CDZ Homophobic People Often Have Psychological Issues

[Mertex]

"Homophobes" is not a derogatory or name-calling....it just identifies those that have a phobia of homosexuality. So, I don't understand why some are taking exception to it and claiming that it is derogatory. If you don't approve of homosexuality, for whatever reason, you are by definition a homophobe.

Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT).

One thing is to disagree with homosexuality or think it is a sin, it is yet another to go another step and insult and call people that are homosexual names. Many that view marriage as m/w claim that they don't hate/fear or are angry at homosexuals, but their actions and words say the opposite. Not only do they make derogatory comments toward homosexuals, they also turn around and attack those that don't have a problem with it.

If all you are are doing is viewing homosexuality differently from those who readily accept it, then you wouldn't have to be so angry at those whose views are different, too, so it goes both ways. I don't understand homosexuality, but I don't have any anger or fear toward homosexuals. The Supreme Court made same sex marriage legal, and everyone that respects our Constitution and form of government (Legislative/Executive/Judicial), needs to respect the decision and quit making spectacles of themselves by going over-board to demean and insult homosexuals. We have a form of government that allows for disagreement and undoing laws that the majority don't agree with, but it is done through working with the law and not against it.

The OP is based on a study done in Italy by university students. It also doesn't claim that "all" homophobes have psychological issues, it says "homophobic people "often" - so those that are getting their panties in a wad because they identify with homophobia, but don't like to be categorized as having issues....read it again. If you are getting your panties all in a wad and getting offended by the word homophobe that you have to launch an attack at the person who posted the thread about "the study" - then you probably do have psychological issues. Think about that.

it's a fake word used as an attempt to marginalize people who don't agree with an ideology or an agenda by asserting that they have a "phobia" or a fear...It's merely a semantic distortion.

Where do you get the idea that it is a fake word? We use "phobia" to identify fear or repelling feelings toward different things. This word just identifies those that have "a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality". It may not be the type of "fear" that you get when someone points a gun at you, or you step near the edge of a precipice without borders, but there is definitely some kind of fear associated with homophobia. And, it appears to be different for different people. Fear that it is contagious? Fear that it is going to change society in a way that makes it difficult for straights? Fear that our own children will find it appealing and become homosexuals?

If a person believes it is a sin, then their response should be not to participate in it. You can't dictate morality to others. Adultery is considered a sin, and yet there is no such thing as adulteryphobia.....and we don't see the same Christians that speak out against homosexuality castigating those (often leaders in their political party) that commit adultery. Instead, they forgive them.

So, explain how it is a semantic distortion. Explain how your feelings about it don't involve fear.
homophobia:
a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situationthat leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.

I have already demonstrated this point a couple pages back.
I appreciate any input you may have, but please read the thread before commenting to avoid redundant, mundane repetition.
If you cannot keep pace with the debate, perhaps you should excuse yourself from it

Don't get your panties all in a wad........I'm not going to read every damn post in this thread just so I can participate.......that isn't even part of the rules. If you have already mentioned it, then you could point me to your posts instead of getting all hissy about it. You're the one that responded to my post......and I'm sure as hell not going to go looking for all your posts just because you claim you have already demonstrated. It seems to me that you are deflecting.

 

[mudwhistle]

"Homophobic attitudes may say a lot about the person who holds them, new research suggests.


A new study of university students in Italy revealed that people who have strongly negative views of gay people also have higher levels of psychoticism and inappropriate coping mechanisms than those who are accepting of homosexuality."

full article: Homophobic People Often Have Psychological Issues


"The study is opening a new research avenue, where the real disease to study is homophobia," Jannini told Live Science.

Yes, the real disease is homophobia, not homosexuality.

"Earlier research has found homophobia to be a complex subject, with some studies suggesting that people with visceral negative reactions to gays and lesbians often harbor same-sex desires themselves."

Yes, it's like Hitler hating Jews when he is part Jew himself.

"Overall, the better the mental health of the person (based on the responses to the questionnaire), the less likely he or she was to be homophobic, the researchers found."

Not surprising at all.

