NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, I was just thinking. Nowadays you have protests against homophobia and homophobics, preachings on how humans should be more open-minded to certain people's sexual preference (call it orientation, I still prefer preference), and what not (Hell, there is also a International Day Against Homophobia). But as much as homosexuals have the "right" to be homosexuals, don't homophobics get the same "right" to be. . .well. . .homophobic?

Whenever I see criticism against homosexuals being done, remarks are always thrown about on the one criticizing that contain phrases like, "Stop being so close-minded." Or, "Learn to accept the modern world." Or, "It's his/her freedom to be a homosexual/lesbian!"

But don't homophobics get the same right to be homophobics? If hating/criticizing homosexuals is wrong, then it is equally wrong to hate/criticize homophobics, no?

To me, this whole situation turned into a hypocrisy. Like my friend once said, "When people want equal rights, it isn't what they really want. They want better rights."

Comments? Debating is always welcome.

By suggesting that Homophobics have a right to be homophobic are you indicating that homosexuality is a choice like an opinion. You can be straight and support homosexuals right to their sexual orientation/preference. I know of no gay people who just woke up one day and said for the laugh I'll be gay.

Let's all go gay-bashing! First one to 50 kills wins gay TDM!

Hating someone for being different isn't as meritous as loving someone for being the same. ;)

No need to pretend otherwise.

Theres nothing wrong with voicing an opinion that doesn't hold any logic.

Nobody's trying to pass laws that say you can't be homophobic. You're allowed to say whatever you want.

By suggesting that Homophobics have a right to be homophobic are you indicating that homosexuality is a choice like an opinion. You can be straight and support homosexuals right to their sexual orientation/preference. I know of no gay people who just woke up one day and said for the laugh I'll be gay.

No, not at all. I'm just saying that homosexuals/gay supporters shouldn't antagonize homophobics for their views on homosexuality. Afterall, people do have the right to be homophobics.

But don't homophobics get the same right to be homophobics? If hating/criticizing homosexuals is wrong, then it is equally wrong to hate/criticize homophobics, no?


Homophobia is a choice not a way of life. Its either due to religious frenzy, or unfamiliarity with homosexuals.

To me, this whole situation turned into a hypocrisy. Like my friend once said, "When people want equal rights, it isn't what they really want. They want better rights."

Homphobia isn't about equal rights its about education. Anyway whats wrong with getting better rights. Equality is just a point of origin.

Well, I was just thinking. Nowadays you have protests against homophobia and homophobics, preachings on how humans should be more open-minded to certain people's sexual preference (call it orientation, I still prefer preference), and what not (Hell, there is also a International Day Against Homophobia). But as much as homosexuals have the "right" to be homosexuals, don't homophobics get the same "right" to be. . .well. . .homophobic?

Whenever I see criticism against homosexuals being done, remarks are always thrown about on the one criticizing that contain phrases like, "Stop being so close-minded." Or, "Learn to accept the modern world." Or, "It's his/her freedom to be a homosexual/lesbian!"

But don't homophobics get the same right to be homophobics? If hating/criticizing homosexuals is wrong, then it is equally wrong to hate/criticize homophobics, no?

To me, this whole situation turned into a hypocrisy. Like my friend once said, "When people want equal rights, it isn't what they really want. They want better rights."

Comments? Debating is always welcome.

"If he gets the right to be black, don't they get the right to be racsist?"

I don't think homophobia is a sexual orientation.

Hating someone for being different isn't as meritous as loving someone for being the same. ;)

No need to pretend otherwise.


Excuse me?

Surely freedom of expression covers the right to hate with a vengeance, wot?

No, not at all. I'm just saying that homosexuals/gay supporters shouldn't antagonize homophobics for their views on homosexuality. Afterall, people do have the right to be homophobics.
Exactly. If homophobes understood that that was all they are entitled to on the issue, it wouldn't be so much of a problem.

I know homophobia isn't a orientation/preference. But bashing homophobics for their opinion on homosexuals is equally wrong to bashing homosexuals on their orientation/preference.

That's my point.

Excuse me?

Surely freedom of expression covers the right to hate with a vengeance, wot?Yes... but how would that make hate meritous?

No, not at all. I'm just saying that homosexuals/gay supporters shouldn't antagonize homophobics for their views on homosexuality. Afterall, people do have the right to be homophobics.


They do so long as their OPINIONS don't affect the rights of others.

Yes... but how would that make hate meritous?


Back up a little: why don't you tell me how, say, loving gays is meritorious?

And after that: let's try just how loving nazis is meritorious.

Followed by: lets find out how hating nazis lacks merit.

If love and hate are opposites, I can always love it's antithesis, and hate the thesis.

In the end, I can change the polarity of love and hate by changing the subject of the emotion.

Therefore, love and hate are remarkably similar, perhaps even the same.

They do so long as their OPINIONS don't affect the rights of others.

Wow.

So basically, freedom of opinion is allowed as long as it is a victimless crime.

Sweet.

Only a philosph person comes out with thoughts like that....your one of them BogMarsh aren't you?????? (glares accusingly)


I was refering to your earlier post not the above one.

Well, I was just thinking. Nowadays you have protests against homophobia and homophobics, preachings on how humans should be more open-minded to certain people's sexual preference (call it orientation, I still prefer preference), and what not (Hell, there is also a International Day Against Homophobia). But as much as homosexuals have the "right" to be homosexuals, don't homophobics get the same "right" to be. . .well. . .homophobic?

Whenever I see criticism against homosexuals being done, remarks are always thrown about on the one criticizing that contain phrases like, "Stop being so close-minded." Or, "Learn to accept the modern world." Or, "It's his/her freedom to be a homosexual/lesbian!"

But don't homophobics get the same right to be homophobics? If hating/criticizing homosexuals is wrong, then it is equally wrong to hate/criticize homophobics, no?

To me, this whole situation turned into a hypocrisy. Like my friend once said, "When people want equal rights, it isn't what they really want. They want better rights."

Comments? Debating is always welcome.
What kind of reasoning is that? I'm part gay; however, I don't "get to be" bisexual.
Homophobes are hypocrites. They almost always pursue us in the name of "morality" and all that garbage, but they're really dreaming of having us drawn and quartered and sent to concentration camps. Now explain exactly how that is "moral".

Excuse me?

Surely freedom of expression covers the right to hate with a vengeance, wot?
It covers the right to hate, but not vengeance of any kind. Oh, and "vengeance"? Tell me, what exactly did we do? We certainly didn't decide to be who we were. :rolleyes:

Wow.

So basically, freedom of opinion is allowed as long as it is a victimless crime.

Sweet.

Expressing freedom of opinion is allowed as long as its a victimless crime. A substanial amount of homophobia isn't victimless.

Societies tend to progress through unity, as opposed to division.

Only a philosph person comes out with thoughts like that....your one of them BogMarsh aren't you?????? (glares accusingly)


I was refering to your earlier post not the above one.


*lost*

What are you on about?

*lost*

What are you on about?

your line of arguement in an earlier post and in some of todays other threads just remind of a society in Ireland, big bunch of ponces (not saying your one as your obviously not a member!) Sorry shouldn't post random thoughts!

Expressing freedom of opinion is allowed as long as its a victimless crime. A substanial amount of homophobia isn't victimless.


I may express as long as I don't hurt anybody.
I can't see how that substantially matters from having the freedom to do as I please provided it does not upset one's applecart.

If freedom was so limited, no one would in fact have bothered to enshrine it as a right.

Dreadfully sorry, but I think I have the right to love or hate gays, without accounting for it to you, or anyone else.

Well, I was just thinking. Nowadays you have protests against homophobia and homophobics, preachings on how humans should be more open-minded to certain people's sexual preference (call it orientation, I still prefer preference), and what not (Hell, there is also a International Day Against Homophobia). But as much as homosexuals have the "right" to be homosexuals, don't homophobics get the same "right" to be. . .well. . .homophobic?

Whenever I see criticism against homosexuals being done, remarks are always thrown about on the one criticizing that contain phrases like, "Stop being so close-minded." Or, "Learn to accept the modern world." Or, "It's his/her freedom to be a homosexual/lesbian!"

But don't homophobics get the same right to be homophobics? If hating/criticizing homosexuals is wrong, then it is equally wrong to hate/criticize homophobics, no?

To me, this whole situation turned into a hypocrisy. Like my friend once said, "When people want equal rights, it isn't what they really want. They want better rights."

