Misuse of the word Phobic

[katautumn]

Phobic means fearful. A person with a phobia has a psychologically pathological condition that makes them dysfunctional -- it is nothing to laugh at.

So why are those who believe homosexual acts to be sin called homophobes?

Because of the simple fact that it's rare for someone to have a moral opposition to homosexuality without making it glaringly apparent to others around them. Most people who dislike homosexuals based upon the whole, "I love the sinner, but hate their sin" premise don't keep that opinion to themselves. If you believe that, that is your business. It's when it is openly discussed that it conveys an image of irrational fear of gays and lesbians. Here are some scenarios that happen every single day that prove most people who disapprove of homosexuality are homophobes:

1. "I don't want gays to be allowed to be Boy Scout leaders! They might try to molest my son, or worse - teach them that it's acceptable to be a queer!"

2. "Gay people should only be allowed in our churches if they are willing to repent and be delivered from their homosexuality."

3. "It's disgusting that gays and lesbians have to show their affection in public! Why can't they just keep it behind closed doors so that others don't have to watch their perversion?"

4. "If we allow gays to get married, it will destroy heterosexual marriage because it cheapens the marital union! And then people will be able to marry their kids, dogs, birthday cakes or fifteen other people!"

5. "Gays just want special rights. They have the same right as I do to marry someone of the opposite sex. Why should our state endorse their disgusting choice?"

They all stem from irrational fear. Phobia. If you fear gays and gay marriages, partner benefits, etc. you are a homophobe.

 

[quatona]

quatona:

Do you understand what a rhetorical question is? sigh*

Yes: A question to which you don´t expect an answer, a question that you ask to make a point.
However, despite knowing what a rhethorical question is, I cannot always tell whether a question is meant to be merely rhethoric.
Like: Was the question above a rhethorical question?

Which rhethorical question of yours are you referring to here? Why did you ask it? Which point was it supposed to make?

You are confusing sexual orientation with value systems, and you are confusing personal value systems with societal value systems.

I know the differences between the three and I don´t confuse them.

All three are quite different, and I don't even know where to begin to untangle it for you.

I appreciate your patience, but I think there is no need to explain it.

First, I am talking about the insistance of the gay rights movement that everyone NOT MIND a shift in SOCIETAL values -- the height of presumption and hypocricy, given that they very much mind current societal values and have worked very hard to change them.

I fail to see how that would make them any more presumptious or hyprocritical than those who insist that everyone NOT MIND current societal values to remain the same (particularly since these values clash with other values that are even more fundamental given that you find them in the constitution).

This has nothing to do with personal values. And it has diddly squat to do with sexual orientation.

Then why did you conflate them in your argument?
One of the predominant societal value in your and my country is to leave everyone the freedom to do whatever they like, as long as they don´t harm others or infringe on the same freedom of others.
Conservativism for the sake of it (i.e. the prevention of development and change) is not a fundamental value in our societies.
Preventing people from the fact that others have different personal values and act upon them is also not a value or right in our societies.
"Gay marriage" will change society, just like any other change causes, well, change. This is not an argument against something. We are trying to improve our societies constantly.

Second, you assume that everyone is either gay or straight, when in fact a good deal of people have the ability to some extent to swing both ways. Do you not understand that such a person in a traditional society will opt to nurture attraction to the opposite sex, while in a society where gay marraige is seen as an equally good alternative the same person would be far more open to exploring possibiolities with both sexes????

How is that anybody´s business but that of those bisexuals you are talking about here?

You have no idea how many women I've known who have gone through periods of being "lesbian" simply because it became a trendy thing among their college crowd, women who would never have even thought of such a thing in an earlier day and age. So please don't kid yourself that these proposed changes will not effect people's choices.

I didn´t say anything to that effect. Last time I checked "having choices" was a (if not THE) basic value in our western societies.
We all have to tolerate that others do things in their private lives that we don´t like, don´t approve of, would never do ourselves. That is a fundamental paradigm of our societies.