Yup.....it's true......anyone who's scared of homosexuals must have a deep seated psychosis.


But not wanting to support everything they stand for isn't homophobic......it's simply having morals and values.

You know, this is the only country in the world where the free expression of religion is guaranteed in the constitution.....yet the left thinks they can outlaw it.....with a straight face no less.

 

[Rotagilla]

"Homophobes" is not a derogatory or name-calling....it just identifies those that have a phobia of homosexuality. So, I don't understand why some are taking exception to it and claiming that it is derogatory. If you don't approve of homosexuality, for whatever reason, you are by definition a homophobe.

Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT).

One thing is to disagree with homosexuality or think it is a sin, it is yet another to go another step and insult and call people that are homosexual names. Many that view marriage as m/w claim that they don't hate/fear or are angry at homosexuals, but their actions and words say the opposite. Not only do they make derogatory comments toward homosexuals, they also turn around and attack those that don't have a problem with it.

If all you are are doing is viewing homosexuality differently from those who readily accept it, then you wouldn't have to be so angry at those whose views are different, too, so it goes both ways. I don't understand homosexuality, but I don't have any anger or fear toward homosexuals. The Supreme Court made same sex marriage legal, and everyone that respects our Constitution and form of government (Legislative/Executive/Judicial), needs to respect the decision and quit making spectacles of themselves by going over-board to demean and insult homosexuals. We have a form of government that allows for disagreement and undoing laws that the majority don't agree with, but it is done through working with the law and not against it.

The OP is based on a study done in Italy by university students. It also doesn't claim that "all" homophobes have psychological issues, it says "homophobic people "often" - so those that are getting their panties in a wad because they identify with homophobia, but don't like to be categorized as having issues....read it again. If you are getting your panties all in a wad and getting offended by the word homophobe that you have to launch an attack at the person who posted the thread about "the study" - then you probably do have psychological issues. Think about that.

it's a fake word used as an attempt to marginalize people who don't agree with an ideology or an agenda by asserting that they have a "phobia" or a fear...It's merely a semantic distortion.

Where do you get the idea that it is a fake word? We use "phobia" to identify fear or repelling feelings toward different things. This word just identifies those that have "a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality". It may not be the type of "fear" that you get when someone points a gun at you, or you step near the edge of a precipice without borders, but there is definitely some kind of fear associated with homophobia. And, it appears to be different for different people. Fear that it is contagious? Fear that it is going to change society in a way that makes it difficult for straights? Fear that our own children will find it appealing and become homosexuals?

If a person believes it is a sin, then their response should be not to participate in it. You can't dictate morality to others. Adultery is considered a sin, and yet there is no such thing as adulteryphobia.....and we don't see the same Christians that speak out against homosexuality castigating those (often leaders in their political party) that commit adultery. Instead, they forgive them.

So, explain how it is a semantic distortion. Explain how your feelings about it don't involve fear.
homophobia:
a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situationthat leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.

I have already demonstrated this point a couple pages back.
I appreciate any input you may have, but please read the thread before commenting to avoid redundant, mundane repetition.
If you cannot keep pace with the debate, perhaps you should excuse yourself from it

Don't get your panties all in a wad........I'm not going to read every damn post in this thread just so I can participate.......that isn't even part of the rules. If you have already mentioned it, then you could point me to your posts instead of getting all hissy about it. You're the one that responded to my post......and I'm sure as hell not going to go looking for all your posts just because you claim you have already demonstrated. It seems to me that you are deflecting.

and now ad hom, distraction and evasion.

My earlier points were well made and stand.

 

[Mertex]

"Homophobes" is not a derogatory or name-calling....it just identifies those that have a phobia of homosexuality. So, I don't understand why some are taking exception to it and claiming that it is derogatory. If you don't approve of homosexuality, for whatever reason, you are by definition a homophobe.

Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT).

One thing is to disagree with homosexuality or think it is a sin, it is yet another to go another step and insult and call people that are homosexual names. Many that view marriage as m/w claim that they don't hate/fear or are angry at homosexuals, but their actions and words say the opposite. Not only do they make derogatory comments toward homosexuals, they also turn around and attack those that don't have a problem with it.