Comments? Debating is always welcome.
We all have to draw the line somewhere … I refuse to tolerate intolerance specially when that intolerance still causes homosexuals to be treated as second class citizens. I have been sent to the hospital twice because of homophobic behavior that went overboard … I will not tolerate it if I can do something about it (legally)

your line of arguement in an earlier post and in some of todays other threads just remind of a society in Ireland, big bunch of ponces (not saying your one as your obviously not a member!) Sorry shouldn't post random thoughts!

Oh. I'd say that said crime ( you know which ) does not have to hurt a body before it becomes obnoxious.

That it hurts decency is quite enough.

That it breaks the law of this Kingdom, and most other States as well, cinches it beyond any possible doubt.

I know homophobia isn't a orientation/preference. But bashing homophobics for their opinion on homosexuals is equally wrong to bashing homosexuals on their orientation/preference.

That's my point.

So you think it is somehow wrong to point out bigotry? Is it wrong to point out that someone is racist? Or that they are sexist? Or any other type of bigotry?

If the bigotted person sees those words as an insult, they seriously need to reconsider their own positions. If they truly believe that homosexuals/blacks/whites/hispanics/asians/men/women/etc./etc. are inferior, then they should be proud to be called homopobes/racists/sexists/etc.

SNIP

It covers the right to hate, but not vengeance of any kind. Oh, and "vengeance"? Tell me, what exactly did we do? We certainly didn't decide to be who we were. :rolleyes:

Metaphysical, and allegorical vengeance. As in loathing with clenched fists and gnashing teeth.
Just as I claim to be free to love homosexuality in swoons and with blushing cheeks.

I may express as long as I don't hurt anybody.
I can't see how that substantially matters from having the freedom to do as I please provided it does not upset one's applecart.

If freedom was so limited, no one would in fact have bothered to enshrine it as a right.

Dreadfully sorry, but I think I have the right to love or hate gays, without accounting for it to you, or anyone else.


You can like/love/loath who you want. I certainly can't change your views. But if your opinions manifest into something which effect others rights you don't, you won't have to change your views you just may not be able to express them in public. This doesnt mean freedom is limited.

So you think it is somehow wrong to point out bigotry? Is it wrong to point out that someone is racist? Or that they are sexist? Or any other type of bigotry?

If the bigotted person sees those words as an insult, they seriously need to reconsider their own positions. If they truly believe that homosexuals/blacks/whites/hispanics/asians/men/women/etc./etc. are inferior, then they should be proud to be called homopobes/racists/sexists/etc.


The fine point of it would be that you use the word as an insult.

If you called them 'ruthless go*ddamned faggothaters' they would be proud.

So you think it is somehow wrong to point out bigotry? Is it wrong to point out that someone is racist? Or that they are sexist? Or any other type of bigotry?

If the bigotted person sees those words as an insult, they seriously need to reconsider their own positions. If they truly believe that homosexuals/blacks/whites/hispanics/asians/men/women/etc./etc. are inferior, then they should be proud to be called homopobes/racists/sexists/etc.
Agreed I will in no way infringe upon their right to say as they want but they better uphold that same ideal when I point out what a bigoted asshole they truly are

You can like/love/loath who you want. I certainly can't change your views. But if your opinions manifest into something which effect others rights you don't, you won't have to change your views you just may not be able to express them in public. This doesnt mean freedom is limited.

Sorry, but unadulterated crap.

I have a freedom to express my opinions, regardless of how hurt others feel.

And not merely a freedom to feel. Indeed, there is no codified freedom to feel.

I know homophobia isn't a orientation/preference. But bashing homophobics for their opinion on homosexuals is equally wrong to bashing homosexuals on their orientation/preference.

That's my point.

Nobody's denying one's right to freedom of expression. Think of it as a verbal battle for public consciousness. People are just trying to create a society where people who have the right not to be discriminated against by the government for their sexual orientation, can live a private life without discrimination as well.

You have the right to be a bigot, but society has the right to tell you that you are one.

The fine point of it would be that you use the word as an insult.

Irrelevant. If they see the viewpoint as appropriate or even virtuous, the word is not an insult to them.

I have had people refer to me as a feminist with derision. My response? "Thank you."

When I point out that someone is a bigot, I am absolutley calling them out for a viewpoint and a set of behaviors that I find abhorrent. They, however, theoretically do not find it to be at all inappropriate. As such, they should feel no insult at the word. If they do, it demonstrates that they actually know that they are doing something wrong.

Nobody's denying one's right to freedom of expression. Think of it as a verbal battle for public consciousness. People are just trying to create a society where people who have the right not to be discriminated against by the government for their sexual orientation, can live a private life without discrimination as well.

You have the right to be a bigot, but society has the right to tell you that you are one.


Thank you! BogMarsh please arise from you boghole and read!

Sorry, but unadulterated crap.

I have a freedom to express my opinions, regardless of how hurt others feel.




You don't if its against the law.

Yeah, everytime I see a black person who wants to be treated equally and society take a forceful stance against racism, I think "oh, those poor racists - it can't be easy when no one supports their idiocy - how dare people tell them that they are stupid for being racists?"

Freedom of speech goes both way. Homophobic people are free to be idiots, the rest of us are free to tell them they're idiots and to make others realise what idiots they are.

Nobody's trying to pass laws that say you can't be homophobic. You're allowed to say whatever you want.

Wrong. In the US, at least, if you pummel a homosexual for being homosexual, that's considered a hate crime. Apparently you can't think whatever you want...

Disclaimer: I have no problems with homosexuality. It doesn't affect me one bit, so I don't give a damn.

Freedom of speech goes both way. Homophobic people are free to be idiots, the rest of us are free to tell them they're idiots and to make others realise what idiots they are.

Quoted for truth.

Yeah, everytime I see a black person who wants to be treated equally and society take a forceful stance against racism, I think "oh, those poor racists - it can't be easy when no one supports their idiocy - how dare people tell them that they are stupid for being racists?"

Freedom of speech goes both way. Homophobic people are free to be idiots, the rest of us are free to tell them they're idiots and to make others realise what idiots they are.
Lol you sound like my reply to depublicants lol

Irrelevant. If they see the viewpoint as appropriate or even virtuous, the word is not an insult to them.

I have had people refer to me as a feminist with derision. My response? "Thank you."

When I point out that someone is a bigot, I am absolutley calling them out for a viewpoint and a set of behaviors that I find abhorrent. They, however, theoretically do not find it to be at all inappropriate. As such, they should feel no insult at the word. If they do, it demonstrates that they actually know that they are doing something wrong.


I have had people refer to me as a feminist with derision. My response? "Thank you."
Without prejudice to the rest of your post, you deserve a huge applause for that!
*standing ovation* Well done indeed!

But anyway:

When I point out that someone is a faggot I am absolutley calling them out for a viewpoint and a set of behaviors that I find abhorrent. They, however, theoretically do not find it to be at all inappropriate. As such, they should feel no insult at the word.

Your point, with one word altered.

I must say I disagree. Even if I did consider gays to be utterly loathable for their viewpoint and and sets of behaviours, I have imho not much of a right ( before God nor Constitution ) to call 'em godblighted ( and excuse both words please ) faggots. I may call 'em gays or homosexuals. But the F-word breaks the line.

Wrong. In the US, at least, if you pummel a homosexual for being homosexual, that's considered a hate crime. Apparently you can't think whatever you want...

Yes, you can. You simply can't act upon whatever thoughts you want.

I can think "Damn, I'd like to kill that guy." I cannot, however, kill him and get away with it.

Thank you! BogMarsh please arise from you boghole and read!

Under which article has society said right?

Chapter and verse, please.

Back up a little: why don't you tell me how, say, loving gays is meritorious?

And after that: let's try just how loving nazis is meritorious.

Followed by: lets find out how hating nazis lacks merit.

If love and hate are opposites, I can always love it's antithesis, and hate the thesis.

In the end, I can change the polarity of love and hate by changing the subject of the emotion.

Therefore, love and hate are remarkably similar, perhaps even the same.


my brain just overloaded

Yes, you can. You simply can't act upon whatever thoughts you want.

I can think "Damn, I'd like to kill that guy." I cannot, however, kill him and get away with it.
Sometimes they do … one of the guys that attacked me that one time never got caught … fucker

I'm part gay; however, I don't "get to be" bisexual.
Homophobes are hypocrites.