 

[Baggins]

This is very muddled thinking

So we see the mantra again. First there is exhibited the ignorance that is required to conflate a superficial trait like skin color with a core structural trait such as sex which has deep physical, physiological, and psychological effects on the individual.

This is just ridiculous. How come skin colour is a superficial trait but sexuality is a core structural trait? For a start what is structural about sexuality?

For another thing you should ask a black person living in a white society just how superficial they feel the colour of their skin is . Many will have experienced racism because of the colour of their skin and trying to pretend that that doesn't have deep psychological effects on a person is just mad.

The analogy between those that would deny equality to someone because of the colour of their skin and those who would deny equality to someone because of who they find sexually alluring is perfectly correct, it isn't a biological analogy it is a political one; the same old arguments are used by the same old bigots.

Let's just emphasise here that we are talking about a political analogy not a biological one so your whole argument seems to be based on a misunderstanding of what is being discussed.

Then there are the delusions of grandeur that we are somehow heroes and champions of rights by advocating the spread of our ignorance.

How can standing up for other's equal rights be compared to the spread of ignorance? This argument doesn't even make sense. What ignorance is being spread by asking that all citizens of a country have the same rights?

Then there is the emotional reasoning: rather than confronting our naked ignorance, let us paint any who disagree as caricatures of hatred and mentally ill, that way we do not have to deal with their arguments and can simply dismiss them.

That would be a bad thing, but seeing as all you have as an argument is that fighting for equal rights is ignorant then it would also seem to be quite apt in your case.

I know you have deep seated religious objections to equality, just like people in the American South had in the 50s, it is just that fundamental fairness in society trumps your own personal view of your religion in my view, and in the views of many others.

And sadly for you you ally yourself with people who are hate filled bigots of little brain when you stand against equality for all regardless of whether your motivations are as pure as driven snow or exactly the same.

You also seem to be rather adept at emotional reasoning yourself, in fact you seem to provide little else, which is amusing.

A child, let on his own, will see the purpose of male is for female and female is for male,

Many children don't they grow up confused about their sexuality of convinced they are gay or straight. This is completely bogus reasoning, children grow up within the cultural context of their society, there is no innate sense in all children that male female pairs are the only natural pairings.

but not the willingly ignorant, sanctimonious preachers of debasement.

Steady on you'll be resorting to emotional reasoning in a minute and you know how you hate that

They will rage and seethe against the established wisdom, hurling insults and spitting venom, all the while sweetly preaching of their own love and acceptance of 'those who differ'.

Who are we talking about here? This seems like a perfect description of many of the hate filled Christians we see in this thread with their phoney " I hate the sin not the sinner" get out clause.

So is believing that people shouldn't be equal before the law the established wisdom in your country? What a sad country you live in

Of course, this requires the element of delusion; they must ignore the fact that when they say "those who differ", it means not "those who differ with us" but "those who differ with those who differ with us".

An almost perfect example of pot-kettle syndrome.

You must have very little self awareness to post like this.

Complaining about emotional reasoning and then coming out with this unevidenced screed of it is either the height of political satire or just very sad.

 

[TheManeki]

Wow. I'm rather surprised that this thread has continued after quatona's excellent summation of things in post #2. But at the risk of flogging a dead horse, I'll add my thoughts.

I've had many discussions with people who are against homosexuality, and they seem to fall into a couple of categories. There are people who logically present their case and produce evidence that supports their side (for example, I've recently heard some interesting evolutionary arguments), and I would not label these people as homophobic.

Conversely, the people I would label as homophobic (in a non-clinical sense) consistently are unable to back up their beliefs with supporting evidence. About the best they can do is to cite scripture, although, again, they are unable to produce any evidence that the way they are interpreting scripture is correct. This gives me the impression their only objection to homosexuality is that they find it icky -- about the same way I feel about eating liver -- which is a pretty poor basis for making laws.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Let me give you a couple of "phobic" personal experiences that I have had:

I was at a party talking, and someone said that he would never want a homosexual teaching his son.
Me: Why not?
Him: Because I don't want some kid molesting my son!
Me: Because if a teachher is going to molest your child, it better be your daughter?
Him: NO!
Me: You don't think that men molest girls?
Him: NO!
Me: Well, it's heterosexual, though. So you still have a problem with that?
Him: Of course!
Me: So, you are talking about being sexually appropriate, not sexual orientation.
Him: I'm just saying no guy is going to molest my son.
Me: But you don't have a problem with daughter being molested again?