If all you are are doing is viewing homosexuality differently from those who readily accept it, then you wouldn't have to be so angry at those whose views are different, too, so it goes both ways. I don't understand homosexuality, but I don't have any anger or fear toward homosexuals. The Supreme Court made same sex marriage legal, and everyone that respects our Constitution and form of government (Legislative/Executive/Judicial), needs to respect the decision and quit making spectacles of themselves by going over-board to demean and insult homosexuals. We have a form of government that allows for disagreement and undoing laws that the majority don't agree with, but it is done through working with the law and not against it.

The OP is based on a study done in Italy by university students. It also doesn't claim that "all" homophobes have psychological issues, it says "homophobic people "often" - so those that are getting their panties in a wad because they identify with homophobia, but don't like to be categorized as having issues....read it again. If you are getting your panties all in a wad and getting offended by the word homophobe that you have to launch an attack at the person who posted the thread about "the study" - then you probably do have psychological issues. Think about that.

it's a fake word used as an attempt to marginalize people who don't agree with an ideology or an agenda by asserting that they have a "phobia" or a fear...It's merely a semantic distortion.

Where do you get the idea that it is a fake word? We use "phobia" to identify fear or repelling feelings toward different things. This word just identifies those that have "a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality". It may not be the type of "fear" that you get when someone points a gun at you, or you step near the edge of a precipice without borders, but there is definitely some kind of fear associated with homophobia. And, it appears to be different for different people. Fear that it is contagious? Fear that it is going to change society in a way that makes it difficult for straights? Fear that our own children will find it appealing and become homosexuals?

If a person believes it is a sin, then their response should be not to participate in it. You can't dictate morality to others. Adultery is considered a sin, and yet there is no such thing as adulteryphobia.....and we don't see the same Christians that speak out against homosexuality castigating those (often leaders in their political party) that commit adultery. Instead, they forgive them.

So, explain how it is a semantic distortion. Explain how your feelings about it don't involve fear.
homophobia:
a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situationthat leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.

I have already demonstrated this point a couple pages back.
I appreciate any input you may have, but please read the thread before commenting to avoid redundant, mundane repetition.
If you cannot keep pace with the debate, perhaps you should excuse yourself from it

Don't get your panties all in a wad........I'm not going to read every damn post in this thread just so I can participate.......that isn't even part of the rules. If you have already mentioned it, then you could point me to your posts instead of getting all hissy about it. You're the one that responded to my post......and I'm sure as hell not going to go looking for all your posts just because you claim you have already demonstrated. It seems to me that you are deflecting.

and now ad hom, distraction and evasion.

My earlier points were well made and stand.

Yeah sure. I'm sure you weren't able to explain, so that is your best option.....deflect.

Why don't you just give your opinion on adultery.....or did you already cover that on another post?

 

[Mertex]

Yup.....it's true......anyone who's scared of homosexuals must have a deep seated psychosis.

The OP doesn't say that "anyone", it says "often". But it appears that most people that are reading that it applies to "everyone" that has objection to it into the article, are doing so because it is touching a sensitive button.

There is no apparent reason that I can see why anyone should be "scared" of homosexuals, so whatever is spooking some, it must be due to some other issues.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Yup.....it's true......anyone who's scared of homosexuals must have a deep seated psychosis.


But not wanting to support everything they stand for isn't homophobic......it's simply having morals and values.

To many on the left wrong, morals and values are seen as “deep seated psychosis.”

 

[Mertex]

Yup.....it's true......anyone who's scared of homosexuals must have a deep seated psychosis.


But not wanting to support everything they stand for isn't homophobic......it's simply having morals and values.

To many on the left wrong, morals and values are seen as “deep seated psychosis.”

No....too many on the right, who pretend to be Christians and don't really know what is expected of them as Christians have made eradication of homosexuality their goal while ignoring wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony, a sin that many of them practice on a regular basis. Like Kim Davis, trying to be so sanctimonious over gay marriage, when she has been married four times herself, and had a child with a man that was not her husband at the time she got pregnant. That's not what you call a good moral compass and does not give her the right to point fingers at others.