You aren't part gay. theres straight and not straight. thats all. one or the other. Hate to break it to ya, but if you kiss the girl next to you in science class and kiss the guy next to you in math, YOUR GAY!!!!!! BI= NOT STRAIGHT!!!!!
O, and by the way, homophobes are hypocrites. i agree. but too bad. cuz theres always bias, especially when ppl are adamntly against something. Like me, personaly, i dont care if your gay as long as you dont get near me. ANd ya no what? thats what gets me. Like, all these gays are goin, "they wont hire me! they fired me cuz im gay!" and stuff like that. But ya no, ppl neither need or want to know your sexual orientation. ANd me personally, again, i would hire gays but i would let them know that the first time they stood behind me or touched my leg they were gone. But then id be engrossed ina scandal of anti-gayness cuz i fired a gay dude.

Wrong. In the US, at least, if you pummel a homosexual for being homosexual, that's considered a hate crime. Apparently you can't think whatever you want...

Disclaimer: I have no problems with homosexuality. It doesn't affect me one bit, so I don't give a damn.


I must say that in that regard, I consider the added weight of 'hate' an appropriate administrative method of getting those who beat people for whatever reason, up tried and convicted with all due haste.

Which I must and do applaud.

Lol you sound like my reply to depublicants lol

Except of course that I didn't bother watering down my words. I calls idiocy like I sees it.

I must say I disagree. Even if I did consider gays to be utterly loathable for their viewpoint and and sets of behaviours, I have imho not much of a right ( before God nor Constitution ) to call 'em godblighted ( and excuse both words please ) faggots. I may call 'em gays or homosexuals. But the F-word breaks the line.

The difference, of course, is that the word you are using is specifically an insult. Except in the basest vernacular, it has nothing at all to do with sexuality - except as an insult.

Words like "homophobic", "racist", "sexist", and "bigot", however specifically refer to certain viewpoints. They are not words designed solely as insults.

As an example, I could refer to someone who has sex with a lot of people as promiscuous without it automatically being an insult. I may see promiscuity as a bad thing, and therefore consider it an insult, but if they meet the definition of the word, it is no problem. However, the word "slut" has no usage outside of being an insult. Thus, even a truly promiscuous person may feel that use of such a word is going over the line.

Under which article has society said right?

Chapter and verse, please.

Society is made up of individuals with the right to freedom of expression? Or am I wrong?

Except of course that I didn't bother watering down my words. I calls idiocy like I sees it.
I think my term was bigoted assholes in there ... not very "Watery" lol

The difference, of course, is that the word you are using is specifically an insult. Except in the basest vernacular, it has nothing at all to do with sexuality - except as an insult.

Words like "homophobic", "racist", "sexist", and "bigot", however specifically refer to certain viewpoints. They are not words designed solely as insults.

As an example, I could refer to someone who has sex with a lot of people as promiscuous without it automatically being an insult. I may see promiscuity as a bad thing, and therefore consider it an insult, but if they meet the definition of the word, it is no problem. However, the word "slut" has no usage outside of being an insult. Thus, even a truly promiscuous person may feel that use of such a word is going over the line.


I would be tempted to concede the point.
Except for my belief that using foul language is ... something that merits an ASBO.

She might be a slut dictionarywise. I'd still find the use of the word suspect.

I'm stating the same point about the words homophobic, racist, or sexist.

Certain sinister troublemakers coined them to manipulate the language:
why let 'em get away with it?
Surely Wilberforce needed not the word 'racist' to expose and attack, say, slavery.

I think my term was bigoted assholes in there ... not very "Watery" lol

But, you see, ass holes are good things.

I'm not homophobic. I treat people the same way I expect to be treated.

Everyone has a fair chance with me until they give me reason to be otherwise.

Can't we just boink without having to label it? :(

Society is made up of individuals with the right to freedom of expression? Or am I wrong?


Chapter and verse.
Where does the Law, or the UDHR, or the EDHR, talk of [b]society[b] as having rights?
Strict-construcionist interpretations, please.

As for societies or cultures or what-have-you having rights, that is the stale argument of all those 'non-aligned' countries in the 50ies and 60ies trying to circumvent Human Rights.

Let us never more hear of societies having rights.

Can't we just boink without having to label it? :(


Sounds good to me ;)

I must say that in that regard, I consider the added weight of 'hate' an appropriate administrative method of getting those who beat people for whatever reason, up tried and convicted with all due haste.

Which I must and do applaud.


No, the crime is assault. Adding a penalty on top of that for the motivation is creating a thought crime. Bullshit.

Can't we just boink without having to label it? :(

I like that idea. :D

No, the crime is assault. Adding a penalty on top of that for the motivation is creating a thought crime. Bullshit.

The crime got punished. Which is fine.

As for creating thought crimes - all I can say is: which thoughts? whose thoughts?

I would be tempted to concede the point.
Except for my belief that using foul language is ... something that merits an ASBO.

She might be a slut dictionarywise. I'd still find the use of the word suspect.

I'm stating the same point about the words homophobic, racist, or sexist.

Why? Each of those words describes a particular philosophical viewpoint about other people. Is it wrong to call a Christian a Christian if they believe in the teachings of Christ? If not, why is it wrong to call a person who believes that certain ethncities are inferior a racist? In both cases, the word in question simply describes the viewpoint of the person being referred to.

Certain sinister troublemakers coined them to manipulate the language:
why let 'em get away with it?

Huh?

Surely Wilberforce needed not the word 'racist' to expose and attack, say, slavery.

Of course not. Of course, slavery is not necessarily linked to racism. With or without the subjugation of a particular ethnicity, slavery itself can be attacked as wrong.

No, the crime is assault. Adding a penalty on top of that for the motivation is creating a thought crime. Bullshit.

Really? So any time we consider a person's motivation and intent in sentencing, it is bullshit? You've just done away with hundreds of years of precedent.

If a "thought crime" were being established, then you could be prosecuted and punished simply for the thought. You cannot.

No, the crime is assault. Adding a penalty on top of that for the motivation is creating a thought crime. Bullshit.
Um we do that all the time … things like pre-meditated murder holds a different sentence then a crime of passion

1. Why? Each of those words describes a particular philosophical viewpoint about other people. Is it wrong to call a Christian a Christian if they believe in the teachings of Christ? If not, why is it wrong to call a person who believes that certain ethncities are inferior a racist? In both cases, the word in question simply describes the viewpoint of the person being referred to.



2. Huh?



3. Of course not. Of course, slavery is not necessarily linked to racism. With or without the subjugation of a particular ethnicity, slavery itself can be attacked as wrong.

1. Would they chose that word themselves?
If you call yourself a demothetist ( I just made it up, no comment ), you have no ground to object to me calling you a demothetist. But you have grounds for objecting to me naming you philodantist. ( just made it up, but with added insult. )

2. See 1. made-uppie with added insult.

3. Since noone was defending white slavery or even yellow slavery, I'd say the race factor was quite essential.

1. Would they chose that word themselves?

They would if they went by the definition of the word, yes (unless, of course, they agree that their position on the matter is incorrect).

3. Since noone was defending white slavery or even yellow slavery, I'd say the race factor was quite essential.

People throughout history have defended slavery of all types. Slavery itself can be attacked without any reference to race, nor has it generally been restricted to any given ethnicity. As such, it isn't essential at all.

Um we do that all the time … things like pre-meditated murder holds a different sentence then a crime of passion

Premeditation doesn't raise the issue of the motivation behind the crime.

Well, I was just thinking. Nowadays you have protests against homophobia and homophobics, preachings on how humans should be more open-minded to certain people's sexual preference (call it orientation, I still prefer preference), and what not (Hell, there is also a International Day Against Homophobia). But as much as homosexuals have the "right" to be homosexuals, don't homophobics get the same "right" to be. . .well. . .homophobic?

Sure they do. And I've yet to see anybody in the mainstream gay rights movement proposing that we make it illegal to be a homophobe, or that homophobes should be legally barred from marrying, or that homophobic citizens should have fewer rights than non-homophobes.

See, the thing about freedom of speech is that it doesn't include freedom from criticism. Homophobes are free to be homophobic...and the rest of us are free to criticize them for it. Homosexuals aren't fighting for the "right" to be above criticism; they're fighting for LEGAL EQUALITY.


Whenever I see criticism against homosexuals being done, remarks are always thrown about on the one criticizing that contain phrases like, "Stop being so close-minded." Or, "Learn to accept the modern world." Or, "It's his/her freedom to be a homosexual/lesbian!"

