acts like a communist and absolutely every communist wants people who disagree with them to end up in mental facilities, your argument doesn't hold water. It's just a guess, but that definition I guess you argument doesn't hold water.

Let's see some more of your rules, shall we?

It is nothing more than an attempt to slander opponents as being incapable of making a legitimate, rational argument.

Hmmmm... let's see if you ever did this.

If I thought as you do, I'd call you dyslexic, as you clearly haven't read, or comprehended my arguments. It is well established that it is the practice of communists to regard opposition as a sign of mental illness.

If I thought as you do, I'd accuse you of having dyslexia, because you've clearly not read my post.

Oh, looky, there is you claiming that someone who asks you for evidence must be dyslexic. I know how you despise those ad hominems. And again, it's well established yet you can't find a shred of support for your position. Interesting.

I'll continue.

The way the Gay Lobby, and their supporters meet counter-arguments with insults

And I'm sure you never do. Oh, wait, look above when you said I was dyslexic and refused to support your point. Nice. Let's see if we can find you dismissing arguments with insults.

I didn't say their agenda was fascist, I said the people in the Gay Lobby act like communists.

If I thought as you do, I'd accuse you of having dyslexia, because you've clearly not read my post.

If I thought as you do, I'd call you dyslexic, as you clearly haven't read, or comprehended my arguments.

Hmmm... what do you call, calling everyone who disagrees with you dyslexic (another disorder)?

My thesis (which I've made clear several times) is that the practices of the Gay Lobby, in the instance to which the OP pointed, are reminiscent of the practices of communists.

Hence the reason I compared their conduct with communists, who did essentially the same thing (the only difference is that the communists had the power to actually commit their critics to lunatic assylums)

You've in fact never demonstrated that the point of 'the Gay Lobby' is to suggest they are mentally ill rather than it is a irrational fear, and you've never shown any support for them actually wanting to incarcerate their opponents, yet you continue to claim otherwise.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9881149&postcount=51

There's a post that demonstrably shows that your claim about the misuse of the term is totally false, yet you persist to claim that the Gay Lobby acts like communists.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9881747&postcount=60

Here's another one. Yet you persist.

Then it is reposted here:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9884913&postcount=126

And you have addressed that point never.

Does anybody smell burning hypcrite? Are you standing to close to the fire? Now which is it this time, do I have a disorder that makes it difficult for me to read or do I have no points to address?

Let's face it, based on the christians I know, the anti-gay rights movement is extremely, clinicaly, homophobic.
it sure seems that way to me. that there is some minority of anti-garyrights people who really really like gay people but sadly have to deny them basic human rights doesnt change it.

You might meet others. The point is that your bigotry against Christians is no less wrong than bigotry against homosexuals. Most quarters in society might tell you otherwise, but this is simply fashion.
I'm not bigoted against christians. I'm simply stated all the christians I know are homophobic. I'm sure there are hoards of christians out there who love and embrace homosexuals. I've never met one though...

Let's face it, based on the christians I know, the anti-gay rights movement is extremely, clinicaly, homophobic.

Sorry, gotta agree with Dis on this one. I'm a Christian and I helped found an equal rights for all gender identities and sexualities group. He's wrong to lump people together and then attack them and so are you.

[QUOTE=Disraeliland]The method of villifiying those who disagree, for the simple fact of that disagreement, and building a stigma around certain ways of thought (not liking homosexuals). Neither is conducive to debate, both are simply designed to silence opposition.

Kind of like calling people, fascists, communists or suggesting they have dyslexia. I condemn all of those actions. Since you're not a hypocrite I know you do too.



Hmmm... I just hurt my back and have nothing better to do so let's play a little game.

Ok, my assertion: Communism as a movement does not support sending dissidents to assylums.

Your assertion: They do support it.

My assertion is falsifiable and yours isn't. So unless I put up every piece of communist literature ever made I can't disprove your point and support mine. So the onus is on you to show evidence or sit down. You have yet to do so. You have shown that the soviets did it, but you're not calling them soviets are you?

My assertion: Gay rights activists (the Gay Lobby) are fighting for equal rights for gays and this is what drives them.

Your assertion: They only sometimes do this and other times they are not representing gays.

My assertion is falsifiable again and yours isn't. I can't disprove your assertion because you admit they sometimes do what they say they do, but you can disprove mine by just showing one case where the lobby had a hidden agenda. Again put up or sit down. You have yet to do so.

My assertion: You are hypocrite who uses the same tactics as the people you condemn.

Your assertion: You don't

Mine is not falsifiable and yours is, so the onus is on me to prove it. Let's see if I can, shall we?



Yet, you admit they are not fascist in their actions or beliefs. Nor have you shown that they are in fact communists. But I'm sure that's an isolated incident.



There it is again.

So let's set out your own rules.



So according to you unless everyone in the Gay Lobby acts like a communist and absolutely every communist wants people who disagree with them to end up in mental facilities, your argument doesn't hold water. It's just a guess, but that definition I guess you argument doesn't hold water.

Let's see some more of your rules, shall we?



Hmmmm... let's see if you ever did this.





Oh, looky, there is you claiming that someone who asks you for evidence must be dyslexic. I know how you despise those ad hominems. And again, it's well established yet you can't find a shred of support for your position. Interesting.

I'll continue.



And I'm sure you never do. Oh, wait, look above when you said I was dyslexic and refused to support your point. Nice. Let's see if we can find you dismissing arguments with insults.







Hmmm... what do you call, calling everyone who disagrees with you dyslexic (another disorder)?





You've in fact never demonstrated that the point of 'the Gay Lobby' is to suggest they are mentally ill rather than it is a irrational fear, and you've never shown any support for them actually wanting to incarcerate their opponents, yet you continue to claim otherwise.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9881149&postcount=51

There's a post that demonstrably shows that your claim about the misuse of the term is totally false, yet you persist to claim that the Gay Lobby acts like communists.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9881747&postcount=60

Here's another one. Yet you persist.

Then it is reposted here:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9884913&postcount=126

And you have addressed that point never.

Does anybody smell burning hypcrite? Are you standing to close to the fire? Now which is it this time, do I have a disorder that makes it difficult for me to read or do I have no points to address?

I'll have the 'pwned' flambe, please.... and can I get a side of </sarcasm>?

I'd ask you to marry me, but my wife might object....

You fail to realize that the "gay lobby" (whatever that is) would not even be having this discussion if the entitlement wasn't already there. In other words, you are not arguing against them because you are arguing a completely different point - that the entitlement itself should not be allowed under law.

A person who argues that the government should not be involved in marriage at all is not arguing against same-sex marriage, they are arguing against civil marriage.

Likewise, you are not arguing against IVF for lesbians, you are arguing against goverment funding of it at all - which is a completely different subject from whether or not it is equally distributed.

I fail to realise nothing. What you fail to realise that if something bad exists, there can be no justification in extending it, in either scope of depth. My argument is therefore an argument against homosexual access to these entitlements on the grounds that this would extend in scope something which should never have existed in the first place. Have you got it? Its bad that state funded IVF exists, extending it is worse.

Hmmm... what do you call, calling everyone who disagrees with you dyslexic (another disorder)?

I've called no one dyslexic. What I said was if I was someone inclined to call anyone who disagreed with the gay lobby homophobic, I would call people who can't/don't/won't comprehend my posts dyslexic.

Ok, my assertion: Communism as a movement does not support sending dissidents to assylums.

Your assertion: They do support it.

My assertion is falsifiable and yours isn't. So unless I put up every piece of communist literature ever made I can't disprove your point and support mine. So the onus is on you to show evidence or sit down. You have yet to do so. You have shown that the soviets did it, but you're not calling them soviets are you?

Yet the world's greatest communist movement, the CPSU, advocated sending their critics to insane assylums and did so. Their actions say more than their literature.

If you're going to assert that the Soviets weren't communist, or that their actions weren't based upon communism, don't bother. I've debunked it elsewhere.

My assertion: Gay rights activists (the Gay Lobby) are fighting for equal rights for gays and this is what drives them.

Your assertion: They only sometimes do this and other times they are not representing gays.

My assertion is falsifiable again and yours isn't. I can't disprove your assertion because you admit they sometimes do what they say they do, but you can disprove mine by just showing one case where the lobby had a hidden agenda. Again put up or sit down. You have yet to do so.

Not my assertion at all. If you had read my posts, you would discover that I asserted that there was no evidence to suggest that their agenda is solely concerned with rights, and no evidence to suggest they are representative. I treat them as simply another lobby group, of which Western political systems probably have far too many.

Yet, you admit they are not fascist in their actions or beliefs. Nor have you shown that they are in fact communists. But I'm sure that's an isolated incident.

I've shown that they act like communsts. No one asserted that they are communists.

And you have addressed that point never.

Yes, I have. I'll paraphrase myself: To say that the arguments of those who oppose something are based on irrationality, without justifying why this is so, is simply not a legitimate debating tactic. It is a distinction, without a real difference. Frankly, if the gay lobby cannot demonstrate the rightness of their arguments, and the wrongness of opposing arguments without resorting to slander, then I've no time for them. Perfectly legitimate position on their opponents would be: They object because they are wrong about the issue for the following reasons. Their actual position is: They are evil because they object.

I'm not bigoted against christians. I'm simply stated all the christians I know are homophobic. I'm sure there are hoards of christians out there who love and embrace homosexuals. I've never met one though...

You've met me! And Jocabia!

Ok, so not exactly "met" as it were, but sort of?

Now, Disraeliland, what possible rationale do you have for opposing gay-rights? Do you understand it's paramount to opposing the rights of minorities? You have indeed ignored the points of Jocabia which I thought were rather eloquent, and you continued in your rhetoric, but you didn't address your rationale. What logic do you base your prejudice on to deny the equal rights of different people?

If you're going to assert that the Soviets weren't communist, or that their actions weren't based upon communism, don't bother. I've debunked it elsewhere.

I've shown that they act like communsts. No one asserted that they are communists.

The Soviets weren't communist. They were fascist in practice and nature. Communism is the absence of a centralized government, income equality, and a resulting lack of social stratification. The Soviet Union never experienced any of these. Perhaps you should educate yourself on the thing you try to condemn.

And by the way, what the hell is with this fixation on communists? You remind me of the infamous demagogue American senator from the 1950s.