 

[Esmeralda]

Yup.....it's true......anyone who's scared of homosexuals must have a deep seated psychosis.


But not wanting to support everything they stand for isn't homophobic......it's simply having morals and values.

To many on the left wrong, morals and values are seen as “deep seated psychosis.”

It isn't having a belief in something that is the problem; it is the way that belief is expressed through anger, hatred, vehemently expressed insults and censor, etc. You can't just live and let live, you have to be profoundly angry and against it and its entire people or you just aren't satisfied. You talk about name calling; it seems that the name you feel you are called, homophobe, is a minor thing compared to the ugly, disgusting, and vicious names you call homosexuals.

 

[Esmeralda]

Yup.....it's true......anyone who's scared of homosexuals must have a deep seated psychosis.


But not wanting to support everything they stand for isn't homophobic......it's simply having morals and values.

To many on the left wrong, morals and values are seen as “deep seated psychosis.”

No....too many on the right, who pretend to be Christians and don't really know what is expected of them as Christians have made eradication of homosexuality their goal while ignoring wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony, a sin that many of them practice on a regular basis. Like Kim Davis, trying to be so sanctimonious over gay marriage, when she has been married four times herself, and had a child with a man that was not her husband at the time she got pregnant. That's not what you call a good moral compass and does not give her the right to point fingers at others.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It isn't having a belief in something that is the problem; it is the way that belief is expressed through anger, hatred, vehemently expressed insults and censor, etc. You can't just live and let live, you have to be profoundly angry and against it and its entire people or you just aren't satisfied. You talk about name calling; it seems that the name you feel you are called, homophobe, is a minor thing compared to the ugly, disgusting, and vicious names you call homosexuals.

Homosexuality is, inherently, by its very nature—together with the manner in which sick perverts are trying to force this evil on society as a whole—ugly, disgusting, and vicious. Why should you expect it to not be described in such terms? If you willfully choose to take the side of that which is evil and disgusting, then expect to be treated accordingly.

 

[Esmeralda]

It isn't having a belief in something that is the problem; it is the way that belief is expressed through anger, hatred, vehemently expressed insults and censor, etc. You can't just live and let live, you have to be profoundly angry and against it and its entire people or you just aren't satisfied. You talk about name calling; it seems that the name you feel you are called, homophobe, is a minor thing compared to the ugly, disgusting, and vicious names you call homosexuals.

Homosexuality is, inherently, by its very nature—together with the manner in which sick perverts are trying to force this evil on society as a whole—ugly, disgusting, and vicious. Why should you expect it to not be described in such terms? If you willfully choose to take the side of that which is evil and disgusting, then expect to be treated accordingly.

That is your opinion; your opinion is not fact, and it is something with which the intellectually advanced, educated, reasonable, modern world disagrees.

But, the point of the study, the findings of the study, indicate that those people who express their attitude toward homosexuality in the manner you have just expressed it are, according to the study, more likely to have poor mental health. Not necessarily everyone, but it is more likely as opposed to people who do not express or feel such animosity and hostility toward homosexuality. You may not like or or not agree with it, but why so much disgust and animosity? Why so vehement? Why not just live as let live?

 

[Rotagilla]

it's a fake word used as an attempt to marginalize people who don't agree with an ideology or an agenda by asserting that they have a "phobia" or a fear...It's merely a semantic distortion.

Where do you get the idea that it is a fake word? We use "phobia" to identify fear or repelling feelings toward different things. This word just identifies those that have "a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality". It may not be the type of "fear" that you get when someone points a gun at you, or you step near the edge of a precipice without borders, but there is definitely some kind of fear associated with homophobia. And, it appears to be different for different people. Fear that it is contagious? Fear that it is going to change society in a way that makes it difficult for straights? Fear that our own children will find it appealing and become homosexuals?

If a person believes it is a sin, then their response should be not to participate in it. You can't dictate morality to others. Adultery is considered a sin, and yet there is no such thing as adulteryphobia.....and we don't see the same Christians that speak out against homosexuality castigating those (often leaders in their political party) that commit adultery. Instead, they forgive them.