Guy: Just so you know, I'm not gay or nothing. So, don't, like, hit on me.
Me: As hard as it will be, I'll control myself.
(Imagine a man at the office telling you not to hit on him.)

Guy who used to live on my floor:
"I hate gay guys. I wish we could just round them up and shoot them."
"Why? Because mass murder is moral?"
"No. Because I just hate them."
"And hatred that motivates you to murder is moral?"
"Whatever."

I think that it is homophobic to claim that a gay couple doesn't really love each other.
I think that it is homophobic to see two gay people, understand attraction to the opposite sex, understand romantic feelings, understand physical desires, understand wanting to find someone that you grow old with, then scratch your head and think it completely foreign in two gay people.

I don't think it is necessarily homophobic to believe that it is a sin, but rarely have the people that claim that ever did any investigation into the subject, where theologians are split, and use Leviticus while ignoring the other 99% of the book. Rarely have they heard the stories of people coming out, read the research on twin studies, or seen homosexuals past anything more than "sinners," and sadly, often treat them as 2nd class citizens, sometimes to the point of doing all they can to block simply civil rights, like employment. The last time I checked the bible, that goes directly against Christ's call to love your neighbor as yourself.

I question whether they have really ever thought of it at all. Someone will tell me, "I oppose gay people raising children, because they will grow up gay." I ask, "Where do you think gay people come from? Lots of gay couples? So, since they come from straight families, you oppose heterosexuals raising kids?" Honestly, a couple of minutes of thought would have brought you to the illogic of that argument.

They often refer to my life as a "lifestyle", or worse, "a lifestyle choice." They are often the ones spreading misinformation about gay people, at once claiming them to be weak, and overpowering predators. They claim that our life expectancy is 42 years, something that is laughable if you know any gay people at all. I will have it beat by 3 years in July, and HIV neg.

So, I respect your right to call homosexuality a sin.
Please respect my right to no longer care what you think. I'm done answering to man that claims to speak for God.
People at one time thought that slavery was ok, because it's in the bible. People thought treating black people as second class citizens was ok while going to church on Sunday, and reading about loving your neighbor as yourselves.

So, I respect your right to believe as you will, and ask that you respect my right to completely disagree.

An excellent summary. These sort of anecdotes are most valuable.

The bulk of extreme gay-hating churches are composed of people who think they've never known an LGBT person primarily. Of course they have, but they just didn't know they were. That was Elaine Noble's experience as the first openly gay member of a State Legislature (Massachusetts) in the 1970s. The other legislators and staff would come up to her and say, "You're the first lesbian I've ever met." She would always reply, "No, I'm not; you just didn't know."

At some levels, though, we see how the ignorance and hatred of LGBT folks is stoked by cynical political manipulators. When Trent Lott compared homosexuality to kleptomania it was obvious his heart was not in it and he was tasked to do it to appease the religious right. Fear is certainly one of the five top tools of political organizing.

I thought about what I could add in the anecdote department and couldn't come up with much except maybe how straight guys with wife and girlfriend problems think lesbians are experts at pleasing women just because we know how to make them [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. The female sector of culture has in it a lot of emotionalism which is often undefinable and insurmountable. About the best we can tell 'em is "Yo, hold up....don't worry so much." and sometimes that's wrong. I made the mistake of telling a guy the general rule which help guys on a budget that for a woman often a gift of one flower is just as good as a boquet; I had neglected to find out he was married to a Daddy's Girl whose Daddy was the Alpha Dog Auto Dealer and Political Fixer in the rural county they came from. Later one when I found out the truth I mentioned one of our courthouse hallway lawyers who represented kids would do a divorce for cheap for professional colleagues of a sort like us and he took the offer and wound up a happier man.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Because of the simple fact that it's rare for someone to have a moral opposition to homosexuality without making it glaringly apparent to others around them. Most people who dislike homosexuals based upon the whole, "I love the sinner, but hate their sin" premise don't keep that opinion to themselves. If you believe that, that is your business. It's when it is openly discussed that it conveys an image of irrational fear of gays and lesbians. Here are some scenarios that happen every single day that prove most people who disapprove of homosexuality are homophobes:

