Federal Judge rules Utah's ban on gay marrage illegal. Internet about to explode

[Borachio]

Well, OK.

What's the PC alternative to "homophobia", then?

Is it someone who finds "homosexuality a little bit icky"?

 

[Evie]

The word itself has fallen to usage as a pejorative term for people. Much like calling people fascist, tolls, and a mirrid of other insulting titles to someone that the person does not agree with the other person's viewpoints.

More like a term to indicate that the person wants to treat homosexual as second-class citizens. Don't try to push that off as "using the wrong label" or "just because they disagree". They are not the victims.

Homophobia may not be technically accurate (it's not necessarily fear - it can be attachment to tradition or to religion), but it's as close as term as it gets to describing what they do.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The word itself has fallen to usage as a pejorative term for people. Much like calling people fascist, tolls, and a mirrid of other insulting titles to someone that the person does not agree with the other person's viewpoints.

Only, again, AFAIK nobody in this forum has actually called another forum member a "homophobe". Now have they?

Instead, some apparently feel insulted when practices they support are properly labeled as being homophobic by many. Isn't that a shame?

Never mind that there are members of the Republican Party who frequently make clearly homophobic remarks which are even derided by fellow Republicans:

Homophobic RNC Committee Member Accuses Gay Colleagues Of Manipulating Health Benefits (UPDATE)

WASHINGTON -- An official associated with the Republican National Committee made head-turning comments at a GOP holiday party last week, accusing gay individuals of pushing health care reform because they die earlier in life.

Speaking at Berrien County Republican Party Holiday Reception last Thursday, RNC Committee member Dave Agema said that while working with American Airlines, he repeatedly witnessed gay colleagues claiming AIDS victims as lovers, just so they could get health care coverage. Via the Herald Palladium, a southwest Michigan paper:

[Agema] has taken flak nationally for his stance against gay marriage, but he said he doesn't mind because while working at American Airlines, he saw firsthand what happens when benefits are extended to gay people.

He said American Airlines workers would say a person with AIDS was their lover so that person could get medical benefits.

"Folks, they (gay people) want free medical because they're dying (when they're) between 30 and 44 years old," he said. "To me, it's a moral issue. It's a Biblical issue. Traditional marriage is where it should be and it's in our platform. Those in our party who oppose traditional marriage are wrong."

Multiple requests for comment and clarification made to Agema were not returned.

Agema has long been a vocal opponent of the gay community. In April, Agema likened being gay to being an alcoholic, encouraging radio show listeners to help members of the homosexual community "get out of it."

"So if you really love someone, if you really were concerned about someone, if you saw your friend, for example, dying of alcoholism would you just stand quietly by and watch it happen?" he asked during the "Washington Watch Live with Tony Perkins" radio program in April. "Or would you speak up and say, 'hey, I want to help you.'"

Dennis Lennox, a Republican strategist and party delegate from Michigan's Grand Traverse County who has been a vocal critic of Agema, told HuffPost he expects the Michigan Republican State Committee to discuss the latest comments when they meet over the weekend.

"Dave Agema's hateful rhetoric and unabashed bigotry have no place in our Republican Party," Lennox said. "Republicans will not win a national governing majority until Mr. Agema's extremist behavior is no longer tolerated."

The Republican National Committee did not return an immediate request for comment.

 

[Cutlass]

DC is probably the most liberal place in America. Democrats have received at least 70% of the votes since 1964 when the city voted in its first Presidential election.

Considering that the Democratic party left liberalism behind 30 years ago, that's not a useful metric.

 

[JollyRoger]

Homophobes are very touchy about being called out for their deviant lifestyle choice.

 

[timtofly]

Instead, some apparently feel insulted when practices they support are properly labeled as being homophobic by many. Isn't that a shame?

It is a shame, but perhaps the term will become as accepted as atheism has? Such labels seem to take away the sting of being insulted.

 

[Tee Kay]

Well, OK.

What's the PC alternative to "homophobia", then?

Is it someone who finds "homosexuality a little bit icky"?

Hetero Supremacist

 

[timtofly]

How about creationist?

 

[JollyRoger]

Bigots works for me.

 

[Tee Kay]

How about creationist?

Nah, too confusing; not all Hetero Supremacists are creationists.

 

[plarq]

It's so far so good, as nobody mentioned legalization of incest.

 

[W|M]

Well, OK.

What's the PC alternative to "homophobia", then?

Is it someone who finds "homosexuality a little bit icky"?

Hetero sapiens

 

[Farm Boy]

It's so far so good, as nobody mentioned legalization of incest.

Except you now did. And I presume by the tone of this post that you are somebody who thinks criminalization of incest is a good idea because reasons?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Well, I think we've officially run out of things to argue about.

Nonsense. As long as two CFC OT'ers exist, there will always be something to argue about.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

New tangent then: The term homophobic. It implies a fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. There are several ways to object to the use of the term.

A- It is clearly biased in favour of one side in its connotations. Terms biased in favour in one side make good propaganda, but aren't useful for those trying to make up their minds rationally.

B- There is a case for saying it is not correct. To claim that those who object to homosexuality tend to have a gut reaction that it is disgusting is fair. But do we label people who are opposed to incest incestphobic or similiar? No, because despite any case for similarity we distinguish homosexuality from incest.