Yes, and that's totally appropriate. Anybody who thinks that their personal opinion of homosexuality constitutes a valid reason to deny other citizens their rights is a person who deserves to be verbally smacked around until they get a clue.


But don't homophobics get the same right to be homophobics? If hating/criticizing homosexuals is wrong, then it is equally wrong to hate/criticize homophobics, no?

No. Nobody, homosexual or homophobe, has the "right" to be free from criticism. The difference is that homophobes aren't content to simply criticize homosexuals or homosexuality; they want their personal feelings turned into laws that force EVERYBODY to live by their values.

Homosexuals aren't trying to make it illegal for homophobes to adopt children. Homosexuals aren't trying to ban straight people from marrying. Homosexuals aren't trying to pass laws making it illegal to be heterosexual or to have consentual heterosexual sex with another adult.

Homosexuals are, rightly, criticizing much of the bullshit and misinformation that is out there. Homosexual activists often have to spend a lot of time correcting people's misconceptions about homosexuality. That's different than attacking people for their feelings on homosexuality.

If somebody simply says, "I don't agree with homosexuality, I think it's wrong, but I don't think it's my business to control other people's sex lives," most homosexuals and gay-friendly people will shrug and say, "Whatever."

The trouble starts when somebody says things like, "I hate gays because they all have AIDS." Because no, actually, they don't.

Or when somebody says that homosexuals shouldn't get to marry because gays can't make babies. Because yes, they can, and no, that's not actually a reason to stop people from getting married.


To me, this whole situation turned into a hypocrisy. Like my friend once said, "When people want equal rights, it isn't what they really want. They want better rights."

I'm guessing your friend is a heterosexual white male of middle to upper class. I'm guessing this because nobody who has ever had to fight for equality would remotely consider saying something that stupid. You need to be aware of how privaledged you are, that you have never had to struggle to enjoy the same rights and freedoms as all the people around you. Be happy that you are so fortunate, but also be humble and realize that a great many people are not as lucky as you.

Premeditation doesn't raise the issue of the motivation behind the crime.
Its a differencing in sentancing based on the mindset of the individual ... same way a peticularly violent crime gets played up as well.

I may express as long as I don't hurt anybody.
I can't see how that substantially matters from having the freedom to do as I please provided it does not upset one's applecart.

If freedom was so limited, no one would in fact have bothered to enshrine it as a right.

Dreadfully sorry, but I think I have the right to love or hate gays, without accounting for it to you, or anyone else.

And if you have the right to hate homosexuals, then the rest of us have the right to hate you for it.

So, ultimately, I believe the point of your first post was moot.

If you want to argue for the right to be intolerant, then you must not argue against the rights of others to be intolerant of you.

And if you have the right to hate homosexuals, then the rest of us have the right to hate you for it.

So, ultimately, I believe the point of your first post was moot.

If you want to argue for the right to be intolerant, then you must not argue against the rights of others to be intolerant of you.
Exactly. The homophobe's argument seems to go something like this:

"If I am willing to acknowledge that gay people have the right to exist, then they have to acknowledge that I have the right to say nasty things about them and not be criticized in any way. Because for them to criticize me after I say nasty things about them, well, that would be INTOLERANT of them!"

Wrong. In the US, at least, if you pummel a homosexual for being homosexual, that's considered a hate crime. Apparently you can't think whatever you want...

Disclaimer: I have no problems with homosexuality. It doesn't affect me one bit, so I don't give a damn.


If you pummel ANYONE it is a crime.

Its a differencing in sentancing based on the mindset of the individual ... same way a peticularly violent crime gets played up as well.

Wrong.

No, not at all. I'm just saying that homosexuals/gay supporters shouldn't antagonize homophobics for their views on homosexuality. Afterall, people do have the right to be homophobics.

Keep in mind that homophobia is equivalent to racism. I dont think people understand that homophobia isnt some lesser hatred.

If you pummel ANYONE it is a crime.

That's my point. Tacking on an extra penalty for the thought behind the pummelling is shite.

Wrong.
Care to state why?

That's my point. Tacking on an extra penalty for the thought behind the pummelling is shite.
Why? It reflects their ability to handle being in civilized society… it also effects their ability to be rehabilitated.

Note I don’t want anyone to be punished for what they think or say but if they commit a crime then the reasoning for that crime can make all the difference in the world on if they are going to do it again

No, the crime is assault. Adding a penalty on top of that for the motivation is creating a thought crime. Bullshit.

It's a Hate crime if it's done because of the victim's race/religion/sexuality/etc., and it's in the US legal system.

Thoughts without actions are thought crimes.

That's my point. Tacking on an extra penalty for the thought behind the pummelling is shite.

And yet such things have been taken into account throughout the history of our legal system. Someone who pummels another for money, for instance, will most likely be given a longer sentence than someone who gets in a bar fight. Someone who pummels another because they were walking on the wrong side of the street is likely to be given a longer sentence than someone who pummels another because they called his mother a whore. And so on....

Motivation and intent have always been taken into account during sentencing. Why should bigotry be exempt?

That's my point. Tacking on an extra penalty for the thought behind the pummelling is shite.

So should 1st degree murder be the same penalty as manslaughter?

You aren't part gay. theres straight and not straight. thats all. one or the other. Hate to break it to ya, but if you kiss the girl next to you in science class and kiss the guy next to you in math, YOUR GAY!!!!!! BI= NOT STRAIGHT!!!!!
O, and by the way, homophobes are hypocrites. i agree. but too bad. cuz theres always bias, especially when ppl are adamntly against something. Like me, personaly, i dont care if your gay as long as you dont get near me. ANd ya no what? thats what gets me. Like, all these gays are goin, "they wont hire me! they fired me cuz im gay!" and stuff like that. But ya no, ppl neither need or want to know your sexual orientation. ANd me personally, again, i would hire gays but i would let them know that the first time they stood behind me or touched my leg they were gone. But then id be engrossed ina scandal of anti-gayness cuz i fired a gay dude.

Do not speak of that which you know nothing of.

I am bisexual. I am equally attracted to members of both sexes, which is the DEFINITION of bisexual. I have had sexual relations with members of both sexes and find them equally fulfilling. I am bisexual, and you calling me gay does not change that fact.

As to knowing my sexual orientation, were you and I together in a room discussing the situation in Israel or the price of potatoes, it would never come up. In this sort of a discussion it does, simply because it is appropriate. However, if it WERE to come up (for instance, if my current partner were to enter the room) I would make no effort to hide it, any more than YOU would if your current partner were to come in.

As to your criteria for firing someone who is gay, let me ask you this... would you fire a woman who touched your leg? Or if her advance was unwelcome would you simply say "No thank you" and be done with it. If the answer is the latter, you ARE homophobic and need to learn to get over it, or you WILL be in trouble should such a situation ever arise.

You aren't part gay. theres straight and not straight. thats all. one or the other. Hate to break it to ya, but if you kiss the girl next to you in science class and kiss the guy next to you in math, YOUR GAY!!!!!! BI= NOT STRAIGHT!!!!!
O, and by the way, homophobes are hypocrites. i agree. but too bad. cuz theres always bias, especially when ppl are adamntly against something. Like me, personaly, i dont care if your gay as long as you dont get near me. ANd ya no what? thats what gets me. Like, all these gays are goin, "they wont hire me! they fired me cuz im gay!" and stuff like that. But ya no, ppl neither need or want to know your sexual orientation. ANd me personally, again, i would hire gays but i would let them know that the first time they stood behind me or touched my leg they were gone. But then id be engrossed ina scandal of anti-gayness cuz i fired a gay dude.

Bisexuals are neither straight nor gay. Gay men like only men, and straight men like only women. Bisexual men like both men and women.

Well, I was just thinking. Nowadays you have protests against homophobia and homophobics, preachings on how humans should be more open-minded to certain people's sexual preference (call it orientation, I still prefer preference), and what not (Hell, there is also a International Day Against Homophobia). But as much as homosexuals have the "right" to be homosexuals, don't homophobics get the same "right" to be. . .well. . .homophobic?

Whenever I see criticism against homosexuals being done, remarks are always thrown about on the one criticizing that contain phrases like, "Stop being so close-minded." Or, "Learn to accept the modern world." Or, "It's his/her freedom to be a homosexual/lesbian!"

But don't homophobics get the same right to be homophobics? If hating/criticizing homosexuals is wrong, then it is equally wrong to hate/criticize homophobics, no?