1. "I don't want gays to be allowed to be Boy Scout leaders! They might try to molest my son, or worse - teach them that it's acceptable to be a queer!"

2. "Gay people should only be allowed in our churches if they are willing to repent and be delivered from their homosexuality."

3. "It's disgusting that gays and lesbians have to show their affection in public! Why can't they just keep it behind closed doors so that others don't have to watch their perversion?"

4. "If we allow gays to get married, it will destroy heterosexual marriage because it cheapens the marital union! And then people will be able to marry their kids, dogs, birthday cakes or fifteen other people!"

5. "Gays just want special rights. They have the same right as I do to marry someone of the opposite sex. Why should our state endorse their disgusting choice?"

They all stem from irrational fear. Phobia. If you fear gays and gay marriages, partner benefits, etc. you are a homophobe.

Excellent points all--some exacerbated by political manipulation.

There is certainly no evidence gay rights mean a loss of rights for "Christians" of the type where homophobia is preached from their church's pulpits every Sunday. But the sweet talkers and organizers have convicned some poor true belivers otherwise. To some new and different ideas are very threatening-hence, for instance, some other "Christian" message boards carry silly rules like 'no "promotion" of homosexuality' as if to do so would be any different from promoting gravity.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Wow. I'm rather surprised that this thread has continued after quatona's excellent summation of things in post #2. But at the risk of flogging a dead horse, I'll add my thoughts.

I've had many discussions with people who are against homosexuality, and they seem to fall into a couple of categories. There are people who logically present their case and produce evidence that supports their side (for example, I've recently heard some interesting evolutionary arguments), and I would not label these people as homophobic.

Conversely, the people I would label as homophobic (in a non-clinical sense) consistently are unable to back up their beliefs with supporting evidence. About the best they can do is to cite scripture, although, again, they are unable to produce any evidence that the way they are interpreting scripture is correct. This gives me the impression their only objection to homosexuality is that they find it icky -- about the same way I feel about eating liver -- which is a pretty poor basis for making laws.

I do not believe for a minute anybody with a fuctioning brain objects to homosexuality only or even primarily because "the Bible's against it". In just about every case where I've analyzed the genesis of these opinions the bigotry is the antecedent to the Bible; at best the Bible is the icing on the cake.

One important point about homophobia is it is a societal reality in addition to a personal one, and as members of a homophobic society we all-including LGBTs- have an internalized homophobia. As a matter of fact some of the most vicious antigay people are closet cases (Billy James Hargis, Ted Haggard, etc.).

The antigay faction loves to stoke division among oppressed people so they bristle at the idea homophobia is comparable to racism with such inanities as "Blacks can't help being Black; to be gay is a choice!" which is so totally irrelevant anyhow. The dynamics are exactly the same. One group is castigated as "the other" and mysterious evil powers are attributed to it. The fact a handful of conservative African-American preachers are homophobes is just a political reality; not everybody can be an advocate for all. Some fight for crumbs and jackleg preachers are among the worst. There are self-hating Black and Gay staffers at all the right-wing organizations just like in Europe during the Holocaust Jews were often betrayed by the Judenzpolizei, a group of Jews who served as a police auxilliary.