I've called no one dyslexic. What I said was if I was someone inclined to call anyone who disagreed with the gay lobby homophobic, I would call people who can't/don't/won't comprehend my posts dyslexic.

Show me where I called anyone a homophobe. Oh, wait you can't. So now it's an ad hominem and a strawman. Nice try though. And by nice I mean pitiful.

Yet the world's greatest communist movement, the CPSU, advocated sending their critics to insane assylums and did so. Their actions say more than their literature.

So you admit you can't support your point. Accepted.

If you're going to assert that the Soviets weren't communist, or that their actions weren't based upon communism, don't bother. I've debunked it elsewhere.

I didn't. Another strawman. I specifically pointed out the the US is a republic but you can't claim every act of the US is an act of supporters of a republic. I can assume you understand the difference and are being intentionally obtuse. Again, it's obvious you're not interested in posting evidence. It becomes more apparent with every post.

Not my assertion at all. If you had read my posts, you would discover that I asserted that there was no evidence to suggest that their agenda is solely concerned with rights, and no evidence to suggest they are representative. I treat them as simply another lobby group, of which Western political systems probably have far too many.

I did read your posts and you make the claim that unless that can prove something that is unprovable that you think it's fair to disparage them and then used the platform for which you have no evidence as an argument. You claim they are not advocating something they are, some would call that a strawman, what would you call it?

I've shown that they act like communsts. No one asserted that they are communists.

Um, no, you haven't. You've not addressed that they use -phobia properly as defined in the dictionary and quoted no less than three times in thread and then you've made claims about a false definition of -phobia and that the people using it properly actually mean something different than they do with no evidence. You've not addressed that your claims that 'it's like communism' has nothing to do with the beliefs of communism. I'll take your continued refusal to provide evidence as admission that you don't have it.

Yes, I have. I'll paraphrase myself: To say that the arguments of those who oppose something are based on irrationality, without justifying why this is so, is simply not a legitimate debating tactic. It is a distinction, without a real difference. Frankly, if the gay lobby cannot demonstrate the rightness of their arguments, and the wrongness of opposing arguments without resorting to slander, then I've no time for them. Perfectly legitimate position on their opponents would be: They object because they are wrong about the issue for the following reasons. Their actual position is: They are evil because they object.

Hmmm... some could say the same about you. Yet, still we try to make you better. Now, as a person who founded a group for gay rights, would you like to explain to me what I'm really up to? Would you like to explain where I have ever used the term homophobe? So far the only ad hominems here are yours. Interesting that you can't notice.

And as far as actually addressing the definition. The definition that you are addressing is not the only definition. I'm sure you read well enough to see that it's been posted several times, so why pretend like it hasn't. Come on, friend, I know you have more juice than this. Even with my 'dislexia' somehow I manage to see how ridiculous this is. Certainly, you can see it, since you have no reading disorders whatsoever.

I'm trying to put mysefl in your shoes so I can be more sensitive to your posts but I just haven't lost enough arguments to know what it feels like.

The problem is that said selective pressures generally cannot get rid of them. This is because those who carry them, but do not have two copies will continue to pass them on to offspring, with only a very small chance of having a mate who also carries it who also passes it on, resulting in a child that will be selected against. The vast majority of people carrying the gene will have no selective pressure placed upon them from having it.

Good point. It would appear then that it is the dominant traits that are subject to being removed by selection pressures.

(It's been some time since I've done biology :) )

Now, Disraeliland, what possible rationale do you have for opposing gay-rights? Do you understand it's paramount to opposing the rights of minorities? You have indeed ignored the points of Jocabia which I thought were rather eloquent, and you continued in your rhetoric, but you didn't address your rationale. What logic do you base your prejudice on to deny the equal rights of different people?

What rationale do you have for saying I oppose gay rights.

You've proceeded from a false premise, namely that anyone who criticises the gay lobby opposes equal rights.

I have made my position on the various issues quite clear. For your benefit, I shall do so yet again.

1) I have no problem with adults voluntarily entering into a contract

2) Since it is a marriage contract, they do need to give some public notice of that contract in order that such aspects as next-of-kin, and inheritance are recognised, and acted upon (although inheritance should be resolved by a legal will)

3) The provision of state entitlements to homosexuals is not a matter of right, it is a matter of entitlement. The difference is that a right doesn't have to be extorted from anyone else, while entitlements mean extorting productive citizens to provide them.

4) I take great issue with the methods of the gay lobby, particularly their vilification of their opponents. Surely, if they are arguing for right and justice, thery must be above this sort of thing. I say "Down with this sort of thing!".

5) I don't accept that just because they claim to represent gays, and stand for their rights that this is necessarily the case.

I did read your posts and you make the claim that unless that can prove something that is unprovable that you think it's fair to disparage them and then used the platform for which you have no evidence as an argument. You claim they are not advocating something they are, some would call that a strawman, what would you call it?

Rubbish. I said that there was no evidence that all they advocate is rights. You've not shown evidence that they do. One can prove that they are simply advocating rights, however that noone has shown any interest in doing so is not in the least relevant to me. The point is that they are just another lobby group. They are a more fashionable lobby group than the people who lobby for insurance firms. I sure the latter will say that they merely lobby for the right of insurance companies to do business, but can they prove that this is all they want?

If you, or any other interested or knowledgable person were to show such evidence, then fine. Until then, opposition to the agenda, or methods, or practices of the gay lobby doesn't necessarily constitute opposition to gay rights. I can, but it doesn't have to.

All you'd have to show is that the specific policies they advocate are entirely grounded in basic rights to show that they are advocating rights. All you'd need to show to prove they are representative is show that the organisations have a large membership, or widescale support, or elected leaders.

Not that hard, I would have thought, yet no one seems interested in doing it.

Um, no, you haven't. You've not addressed that they use -phobia properly as defined in the dictionary and quoted no less than three times in thread and then you've made claims about a false definition of -phobia and that the people using it properly actually mean something different than they do with no evidence. You've not addressed that your claims that 'it's like communism' has nothing to do with the beliefs of communism. I'll take your continued refusal to provide evidence as admission that you don't have it.

I have addressed. If you won't read it, that's your problem. I said in labelling their opponents mentally ill, that the gay lobby were acting like communists, and I have established that communists did this. That you will not read the proof I posted is not my problem.

Hmmm... some could say the same about you. Yet, still we try to make you better. Now, as a person who founded a group for gay rights, would you like to explain to me what I'm really up to? Would you like to explain where I have ever used the term homophobe? So far the only ad hominems here are yours. Interesting that you can't notice.

Where did I accuse you of calling me a homophobe? Others have claimed that my opposition to the methods and practices of the gay lobby is actually hostility to gay rights, and is homophobic. You have not.

As to the motivations of someone forming a group allegedly to advocate gay rights: I don't claim to be able to jump inside his head. He may be doing it because he wants influence in the political system, or simply media attention. He might be using the organisation to perpetrate some sort of tax fraud.

And as far as actually addressing the definition. The definition that you are addressing is not the only definition. I'm sure you read well enough to see that it's been posted several times, so why pretend like it hasn't. Come on, friend, I know you have more juice than this. Even with my 'dislexia' somehow I manage to see how ridiculous this is. Certainly, you can see it, since you have no reading disorders whatsoever.

Actually I have addressed it, and I have also shown that even when the term homophobia is used to indicate aversion, its use against the opponents of the gay lobby is still inappropriate as it indicates an attempt to shame anyone who disagrees into silence, rather than show why they are wrong. However it is used, it should not be. If someone disagrees with gay rights, all that the gay lobby should do is show why they are wrong, not vilify them.

I'm trying to put mysefl in your shoes so I can be more sensitive to your posts but I just haven't lost enough arguments to know what it feels like.

What was that about the only ad-hominem being mine? I'm starting to smell burning hypocrite.

The Soviets weren't communist. They were fascist in practice and nature. Communism is the absence of a centralized government, income equality, and a resulting lack of social stratification. The Soviet Union never experienced any of these. Perhaps you should educate yourself on the thing you try to condemn.

And by the way, what the hell is with this fixation on communists? You remind me of the infamous demagogue American senator from the 1950s.

Addressed in other threads. Read them.

Rubbish. I said that there was no evidence that all they advocate is rights. You've not shown evidence that they do. One can prove that they are simply advocating rights, however that noone has shown any interest in doing so is not in the least relevant to me. T

Really? You've admitted already that they sometimes advocate gay rights. So evidence would only further advance that point. But since you are arguing that the only sometimes don't represent gay rights, we can't ever prove you wrong, you can only prove us wrong. Again, the onus is on you. If you can't understand this, I don't know what to say. I guess if you can't show me evidence there are no such thing as fairies then we have to move forward with the premise there are fairies. Now see how nonsensical it is. I can't prove a negative. I'm certain you are educated enough to know this so how about you support your assertion or stop getting annoyed when we laugh at you.

he point is that they are just another lobby group. They are a more fashionable lobby group than the people who lobby for insurance firms. I sure the latter will say that they merely lobby for the right of insurance companies to do business, but can they prove that this is all they want?

No, they can't prove it. It's impossible. The onus is on people who question it is what they want. I can ask you to prove that people like you. I can ask you to prove that people hate you. But I can't ask you to prove that people never hate you, because no matter how many people you showed, it would still be possible. Your ignorance is showing.

If you, or any other interested or knowledgable person were to show such evidence, then fine. Until then, opposition to the agenda, or methods, or practices of the gay lobby doesn't necessarily constitute opposition to gay rights. I can, but it doesn't have to.

I see I have given you too much credit. I won't make that mistake again.

All you'd have to show is that the specific policies they advocate are entirely grounded in basic rights to show that they are advocating rights. All you'd need to show to prove they are representative is show that the organisations have a large membership, or widescale support, or elected leaders.

Fair enough. Tell me who you're talking about. Who is the gay lobby? I don't know anyone by that name and I'd be happy to prove it. I know about a dozen gay rights group that vary from fairly mild to militant, but I know of none that isn't looking for equality. If you know of some that are, feel free to show that it is so. Otherwise, expect to be dismissed. Sorry if we don't believe in your fairies. People are not going to post all of the literature of every group, especially when we have no idea what groups you are actually talking about and you avoid saying so.

Not that hard, I would have thought, yet no one seems interested in doing it.