To be perfectly fair, there is a respectable case for saying that incest isn't morally wrong either. However, excluding cases of reproduction homosexuality and incest are clearly "in the same camp" as it were- if one is right or wrong the other must be as well.

 

[IglooDame]

Why not, the liberals did the same thing regarding the right to bear arms. Of course, that was mostly one idiot mayor's fault in DC, and I doubt the proponents of gay marriage could be as lucky.

What proof do you offer that the District of Columbia is "liberal"? And how was it the "idiot" mayor's supposed fault?

Good lord... For your first question, as others have noted, I'm conflating "liberal" with "Democrat".

For your second question, Mayor Adrian Fenty made the decision to take the appeal of the DC v Heller Court of Appeals decision (in which that court found the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms") to the Supreme Court. The case was packaged by pro-gun people to do exactly that, court-watchers anticipated a pro-gun decision by SCOTUS, and the Brady folks were advising Fenty NOT to appeal explicitly because a loss would (and did) remove their militia-based dismissal of the Second Amendment's modern applicability. Granted the NRA was initially of the same mind (also being afraid of the impact of an unfavorable ruling), but unbiased observers were generally predicting what turned out to be the outcome.

Then Mayor Richard M. Daley (in refusing to pass a law that would moot the McDonald v Chicago case that was headed to SCOTUS) made the same strategic mistake as Mayor Fenty, and the Supreme Court incorporated the Second Amendment in ruling that it applied to states as well as federal territory like DC.

 

[Borachio]

Hetero Supremacist

Hmm. Well, supremacist has pejorative over-tones, too?

How about creationist?

Too confusing

Bigots works for me.

Even more pejorative than homophobe.

Hetero sapiens

I like this. But it assumes that... well, it assumes something, I'm nearly sure of it.

New tangent then: The term homophobic. It implies a fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. There are several ways to object to the use of the term.

A- It is clearly biased in favour of one side in its connotations. Terms biased in favour in one side make good propaganda, but aren't useful for those trying to make up their minds rationally.

B- There is a case for saying it is not correct. To claim that those who object to homosexuality tend to have a gut reaction that it is disgusting is fair. But do we label people who are opposed to incest incestphobic or similiar? No, because despite any case for similarity we distinguish homosexuality from incest.

I suppose you're right. I never meant any offence to anyone when I used the term.

I guess in future I'll just have to lamely explain that I'm referring to people who object to homosexuality for reasons undisclosed. I'm honestly not sure what those reasons can be.

In a sense, I too object to homosexuality. But only as far as I'm likely to engage in it myself. I can't see it's any business of mine what consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own homes. I can't honestly see what business it is of anyone else, either.

Or, rather, I've yet to be persuaded it's anyone's business.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Except you now did. And I presume by the tone of this post that you are somebody who thinks criminalization of incest is a good idea because reasons?

One very good reason is all that is required -

Rapey-ass Polar Bears

 

[Formaldehyde]

Good lord... For your first question, as others have noted, I'm conflating "liberal" with "Democrat".

And as I clearly stated myself? Since you also readily admit to using the two words to mean essentially the same thing, why do you do so given they clearly don't?

As Cutlass pointed out:

Considering that the Democratic party left liberalism behind 30 years ago, that's not a useful metric.

Again, only about 20% of the population self-identifies as being liberals. And many of them don't even belong to the Democratic Party for quite obvious reasons. The Democratic Party is actually only slightly to the left of the Republican Party now. Conservative Democrats quite likely outnumber liberal Democrats by a considerable margin.

For your second question, Mayor Adrian Fenty made the decision to take the appeal of the DC v Heller Court of Appeals decision (in which that court found the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms") to the Supreme Court. The case was packaged by pro-gun people to do exactly that, court-watchers anticipated a pro-gun decision by SCOTUS, and the Brady folks were advising Fenty NOT to appeal explicitly because a loss would (and did) remove their militia-based dismissal of the Second Amendment's modern applicability. Granted the NRA was initially of the same mind (also being afraid of the impact of an unfavorable ruling), but unbiased observers were generally predicting what turned out to be the outcome.

So it is therefore your opinion that he must be solely responsible for taking the clearly proper action, given that the original court had dismissed the matter and the Court of Appeals voted 2-1 in favor?

And the decision was 5-4. So how exactly did everybody already know that a "pro-gun decision" would be handed down prior to the case even being heard?

The damage was already done when the Court of Appeals overturned the original court decision. It doesn't take a Supreme Court decision to change the way the Constitution is interpreted. If the Supremes had even refused to hear the matter, it would have still had essentially the same effect.

 

[El_Machinae]

There might be a need for better word than 'homophobia', but it's still not a bad word. And incredible amount of the anti-gay sentiment is from 'ickyness'. Find 10 people who think that gay marriage should not be allowed, and I betcha 9 will find the idea of gay sex distressing. Now, they'll all have alternative reasons if they're the least bit intellectual, granted.

But then, it really matters how these sentiments are enacted. If they result in not 'wanting' equal rights, then what is it other than bigotry? But, what if they're actually for equal rights, they just don't want to see homosexual behaviour? They're not bigots, 'phobia' is too strong of a word.