So, explain how it is a semantic distortion. Explain how your feelings about it don't involve fear.
homophobia:
a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situationthat leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.

I have already demonstrated this point a couple pages back.
I appreciate any input you may have, but please read the thread before commenting to avoid redundant, mundane repetition.
If you cannot keep pace with the debate, perhaps you should excuse yourself from it

Don't get your panties all in a wad........I'm not going to read every damn post in this thread just so I can participate.......that isn't even part of the rules. If you have already mentioned it, then you could point me to your posts instead of getting all hissy about it. You're the one that responded to my post......and I'm sure as hell not going to go looking for all your posts just because you claim you have already demonstrated. It seems to me that you are deflecting.

and now ad hom, distraction and evasion.

My earlier points were well made and stand.

Yeah sure. I'm sure you weren't able to explain, so that is your best option.....deflect.

Why don't you just give your opinion on adultery.....or did you already cover that on another post?

Start a thread on adultery and I may offer an opinion...This thread isn't about adultery.

Why are you trying to change the subject now?

 

[Rotagilla]

It isn't having a belief in something that is the problem; it is the way that belief is expressed through anger, hatred, vehemently expressed insults and censor, etc. You can't just live and let live, you have to be profoundly angry and against it and its entire people or you just aren't satisfied. You talk about name calling; it seems that the name you feel you are called, homophobe, is a minor thing compared to the ugly, disgusting, and vicious names you call homosexuals.

Homosexuality is, inherently, by its very nature—together with the manner in which sick perverts are trying to force this evil on society as a whole—ugly, disgusting, and vicious. Why should you expect it to not be described in such terms? If you willfully choose to take the side of that which is evil and disgusting, then expect to be treated accordingly.

That is your opinion; your opinion is not fact, and it is something with which the intellectually advanced, educated, reasonable, modern world disagrees.

Using biased, inflammatory, prejudicial language to imply that anyone who disagrees with you isn't "intellectually advanced" or "educated" or "reasonable" doesn't win your point. It exposes your dishonesty, though.

Weak debaters quite often try to play word games like that.

 

[Esmeralda]

It isn't having a belief in something that is the problem; it is the way that belief is expressed through anger, hatred, vehemently expressed insults and censor, etc. You can't just live and let live, you have to be profoundly angry and against it and its entire people or you just aren't satisfied. You talk about name calling; it seems that the name you feel you are called, homophobe, is a minor thing compared to the ugly, disgusting, and vicious names you call homosexuals.

Homosexuality is, inherently, by its very nature—together with the manner in which sick perverts are trying to force this evil on society as a whole—ugly, disgusting, and vicious. Why should you expect it to not be described in such terms? If you willfully choose to take the side of that which is evil and disgusting, then expect to be treated accordingly.

That is your opinion; your opinion is not fact, and it is something with which the intellectually advanced, educated, reasonable, modern world disagrees.

Using biased, inflammatory, prejudicial language to imply that anyone who disagrees with you isn't "intellectually advanced" or "educated" or "reasonable" doesn't win your point. It exposes your dishonesty, though.

Weak debaters quite often try to play word games like that.

Good Lord, I'm not playing word games. Not only are the majority of citizens in the US supporting gay rights, all the advanced, modern countries in the world are supporting them. People are evolving in social and cultural terms, those people who live in modern, advanced, educated cultures. I am not using any language that is biased, prejudiced or inflammatory. Don't we all recognize that first world countries are more advanced than 3rd world countries? If you look around you and have any awareness of what is going on in other first world countries, you will see they are accepting gay rights across the globe. Therefore, it seems clear that educated, advanced, modern people are using reason instead of emotion to go toward acceptance and tolerance of others, whether it be homosexuality or something else, such as culture, race, gender, age, etc.

 

[Rotagilla]

It isn't having a belief in something that is the problem; it is the way that belief is expressed through anger, hatred, vehemently expressed insults and censor, etc. You can't just live and let live, you have to be profoundly angry and against it and its entire people or you just aren't satisfied. You talk about name calling; it seems that the name you feel you are called, homophobe, is a minor thing compared to the ugly, disgusting, and vicious names you call homosexuals.