Uh-huh. Your proof is the only proof that would conclusive, yet you don't seem to be offering any. I wonder why. Because you don't have it. In absense of proof one must conclude they are what they say they are. Anything else is conspiracy theory made-up crap. Without evidence, I don't tend to accuse people of things. You seem to have no problem doing that, but don't expect rational people to accept it as 'evidence' or as a reasonable platform.

I have addressed. If you won't read it, that's your problem. I said in labelling their opponents mentally ill, that the gay lobby were acting like communists, and I have established that communists did this. That you will not read the proof I posted is not my problem.

No, you haven't. You have established that Soviets did it. They were Soviets. They don't represent all communists any more than the US represents all republics. I take it you don't understand the difference. Probably when you can't follow basic concepts you should avoid debate. We have shown the definition of -phobia doesn't match your claims as well, but that doesn't seem to keep you from just continuing your strawman claims.

Where did I accuse you of calling me a homophobe? Others have claimed that my opposition to the methods and practices of the gay lobby is actually hostility to gay rights, and is homophobic. You have not.

Wow, are you even following along. Time for the quoting game again.

If I thought as you do, I'd call you dyslexic, as you clearly haven't read, or comprehended my arguments. It is well established that it is the practice of communists to regard opposition as a sign of mental illness.
Emphasis mine.
I've called no one dyslexic. What I said was if I was someone inclined to call anyone who disagreed with the gay lobby homophobic, I would call people who can't/don't/won't comprehend my posts dyslexic.
Now, assuming your post is logical, you say here that if you think like me means if you thought like someone inclined to call anyone who disagreed with the gay lobby homophobic. Seriously, does this kind of round and round crap work on ANYONE?

As to the motivations of someone forming a group allegedly to advocate gay rights: I don't claim to be able to jump inside his head. He may be doing it because he wants influence in the political system, or simply media attention. He might be using the organisation to perpetrate some sort of tax fraud.

Ah, so now we are talking about what people may do. You admit you have no basis for your accusations. Accepted.

Actually I have addressed it, and I have also shown that even when the term homophobia is used to indicate aversion, its use against the opponents of the gay lobby is still inappropriate as it indicates an attempt to shame anyone who disagrees into silence, rather than show why they are wrong. However it is used, it should not be. If someone disagrees with gay rights, all that the gay lobby should do is show why they are wrong, not vilify them.

Prove that it is applied to anyone who disagrees and not people who appear to have an aversion. The fact that you are finally agree that your original point was spurious shows that you can learn. Good for you.

Oh, wait, apparently, you're being disingenuous.
I said in labelling their opponents mentally ill

Apparently, even though you've acknowledged the proper definition, you still claim your strawman. Sad, really.

What was that about the only ad-hominem being mine? I'm starting to smell burning hypocrite.

Calling you a hypocrite when I've proved you were a hypocrite is not an ad hominem. Perhaps you should look up the term. Showing that you don't practice what you preach is a valid reason to dismiss your arguments that rational people should behave a certain way. I assume you consider yourself to be a rational person, so apparently you are proof that your own claim is wrong. I simply pointed that out. I'm sorry that you don't actually understand the difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Educate yourself. See I proved your argument was hypocrisy and then rightfully called you a hypocrite. Show how that is an ad hominem. Now if you can demonstrate the things you suggested are actually true, then I will take my suggestion of them being ad hominems.

Really? You've admitted already that they sometimes advocate gay rights. So evidence would only further advance that point. But since you are arguing that the only sometimes don't represent gay rights, we can't ever prove you wrong, you can only prove us wrong. Again, the onus is on you. If you can't understand this, I don't know what to say. I guess if you can't show me evidence there are no such thing as fairies then we have to move forward with the premise there are fairies. Now see how nonsensical it is. I can't prove a negative. I'm certain you are educated enough to know this so how about you support your assertion or stop getting annoyed when we laugh at you.

I've admitted nothing of the sort. I've admitted that they might. I've never stated otherwise.

I don't know if they do, and no one has attempted to show that they do.

No, they can't prove it. It's impossible. The onus is on people who question it is what they want. I can ask you to prove that people like you. I can ask you to prove that people hate you. But I can't ask you to prove that people never hate you, because no matter how many people you showed, it would still be possible. Your ignorance is showing.

They can prove it, in terms of pointing out what they advocating, and establishing that these positions are grounded in rights.

I see I have given you too much credit. I won't make that mistake again.

What horseshit. The proof of what I've said is right here in the thread. I have questioned the methods, and practices of the gay lobby, and Drzhen accuses me of opposing gay rights.

Fair enough. Tell me who you're talking about. Who is the gay lobby? I don't know anyone by that name and I'd be happy to prove it. I know about a dozen gay rights group that vary from fairly mild to militant, but I know of none that isn't looking for equality. If you know of some that are, feel free to show that it is so. Otherwise, expect to be dismissed. Sorry if we don't believe in your fairies. People are not going to post all of the literature of every group, especially when we have no idea what groups you are actually talking about and you avoid saying so.

Let's hear about this dozen groups. Post links to their websites, quote from their media releases. I'm keen to read them.

Of course, such proof is not essential to my point, which is that all opposition to the gay lobby (whether its opposition to the policies they advocate, or their methods, or their practices) is not necessarily grounded in aversion to, or fear of homosexuals, and the idea of recognising equal rights for them.

No, you haven't. You have established that Soviets did it. They were Soviets. They don't represent all communists any more than the US represents all republics. I take it you don't understand the difference. Probably when you can't follow basic concepts you should avoid debate. We have shown the definition of -phobia doesn't match your claims as well, but that doesn't seem to keep you from just continuing your strawman claims.

They were communists.

The term "homophobia" was coined by a chap called George Weinberg Ph.D.

Here is some of what he said in an interview done in 1997:

I myself couldn't introduce known, professed homosexuals even to my friends who were supposedly liberal or psychoanalysts --that they always had reasons for avoiding these people. They weren't at all distressed by the worst kinds of brutalities toward gays. I realized that something else was going on-- more than simple mis-education. This was some deep emotional misgiving these people had, some phobic dread. It seemed to me the problem was theirs, not the homosexual's. I knew a landlord who had two lesbians living on the 5th floor of his brownstone and he couldn't sleep at night at the thought they were up there making love, and obviously the problem was his, not theirs. After trying to introduce gay friends of mine to heterosexuals in those days I just almost couldn't make the bridge. They always found reasons not to invite them to their homes and I realized that this is a classical phobic revulsion. They exhibited the same traits as your claustrophobic, your agoraphobic except that they were traits toward gays.

(Source http://gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/interview/020397in.htm )

Here is an essay by Scott Bidstrup on the subject.

http://www.bidstrup.com/phobia.htm

Ah, so now we are talking about what people may do. You admit you have no basis for your accusations. Accepted.

Where have I made accusations? Others have made accusations, namely that opposition to the gay lobby (regardless of what that opposition is) is essentially grounded in fear of, or aversion to homosexuals. Objecting to a what an organisation does doesn't necessarily mean I disagree with its aims, whatever they may be. The two points are that the stated purpose of an organisation is not necessarily its real purpose, and that attacking trhat organisation (for whatever reason) is not necessarily opposition to that organisations' aims, ad purpose (stated, or otherwise).

This is a post by someone else on another forum that I wanted people on here to see what they made of
That statement makes perfect sense and for you to be potentially marginilising it just because it dosent agree with your thoughts is silly.

Bloody Communists

I've admitted nothing of the sort. I've admitted that they might. I've never stated otherwise.

What are you missing here? You want me to post every website of every Gay Lobby to prove that they say they advocate gay rights. You've accused them of having ulterior motives with no proof. Your point is so ridiculous, it's unbelievable that you keep making it. Show that what you're saying is true or sit down.

I don't know if they do, and no one has attempted to show that they do.

You admit you don't know what you're talking about. You'll get no argument from me. Accepted.

They can prove it, in terms of pointing out what they advocating, and establishing that these positions are grounded in rights.

I keep asking, who is they? Who is this misterious Gay Lobby? Am I? Are you afraid to define who you are talking about? You've been asked several times to do so and avoided it? Are you evidencephobe? You appear to have an aversion to evidence of your positions. That was a joke, by the way. I don't think you have an aversion of evidence, just an aversion to admitting you're wrong.

What horseshit. The proof of what I've said is right here in the thread. I have questioned the methods, and practices of the gay lobby, and Drzhen accuses me of opposing gay rights.

You've accused everyone officially advocating gay rights of having ulterior motives with no evidence and SOME INDIVIDUALS have accused you of opposing gay rights. That's hardly the ENTIRE gay rights community. It's funny that in order to accuse people of homophobia you say all opposition to gay rights must be proven to have a disease and then you think it's okay to accuse the entire gay lobby and their supporters of something because some do it. Follow your own rules or is that not something you do? Don't answer, I've already proved you don't.

Let's hear about this dozen groups. Post links to their websites, quote from their media releases. I'm keen to read them.

How about just mine? Sound fair. I won't give you the media releases. I'll give you the internal discussion about what are purpose is.

Mission Statement, v. 1.0

Our goal is to work for the distribution of equal rights for all people who are denied said rights based on orientation and/or gender identity.

To that end we will:

Unite against any who would unfairly deny rights or priveleges based on the superficial classification by sexuality and/or gender identity.

Unite against those that would divide us by those classifications using stereotypes and generalizations and cause us to work against each other.

Endeavor to better educate ourselves and others about the civil, legal and day to day concerns raised by sexuality/gender identity issues.

Work to dispel prejudice (both conscious and unconscious) through sharing information and ideas about these issues both within our community and outside it.

Welcome all those that would work toward this cause regardless of how they classify their sexuality and or/gender identity.

Reached here: http://s13.invisionfree.com/LGTBS_Army/index.php?showtopic=5

Now show evidence or stop making absurd claims.

Of course, such proof is not essential to my point, which is that all opposition to the gay lobby (whether its opposition to the policies they advocate, or their methods, or their practices) is not necessarily grounded in aversion to, or fear of homosexuals, and the idea of recognising equal rights for them.

No proof seems to be essential to your points. Apparently, you don't really need evidence at all to accuse people of things. You only require evidence from other people. It's lazy debate and it shows how weak your points are.

They were communists.

