The homophobic thread :>

[homerfobe]

It takes real bravery to be openly gay in Russia or to even just side with equality. You "admire" a small-minded, bigoted, KGB Lieutenant Colonel that's risking nothing. [/color]

Yeppers. Being a fag is a real life's achievement in any country. That calls for an award for bravery in my book.
So anyone who isn't a faggot or a twat twinkie is small-minded and bigoted? Bravery aside, you seem to have a special admiration for them

Why should he risk anything? He's telling the world the same as I am; that being queer is the 2nd. lowest form of humanity (next to a pedophile who should be taken out and shot when convicted)

[Mr.B]

"So anyone who isn't......is small-minded and bigoted?"

"No, idiot, being gay takes no bravery at all. People are born that way."

"...straights that aren't small-minded and bigoted about it like you are aren't small-minded and bigoted."

"I admire equality......I don't admire or look down upon any adult, consensual sexual orientation, it's just a fact of birth."

I haven't thought of this in this manner before, so I looked up the word "bigotry". It appears that "bigots" aren't only those who look down on gays and/or other races. With this definition in mind, it seems that practically every poster in these boards are bigots due to the bad-mouthing Christians endure.
Think about that.......
(and yes, I learned how to cut and paste)


big·ot·ry[big-uh-tree] noun

1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

Synonyms
1. narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.

[O Really]

The problem with relying only on dictionary definitions is that often the dictionary isn't current with contempory usage. Taken at its dictionary definition, "bigot" should be descriptive, not necessarily derogotory. For example, I am bigoted against rednecks. I also favor pretty ladies. But in real life usage, the term has a negative connotation, taken as insulting. And that results in the ridiculous contradiction of "I'm not bigoted. I just hate gays because they're not normal" (meaning not like me).

[Mr.B]

"The problem with relying only on dictionary definitions is that often the dictionary isn't current with contempory (sic) usage. Taken at its dictionary definition, "bigot" should be descriptive, not necessarily derogotory. (sic) For example, I am bigoted against rednecks. I also favor pretty ladies. But in real life usage, the term has a negative connotation, taken as insulting. And that results in the ridiculous contradiction of "I'm not bigoted. I just hate gays because they're not normal" (meaning not like me)."

No, the real problem is the across-the-board use of the word "hate" when describing someone who believes homosexuality is not normal.
Your "descriptive" definition of 'bigot' also applies to 'hate'. Both words, along with 'intolerant' is thrown at anyone who believes the homosexual lifestyle is wrong, regardless of their station in life. Their usage is intended to be insulting.

I dislike the homosexual lifestyle, but I don't "hate" homosexuals.

[Mr.B]

"I'm not bothered by beliefs and prejudices but I am by actions and legal or institutional intolerance. No one is saying that Christian bigots should not be allowed to marry any Christian bigot that will have them."

Uhhh...I'm not talking about Christian bigots...I'm referring to bigotry towards Christians from non-Christians.

Because Bible-believing Christians believe that homosexuality is abnormal and is a sin, you non-Christians view that opinion as "institutional intolerance",
then you slap the "bigot" label on them simply because they are following their Biblical beliefs.

[O Really]

Some would say that religious beliefs (biblical or otherwise) certainly can be the basis of bigotry. One can believe as one wants, but they can't use "religous belief" to shield their beliefs (or more specifically belief-related actions) from criticism from others who are also entitled to their own beliefs and opinions.

If a person tells me s/he thinks all Mexicans are violent thieves who run drugs in cantaloupes, I don't care whether that opinion comes from their religious beliefs or what - it's still bigotry.

[O Really]

I dislike the homosexual lifestyle, but I don't "hate" homosexuals.

That's a bit disingenous, Mr.B, in that there is no single "homosexual lifestyle." Most of the homosexuals you run into (and don't even know about) have lifestyles likely similar to yours or mine. So it seems what you don't like is the appearance of homosexuality. And since only homosexuals engage in what you define as the "homosexual lifestyle," then by definition you do indeed dislike homosexuals (except for the ones you didn't know were gay.)

[neoplacebo]

Here's what's disingenious; the multitude of Catholic priests that have been revealed to have a sexual affinity for young boys in their church. To my way of thinking, it takes a mighty confident bigot to stand before one's congregation and spout religious piety while daydreaming about his next tryst with yet another alter boy. These priests fall right into Homerphobe's sack of the worst life forms. Does this mean Homerphobe is not Catholic?