Homosexuality is, inherently, by its very nature—together with the manner in which sick perverts are trying to force this evil on society as a whole—ugly, disgusting, and vicious. Why should you expect it to not be described in such terms? If you willfully choose to take the side of that which is evil and disgusting, then expect to be treated accordingly.

That is your opinion; your opinion is not fact, and it is something with which the intellectually advanced, educated, reasonable, modern world disagrees.

Using biased, inflammatory, prejudicial language to imply that anyone who disagrees with you isn't "intellectually advanced" or "educated" or "reasonable" doesn't win your point. It exposes your dishonesty, though.

Weak debaters quite often try to play word games like that.

Good Lord, I'm not playing word games. Not only are the majority of citizens in the US supporting gay rights, all the advanced, modern countries in the world are supporting them. People are evolving in social and cultural terms, those people who live in modern, advanced, educated cultures. I am not using any language that is biased, prejudiced or inflammatory. Don't we all recognize that first world countries are more advanced than 3rd world countries? If you look around you and have any awareness of what is going on in other first world countries, you will see they are accepting gay rights across the globe. Therefore, it seems clear that educated, advanced, modern people are using reason instead of emotion to go toward acceptance and tolerance of others, whether it be homosexuality or something else, such as culture, race, gender, age, etc.

"homophobe" is a biased, inflammatory, inaccurate term.....very very few people have a "phobia" about homosexuals...you try to conflate disgust or repulsion into "fear"...it doesn't fly.

 

[Mertex]

Where do you get the idea that it is a fake word? We use "phobia" to identify fear or repelling feelings toward different things. This word just identifies those that have "a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality". It may not be the type of "fear" that you get when someone points a gun at you, or you step near the edge of a precipice without borders, but there is definitely some kind of fear associated with homophobia. And, it appears to be different for different people. Fear that it is contagious? Fear that it is going to change society in a way that makes it difficult for straights? Fear that our own children will find it appealing and become homosexuals?

If a person believes it is a sin, then their response should be not to participate in it. You can't dictate morality to others. Adultery is considered a sin, and yet there is no such thing as adulteryphobia.....and we don't see the same Christians that speak out against homosexuality castigating those (often leaders in their political party) that commit adultery. Instead, they forgive them.

So, explain how it is a semantic distortion. Explain how your feelings about it don't involve fear.
homophobia:
a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situationthat leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.

I have already demonstrated this point a couple pages back.
I appreciate any input you may have, but please read the thread before commenting to avoid redundant, mundane repetition.
If you cannot keep pace with the debate, perhaps you should excuse yourself from it

Don't get your panties all in a wad........I'm not going to read every damn post in this thread just so I can participate.......that isn't even part of the rules. If you have already mentioned it, then you could point me to your posts instead of getting all hissy about it. You're the one that responded to my post......and I'm sure as hell not going to go looking for all your posts just because you claim you have already demonstrated. It seems to me that you are deflecting.

and now ad hom, distraction and evasion.

My earlier points were well made and stand.

Yeah sure. I'm sure you weren't able to explain, so that is your best option.....deflect.

Why don't you just give your opinion on adultery.....or did you already cover that on another post?

Start a thread on adultery and I may offer an opinion...This thread isn't about adultery.

That's not necessary. I was pointing out that for those that claim homosexuality is a sin even though Jesus never mentioned it, adultery is and why they don't ever take exception to it. But, you know I'm right and you don't have a response to it, so you're finding excuses to not deal with it. That's called deflection.

Why are you trying to change the subject now?

I'm not changing the subject.....I'm comparing what some claim is a sin, (homosexuality) to another sin (adultery) and trying to get you to explain why one is so much more of a big deal than the other. You, on the other hand, can't seem to be able to explain why you have such a disdain for homosexuality and your reaction to it (that does not involve some type of fear) so you are making excuses and deflecting altogether.