So what. I'm a Christian does that make every action I make representative of ALL christians. When I pee is that a Christian action. Your point is silly. If you were intellectually honest you would admit that at the least you should change your statement to acting like Soviets. You've shown adequately that Soviets did these things. That doesn't make it a communist practice no matter how hard you try to get us to make that leap. Again, is blowing up buildings a white, male Christian action because Timothy McVeigh did it? I would be shocked to find out that core to my faith is bombings.

The term "homophobia" was coined by a chap called George Weinberg Ph.D.

And he describes and aversion and sometimes a deep-seated fear. By the way because it a -phobia can be that severe doesn't mean it has to be. You still haven't actually supported your point. In fact, you know full well that people use the term to reference an aversion to gays but continue to pretend they are accusing people of mental illness. Again, I'd have to say that's intellectually dishonest as well, not to mention a strawman.

Here is some of what he said in an interview done in 1997:

Proves my point. Thank you.

(Source http://gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/interview/020397in.htm )

Here is an essay by Scott Bidstrup on the subject.

http://www.bidstrup.com/phobia.htm

More evidence you don't believe in individuals. Also, in the article he makes a very clear distinction of who is referring to and what he is accusing them of. It is not what you suggest.

Here's the definition of homophobia for you by the way, I know you won't bother to accept it even though it's in the dictionary and would rather accuse people of suggesting people have mental disorders even though you know that's inaccurate.

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

Where have I made accusations? Others have made accusations, namely that opposition to the gay lobby (regardless of what that opposition is) is essentially grounded in fear of, or aversion to homosexuals. Objecting to a what an organisation does doesn't necessarily mean I disagree with its aims, whatever they may be. The two points are that the stated purpose of an organisation is not necessarily its real purpose, and that attacking trhat organisation (for whatever reason) is not necessarily opposition to that organisations' aims, ad purpose (stated, or otherwise).

You have made three points, the two you said and that the mysterious Gay Lobby are acting like communists. The first point you listed and the one I listed are accusations. Do I need to post the definition of accusation now? Seems like a word most educated people would know. A third accusation you've made was that I dismiss people as homophobes. Yet another ACCUSATION you have no supprt for. But at this point, is anyone really supprised? You're nothing if not consistent.

What are you missing here? You want me to post every website of every Gay Lobby to prove that they say they advocate gay rights. You've accused them of having ulterior motives with no proof. Your point is so ridiculous, it's unbelievable that you keep making it. Show that what you're saying is true or sit down.

I've missed nothing. You've missed my whole point, which is that just because someone says they advocate rights, and are representative of the community whose rights they claim to champion, doesn't mean they necessarily do, nor does it mean they necessarily don't.

You admit you don't know what you're talking about. You'll get no argument from me. Accepted.

Nope, you're still missing my point, which I shall restate: just because someone says they advocate rights, and are representative of the community whose rights they claim to champion, doesn't mean they necessarily do, nor does it mean they necessarily don't.

You've accused everyone officially advocating gay rights of having ulterior motives with no evidence

No, I haven't, I'll state my point a third time: just because someone says they advocate rights, and are representative of the community whose rights they claim to champion, doesn't mean they necessarily do, nor does it mean they necessarily don't.

SOME INDIVIDUALS have accused you of opposing gay rights.

That's the first reasonable thing you've said.

Reached here: http://s13.invisionfree.com/LGTBS_Ar...hp?showtopic=5

Now show evidence or stop making absurd claims.

I've not made such a claim, I'll state my point for a fourth time: just because someone says they advocate rights, and are representative of the community whose rights they claim to champion, doesn't mean they necessarily do, nor does it mean they necessarily don't.

I take it that the organisation (which sounds alright, by the way) you listed is some NS thing?

I'll in turn will tell you about another gay advocacy organisation which I fully accept is grounded in rights in terms of what they advocate: The Pink Pistols (their website, not coming up on my computer, hopefully you will have better luck, is www.pinkpistols.org , their pink triangle insignia is derived from the sign homosexual prisoners had to wear in National Socialist German concentration camps).

The Pink Pistols are, as the name suggests, advocates of homosexuals exercising, and extending the right to keep and bear arms. They believe that there is a right to self defence, and that homosexuals in particular should exercise it. They combine political activism with shooting meetings, and practical advice and training on firearms. They give report cards on politicians based on whether or not they "support the Second Amendment as well as the rights of consenting adults to love each other however they wish".

More links:

http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/rauch/rauch9.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pink_Pistols

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock070102.asp

And he describes and aversion and sometimes a deep-seated fear

He describes the response of the people he's referring to as "a classical phobic revulsion ... same traits as your claustrophobic, your agoraphobic except that they were traits toward gays"

The aversion is rooted in the fear. A fear without rational basis.

More evidence you don't believe in individuals.

Yeah, right, someone who argues that consenting adults have a right to voluntarily enter into contracts can only lack a belief in individuals. :rolleyes:

Also, in the article he makes a very clear distinction of who is referring to and what he is accusing them of. It is not what you suggest.

He's pretty clear that an aversion to homosexuals is rooted in a fear, for which there is no rational basis.

The first point you listed and the one I listed are accusations.

The first point I listed is not an accusation. Since when was having mere doubts the same as making an accusation?

The simple answer is that they are arguing for more than just rights. Its not so apparant in the US because the spectrum of state entitlement is less, there is not, for example, any state funding of IVF. In countries that are more "leftist", there are these things. The Australian Government funds IVF for married heterosexual couples. The gay lobby here argues for state funded IVF for homosexuals. I oppose this on libertarian grounds, the exact argument runs along the lines of: Its bad enough that the taxpayer is extorted to pay for heterosexual couples without extending it. Entitlements should be eliminated, rather than extended.

In that argument, there is no marginalising of homosexuals, no evidence of a specific attitude to them at all, merely an attitude to the appropriate role of the state.

Good so you agree with my argument assuming that homosexuals are only lobbying for rights.

Now suppose that they are arguing for more than rights, let's say an affirmative action program of some sort. Well I suppose it would be perfectly reasonable to argue against that on the basis that affirmative action itself is wrong.

In your example of IVF (obviously a government program, I'm not sure what for) where heterosexual couples receive the funding but homosexual couples do not their argument does rest on rights. Specifically, the equal protection of rights. There are arguments against such equal protection that I would consider reasonable. First, equal protection would not fit the purpose of the program, e.g. IVF encourages couples to have childen. Second, that you are against the rights being granted on principle.

You are proposing the second argument. That's fine, but you must focus on rejecting the rights on principle. You cannot say this is bad enough we shouldn't make it worse, that would in effect be marginalizing homosexuals. Instead you should oppose the right/program at every opportunity and for any group.

I've missed nothing. You've missed my whole point, which is that just because someone says they advocate rights, and are representative of the community whose rights they claim to champion, doesn't mean they necessarily do, nor does it mean they necessarily don't.

If you suggest that I could be a criminal, expect to be laughed at unless you can support your point. You have no right to suggest I'm a criminal unless you can demonstrate where you got if from. So unless you can verify your point, stop trying to make. The point is that people who oppose the goals of these groups are opposing gay rights. You suggested that's not true because that may not be their goals. If you suggest that gay rights groups are not advocating gay rights prepare to back it up or be laughed at. Right now, we're still laughing.I've not made such a claim, I'll state my point for a fourth time: just because someone says they advocate rights, and are representative of the community whose rights they claim to champion, doesn't mean they necessarily do, nor does it mean they necessarily don't.

I take it that the organisation (which sounds alright, by the way) you listed is some NS thing?

Nope. It's got some people from NS, but it's got lots of people who are not NS. It has no affiliation with NS.

I'll in turn will tell you about another gay advocacy organisation which I fully accept is grounded in rights in terms of what they advocate: The Pink Pistols (their website, not coming up on my computer, hopefully you will have better luck, is www.pinkpistols.org , their pink triangle insignia is derived from the sign homosexual prisoners had to wear in National Socialist German concentration camps).

The Pink Pistols are, as the name suggests, advocates of homosexuals exercising, and extending the right to keep and bear arms. They believe that there is a right to self defence, and that homosexuals in particular should exercise it. They combine political activism with shooting meetings, and practical advice and training on firearms. They give report cards on politicians based on whether or not they "support the Second Amendment as well as the rights of consenting adults to love each other however they wish".

More links:

http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/rauch/rauch9.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pink_Pistols

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock070102.asp

Ok, what's your point. Are they the Gay Lobby? Is any gay group, the Gay Lobby? If I create a group called blacks for Bush, are they the black lobby? Your undefined term the gay lobby is intentionally vague so you don't have to answer for your ridiculous statements. I'm still waiting for you to define 'the Gay Lobby'. You avoid doing so because then you would be setting yourself to look even more silly. You'd rather make nebulous statements that are vague enough that you can pretend you didn't mean what you obviously meant.

He describes the response of the people he's referring to as "a classical phobic revulsion ... same traits as your claustrophobic, your agoraphobic except that they were traits toward gays"

Yup. Would you like to me to again post what a phobia is? It includes an aversion to something as well, you realize this, being the educated person you claim to be, no? Do you know what revulsion means? Do I need to post that definition as well? So are you ready to admit you've been arguing a strawmen, this entire time?

The aversion is rooted in the fear. A fear without rational basis.

Really? Weird. I've seen the dictionary definition posted no less than three times here and again you pretend like it doesn't exist. You change the defintion and pretend like people mean YOUR definition when they use the term rather than the definition in Mirriam Webster. That's called a strawman.

Yeah, right, someone who argues that consenting adults have a right to voluntarily enter into contracts can only lack a belief in individuals. :rolleyes:

I go by actions. You have several times claimed that individuals represent the group they are a part of. Shall I quote you? I would think you would be tired of being embarassed but if you'd like me to demonstrate that you've more than once done this I will do so. Much like you suggested I accuse people of being homophobes if they disagree with me because I am a part of the group of people on here disagreeing with you and some other members of that group have disagreed with you. Give me the word and I'll supply quotes.

He's pretty clear that an aversion to homosexuals is rooted in a fear, for which there is no rational basis.

First, he doesn't define usage, usage defines usage. But you knew this. Second, I like how you try to mix the two terms as if they are the same. You're arguing a strawman and you continue. Look up the word homophobe. That is the usage. Your claim that it means anything else is a strawman.