To me, this whole situation turned into a hypocrisy. Like my friend once said, "When people want equal rights, it isn't what they really want. They want better rights."


You have a point and yes it is a little hypocritical to bash homophobes for being how they are. I look at this as a sort of pendulum effect. The pendulum's been pretty damned badly stacked against gay dudes and dudettes for some time now. It was definitely looked down upon to be queer* for a helluva long time. To a great (although not complete depending upon location) degree it is acceptable or even embraced to be gay. But there are still battles against homophobia and for basic dignity and right to exist being fought. Some quite real and some more imagined than real. The pendulum is quickly swinging towards a world where gay folk are regarded first as "just folk" (who as an aside happen to be gay) the same way hetero folk are generally regarded as "just folk" (who as an aside happen to be straight) but that time isnt quite here yet. It will take some work from both sides before the world is there.

For now and hopefully not too much longer I suppose that it is tolerable and maybe even best to shout down and vilify homophobes. Soon though that tactic will be less productive than just tolerance and gentler more long term education and time for feathers to unruffle and real perceptions of real gay people in real day to day life. That more than anything is what has got you this far.

Oh and when I used the word "queer" way up there in the first paragraph it was just to annoy Baggeutten. He isnt happy unless he's irritated at some poster or the other. 3:1 odds says it worked for at least 3.2 seconds

I am equally attracted to members of both sexes, which is the DEFINITION of bisexual.

Well, technically, you don't have to be equally attracted to both sexes to be bisexual. You just have to be attracted to both sexes.

That's my point. Tacking on an extra penalty for the thought behind the pummelling is shite.

Really? So if you are taunted and teased and pushed around until you pummel someone you should be sentenced to the same thing as if you sat at home thinking "I am going to go out and beat up a gay person" and then went and hunted one down?

Motive has always been a mitigating factor in the American justice system.

Well, technically, you don't have to be equally attracted to both sexes to be bisexual. You just have to be attracted to both sexes.


Well, yes... that is true.

Bisexuals are neither straight nor gay. Gay men like only men, and straight men like only women. Bisexual men like both men and women.

*this is a bit of an aside*

And, of course, the same is true (in reverse) for women. I find it somewhat interesting that homosexual women are almost never mentioned in these discussions.

It's a Hate crime if it's done because of the victim's race/religion/sexuality/etc., and it's in the US legal system.

Thoughts without actions are thought crimes.

Tacking on an extra penalty for the motivation based on the victim's race/religion/sexuality/etc. is, in effect, creating an extra penalty for thought. The whole concept of "hate crimes" is bullshit.

*this is a bit of an aside*

And, of course, the same is true (in reverse) for women. I find it somewhat interesting that homosexual women are almost never mentioned in these discussions.
There's no such thing as female homosexuals. Women don't have "little soldiers," so they can't have sex.

;)

There's no such thing as female homosexuals. Women don't have "little soldiers," so they can't have sex.

;)

And they're not really homosexual anyway. They just "haven't met the right guy yet." :rolleyes:

Tacking on an extra penalty for the motivation based on the victim's race/religion/sexuality/etc. is, in effect, creating an extra penalty for thought. The whole concept of "hate crimes" is bullshit.
You aren't tacking on the extra penalty because of the race/religion/gender/sexuality of the victim. You are tacking on the additional sentence based on the motive for the act.

Let's say a white person kills a black person. Is this a hate crime? We don't know unless we have additional information.

For instance, if the black person were trying to rob the white person, it's not a "hate crime" at all. It's self-defense.

If the white person and the black person were in a bar fight because one was a Sox fan and one was for the Yankees, and the black person ended up getting killed, it's not a hate crime.

If the white person killed the black person because the black person was sleeping with the white person's wife, that's not a hate crime.

All three of the above types of killing will also carry different sentences. Self defense does not result in prison time. Manslaughter carries a lower penalty than first or second degree murder. Second degree murder is treated differently than first degree murder.

Now, if the white person killed the black person because of their hatred for black people, that could end up qualifying as a hate crime. Same two people, same racial differences, but this time it gets a different sentence because of the motive. Just like an accidental death during a bar fight gets a different sentence than a premeditated murder. The motive behind the crime is what is changing the sentence, NOT THE VICTIM'S RACE.

And they're not really homosexual anyway. They just "haven't met the right guy yet." :rolleyes:
As an aside:

Has anybody else noticed how the guys who most often say that (that a lesbian just hasn't been with the right dude) are the guys who are most likely to make even a very heterosexual woman turn to lesbianism?

Myself, I've noticed another curious trend. All the guys who have used that line on me have been guys who have far more body hair than average. We're talking wookie-level. What's up with that?

Tacking on an extra penalty for the motivation based on the victim's race/religion/sexuality/etc. is, in effect, creating an extra penalty for thought. The whole concept of "hate crimes" is bullshit.
Yet you have failed to show any justification or any reasoning other then short one or two line statements on its “bullshit” quality.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to look at motivation and its impact on the criminals ability to deal in society and rehabilitate

You aren't tacking on the extra penalty because of the race/religion/gender/sexuality of the victim. You are tacking on the additional sentence based on the motive for the act.

Let's say a white person kills a black person. Is this a hate crime? We don't know unless we have additional information.

For instance, if the black person were trying to rob the white person, it's not a "hate crime" at all. It's self-defense.

If the white person and the black person were in a bar fight because one was a Sox fan and one was for the Yankees, and the black person ended up getting killed, it's not a hate crime.

If the white person killed the black person because the black person was sleeping with the white person's wife, that's not a hate crime.

All three of the above types of killing will also carry different sentences. Self defense does not result in prison time. Manslaughter carries a lower penalty than first or second degree murder. Second degree murder is treated differently than first degree murder.

Now, if the white person killed the black person because of their hatred for black people, that could end up qualifying as a hate crime. Same two people, same racial differences, but this time it gets a different sentence because of the motive. Just like an accidental death during a bar fight gets a different sentence than a premeditated murder. The motive behind the crime is what is changing the sentence, NOT THE VICTIM'S RACE.
Well stated

There's no such thing as female homosexuals. Women don't have "little soldiers," so they can't have sex.

;)

Naw, they have strapons for that. :D

But, you see, ass holes are good things.

Sure. People would be much larger than they are without them.

Naw, they have strapons for that. :D
I repeat: women do not have little soldiers, and therefore cannot have sex with each other.

Sure. People would be much larger than they are without them.

Or waste would come out their mouths.

Oh wait some people do that already.

I repeat: women do not have little soldiers, and therefore cannot have sex with each other.

Men don't have vaginas, so they can't have sex with each other.

Men don't have vaginas, so they can't have sex with each other.
Sure they can. Sex is about "little soldiers" being sent to bootcamp in various locations. While sodomy is, of course, reprehensible, it is still physically possible.

Sure they can. Sex is about "little soldiers" being sent to bootcamp in various locations. While sodomy is, of course, reprehensible, it is still physically possible.

There is oral sex.

You aren't tacking on the extra penalty because of the race/religion/gender/sexuality of the victim. You are tacking on the additional sentence based on the motive for the act.

Let's say a white person kills a black person. Is this a hate crime? We don't know unless we have additional information.

For instance, if the black person were trying to rob the white person, it's not a "hate crime" at all. It's self-defense.

If the white person and the black person were in a bar fight because one was a Sox fan and one was for the Yankees, and the black person ended up getting killed, it's not a hate crime.

If the white person killed the black person because the black person was sleeping with the white person's wife, that's not a hate crime.

All three of the above types of killing will also carry different sentences. Self defense does not result in prison time. Manslaughter carries a lower penalty than first or second degree murder. Second degree murder is treated differently than first degree murder.

Now, if the white person killed the black person because of their hatred for black people, that could end up qualifying as a hate crime. Same two people, same racial differences, but this time it gets a different sentence because of the motive. Just like an accidental death during a bar fight gets a different sentence than a premeditated murder. The motive behind the crime is what is changing the sentence, NOT THE VICTIM'S RACE.

Why is "the white person killed the black person because the black person was sleeping with the white person's wife" not a hate crime? He was probably hating the black if he was jealous enough to kill him.
Why is hate crime different then premediated murder?

There is oral sex.
Is that you, Clinton? I always knew you were a sodomite!

Why is "the white person killed the black person because the black person was sleeping with the white person's wife" not a hate crime? He was probably hating the black if he was jealous enough to kill him.