 

[Rotagilla]

I have already demonstrated this point a couple pages back.
I appreciate any input you may have, but please read the thread before commenting to avoid redundant, mundane repetition.
If you cannot keep pace with the debate, perhaps you should excuse yourself from it

Don't get your panties all in a wad........I'm not going to read every damn post in this thread just so I can participate.......that isn't even part of the rules. If you have already mentioned it, then you could point me to your posts instead of getting all hissy about it. You're the one that responded to my post......and I'm sure as hell not going to go looking for all your posts just because you claim you have already demonstrated. It seems to me that you are deflecting.

and now ad hom, distraction and evasion.

My earlier points were well made and stand.

Yeah sure. I'm sure you weren't able to explain, so that is your best option.....deflect.

Why don't you just give your opinion on adultery.....or did you already cover that on another post?

Start a thread on adultery and I may offer an opinion...This thread isn't about adultery.

That's not necessary. I was pointing out that for those that claim homosexuality is a sin even though Jesus never mentioned it, adultery is and why they don't ever take exception to it. But, you know I'm right and you don't have a response to it, so you're finding excuses to not deal with it. That's called deflection.

Why are you trying to change the subject now?

I'm not changing the subject.....I'm comparing what some claim is a sin, (homosexuality) to another sin (adultery) and trying to get you to explain why one is so much more of a big deal than the other. You, on the other hand, can't seem to be able to explain why you have such a disdain for homosexuality and your reaction to it (that does not involve some type of fear) so you are making excuses and deflecting altogether.

but this thread isn't about adultery or sins or jesus...
"homophobe" is a word invented to marginalize, mischaracterize and attempt to disparage people who disagree with homosexuality..the word is invalid and (purposely) overly broad....very very few people are "afraid" of homosexuals

 

[Mertex]

It isn't having a belief in something that is the problem; it is the way that belief is expressed through anger, hatred, vehemently expressed insults and censor, etc. You can't just live and let live, you have to be profoundly angry and against it and its entire people or you just aren't satisfied. You talk about name calling; it seems that the name you feel you are called, homophobe, is a minor thing compared to the ugly, disgusting, and vicious names you call homosexuals.

Homosexuality is, inherently, by its very nature—together with the manner in which sick perverts are trying to force this evil on society as a whole—ugly, disgusting, and vicious. Why should you expect it to not be described in such terms? If you willfully choose to take the side of that which is evil and disgusting, then expect to be treated accordingly.

That is your opinion; your opinion is not fact, and it is something with which the intellectually advanced, educated, reasonable, modern world disagrees.

Using biased, inflammatory, prejudicial language to imply that anyone who disagrees with you isn't "intellectually advanced" or "educated" or "reasonable" doesn't win your point. It exposes your dishonesty, though.

Weak debaters quite often try to play word games like that.

Good Lord, I'm not playing word games. Not only are the majority of citizens in the US supporting gay rights, all the advanced, modern countries in the world are supporting them. People are evolving in social and cultural terms, those people who live in modern, advanced, educated cultures. I am not using any language that is biased, prejudiced or inflammatory. Don't we all recognize that first world countries are more advanced than 3rd world countries? If you look around you and have any awareness of what is going on in other first world countries, you will see they are accepting gay rights across the globe. Therefore, it seems clear that educated, advanced, modern people are using reason instead of emotion to go toward acceptance and tolerance of others, whether it be homosexuality or something else, such as culture, race, gender, age, etc.

That may be the entire problem with most conservatives. They claim to hate Muslims and Muslim's rationale for life, yet they seem to want to imitate them in so many ways. They (those that are up in arms over same-sex marriage) want the country to accept their own twisted and unreasoned way of thinking. You don't have to accept homosexuality to be okay with laws that provide equality to them, but they can't even seem to be able to comprehend that.

 

[Mertex]

It isn't having a belief in something that is the problem; it is the way that belief is expressed through anger, hatred, vehemently expressed insults and censor, etc. You can't just live and let live, you have to be profoundly angry and against it and its entire people or you just aren't satisfied. You talk about name calling; it seems that the name you feel you are called, homophobe, is a minor thing compared to the ugly, disgusting, and vicious names you call homosexuals.