 

[LittleNipper]

Because of the simple fact that it's rare for someone to have a moral opposition to homosexuality without making it glaringly apparent to others around them. Most people who dislike homosexuals based upon the whole, "I love the sinner, but hate their sin" premise don't keep that opinion to themselves. If you believe that, that is your business. It's when it is openly discussed that it conveys an image of irrational fear of gays and lesbians. Here are some scenarios that happen every single day that prove most people who disapprove of homosexuality are homophobes:

1. "I don't want gays to be allowed to be Boy Scout leaders! They might try to molest my son, or worse - teach them that it's acceptable to be a queer!"

2. "Gay people should only be allowed in our churches if they are willing to repent and be delivered from their homosexuality."

3. "It's disgusting that gays and lesbians have to show their affection in public! Why can't they just keep it behind closed doors so that others don't have to watch their perversion?"

4. "If we allow gays to get married, it will destroy heterosexual marriage because it cheapens the marital union! And then people will be able to marry their kids, dogs, birthday cakes or fifteen other people!"

5. "Gays just want special rights. They have the same right as I do to marry someone of the opposite sex. Why should our state endorse their disgusting choice?"

They all stem from irrational fear. Phobia. If you fear gays and gay marriages, partner benefits, etc. you are a homophobe.

Since when do homosexuals keep their values to themselves? Ever watch a "gay pride" parade? How people who have had an abortion would set up want to be part of an Abortion Day Parade, or an Adultery Day Parade, or a Lecher's Day Parade, or a Bigamist Day Parade. I'm sure they would say, okay I'm/I did but what is to be proud of?

 

[Texas Lynn]

Since when do homosexuals keep their values to themselves?

Is that what the other poster said?

Well, a lot of the closeted ones do.

Ever watch a "gay pride" parade?

Your point?

How people who have had an abortion would set up want to be part of an Abortion Day Parade, or an Adultery Day Parade, or a Lecher's Day Parade, or a Bigamist Day Parade. I'm sure they would say, okay I'm/I did but what is to be proud of?

Well, having an abortion is nothing to be ashamed of. I'm not sure how any of this relates to the topic though.

 

[PetersKeys]

Half a dozen people pointed out they don't think all people who don't believe homosexuality is acceptable according to their faith are homophobic... but you choose to ignore that.

I'm not gay -another point missed here... not all the people pointing out the homophobia are gay... I still recognize homophobia... I also recognize trolls.. several people who post extensively about homosexuality are really just trolls. Most who simply view homosexuality as a sin as they do premarital sex, or drinking, or gambling, or whatever else they feel God has called a sin don't have all that much to say on the topic beyond "I don't agree"

I do post in almost every thread on the topic, and will continue to.. because every time someone decides to scream and holler about Leviticus the lurking gay teenager barely hanging on needs to hear someone holler back about the greatest commandment.

Of course the greatest commandment "love one another as I have loved you" has nothing to do with justifying people in their own sin. It is much more loving to try to get someone OUT of a sinful lifestyle than to encourage it. If you think encouraging the homosexual lifestyle is "love" you are gonna be sorrily mistaken. Justifying people in their sin hurts them in the long run.

Well, having an abortion is nothing to be ashamed of. I'm not sure how any of this relates to the topic though.

Do you realize a good percentage of women who have abortions are scarred both mentally and physically? Some commit suicide because they cannot deal with the guilt of murdering their own child. If what you say is true these women would not be feeling guilt. They wouldn't have the need to justify it under the shield of "pro-choice" rather than for what it truely is, "pro-abortion". They know in their souls that what they are doing is wrong. The ones who don't seem affected are just better at supressing it than others and are better at justification. Either way, no matter how much you justify, it will still be there.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Of course the greatest commandment "love one another as I have loved you" has nothing to do with justifying people in their own sin. It is much more loving to try to get someone OUT of a sinful lifestyle than to encourage it. If you think encouraging the homosexual lifestyle is "love" you are gonna be sorrily mistaken. Justifying people in their sin hurts them in the long run.

There is most definitely nothing sinful whatsoever about being LGBT or in an LGBt relationship.

Do you realize a good percentage of women who have abortions are scarred both mentally and physically? Some commit suicide because they cannot deal with the guilt of murdering their own child. If what you say is true these women would not be feeling guilt.