The first point I listed is not an accusation. Since when was having mere doubts the same as making an accusation?
I'm concerned you're a pedophile. Would it be okay if I run around making that statement? Okay if I say that around your community? I mean, it's not an accusation, it's simply a concern. Can you prove you're not a pedophile?

That's funny, because redheads are recessive genes. I seem to recall seeing a geneticist who said that over the course of the next few centuries, redheads would eventually disappear because darker heir colors systematically take precedence in the genome of their children.

Will blondes disappear too?

4) I take great issue with the methods of the gay lobby, particularly their vilification of their opponents. Surely, if they are arguing for right and justice, thery must be above this sort of thing.
Not at all. Sometimes you actually have to fight for what's right.

Not at all. Sometimes you actually have to fight for what's right.

It's not at all like calling people fascists, communists, or suggesting they are dyslexic. That would make him a hypocrite. And of course, there isn't anything inconsistent about suggesting that the gay rights agenda isn't actually about gay rights and then admitting you don't know anything about it. Because that would just be silly.

I'm sitting here drinking with my sister and once I'm drunk enough to be willing to waste my time I'm going to quote his posts and use them as examples of fallacies.

I already have the bandwagon fallacy, strawman fallacy, ad hominem attacks, ad nauseum fallacy, proof by burden of proof, prejudicial fallacy, et al.

Are they the Gay Lobby? Is any gay group, the Gay Lobby? If I create a group called blacks for Bush, are they the black lobby? Your undefined term the gay lobby is intentionally vague so you don't have to answer for your ridiculous statements. I'm still waiting for you to define 'the Gay Lobby'.

Excellent, THIS is the crux. We have posters describing the nature and intent of the Gay Lobby, as though we were describing some homogenous whole (oooh, I like the word 'homogenous'... it's like the bastard-son of homosexual, and erogenous... erm....)... whereas, we have failed, as yet, to see any evidence of one united 'lobby'... much less, any one united 'agenda'.

Excellent, THIS is the crux. We have posters describing the nature and intent of the Gay Lobby, as though we were describing some homogenous whole (oooh, I like the word 'homogenous'... it's like the bastard-son of homosexual, and erogenous... erm....)... whereas, we have failed, as yet, to see any evidence of one united 'lobby'... much less, any one united 'agenda'.

The funny part is that you ask for a definition, again and again, and get none. Finally, I got Dis to actually pick one that he claims is the Gay Lobby and it's actually a group of homosexuals that are part of the Gun Lobby. They're fighting for gun rights not gay rights. It's simply ridiculous.

The funny part is that you ask for a definition, again and again, and get none. Finally, I got Dis to actually pick one that he claims is the Gay Lobby and it's actually a group of homosexuals that are part of the Gun Lobby. They're fighting for gun rights not gay rights. It's simply ridiculous.

Hmmm... maybe they are 'the gay lobby'? They sure have the firepower to back their claim.... ;)

Hmmm... maybe they are 'the gay lobby'? They sure have the firepower to back their claim.... ;)

I know a couple of gay Christians. Maybe Pat Robertson is part of the gay lobby. He's just tricking us.

I know a couple of gay Christians. Maybe Pat Robertson is part of the gay lobby. He's just tricking us.

You know what they say about those who protest loudest.... ;)

Not at all. Sometimes you actually have to fight for what's right.

True, but that does not justify any methods.

They're fighting for gun rights not gay rights.

They're fighting for gay rights, or is an organisation only capable of doing one thing at a time?

In your example of IVF (obviously a government program, I'm not sure what for) where heterosexual couples receive the funding but homosexual couples do not their argument does rest on rights. Specifically, the equal protection of rights. There are arguments against such equal protection that I would consider reasonable. First, equal protection would not fit the purpose of the program, e.g. IVF encourages couples to have childen. Second, that you are against the rights being granted on principle.

IVF: In Vitro Fertilisation, test-tube babies. Gets funded by the Federal Government.

As I indicated, I am against the whole program of state-funding IVF, firstly because I cannot see an appropriate role, and secondly, if you leave the state in charge of the funding, it will effectively be able to say (to the extent that IVF is necessary) who should and should not have children.

Equal protection does not mean equal entitlement.

You cannot say this is bad enough we shouldn't make it worse, that would in effect be marginalizing homosexuals. Instead you should oppose the right/program at every opportunity and for any group.

I do, but realistically, it won't happen. The chances of Australia getting a libertarian government are almost zip. Therefore the only realistic option I have is to argue against extension.

The point is that people who oppose the goals of these groups are opposing gay rights. You suggested that's not true because that may not be their goals. If you suggest that gay rights groups are not advocating gay rights prepare to back it up or be laughed at. Right now, we're still laughing.I've not made such a claim, I'll state my point for a fourth time: just because someone says they advocate rights, and are representative of the community whose rights they claim to champion, doesn't mean they necessarily do, nor does it mean they necessarily don't.

I've said that they advocate specific policies, and ideas. They may be grounded in rights, or they may not. They may in fact be arguing for entitlements, or some form of affirmative action. This is not something you are interested in refuting. There's a difference between saying "may not", and "are not". If you cannot see this, quit while you are behind.

Ok, what's your point. Are they the Gay Lobby? Is any gay group, the Gay Lobby? If I create a group called blacks for Bush, are they the black lobby? Your undefined term the gay lobby is intentionally vague so you don't have to answer for your ridiculous statements. I'm still waiting for you to define 'the Gay Lobby'. You avoid doing so because then you would be setting yourself to look even more silly. You'd rather make nebulous statements that are vague enough that you can pretend you didn't mean what you obviously meant.

Nonsense. Most people here haven't disputed the term "gay lobby" because they can work out for themselves what it means.

Really? Weird. I've seen the dictionary definition posted no less than three times here and again you pretend like it doesn't exist. You change the defintion and pretend like people mean YOUR definition when they use the term rather than the definition in Mirriam Webster. That's called a strawman.

I don't see what is wierd about the aversion people express being rooted in fear, and its outward expression.

part of the Gun Lobby

Gun Lobby? What is this vague "Gun Lobby"?

If I create a group called gun-owners for Hilary Clinton, are they the gun lobby? Your undefined term the gun lobby is intentionally vague so you don't have to answer for your ridiculous statements. I'm waiting for you to define 'the Gun Lobby'. You avoid doing so because then you would be setting yourself to look even more silly. You'd rather make nebulous statements that are vague enough that you can pretend you didn't mean what you obviously meant.

Or perhaps you know that when you use such a term, we all know what it means, and to whom it refers?

Equal protection does not mean equal entitlement.


To some extent that is true, after all entitlements can and should be denied to any group who isn't targeted by them.

Instead of equal protection of rights I should have said equal protection of the law. If there is a government program for X and it is reasonable that homosexuals fit into the group the entitlement aims for then they should receive that entitlement on the basis that if they do not the laws are not equally applied to them simply because they are homosexuals.

I do, but realistically, it won't happen. The chances of Australia getting a libertarian government are almost zip. Therefore the only realistic option I have is to argue against extension.

That's fine, we can't escape the real world. I won't fault you for that or call you a homophobe (in any sense of the term), but nevertheless that stance does marginalize homosexuals by depriving them of equal protection of the law.

To some extent that is true, after all entitlements can and should be denied to any group who isn't targeted by them.

Instead of equal protection of rights I should have said equal protection of the law. If there is a government program for X and it is reasonable that homosexuals fit into the group the entitlement aims for then they should receive that entitlement on the basis that if they do not the laws are not equally applied to them simply because they are homosexuals.

Its a good argument, but it does require the prior acceptance of the entitlment.

If you don't accept the legitimacy of the entitlement, you can't justify an extension it.

Its rather like I said before, I support equal entitlements, provided they equal zero.

In this specific case, the devil's in the detail, to coin a phrase. Access to government-funded IVF for heterosexuals is only allowed in cases where the couple is unable to conceive by having it off (to coin a second phrase). If the gay lobby in Australia is arguing for the same, then it is an equal entitlement. If they are arguing for government funded access regardless of fertility, then we get into special privileges.

That's fine, we can't escape the real world. I won't fault you for that or call you a homophobe (in any sense of the term), but nevertheless that stance does marginalize homosexuals by depriving them of equal protection of the law.

Its politics, and politics is an exercise in compromise.

Or perhaps you know that when you use such a term, we all know what it means, and to whom it refers?

I said they are part, not are. You suggesting this nebulous 'gay lobby' must be proved to be what everyone thinks they are, then you must be being more specific. Can you name them or are you admitting you are intending to be vague and thus making an impossible request when you ask us to prove they stand for equal rights? When I said Gun Lobby we both knew we were talking about those that advocate gun ownership. Since you say Gay Lobby 'may not' be what everyone assumes it is, perhaps you would like to give some examples so we can check.

Your vague silliness just shows you can't prove your point.

You may be a pedophile. I'm still waiting for you to provide proof you're not. Until you show proof, it is perfectly acceptable for me to reject an argument that can be thwarted by you being a pedophile. Isn't that just what you're doing? I'm not accusing or saying you ARE a pedophile, but I've asked repeatedly for evidence you are not and you haven't provided any. What does that say about you?

By the way, what you're doing is called "dropping arguments". Don't think you're fooling anyone. We just assume that an arguments you don't address, you concede.

Jesus deliver us! It's the Gay Lobby. (http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c110/revasser/gaylobby.jpg)

In this specific case, the devil's in the detail, to coin a phrase. Access to government-funded IVF for heterosexuals is only allowed in cases where the couple is unable to conceive by having it off (to coin a second phrase). If the gay lobby in Australia is arguing for the same, then it is an equal entitlement. If they are arguing for government funded access regardless of fertility, then we get into special privileges.


And yet, by your logic, Gay people have the exact same need for IVF as 'straight'.... i.e. " the couple is unable to conceive by having it off ".

Thus, to deny it to the one group could be perceived as being an act born only of prejudice, no?

No, because in the heterosexual case, the reason for the infertility is medical, i.e. no matter how much sex they have, it won't produce a kid, things like too low a sperm count.

I know a lesbian who has had children in the natural way (the couple "had it off" with a couple of gay guys). She was good enough not to impose on anyone else the costs of conception.