Because the term "hate crime" refers to crimes commited due to hatred directed at a group (blacks, Jews, women, etc) rather than rage at the individual victim.

If I killed somebody because I hated THEM very passionately, that would not be the same as if I killed them because I hated Jews and they happened to be a Jew.


Why is hate crime different then premediated murder?
Because many hate crimes are not premeditated, many hate crimes are not murders, and many premeditated murders are not hate crimes.

Why is "the white person killed the black person because the black person was sleeping with the white person's wife" not a hate crime? He was probably hating the black if he was jealous enough to kill him.
Why is hate crime different then premediated murder?
I think because it is more of a crime of passion rather then motivated out of race… I think that’s what she is getting at

Because the term "hate crime" refers to crimes commited due to hatred directed at a group (blacks, Jews, women, etc) rather than rage at the individual victim.

If I killed somebody because I hated THEM very passionately, that would not be the same as if I killed them because I hated Jews and they happened to be a Jew.


Because many hate crimes are not premeditated, many hate crimes are not murders, and many premeditated murders are not hate crimes.

Which has a higher sentence? Hate crime murder or premeditated murder?

I think because it is more of a crime of passion rather then motivated out of race… I think that’s what she is getting at
The problem he seems to have is one of semantics.

There are many crimes in which the perp hates the victim, but the crime is not a "hate crime." This is because the term "hate crime" refers to a very specific type of crime, and a specific type of hatred. If somebody objects to the TERM "hate crime," that's a whole other topic. I happen to think it's a lousy term, myself, since it really should just be called what it is: terrorism.

Is that you, Clinton? I always knew you were a sodomite!

Well, if people want to call what Clinton did sex, then that would make oral sex well... sex. And oral sex is defined as putting the mouth on the genitals or part of the genitals. And women have genitals too, before you say they don't. You might have heard of the clitoris. Note that it is not the vagina.

Which has a higher sentence? Hate crime murder or premeditated murder?
First of all, you can have a premeditated murder that is also a hate crime. Second of all, it will depend on the details of the cases, and on the judge who is issuing the sentence.

Which has a higher sentence? Hate crime murder or premeditated murder?
If I remember right they were very similar as both show an inability to peacefully coexist in society and both tend to have very poor rehabilitation records

If I remember right they were very similar as both show an inability to peacefully coexist in society and both tend to have very poor rehabilitation records

There. The stupidity of your system...

Which has a higher sentence? Hate crime murder or premeditated murder?

That all depends. Considering that most hate crimes are not murders at all, the answer would generally be premeditated murder - which can result in the death penalty in many places.

However, a premeditated murder that a man planned because the "victim" raped his daughter would most likley get a lesser sentence than the man who killed someone simply because he was a Jew.

That all depends. Considering that most hate crimes are not murders at all, the answer would generally be premeditated murder - which can result in the death penalty in many places.

However, a premeditated murder that a man planned because the "victim" raped his daughter would most likley get a lesser sentence than the man who killed someone simply because he was a Jew.
There. The fairness of our system...

There. The stupidity of your system...
How so? I am just going off of memory like I said … hell actual sentencing may show one to be vastly heavier sentencing for all I know

There. The fairness of our system...

Besides the lack of originality of your answer, do you really think a premeditated murder, which the criminal knows the consequences very well and not in a rage of some sort which clouds his judgment (hence, the daughter rape example isnt good here), should be given a less sentence than hate crime which wasnt premeditated (in which the criminal had no time to think of the consequences of his actions)?

Besides the lack of originality of your answer, do you really think a premeditated murder, which the criminal knows the consequences very well and not in a rage of some sort which clouds his judgment (hence, the daughter rape example isnt good here), should be given a less sentence than hate crime which wasnt premeditated?
If the courts can show that whoever did the unpremeditated murder had a history of hate crime violence. I'd say the sentence should be equal to a premeditated murder. If a race or a sexual orientation flings somebody into a rage that cannot be controlled, I'd hope that person had somebody who could get that person professional help. Otherwise, I'd rather not have him walking around in society.

Another example:

Case 1:
Two opposing teams are watching a game. They fight. One white guy kills the black guy.

Case 2:
A black man rapes and kills a girl. And black rapes are like 60% of total rapes even though they are 4% of the population. Racist gang walks. They saw some blacks walking. They fight. White guys kills the black guy.

Is it safe to assume case 2 would be classified hate crime and carry a significant amount more sentence than case 1? Now, I believe murder should carry really high sentences whether premeditated or not but this is just stupid.

Another example:

Case 1:
Two opposing teams are watching a game. They fight. One white guy kills the black guy.

Case 2:
A black man rapes and kills a girl. And black rapes are like 60% of total rapes even though they are 4% of the population. Racist gang walks. They saw some blacks walking. They fight. White guys kills the black guy.

Is it safe to assume case 2 would be classified hate crime and carry a significant amount more sentence than case 1? Now, I believe murder should carry really high sentences whether premeditated or not but this is just stupid.
These aren't real cases.
Edit: I misread this.

Yeah, the second case should carry a higher sentence unless we found a history of violence against blacks from the white guy in the first case. The fact that the black who was killed was a rapist is just dumb luck on the racists part. The first case has 0 premeditation and, without knowing the details, it sounds like an accident while the second sounds like a racist gang looking to rid the world of a black.

Chapter and verse.
Where does the Law, or the UDHR, or the EDHR, talk of [b]society[b] as having rights?
Strict-construcionist interpretations, please.

As for societies or cultures or what-have-you having rights, that is the stale argument of all those 'non-aligned' countries in the 50ies and 60ies trying to circumvent Human Rights.

Let us never more hear of societies having rights.

:rolleyes:

From the Declaration of Human Rights

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

From Dictionary.Com

so·ci·e·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-s-t)
n. pl. so·ci·e·ties

The totality of social relationships among humans. (note the preamble of the Declaration... Society = All members of the Human family.)

That being said, the UDHC does not specifically use the word 'society' in it. You're evading the point, that all declarations of rights are gauranteed to individuals, and society is made up of individuals. It's a no-brainer.

Therefore, individuals collectively have the right to tell you that you are a bigot. They're all using their independent right to freedom of expression at the same time. Does that make it easier for you?

Can't we just boink without having to label it? :(
Hell no!

We must dedicate huge amounts of time and energy to telling people which kinds of consentual sexual relations are Good Sex and which are Bad Sex.

We must expend more time and energy explaining why people who have Good Sex are obviously good, moral, worthy human beings, and people who have Bad Sex are obviously horrible, immoral beings who are unworthy of even the most basic civil and human rights.

And we must expend yet more time and energy passing laws that compell all people to have only Good Sex, and only with the partners we approve, lest our society degenerate into a hideous muddle of happy, sexually-fulfilled individuals.

Hell no!

We must dedicate huge amounts of time and energy to telling people which kinds of consentual sexual relations are Good Sex and which are Bad Sex.

We must expend more time and energy explaining why people who have Good Sex are obviously good, moral, worthy human beings, and people who have Bad Sex are obviously horrible, immoral beings who are unworthy of even the most basic civil and human rights.

And we must expend yet more time and energy passing laws that compell all people to have only Good Sex, and only with the partners we approve, lest our society degenerate into a hideous muddle of happy, sexually-fulfilled individuals.


Im confused...

Even the worst sex Ive ever had, was still pretty good.

:rolleyes:

From the Declaration of Human Rights

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

From Dictionary.Com

so·ci·e·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-s-t)
n. pl. so·ci·e·ties

The totality of social relationships among humans. (note the preamble of the Declaration... Society = All members of the Human family.)

That being said, the UDHC does not specifically use the word 'society' in it. You're evading the point, that all declarations of rights are gauranteed to individuals, and society is made up of individuals. It's a no-brainer.

Therefore, individuals collectively have the right to tell you that you are a bigot. They're all using their independent right to freedom of expression at the same time. Does that make it easier for you?

No, I'm not.

There is not even case law affirming the universal rights of societies whatsoever.

There is not even case law affirming the universal rights of collectives whatsoever.

It is, indeed, a no brainer that collectives or societies have no legal standing whatsoever, unless specifically incorporated.

Im confused...

Even the worst sex Ive ever had, was still pretty good.
Your problem is that you are rating the "goodness" of your sex based on how pleasurable it was for you (and possibly for your partner). You SHOULD be rating it based on whether or not it was the Right Kind Of Sex.