This would not occur were it not for the woman hatred directed at them by members of the anti-abortion movement. They have done nothing sinful and nothing of which they need to be ashamed, but are told otherwise by evil forces which seek to control them.

They wouldn't have the need to justify it under the shield of "pro-choice" rather than for what it truely is, "pro-abortion".

Your are misinformed; to be pro-choice is in no way at all to be pro-abortion; it is an entirely neutral position.

They know in their souls that what they are doing is wrong.

This is certainly wishful thinking on your part because there is absolutely nothing wrong about it.

The ones who don't seem affected are just better at supressing it than others and are better at justification. Either way, no matter how much you justify, it will still be there.

Yes, because the woman haters are active everywhere.

 

[GeratTzedek]

I fail to see how that would make them any more presumptious or hyprocritical than those who insist that everyone NOT MIND current societal values to remain the same.

Ah, but here is the rub. I'm not asking you not to mind. I dont care whether you mind or not. Your feelings and thoughts are your own, nor am I going to label them neurotic as your side labels mine. Incorrect? yes. Neurotic? No. Demonic? No. Just mistaken. I'm perfectly comfortable with you disagreeing. I simply want society set up a certain way, despite your disagreement. So please continue to have your own feelings and opinions.

How is that anybody´s business but that of those bisexuals you are talking about here?

It is the job of the government to set up policies that benefit society at large. The institiution that has shown itself as being the best social and economic arrangment for the raising of children is the marriage between men and women. By legalizing gay marriage, the door is open to those who would otherwise have chosen a heterosexual marrage to choose a homosexual partnership, thus undermining what is best for children and therefore for socieity.

A single mother, or two mothers, or two fathers, or an institution, no matter how loving, are simply not the equal of a loving mother and father comitted to each other. Children need both, and the government needs to continue supporting this.

We all have to tolerate that others do things in their private lives that we don´t like, don´t approve of, would never do ourselves. That is a fundamental paradigm of our societies.

Because children are involved, this is hardly a private matter.

 

[mpok1519]

People already have the choice of being homosexual or heterosexual; the legality of their 'marriages' have nothing to do with one's choice of sexual orientation.

Gertzedek >> your logic is flawed; you say children need both a woman and a man, father and mother, to successfully raise a child in its best interests, yet I am almost positive you support a woman's choice(or a man's) to leave a marriage due to irreconcilable differences.

Our system already has ignored the institution of marriage as vital to society; if it was vital, you wouldn't be able to divorce; or worse, you'd be forced to marry someone you don't want to. In the children's best interests, it seems out Govt has found some things to neglect, for the freedoms we deserve; heck, women weren't even allowed to file for divorce at one point in our nation's history(severe provable physical abuse was the only reason a woman could file for divorce), for fear of a change in the traditionalist family-based lifestyles; the male, the head of the family (the one charged with making all the decisions) could have the option of divorce for almost any reason he could think of. These systems of domination were placed into existence to 'keep the family unit' together, yet they are horribly flawed and stupid; it hurts our right to make our own choices.

"I want society set up a certain way" is what you said. Yet, lifes not perfect, and we should embrace our imperfect lives and our imperfect world with love.

You think gay marriage shouldnt be legalized because it'll tear the family apart/screw the family up, yet, our govt has always done that, ie, enabling divorce.

You think its the govt's job to babysit our values and morals as if we the people cannot do it ourselves?

Read Hobbes and Locke. You'll agree with Locke, but your words will reflect Hobbes. Strange world we live in.

 

[GeratTzedek]

People already have the choice of being homosexual or heterosexual; the legality of their 'marriages' have nothing to do with one's choice of sexual orientation.

You are mistaken. Legalizing gay marriage gives LEGITIMACY to homosexual relations in a way they do not now have, and WOULD influence peoples choices.

Gertzedek >> your logic is flawed; you say children need both a woman and a man, father and mother, to successfully raise a child in its best interests, yet I am almost positive you support a woman's choice(or a man's) to leave a marriage due to irreconcilable differences.