You suggesting this nebulous 'gay lobby' must be proved to be what everyone thinks they are, then you must be being more specific. Can you name them or are you admitting you are intending to be vague and thus making an impossible request when you ask us to prove they stand for equal rights?

I would have thought my meaning was plain, a series of groups which claim they advocate gay rights. That claim is not necessarily true.

Why is it impossible to prove that they stand for equal rights. It is not difficult at all. All one has to do show their arguments, and demonstrate that these arguments are grounded in rights.

Anyway, you've essentially been engaging in a colossal nitpick without ever disputing (so far as one can see) the point I made, which was that opposition to these groups is not necessarily rooted in homophobia.

You may be a pedophile. I'm still waiting for you to provide proof you're not. Until you show proof, it is perfectly acceptable for me to reject an argument that can be thwarted by you being a pedophile. Isn't that just what you're doing? I'm not accusing or saying you ARE a pedophile, but I've asked repeatedly for evidence you are not and you haven't provided any. What does that say about you?

That I can recognise a negative proof fallacy.

Asking for proof that something is isn't the same as asking for proof that something isn't. I've asked for proof that these groups are advocating rights, that is not the same as making the accusation that they aren't.

To the extent that you have an argument, all it amounts to is "how dare you question something fashionable!"

By the way, what you're doing is called "dropping arguments". Don't think you're fooling anyone. We just assume that an arguments you don't address, you concede.

I addressed them. That you won't acknowedge it matters not in the least to me.

No, because in the heterosexual case, the reason for the infertility is medical, i.e. no matter how much sex they have, it won't produce a kid, things like too low a sperm count.


And, in the homosexual case, the COUPLE can never have a child, for a medical reason... " i.e. no matter how much sex they have, it won't produce a kid"... i.e that one of them is 'plumbed in' wrong.

And, in the homosexual case, the COUPLE can never have a child, for a medical reason... " i.e. no matter how much sex they have, it won't produce a kid"... i.e that one of them is 'plumbed in' wrong.

That is not a medical reason, (all other things equal) there is nothing physically wrong with either of them in terms of fertility.

Jesus deliver us! It's the Gay Lobby. (http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c110/revasser/gaylobby.jpg)
Oh! My! Gosh! What the hell were you thinking? Beige and gray!? And those chairs!? Are you trying to blind people? It's just so wrong!

( I'm so sorry! That was terrible! Please forgive me.)

That is not a medical reason, (all other things equal) there is nothing physically wrong with either of them in terms of fertility.

How is it not medical? There is an anatomical incompatibility, in terms of conception. There is no way a gay couple (without help) can conceive... just like your exemplary straight couple.

It just comes across as you wishing to limit 'rights' based on the fact that you find homosexuality 'icky'.

Oh! My! Gosh! What the hell were you thinking? Beige and gray!? And those chairs!? Are you trying to blind people? It's just so wrong!

( I'm so sorry! That was terrible! Please forgive me.)

Mwa ha ha. Yes, 'twas indeed my intent. GIVE UP THINE BLASPHEMOUS EYES!

How is it not medical? There is an anatomical incompatibility, in terms of conception. There is no way a gay couple (without help) can conceive... just like your exemplary straight couple.

It just comes across as you wishing to limit 'rights' based on the fact that you find homosexuality 'icky'.

Did you not read: I know a lesbian who has had children in the natural way (the couple "had it off" with a couple of gay guys). She was good enough not to impose on anyone else the costs of conception.

Did you not read: I know a lesbian who has had children in the natural way (the couple "had it off" with a couple of gay guys). She was good enough not to impose on anyone else the costs of conception.

Yes, I read it... I didn't respond to it though. I didn't realise that was going to cause you to lose sleep.

But, okay... that might work for some (I also have a close-friend who is a lesbian, in a lesbian relationship, with a son acquired in the 'popular' way), but it might not work for all.

Imagine, for a second, that your goverment regulated YOU, so that, if YOU wanted children, you would be FORCED to have intercourse with your own gender (assuming you are straight) - what would be your opinion on that situation?

Yes, I read it... I didn't respond to it though. I didn't realise that was going to cause you to lose sleep.

But, okay... that might work for some (I also have a close-friend who is a lesbian, in a lesbian relationship, with a son acquired in the 'popular' way), but it might not work for all.

Imagine, for a second, that your goverment regulated YOU, so that, if YOU wanted children, you would be FORCED to have intercourse with your own gender (assuming you are straight) - what would be your opinion on that situation?
Freaky deaky.

Imagine, for a second, that your goverment regulated YOU, so that, if YOU wanted children, you would be FORCED to have intercourse with your own gender (assuming you are straight) - what would be your opinion on that situation?

There would be difficulties in conception.

The point is that the government wouldn't be forcing anyone to do anything.

I'll try to make it simple: A couple decides to have children (leaving out gender here). Fine, good for them, hooray! But why does that place me (not part of the hypothetical couple) under any obligation? Why should I be forced to shell out for their dream? (I'm speaking of the wrongness of positive obligation)

If they wish to fund artificial forms of fertilisation themselves, hurrah for that. I don't see why I should.

There would be difficulties in conception.

The point is that the government wouldn't be forcing anyone to do anything.

I'll try to make it simple: A couple decides to have children (leaving out gender here). Fine, good for them, hooray! But why does that place me (not part of the hypothetical couple) under any obligation? Why should I be forced to shell out for their dream? (I'm speaking of the wrongness of positive obligation)

If they wish to fund artificial forms of fertilisation themselves, hurrah for that. I don't see why I should.

Of course, you are right... there is NO reason why you should - except that THAT is how our society runs.

So, when a group of teenagers with flick-knives pin you down, rob you, and steal everything you are carrying, the police don't turn up and ask you for a 'police protection' card before they can start investigating, or calling ambulances or anything.

We pay for things we MIGHT need, because other people DO need them.

Of course, you are right... there is NO reason why you should - except that THAT is how our society runs.

So, when a group of teenagers with flick-knives pin you down, rob you, and steal everything you are carrying, the police don't turn up and ask you for a 'police protection' card before they can start investigating, or calling ambulances or anything.

We pay for things we MIGHT need, because other people DO need them.

Firstly, people didn't meekly accept state-enforced segregation even though that was how their society ran. If something is wrong, it is the individual's duty to oppose it, even in every other individual is against him.

The rest of your post is a false analogy. Police and Ambulance services are clearly essential public goods. State-funded IVF isn't.

Firstly, people didn't meekly accept state-enforced segregation even though that was how their society ran. If something is wrong, it is the individual's duty to oppose it, even in every other individual is against him.

The rest of your post is a false analogy. Police and Ambulance services are clearly essential public goods. State-funded IVF isn't.

Actually, most people DID accept state-enforced segregation... most people always have.

And, I disagree with your second statement. The police and ambulances are essential public goods. As is.... street lighting? Tax bills? Election funding? Nuclear Power? Animal testing? The War in Iraq?

The government sponsor all those things, for 'the greater good'. Healthcare is for 'the greater good'. Fertility care is 'for the greater good'.

Thus - IVF is 'for the greater good'.

Its a good argument, but it does require the prior acceptance of the entitlment.

No, it doesn't. You don't have to accept a particular government program to concede that, if it is there, it must be applied equally to all citizens.

I absolutely agree with you that a government should not fund IVF for anyone. However, I would argue that, if that funding is there, it must be given equally to both heterosexuals and homosexuals, white people and black people, 20-somethings and 30-somethings, etc.

her like I said before, I support equal entitlements, provided they equal zero.

Then you have no argument with the lesbians fighting for the right to get equal access to government-funded IVF. You have an argument with those who support government-funded IVF in the first place...

Did you not read: I know a lesbian who has had children in the natural way (the couple "had it off" with a couple of gay guys). She was good enough not to impose on anyone else the costs of conception.

This is a really dumb argument. By this idea, a couple in which the man is infertile could just have the woman go have sex with another guy and get pregnant. If it was the woman who has fertility problems, the guy can go have sex with another woman and impregnate her with the agreement of taking over custody of the child....

Thus, there is no difference at all. In both cases, the couple can't have children together the natural way. In both cases, one or the other could go off, have sex with some extra random person, and have a child.

This is a really dumb argument. By this idea, a couple in which the man is infertile could just have the woman go have sex with another guy and get pregnant. If it was the woman who has fertility problems, the guy can go have sex with another woman and impregnate her with the agreement of taking over custody of the child....

And the problem with this is? If all the parties are agreed to it, and the agreement is clear, then what is the problem?

No, it doesn't. You don't have to accept a particular government program to concede that, if it is there, it must be applied equally to all citizens.

I absolutely agree with you that a government should not fund IVF for anyone. However, I would argue that, if that funding is there, it must be given equally to both heterosexuals and homosexuals, white people and black people, 20-somethings and 30-somethings, etc.

Then you have no argument with the lesbians fighting for the right to get equal access to government-funded IVF. You have an argument with those who support government-funded IVF in the first place...

As I said before, I have issue with the extension of an unjustified program. It is a matter of not being able to get all of what you want so you settle for part. If the program can't be eliminated entirely (and I don't see a chance that it can, too many votes to lose on it), then at least it can be kept smaller.

The government sponsor all those things, for 'the greater good'. Healthcare is for 'the greater good'. Fertility care is 'for the greater good'.

Thus - IVF is 'for the greater good'.

Fertility care, and IVF are good, and those who want them should support them with their own funds.

There is a huge gulf between funding the police, and funding other people's dreams of children. It is not "for the greater good", that such things as the Police are operated, it is out of a duty.

Thus, there is no difference at all. In both cases, the couple can't have children together the natural way. In both cases, one or the other could go off, have sex with some extra random person, and have a child.

There is a difference, the hypothetical homosexual couple each have no disorders regarding fertility. The equipment works fine.

And the problem with this is? If all the parties are agreed to it, and the agreement is clear, then what is the problem?


So many reasons, it's just not funny. Not LEAST of which is that some people believe in being monogamous... but STILL might want offspring.

You are basically saying, if your moral code or religion won't let you screw around, you should have no recourse for children - DESPITE the technology being readily available.


As I said before, I have issue with the extension of an unjustified program. It is a matter of not being able to get all of what you want so you settle for part. If the program can't be eliminated entirely (and I don't see a chance that it can, too many votes to lose on it), then at least it can be kept smaller.