[O Really]

In Mr.B's view, one's sexuality is the primary determinant of their existence. Which brings up several questions. Assuming he's not a pedophile, is it solely a priest's celibacy that makes him a good priest, or can he be celibate and still be a bad priest. Is whether or not one has sex what makes them a good or bad doctor, lawyer, accountant, or landscape guy? To follow the viewpoint of those similar to Mr.B, you have to make a habit of envisioning sex acts whenever you find out somebody is gay. Otherwise, their gayness wouldn't matter. Let's say you have somebody, gay or straight, that spends 4 hours every day having sex. That's still just 16% of their time. Wouldn't it be reasonable to judge them on what else they do, too? First thought when hearing the name Wilt Chamberlin? I'll bet it wasn't the factoid that he supposedly banged thousands of women, was it?

[Mr.B]

"Uhhh...I got that. My point was that you need a thicker skin.
Who cares if someone doesn't like your faith? Get back to us when it's actually being repressed."

"Wrong, no one cares if your prejudice is confined to your church, we know all about the long tradition of Christian hate.
However, when you try to impose it on the rest of society you're gonna get a fight."

My point is the vulgarity and disparaging remarks made by other posters. Thicker skin is not the issue; if that were the case, you and others wouldn't get so riled when Homerfobe rants about homosexuals. It's not my faith that riles me, it's the name calling directed at God or the notion that God even exists.

You now use the word "prejudice" in describing Christian attitudes towards homosexuals. Christians believe that the Bible writings were inspired by God.
Therefore, God, our Creator, is a prejudiced, hateful, bigot in the opinions of those who view all Christians are an example of Christianity as a whole.

Let's look at your statement "when you try to impose it on the rest of society you're gonna get a fight"..... good choice of words.....
that's exactly what homosexuals and their supporters are doing to those who abhor same-sex relations and the idea that that is to be a subject taught in schools....and there's non-Christians who feel that homosexuality is abnormal. They can't teach religion in school, but it's OK to teach that boy/boy and girl/girl relationships are normal. That's our fight.

"That's a bit disingenous, (sic) Mr.B, in that there is no single "homosexual lifestyle." Most of the homosexuals you run into (and don't even know about) have lifestyles likely similar to yours or mine. So it seems what you don't like is the appearance of homosexuality. And since only homosexuals engage in what you define as the "homosexual lifestyle," then by definition you do indeed dislike homosexuals (except for the ones you didn't know were gay.)"

That's a bit of a disingenuous twist O Really. As you are aware, the "homosexual lifestyle" in question is homosexual sex.
A rectum was not designed for sex. (I know...here comes the argument about m/f sex)

"Here's what's disingenuous; the multitude of Catholic priests that have been revealed to have a sexual affinity for young boys in their church. To my way of thinking, it takes a mighty confident bigot to stand before one's congregation and spout religious piety while daydreaming about his next tryst with yet another alter boy. These priests fall right into Homerphobe's sack of the worst life forms. Does this mean Homerphobe is not Catholic?"

My Christian "religion" does not believe in celibacy. God commanded to "go forth and multiply" because He felt that man "should not be alone". Catholics are not the only denomination that suffers from sexual deviates in their ranks; their celibacy policy only opens the door wider for homosexual pedophiles.
Catholics are in the Christian category....which leads right back to my favorite saying: "Just because one calls himself a Christian, doesn't mean he is one."
Somehow, I've got a feeling that Homerfobe is not of any religion;

[O Really]

They can't teach religion in school, but it's OK to teach that boy/boy and girl/girl relationships are normal. That's our fight.
Actually, unless you are homosexual, you don't have a dog in that fight at all. Unless of course you can come up with real life examples where somebody has "caught the gay" by being told that somebody who is gay is not to be discriminated against.

"That's a bit disingenous, (sic) Mr.B, in that there is no single "homosexual lifestyle." Most of the homosexuals you run into (and don't even know about) have lifestyles likely similar to yours or mine. So it seems what you don't like is the appearance of homosexuality. And since only homosexuals engage in what you define as the "homosexual lifestyle," then by definition you do indeed dislike homosexuals (except for the ones you didn't know were gay.)"

That's a bit of a disingenuous twist O Really. As you are aware, the "homosexual lifestyle" in question is homosexual sex. That's exactly what I said. So why don't you say it? Why use "lifestyle" when it is clearly only the sex act that you object to. And do you judge everybody in total by whether they have sex, how often, and with whom? And how do you know about them?
...

[bannination]

They can't teach religion in school, but it's OK to teach that boy/boy and girl/girl relationships are normal. That's our fight.

That's not your fight, they CAN AND DO teach religion in school. They just can't teach your "ONE TRUE RELIGION" in school....

How could a student possibly understand history without knowing about religions?