You should value your sexual experience based on how well it conforms to the most conservative opinions on sexual practices. When you want to know if you've had Good Sex, ask yourself: "Would James Dobson approve of what I just did? Would Pat Robertson? Would the Pope?" These learned fellows are among the ultimate authorities on what is and is not Good Sex.

Your problem is that you are rating the "goodness" of your sex based on how pleasurable it was for you (and possibly for your partner). You SHOULD be rating it based on whether or not it was the Right Kind Of Sex.

Oh, you mean "Any kind of sex I can get on a regular/occasional/whenever Basis"?


You should value your sexual experience based on how well it conforms to the most conservative opinions on sexual practices. When you want to know if you've had Good Sex, ask yourself: "Would James Dobson approve of what I just did? Would Pat Robertson? Would the Pope?" These learned fellows are among the ultimate authorities on what is and is not Good Sex.

I think the only kind of sex they would approve of, would be fellating Jesus.

Oh, you mean "Any kind of sex I can get on a regular/occasional/whenever Basis"?

No, I mean "unprotected missionary-position sex with your spouse, who is most definitely not enjoying herself because lust is unfeminine."


I think the only kind of sex they would approve of, would be fellating Jesus.
Blasphemer. Jesus wasn't a homo. He just liked to hang around with dudes, ok, but there's nothing gay about that.

No, I mean "unprotected missionary-position sex with your spouse, who is most definitely not enjoying herself because lust is unfeminine."

Heh.
I never got that.
Getting virtually attacked as soon as you walk in the door, by your mate, is damn sexy.
Gimme sex NOW!!


Blasphemer. Jesus wasn't a homo. He just liked to hang around with dudes, ok, but there's nothing gay about that.

Hmm..

Long hair...check.
Effeminate nature....check.
Hygeine fanatic....check.
Hopeless pacifist....check.
Reputatedly never married.....check.

Yup....Jesus was a poof.

I really ought not to joke about this subject. It's been an excellent thread, debating as it has the role of motive in crime and it's punishment, freedom of expression and personal opinion. I read every word, including Bottle's remarkably frivolous comments on a subject I'm sure she holds dear.

If I'd posted early, I fear my frivolousness would have spawned a tide of gay jokes, eventually leading to someone taking offence. But I only just arrived, read it all, and still no-one has made the joke I instantly saw when I saw the title.

Forgive me please, I just cannot resist making this joke. Here it is:

Homophobia is so-o-o gay!

I really ought not to joke about this subject. It's been an excellent thread, debating as it has the role of motive in crime and it's punishment, freedom of expression and personal opinion. I read every word, including Bottle's remarkably frivolous comments on a subject I'm sure she holds dear.

If I'd posted early, I fear my frivolousness would have spawned a tide of gay jokes, eventually leading to someone taking offence. But I only just arrived, read it all, and still no-one has made the joke I instantly saw when I saw the title.

Forgive me please, I just cannot resist making this joke. Here it is:

Homophobia is so-o-o gay!


You realise that you're now elegible for sh!t-listing by the looney left?

Heh.
I never got that.
Getting virtually attacked as soon as you walk in the door, by your mate, is damn sexy.
Gimme sex NOW!!

Pfft. Clearly the homosexual feminists have gotten their claws into you. They have fooled you into thinking that it's fun to have a woman desire you. We all know that it's much better for your female property to grudgingly submit to your advances in exchange for money or jewelry. That's how god intended it, dagnabbit.


Hmm..

Long hair...check.

Some of the straightest men in history have worn their hair long. As long as they don't deep condition it, it's still manly.


Effeminate nature....check.

That's just revisionism. Jesus was no femme.


Hygeine fanatic....check.

Cleanliness is next to godliness, so Jesus really didn't have much of a choice on this one.


Hopeless pacifist....check.

Revisionism again. Jesus could kick your ass.


Reputatedly never married.....check.

Because he was too much of a man to be tied down to one chick!

You realise that you're now elegible for sh!t-listing by the looney left?
Yup. The looney left ranks "those who make jokes about homophobia" as slightly more evil than "those who eat meat," and slightly less evil than "those who make fun of electric cars." So watch out.

Homosexuals aren't hurting anyone through their orientation. And it is an orientation, not a choice. I mean, when did you 'choose' to be heterosexual, hmm?
Homophobes are hurting people through their opinions, especially when it becomes actions. That said, bigots have every right to voice their idiocy. The reason responsible people try and educate bigots is because history has shown time and again that someone saying bad things about a group is more likely to go on to doing bad things against that group. And that is not acceptable. Believe whatever bullsh*t you want. But leave everyone else the hell alone to live their lives.

Now tell me straight, Bottle, did you name yourself for Huxley's bottles

"Bottle of mine, it's you I've always wanted!
Bottle of mine, why was I ever decanted?
Skies are blue inside of you,
The weather's always fine;
For
There ain't no Bottle in all the world
Like that dear little Bottle of mine."
http://www.classicreader.com/read.php/sid.1/bookid.1279/sec.5/

Or because you have a weakness for what's in the bottle?

Homosexuals aren't hurting anyone through their orientation. And it is an orientation, not a choice. I mean, when did you 'choose' to be heterosexual, hmm?


Hel is bored, the thread will resume shortly. There are serious things yet to be said.
EDIT: for instance, "hurting people." The western world is careering down a path of protecting people's feelings instead of their rights. By being male ('n hairy!) and wearing a pink tutu, I'm going to hurt someone's feelings. Someone jails me or beats me up for it, they've violated my human rights. There's a big difference.

No, I'm not.

There is not even case law affirming the universal rights of societies whatsoever.

There is not even case law affirming the universal rights of collectives whatsoever.

It is, indeed, a no brainer that collectives or societies have no legal standing whatsoever, unless specifically incorporated.

All right then, how about;

- Article 18 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

or for a specific reference to rights based on membership of a 'group';

The Canada Act, 1982 - The Rights of the Aboriginal People of Canada
- Article 29

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html#II

Which is all beside the point, because I'm arguing for individual rights,exercised en masse. The point of it is that just as you have a right to self expression, so does everyone else, which includes the right to criticize your opinion.

Which is all moot, since this little piece of the UDHR;

- Article 29

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

This gives society the right to infringe upon your rights to enforce public order and general welfare. That's right; society....

In order to pursue the welfare of a disenfranchised group of people, society can enact laws and legislation that infringe upon your individual rights.

Now tell me straight, Bottle, did you name yourself for Huxley's bottles

"Bottle of mine, it's you I've always wanted!
Bottle of mine, why was I ever decanted?
Skies are blue inside of you,
The weather's always fine;
For
There ain't no Bottle in all the world
Like that dear little Bottle of mine."
http://www.classicreader.com/read.php/sid.1/bookid.1279/sec.5/

*sound of jaw hitting the floor*

In all the years I've been posting on this forum, not one single person has picked up that reference.

You just earned like 30 bazillion coolness points. :D

*sound of jaw hitting the floor*

In all the years I've been posting on this forum, not one single person has picked up that reference.

You just earned like 30 bazillion coolness points. :D

What is the coolness point - awesome point exchange rate?

...

You just earned like 30 bazillion coolness points. :D

Aww. :cool: . :D

When I first saw your name, I thought "hey, a wine drinker like me!"
Read a few of your posts, and I got it.

EDIT IN:
I'm guessing a few people have recognized your name, but not mentioned it.
A bold, almost perverse choice of handle, I think.
Sans peur et sans reproche, the courage of your convictions, and keeping it real.
Here's your 30 bazillion coolness points back. You earned every one.
/EDIT

Back to the thread.

I say "homophobia" is a badly-coined word. It ought to mean "fear of the same" or "fear of humans" but really it's 'homosexaphobia' = fear of homosexuality. Which isn't even accurate, since it's applied to rank intolerance, to projection of one's own uncertainties onto others, or to religious/political differences of opinion.

Because criticizing someone for being homosexual is like criticizing someone for having ginger hair: childish and ignorant.

I say "homophobia" is a badly-coined word. It ought to mean "fear of the same" or "fear of humans" but really it's 'homosexaphobia' = fear of homosexuality. Which isn't even accurate, since it's applied to rank intolerance, to projection of one's own uncertainties onto others, or to religious/political differences of opinion.

*sigh* Why do people insist on spouting such nonsense. The word phobia refers to a fear. The root, however, does not necessarily:

-phobia
One entry found for -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 Slavic bezati
1 : exaggerated fear of <acrophobia>
2 : intolerance or aversion for <photophobia>

Now, you could still argue that it should be homosexaphobia - but that is much more difficult to say than homophobia.