So - why do you JUST argue against the policy for homosexuals, then? Why not argue for a blanket reduction? No - instead you specifically target one group of individuals, purely on the basis of their gender orientation.


Fertility care, and IVF are good, and those who want them should support them with their own funds.


I find myself wondering if you drink only bottled water...


There is a huge gulf between funding the police, and funding other people's dreams of children. It is not "for the greater good", that such things as the Police are operated, it is out of a duty.


Yes - a duty for the greater good. And, what is this huge gulf? You don't want to sponsor another family's offspring? Well, maybe they don't want to sponsor your taxation... or your protection by the police, next time a crime is commited on you.

If you don't LIKE how society works, there is always the 'go live in a boat' option.


There is a difference, the hypothetical homosexual couple each have no disorders regarding fertility. The equipment works fine.

If a man get's his phallus cut off in an industrial accident, he could theoretically produce viable sperm, but not be able to have intercourse with his wife, yes?

His 'machinery' would be incompatible. He could never produce offspring with his partner, because of an anatomical 'fault'.

The same is true for gay couples.

So many reasons, it's just not funny. Not LEAST of which is that some people believe in being monogamous... but STILL might want offspring.

You are basically saying, if your moral code or religion won't let you screw around, you should have no recourse for children - DESPITE the technology being readily available.

No. I am saying that if people wish to screw around for produce offspring, that's fine with me. If people want to use artificial means, that's fine with me. In both cases, they are fine, provided that the couple places no obligations on me.

Show me where I said that people who won't/don't want to screw around should have no recourse for children.

So - why do you JUST argue against the policy for homosexuals, then? Why not argue for a blanket reduction? No - instead you specifically target one group of individuals, purely on the basis of their gender orientation.

I argue against the whole policy. If you had bothered to read before posting, you would realise that my position is quite simple. I oppose the entire policy of state funded fertility care, but I realise that stopping it is almost impossible, the most success I could get is to prevent the extension of an unjustified program.

I find myself wondering if you drink only bottled water

Ad hominem tu quoque

Yes - a duty for the greater good.

No, in the first place, we can point so a social necessity for policing in that the costs to society of funding it are less than the benefits of having police, on the other hand the costs of forcing people to fund another's dreams of children are more than the benefit.

next time a crime is commited on you

Argumentum in terrorem.

If a man get's his phallus cut off in an industrial accident, he could theoretically produce viable sperm, but not be able to have intercourse with his wife, yes?

His 'machinery' would be incompatible. He could never produce offspring with his partner, because of an anatomical 'fault'.

The same is true for gay couples.

Hardly, in the case of gay couples, there's nothing medically wrong with each individual.

Did you not read: I know a lesbian who has had children in the natural way (the couple "had it off" with a couple of gay guys). She was good enough not to impose on anyone else the costs of conception.

Couldn't a straight couple do the same thing. If the guy is sterile, his wife can just have sex with some random guy and get pregnant the natural way.

You still haven't proven you're not a pedophile. I've waited and waited and you've offered no proof. If the 'gay lobby' requires proof that they do in fact represent equal rights, then you must prove you're not a pedophile. I'm not saying you are a pedophile, just that I've seen no evidence that you aren't.

NOTE: Notice, everyone how he doesn't address this. That's because if he calls those comments illogical, it means accepting that one of his main premises is illogical.

And the problem with this is? If all the parties are agreed to it, and the agreement is clear, then what is the problem?

There is nothing wrong with it. You simply can't make the argument you just made, which was, "Homosexual couples who can't conceive are different from heterosexual couples who can't conceive because they could go have sex with someone else...." That is not a difference, it could happen in every case.

As I said before, I have issue with the extension of an unjustified program. It is a matter of not being able to get all of what you want so you settle for part. If the program can't be eliminated entirely (and I don't see a chance that it can, too many votes to lose on it), then at least it can be kept smaller.

.....by denying a portion of the population equal protection under the law. In other words, you are advocating the denial of equal protection to homosexuals when you rail against their particular use of the program, rather than the program itself.

Couldn't a straight couple do the same thing. If the guy is sterile, his wife can just have sex with some random guy and get pregnant the natural way.

Answered already.

You still haven't proven you're not a pedophile. I've waited and waited and you've offered no proof. If the 'gay lobby' requires proof that they do in fact represent equal rights, then you must prove you're not a pedophile. I'm not saying you are a pedophile, just that I've seen no evidence that you aren't.

NOTE: Notice, everyone how he doesn't address this. That's because if he calls those comments illogical, it means accepting that one of his main premises is illogical.

No, you are asking for a negative proof. I am not.

Why don't you make the connection between your 'requirement' for a negative proof, and mine for a positive proof.

I've accepted nothing of the sort because you are asking for something fundamentally different to me. You are asking for proof that I am not doing something. I am asking for proof that people are doing something.

No, you are asking for a negative proof. I am not.

Oh, well, as long as you say you're not, it must be true. People don't have to negate your accusations just like you don't have to answer to mine. Your accusations are ridiculous and you've admitted you CANNOT suport them.

Why don't you make the connection between your 'requirement' for a negative proof, and mine for a positive proof.

Done and done. You are requiring them to prove they are not representing something other than gay rights.

I've accepted nothing of the sort because you are asking for something fundamentally different to me. You are asking for proof that I am not doing something. I am asking for proof that people are doing something.
Says you. You've proven over and over to be a hypocrite. I showed how your accusation is not falsifiable. You didn't protest because you know it's true.

It is not possible to prove that the 'gay lobby' ONLY represents equal rights for homosexuals. Just like you can't prove that you are ONLY attracted to adults.

Once again, I'm waiting for proof that you are ONLY attracted to adults.

There is nothing wrong with it. You simply can't make the argument you just made, which was, "Homosexual couples who can't conceive are different from heterosexual couples who can't conceive because they could go have sex with someone else...." That is not a difference, it could happen in every case.

Do I have to clarify this again. State-funded access to IVF is open to heterosexual couples when something is medically wrong with one of them, i.e. something's not working.

Next point: If the groups in Australia are advocating state-funded access to couples when nothing is wrong with either party (i.e. fully operational reproductive system), then they are not arguing for equal protection, they are arguing for a special entitlement.

I though I made that clear earlier. Several times. In English.

In all cases, the party with nothing wrong could go and have it off with someone else.

.....by denying a portion of the population equal protection under the law. In other words, you are advocating the denial of equal protection to homosexuals when you rail against their particular use of the program, rather than the program itself.

I'll put it this way, let us say some group were advocating that heterosexual couples, without medical difficulties, or single women (again, with nothing wrong) get state-funded access to IVF, I would oppose it.

People don't have to negate your accusations just like you don't have to answer to mine. Your accusations are ridiculous and you've admitted you CANNOT suport them.

You really don't get this, do you.

What I said was the fact that a group says they are only something doesn't necessarily make it true.

You are requiring them to prove they are not representing something other than gay rights.

No, I'm not. These groups, and you and others here make the proposition that they do.

I'm requiring them to prove that they do.

You've proven over and over to be a hypocrite. I showed how your accusation is not falsifiable. You didn't protest because you know it's true.

You've shown nothing of the kind. You've merely ignored any suggestion that you might be wrong.

It is not possible to prove that the 'gay lobby' ONLY represents equal rights for homosexuals.

Simply list what these groups advocate, and make the argument that what they advocate is grounded in rights. Quite simple to anyone else.

You really don't get this, do you.

What I said was the fact that a group says they are only something doesn't necessarily make it true.



No, I'm not. These groups, and you and others here make the proposition that they do.

I'm requiring them to prove that they do.



You've shown nothing of the kind. You've merely ignored any suggestion that you might be wrong.



Simply list what these groups advocate, and make the argument that what they advocate is grounded in rights. Quite simple to anyone else.

Tell me what 'these groups' are? You refuse to answer the question.

Again, I will prove that these groups only represtent the equal rights for homosexuals, when you prove you are only attracted to adults. Or you could just admit that both are not falsafiable assumpts and thus the accusations should not be made with meeting the burden of proof.

his main premises is illogical.

Its not one of my main premises at all. Don't you read my posts? All it is is something you've run off with, nothing more than a giant nitpick on your part.

Tell me what 'these groups' are? You refuse to answer the question.

Again, I will prove that these groups only represtent the equal rights for homosexuals, when you prove you are only attracted to adults. Or you could just admit that both are not falsafiable assumpts and thus the accusations should not be made with meeting the burden of proof.

Scepticism does not equal an accusation. You seem to be unclear on the difference between scepticism and accusation.

skep·ti·cism also scep·ti·cism

1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety.

ac·cu·sa·tion

1. An act of accusing or the state of being accused.
2. A charge of wrongdoing that is made against a person or other party

I'm skeptical, you are making accusations.

Scepticism does not equal an accusation. You seem to be unclear on the difference between scepticism and accusation.

skep·ti·cism also scep·ti·cism

1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety.

ac·cu·sa·tion

1. An act of accusing or the state of being accused.
2. A charge of wrongdoing that is made against a person or other party

But we are reasonable people who know that by questioning whether you are a pedophile that it amounts to an accusation, particularly when I say you have to prove you aren't. Just like you say they have to prove they are what they say they are amounts to an accusation. You know what your intent was when you said it, we know what your intent was. Why lie about it?

Now I'm stilling waiting for you to prove you are not a pedophile? When you've done so I will prove this nebulous gay lobby of yours does not have a purpose other than equal rights for homosexuals.

You know what your intent was when you said it, we know what your intent was.

That is the only basis for your argument? Some tacit understanding that simply doesn't exist?

I shall say it again, in English: I am skeptical of any lobby groups because all claim they only represent what's right and good, and all involve themselves in a corrupt process.

Is that clear enough?

If the only proof you've got that I made accusations is "we all know what you intended", then quit while you're behind.

That is the only basis for your argument? Some tacit understanding that simply doesn't exist?

I shall say it again, in English: I am skeptical of any lobby groups because all claim they only represent what's right and good, and all involve themselves in a corrupt process.

Is that clear enough?

If the only proof you've got that I made accusations is "we all know what you intended", then quit while you're behind.

You require proof for something that can't be proven, it can only be supported. I could show all day long what they say they do and what they've done and it still wouldn't prove that they haven't done anything that goes against their stated purpose. Your request for evidence disingenuous and you know it. If you would like anyone to operate from the assumption that they are not what they say they are, the burden of proof is on you.