Actually I don't. I think a great many divorces are silly, and people need to stop being so selfish, and work things out for the best interests of their children. There ARE cases where things ARE disastrous and cannot be worked out. In such cases, divorce is the lesser of two evils. That was in fact my situation. But if you think I'm going to sit here and claim that raising my children alone was better than them being raised in a loving home with a father and a mother, think again. It's not. It's simply better than raising them in a home that has become dangerous. It is not a good thing. It is a very, very BAD thing. It is just LESS bad.

You think gay marriage shouldnt be legalized because it'll tear the family apart/screw the family up, yet, our govt has always done that, ie, enabling divorce.

In many ways, you are correct. Divorce ON DEMAND for nothing more than "irreconcilable differences" (she has found a richer guy, he has found a younger honey) has been destructive to the family. The destigmitization of having children out of wedlock hurt the family even worse. The legalization of gay marriage will go yet one step further in the destruction of the family, placing the needs of adults first above the needs of children. It has been a classic case of slippery slope.

Again, the government's job is to set policies that are for the general good of society. We are paying for this already in terms of of childhood poverty, health care, free school lunch programs, welfare programs, behavior problems ranging from classroom disorder to the largest incarcerated population in the world. No system is perfect, but some systems are clearly better than others, and we are replacing a system that has been shown to work well with one which, in its short time, has only delivered pain and suffering for our children.

In a word, we need to GROW UP and put our own needs aside for the good of the community.

 

[GeratTzedek]

Texas Lynn:

Post-abortion syndrome IS pretty well documented. Before you rail against it like people are just making it up, do some research.

 

[GeratTzedek]

Because of the simple fact that it's rare for someone to have a moral opposition to homosexuality without making it glaringly apparent to others around them.

Actually it never comes up in my real life. It's only places like here in the forum, where I'm inundated by threads pushing the gay agenda and insinuating that I'm neurotic that I end up responding.

They all stem from irrational fear. Phobia. If you fear gays and gay marriages, partner benefits, etc. you are a homophobe.

There you go. What a beautiful example of exactly the sort of bigotry that pulls me into speaking on a topic that, for all practical purposes, never otherwise arises.

 

[LightHorseman]

You are mistaken. Legalizing gay marriage gives LEGITIMACY to homosexual relations in a way they do not now have, and WOULD influence peoples choices.

Are you suggesting that, if homosexual marriage is legally recognised, people who would otherwise have been perfectly happy, fully functional heterosexuals, will "decide" to become homosexual?

 

[cantata]

Are you suggesting that, if homosexual marriage is legally recognised, people who would otherwise have been perfectly happy, fully functional heterosexuals, will "decide" to become homosexual?

Maybe some bisexual people would marry someone of the same sex.

Great, no?

 

[quatona]

Seeing that "phobia" in the non-medical use of the word signifies "aversions of all sorts", and seeing how the OP writes post after post in which she expresses her strong aversion against homosexuality...

 

[IzzyPop]

It is the job of the government to set up policies that benefit society at large. The institiution that has shown itself as being the best social and economic arrangment for the raising of children is the marriage between men and women. By legalizing gay marriage, the door is open to those who would otherwise have chosen a heterosexual marrage to choose a homosexual partnership, thus undermining what is best for children and therefore for socieity.

A single mother, or two mothers, or two fathers, or an institution, no matter how loving, are simply not the equal of a loving mother and father comitted to each other. Children need both, and the government needs to continue supporting this.


Because children are involved, this is hardly a private matter.

And this is great reasoning. If only the premise were correct.

See, children raised by homosexual parents show no statistical differences than children raised by straight parents except for girls raised by lesbians. They have a higher incidence of sexual experimentation with other females. Other than that one thing, there is no measurable difference. However, I seem to recall that one of the sociologists made mention that the children raised by homosexuals were more accepting of other children's differences.

Couple that with the statistic that shows homosexuals, on average, have much more disposable income than their straight counterparts, and maybe homosexuals would make, on average, better parents than straight folk.