*sigh* Why do people insist on spouting such nonsense. The word phobia refers to a fear. The root, however, does not necessarily:

-phobia
One entry found for -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 Slavic bezati
1 : exaggerated fear of <acrophobia>
2 : intolerance or aversion for <photophobia>

Now, you could still argue that it should be homosexaphobia - but that is much more difficult to say than homophobia.
It's almost enough to make you wonder when they passed a law requiring at least one person to bitch about the "-phobia" suffix in every thread about homophobia.

Boy, do I get sick of this particular point coming up over and over and over. Almost as much as I hate people who say that "feminism" excludes men because of the "fem" prefix. :P

And they're not really homosexual anyway. They just "haven't met the right guy yet." :rolleyes:

But as a bisexual woman, I have met both the right guy AND the right gal.

I guess I win.

:p

I repeat: women do not have little soldiers, and therefore cannot have sex with each other.

Hmmm... there is no way I can phrase my answer to this that would pass the PG 13 censors around here.

Suffice it to say, if it hasn't been sex that I have been having, it certainly was a lot of fun anyway... :p

Hell no!

We must dedicate huge amounts of time and energy to telling people which kinds of consentual sexual relations are Good Sex and which are Bad Sex.

We must expend more time and energy explaining why people who have Good Sex are obviously good, moral, worthy human beings, and people who have Bad Sex are obviously horrible, immoral beings who are unworthy of even the most basic civil and human rights.

And we must expend yet more time and energy passing laws that compell all people to have only Good Sex, and only with the partners we approve, lest our society degenerate into a hideous muddle of happy, sexually-fulfilled individuals.

It's ALWAYS good sex with me...

:p

Hmmm... there is no way I can phrase my answer to this that would pass the PG 13 censors around here.

Suffice it to say, if it hasn't been sex that I have been having, it certainly was a lot of fun anyway... :p
You seem to be under the assumption that Bottle is serious when she says that.

I assure you she isn't ;)

Hmmm... there is no way I can phrase my answer to this that would pass the PG 13 censors around here.

Suffice it to say, if it hasn't been sex that I have been having, it certainly was a lot of fun anyway... :p
I hope everybody realizes I was TOTALLY JOKING as I was saying that stuff. It's actually a bit of humor that I've stolen from Jesus' General, a blog I frequent.

The thing is, I find it funny because it is so accurate a representation of what most homophobic guys seem to think. They tend to be the kind of guys who perceive sex as being totally about the penis. More specifically, THEIR penis, which they use to thrust boldly and conquer their prey.

For them, sex is defined as a penis being inserted into some oriface until the man ejaculates. It never occurs to them to define sex as, for instance, a clitoris being stimulated until the woman orgasms. Or simultaneous genital stimulation that results in mutual orgasm. Or anything else, for that matter.

Women's sexuality disappears for these fellows, which is why you only ever hear them freaking out about gay MEN. They're not worried about what women do, because women's orgasms are irrelevant. Sex is about one person (the man) getting what he wants (an orgasm) by penetrating a grudging partner (the woman).

Now, if one man penetrates another man, then the second man is being made "the woman" by default. And nothing--but NOTHING--is worse than being a WOMAN. *shudder!*

I say "homophobia" is a badly-coined word. It ought to mean "fear of the same" or "fear of humans" but really it's 'homosexaphobia' = fear of homosexuality. Which isn't even accurate, since it's applied to rank intolerance, to projection of one's own uncertainties onto others, or to religious/political differences of opinion.

You are right... the definition of the root words in homophobia don't really indicate that the accepted definition is "prejudice against homosexuality and homosexuals".

It is an ongoing problem and quite often people who ARE prejudiced argue "I am not homophobic! I don't FEAR homosexuals, I just hate them." We could use a better word, but this one has passed into common usage and will be somewhat difficult to replace.

We could use a better word, but this one has passed into common usage and will be somewhat difficult to replace.
Um, more importantly, why the hell should we be defining "homophobia" based on what pleases homophobes? A lot of racists don't like the term "racism," but who the hell cares?

I'm not really inclined to let our language be defined by the dregs of society. :)

I hope everybody realizes I was TOTALLY JOKING as I was saying that stuff. It's actually a bit of humor that I've stolen from Jesus' General, a blog I frequent.

The thing is, I find it funny because it is so accurate a representation of what most homophobic guys seem to think. They tend to be the kind of guys who perceive sex as being totally about the penis. More specifically, THEIR penis, which they use to thrust boldly and conquer their prey.

For them, sex is defined as a penis being inserted into some oriface until the man ejaculates. It never occurs to them to define sex as, for instance, a clitoris being stimulated until the woman orgasms. Or simultaneous genital stimulation that results in mutual orgasm. Or anything else, for that matter.

Women's sexuality disappears for these fellows, which is why you only ever hear them freaking out about gay MEN. They're not worried about what women do, because women's orgasms are irrelevant. Sex is about one person (the man) getting what he wants (an orgasm) by penetrating a grudging partner (the woman).

Now, if one man penetrates another man, then the second man is being made "the woman" by default. And nothing--but NOTHING--is worse than being a WOMAN. *shudder!*


Oh, I totally got that! Of course, I have known you for a while around here and knew you HAD to be pulling legs... but I was trying to run with the joke.

You are so right, women's sexuality does disappear in these conversations, hence my original comment that started this train of posts about homosexual women being ignored in this sort of a discussion, a post that was mildly sarcastic, but mostly sad.

The great thing is that women (both straight and lesbian) are more and more taking their sexuality into their own hands (so to speak) and being able to demand what they need sexually from a relationship. And my experience has been that I have a much better time with a man who is NOT homophobic, (even if he is not interested in homosexual sex at all) because they tend to be more open and easygoing and available in general.

And, truth to tell, I often use the topic of gay marriage as a test... if I mention it and the guy freaks, I will most likely move on very quickly. I often find it a better predictor than religious beliefs or political leanings of whether I want to get to know someone.

Um, more importantly, why the hell should we be defining "homophobia" based on what pleases homophobes? A lot of racists don't like the term "racism," but who the hell cares?

I'm not really inclined to let our language be defined by the dregs of society. :)

Only for reasons of accuracy, certainly not to please the homophobes.

But of course, in essence, you are absolutely correct.

They tend to be the kind of guys who perceive sex as being totally about the penis.

Isn't it? :confused:


For them, sex is defined as a penis being inserted into some oriface until the man ejaculates.

You mean it's not? :confused:


Now, if one man penetrates another man, then the second man is being made "the woman" by default.

They've obviously never heard of the expression "taking it up the a** like a man" :p


And nothing--but NOTHING--is worse than being a WOMAN. *shudder!*
Aww, come on. It could be worse. Lemme think of something...

Being a gopher sounds worse than being a woman. I mean, think of those beady little eyes!

You are right... the definition of the root words in homophobia don't really indicate that the accepted definition is "prejudice against homosexuality and homosexuals".

It is an ongoing problem and quite often people who ARE prejudiced argue "I am not homophobic! I don't FEAR homosexuals, I just hate them." We could use a better word, but this one has passed into common usage and will be somewhat difficult to replace.

Of course, it just gives us another reason to point out the ignorance of such people. As demonstrated above, the root -phobia does not refer only to fear. It can also refer to an intolerance or aversion for something - and is quite often used that way.

Of course, it just gives us another reason to point out the ignorance of such people. As demonstrated above, the root -phobia does not refer only to fear. It can also refer to an intolerance or aversion for something - and is quite often used that way.
Bingo.

Though, I suppose, you could make an argument that homophobes have so little going for them that we ought to cut them as many breaks as possible. Out of pity for the poor dears, don't you know.

Your problem is that you are rating the "goodness" of your sex based on how pleasurable it was for you (and possibly for your partner). You SHOULD be rating it based on whether or not it was the Right Kind Of Sex.

You should value your sexual experience based on how well it conforms to the most conservative opinions on sexual practices. When you want to know if you've had Good Sex, ask yourself: "Would James Dobson approve of what I just did? Would Pat Robertson? Would the Pope?" These learned fellows are among the ultimate authorities on what is and is not Good Sex.

Especialy the Pope. :p







<edit: Just to be clear I realise Bottle is being a smartass here>

<edit: Just to be clear I realise Bottle is being a smartass here>
*Gasp* Me?! A smartass?






;)