Homosexuality is, inherently, by its very nature—together with the manner in which sick perverts are trying to force this evil on society as a whole—ugly, disgusting, and vicious. Why should you expect it to not be described in such terms? If you willfully choose to take the side of that which is evil and disgusting, then expect to be treated accordingly.

That is your opinion; your opinion is not fact, and it is something with which the intellectually advanced, educated, reasonable, modern world disagrees.

Using biased, inflammatory, prejudicial language to imply that anyone who disagrees with you isn't "intellectually advanced" or "educated" or "reasonable" doesn't win your point. It exposes your dishonesty, though.

Weak debaters quite often try to play word games like that.

Good Lord, I'm not playing word games. Not only are the majority of citizens in the US supporting gay rights, all the advanced, modern countries in the world are supporting them. People are evolving in social and cultural terms, those people who live in modern, advanced, educated cultures. I am not using any language that is biased, prejudiced or inflammatory. Don't we all recognize that first world countries are more advanced than 3rd world countries? If you look around you and have any awareness of what is going on in other first world countries, you will see they are accepting gay rights across the globe. Therefore, it seems clear that educated, advanced, modern people are using reason instead of emotion to go toward acceptance and tolerance of others, whether it be homosexuality or something else, such as culture, race, gender, age, etc.

"homophobe" is a biased, inflammatory, inaccurate term.....very very few people have a "phobia" about homosexuals...you try to conflate disgust or repulsion into "fear"...it doesn't fly.

You keep saying that but you don't explain why you think so. There is a "fear" that you are not wanting to admit or expose.....so what is it that causes you such disdain over homosexuality, or even the word homophobe?

 

[Rotagilla]

It isn't having a belief in something that is the problem; it is the way that belief is expressed through anger, hatred, vehemently expressed insults and censor, etc. You can't just live and let live, you have to be profoundly angry and against it and its entire people or you just aren't satisfied. You talk about name calling; it seems that the name you feel you are called, homophobe, is a minor thing compared to the ugly, disgusting, and vicious names you call homosexuals.

Homosexuality is, inherently, by its very nature—together with the manner in which sick perverts are trying to force this evil on society as a whole—ugly, disgusting, and vicious. Why should you expect it to not be described in such terms? If you willfully choose to take the side of that which is evil and disgusting, then expect to be treated accordingly.

That is your opinion; your opinion is not fact, and it is something with which the intellectually advanced, educated, reasonable, modern world disagrees.

Using biased, inflammatory, prejudicial language to imply that anyone who disagrees with you isn't "intellectually advanced" or "educated" or "reasonable" doesn't win your point. It exposes your dishonesty, though.

Weak debaters quite often try to play word games like that.

Good Lord, I'm not playing word games. Not only are the majority of citizens in the US supporting gay rights, all the advanced, modern countries in the world are supporting them. People are evolving in social and cultural terms, those people who live in modern, advanced, educated cultures. I am not using any language that is biased, prejudiced or inflammatory. Don't we all recognize that first world countries are more advanced than 3rd world countries? If you look around you and have any awareness of what is going on in other first world countries, you will see they are accepting gay rights across the globe. Therefore, it seems clear that educated, advanced, modern people are using reason instead of emotion to go toward acceptance and tolerance of others, whether it be homosexuality or something else, such as culture, race, gender, age, etc.

That may be the entire problem with most conservatives. They claim to hate Muslims and Muslim's rationale for life, yet they seem to want to imitate them in so many ways. They (those that are up in arms over same-sex marriage) want the country to accept their own twisted and unreasoned way of thinking. You don't have to accept homosexuality to be okay with laws that provide equality to them, but they can't even seem to be able to comprehend that.

..ok..now you're off on ANOTHER tangent...I think this thread is about done...

Resolved;

people who disagree with homosexuality have no higher rate of psychological issues than any other cross section of the population so the premise for this thread is debunked.

Since the above is true, it is also resolved: "homophobe" is therefore an invalid, manufactured word used for political or professional leverage.