Now, when are you going to show this evidence that you're not a pedophile. I'm just skeptical, you know. Everyone says they're not a pedophile, but I'm skeptical. THere are pedophiles out there, might as well be you. So I guess we can operate from the assumption that you're a pedophile until you prove otherwise.

You require proof for something that can't be proven, it can only be supported. I could show all day long what they say they do and what they've done and it still wouldn't prove that they haven't done anything that goes against their stated purpose. Your request for evidence disingenuous and you know it. If you would like anyone to operate from the assumption that they are not what they say they are, the burden of proof is on you.

You're operating under the assumption that I made an accusation. I am sceptical, and you've given me a little cause to be less sceptical (that organisation you wrote of).

Now, when are you going to show this evidence that you're not a pedophile. I'm just skeptical, you know. Everyone says they're not a pedophile, but I'm skeptical. THere are pedophiles out there, might as well be you. So I guess we can operate from the assumption that you're a pedophile until you prove otherwise.

Nope, you made a direct accusation. I have not.

You're operating under the assumption that I made an accusation. I am sceptical, and you've given me a little cause to be less sceptical (that organisation you wrote of).

Ah, yes, exactly the point. No amount of posting data about these organizations will prove it becuase you offered something that is not falsifiable with no support. A no-no as you pointed out to another poster.

Nope, you made a direct accusation. I have not.

I made no accusation. I am skeptical, and you've given me little cause to be less skeptical.

Ah, yes, exactly the point. No amount of posting data about these organizations will prove it becuase you offered something that is not falsifiable with no support. A no-no as you pointed out to another poster.

How is skepiticism not falsifiable.

I made no accusation. I am skeptical, and you've given me little cause to be less skeptical.

I thought you didn't like people being disingenuous. You made a direct accusation many times, and asked me to refute it.

Any fool can tell the difference between accusation and skepticism.

How is skepiticism not falsifiable.

Wow, I don't see how you cannot get this. I can never PROVE that they have not done anything that goes against their stated purpose just like you can never prove you are not a child molestor. Your 'skepticism' is obviously an attempt to discredit them and you have no basis for doing so. It's an argument from ignorance and you've admitted as much.

I thought you didn't like people being disingenuous. You made a direct accusation many times, and asked me to refute it.

Any fool can tell the difference between accusation and skepticism.
I'm not accusing you of anything. I simply asked you to prove something I'm skeptical about, just like you are.

I'm not accusing you of anything. I simply asked you to prove something I'm skeptical about, just like you are.

Skepticism comes about when a party says that something is true about themselves and another analyises their behaviour/beliefs to see if it is truely the case

Accusation comes when a person makes a direct point to that party, to which they must defend.

You have accused, you are not being skeptical.

Wow, I don't see how you cannot get this. I can never PROVE that they have not done anything that goes against their stated purpose just like you can never prove you are not a child molestor. Your 'skepticism' is obviously an attempt to discredit them and you have no basis for doing so. It's an argument from ignorance and you've admitted as much.

No. As I said, I am skeptical. If you don't believe this, that's your problem. Why is skepticism an attempt to discredit. Are you suggesting that for me to not be trying to discredit them, I must have faith in them? Or are you simply ignoring the fact that I am skeptical because your rants sound better when railing against an accuser.

I'm not accusing you of anything. I simply asked you to prove something I'm skeptical about, just like you are

Rubbish, you have accused me several times in this thread.

Can't you differentiate accusation from skepticism?

Skepticism comes about when a party says that something is true about themselves and another analyises their behaviour/beliefs to see if it is truely the case

Accusation comes when a person makes a direct point to that party, to which they must defend.

You have accused, you are not being skeptical.

I made no more of an accusation than he has. I'm skeptical that he is only attracted to adults. I've seen no evidence to support his claim. He has asked us to defend something without any evidence which, as most people know, is called an argument from ignorance. I merely showed him that one can't defend against such an accusation. He isn't skeptical. He said we are not allowed to use the fact that they ONLY support gay rights as an argument until we prove it (which can't be proven since his accusation is not falsifiable). I simply said the same thing.

No. As I said, I am skeptical. If you don't believe this, that's your problem. Why is skepticism an attempt to discredit. Are you suggesting that for me to not be trying to discredit them, I must have faith in them? Or are you simply ignoring the fact that I am skeptical because your rants sound better when railing against an accuser.

I love dragging you down this path because I have access to every post you've made. Keep making that statement because it's going to make you look that much more silly when I quote you.

It's not an attempt to discredit just like I'm not discrediting you when I say I'm skeptical that you are attracted to adults. The fact that you won't show any evidence that you are attracted to adults simply supports my points (note: that is nearly a quote of what you said).

Rubbish, you have accused me several times in this thread.

Can't you differentiate accusation from skepticism?
Yes I can. You accused the 'gay lobby' of not being what you say they are with no evidence. You continued that argument from ignorance with ABSOLUTELY no evidence. If we are allowed to just sling accusations without evidence then I figure I'm being fair.

What are you babbling about? You're getting less coherient. I like the little threat, though. Keyboard tough guys are always amusing, at least when they're not tedious.

I will tell you what my initial point was: That a lobby group says its fighting for fight and justice doesn't necessarily make it true. That is not an accusation. It is skepticism. My statement indicates a doubting, or questioning attitude.

I outlined conditions which would allieviate this skepticism, i.e. knowledge.

That you think is an accusation is a reflection on you. Nothing else.

What are you babbling about? You're getting less coherient. I like the little threat, though. Keyboard tough guys are always amusing, at least when they're not tedious.

I will tell you what my initial point was: That a lobby group says its fighting for fight and justice doesn't necessarily make it true. That is not an accusation. It is skepticism. My statement indicates a doubting, or questioning attitude.

I outlined conditions which would allieviate this skepticism, i.e. knowledge.

That you think is an accusation is a reflection on you. Nothing else.

Yet you REFUSE to define this nebulous 'gay lobby' and you've admitted that my posting of a gay rights group that shows its mission statement and even gives you an opportunity to view how it arrived at that mission statement and you call that not enough evidence. If our belief is true in order to demostrate it is so, we have to post the mission statements and actions of every gay rights group. If your belief is true in order to demonstrate it is so, you need to only show a claimed gay rights group that does not do as it says. Thus the burden of proof is on you. You've not posted an evidence and until you do so your argument has no credence.

I've said what the gay lobby is several posts ago.

I've made no specific allegation, in the midst of all your bluster, to the point of shouting at me over the net, you've missed this.

I've indicated an attitude, nothing more. Of course attitudes change, and your post about the group allieviated my skepticism about that group.

I've said what the gay lobby is several posts ago.

Could you link to it for me?

I've made no specific allegation, in the midst of all your bluster, to the point of shouting at me over the net, you've missed this.

I've indicated an attitude, nothing more. Of course attitudes change, and your post about the group allieviated my skepticism about that group.

No, you've intended your accusations to be nebulous so that you could claim you didn't make them. But we're educated people who can certainly see that you're attempting to argue from ignorance.

I've not shouted at you. All caps in a sentence is shouting. All caps in a word is for emphasis because I'm too lazy to use html.

You've thoroughly illustrated my point. That you would require us to show that EVERY single group is what it says it is in order for you to stop with your arguments from ignorance. The onus is on you to show that things aren't what they say they are. Anything else is argument from ignorance. "I don't know if they are what they say they are so let's argue like they're not."

Rubbish. I've not made accusations. This has been made abundantly clear. You have merely accused me of lying. You have not made any sort of argument whatsoever.

Rubbish. I've not made accusations. This has been made abundantly clear. You have merely accused me of lying. You have not made any sort of argument whatsoever.
*translation I got pwned

LOL jacobia's arguements have been abundently clear

Rubbish. I've not made accusations. This has been made abundantly clear. You have merely accused me of lying. You have not made any sort of argument whatsoever.

I've said that what you said amounts to an accusation. You've proven it by your reaction to the exact same type of statement about you.

So let's recap -

You've made the claim that the 'gay lobby' is accusing people of being mentally ill and would put them in asylums if they could and are thus like communists.

All three parts of that statement have been rejected by either your own statments or by our evidence.

We've shown that 'homophobe' can and often does mean an aversion to gay people and has nothing to do with suggesting people are mentally ill. To claim otherwise you've had to ignore the dictionary definition of the term.

You've made the suggestion that the actions of individuals amount to actions of the group. You've attempted to say things work this way through your statements about the soveit union (an individual government) and your statements that the use of 'homophobe' in this thread by some people amounts to use by everyone who opposes you.

You've said that no statement can be made about a group (people who speak out against the gay lobby) unless the statement applies to everyone in the group. Then you've made statements about entire groups based upon the actions of some in that group. You've said this about the gay lobby, the people in this thread and about communists.

None of your claims are actually supported. At all. But you've several times declared victory in proving these points while dropping the arguments of people who have disputed your claims. You've avoided answering specific questions that will allow people to reply to your points.

Now, would you like to actually have a debate by showing some actual evidence, being intellectually honest and by accepting that anything you require of your opposition must also be required of you. You've not done any of these three things.

No. As I said, I am skeptical. If you don't believe this, that's your problem. Why is skepticism an attempt to discredit. Are you suggesting that for me to not be trying to discredit them, I must have faith in them? Or are you simply ignoring the fact that I am skeptical because your rants sound better when railing against an accuser.

I don't need you to have faith. However, if you are going to suggest they are dishonest be prepared to back it up. You are not prepared and have admitted that you are incapable of backing it up. Arguments from ignorance don't go over well here.

*translation I got pwned

LOL jacobia's arguements have been abundently clear

My favorite part is that he'll claim he proved something and when asked where he proved it he refuses to reply. It's nothing but a bunch of nebulous claims, that he keeps intentionally vague and then says "well, you can't prove me wrong". Those kinds of weak arguments are unimpressive.

My favorite part is that he'll claim he proved something and when asked where he proved it he refuses to reply. It's nothing but a bunch of nebulous claims, that he keeps intentionally vague and then says "well, you can't prove me wrong". Those kinds of weak arguments are unimpressive.
Agreed inability to commit allows ease of denial but it also pulls the "hitting" power of an arguement when you limit yourself to vague inuendo