You're going to have to provide evidence that those relationships aren't normal, because they seem pretty normal throughout the rest of the animal kingdom. So it's pretty much an easy fight for the other side.... you've got nothing.

[O Really]

I don't consider it any of my business whatsoever if a friend, acquaintance, colleague, or stranger has sex with whom, how, or how often (unless it's with me or my family.) I don't often get into arguments about whether being gay is "normal" or not, but I do believe the scientists and many gay people who say it's not a choice any more than being hetero is a choice. Frankly, for my interests, I don't care if it's "normal." My interests are in civil rights and non-discrimination. There are a lot of "not normal" people in the US, most of whom don't lose their civil rights over it. Interestingly, Mr.B (and other people of whatever religion), are protected from discrimination in the workplace, and I don't think there are many who would argue that following a particular religion is indeed a choice. Mr.B, and everyone else, is protected by the Constitution in the practice of their religion (whichever one or ones they choose or change to). Yet Mr.B (generically, not necessarily personally) complains that despite all those protections, that he is abused because of his religion while at the same time wanting to use his religion to discriminate against other citizens because of their lack of "normalness." The "Mr.B's" complain about government intrusiveness, while at the same time wanting the government to discriminate against their fellow citizens who don't meet their definition of "normalness." At the risk of having Godwin's Law called on me, isn't that, in principle, not much different want wanting all tall, blond Aryans in your country? Or wanting all the Sunnis herded out?

[O Really]

...I don't think there are many who would argue that following a particular religion is indeed a choice...

Did you mean "argue against" or "not indeed"?

I may be misremembering but I'm not sure Mr.B has posted against gay marriage and other legal equality. He just likes to tell us that he thinks gays are abnormal, that kids should be taught the same, and that Christians are just as oppressed.

Yes, "against." Thanks.
The actual "Mr.B" may not have posted against gay marriage, but it is those like him who interchange the terms "gay" and "leper" that are maintaining the discrimination.

[neoplacebo]

I may be misremembering ....

Have you been reading a book about George W. Bush?

[O Really]

Yeah, George H. W. - Maybe the last living real Republican. Can you imagine what the current crop of "Republicans" would do to him over that if he were still involved in politics? Consider - this is Reagan's VP and an elected Republican President. And to make matters worse, he hangs out with Bill Clinton. Tacit support for gay marriage? Collaboration with the enemy? What a bunch of clowns call themselves Republicans now.

[O Really]

Yep. Threw away a sure second term over a made-up and insignificant issue. Fortunately, they haven't learned much since. Unfortunately, the fools keep getting elected in Congressional and gubernatorial races. I'm hoping they're reaching the limits of public tolerance.

[homerfobe]

George H.W. Bush Is Witness At Same-Sex Wedding Of Friends

Tick-tock.

Awww, ain't that sweet. A former prez attends a union of two faggots. I'm impressed.
Tick tock, tick tock, some more fags in a crock.

[homerfobe]

I don't consider it any of my business whatsoever if a friend, acquaintance, colleague, or stranger has sex with whom, how, or how often (unless it's with me or my family.)

So your saying it's OK that faggot sex is OK as long as it's not in your family. Got it.

[homerfobe]

Gay notes

Dear Christine,

I’m disappointed in you as a daughter. You’re correct that we have a “shame in the family”, but mistaken about what it is. Kicking Chad out of your home simply because he told you he was gay is the real “abomination” here. A parent disowning her child is what goes “against nature.” The only intelligent thing I heard you saying in all this was that “you didn’t raise your son to be gay." Of course you didn’t. He was born this way and didn’t choose it any more than he being left-handed. You however, have made a choice of being hurtful, narrow-minded and backward. So, while we are in the business of disowning our children, I think I’ll take this moment to say goodbye to you. I now have a fabulous (as the gays put it) grandson to raise, and I don’t have time for heart-less B-word of a daughter. If you find your heart, give us a call. – Dad.

It sure was hard reading that what with all my tears dropping on my keyboard. I think I'll go get a beer to calm my old sad self down. sniff, sniff.

I overheard your phone conversation with Mike last night about your plans to come out to me. The only thing I need you to plan is to bring home OJ and bread after class. We are out, like you now. I've known you were gay since you were six, I've loved you since you were born.
PS: Your mom and I think you and Mike make a cute couple.

Gosh, they think their son is a cute little fag. Bring home the OJ and bread. Better bring the condoms too, don't want you get shit all over the bed.

And in January, a 15-year-old named Laurel came out to her parents by baking them a cake (she called it a "gayke") with a message that in part read, "Your acceptance would be the icing on the cake." Then, they ate cake.

And Laurel later ate twat twinkies with her parents blessings. Damn touching ain't it.