Just so we're straight (pun not intended): *I* did not make that headline statement. I quoted it directly from YOUR post that you so proudly linked for my illumination.
Wow. Your English comprehension is THAT poor, dude?
There is absolutely NOTHING in the above statement that indicates that consumption of drugs and alcohol are "natural." The example was specifically proffered to illustrate that humans engage in all kinds of "unnatural" behaviors not seen in the animal kingdom and yet they are not criminalized strictly on that basis.
You'd have to be extremely desperate, with an overactive imagination and awe-inspiring flexibility to s-t-r-e-t-c-h to try to point out the fact that I put "unnatural" in quotes and use that to argue that I somehow meant the opposite of what I clearly said.
In fact, if you look at all my replies throughout this discussion, I have almost ALWAYS put both "natural" and "unnatural" in quotation marks. Why? Because it was a term that YOU introduced and one that YOU are most concerned about. I said that I would accept it for the sake of the argument, but it wasn't something I particularly care about. That's why it's in quotes.
LOL You are sounding very, very desperate, my guy.
Seriously. This is the English language that we are both speaking (or typing). Let's examine the statement you quoted from me line by line.
Quoth I: You said homosexuality was immoral because it supposedly (and I have not even gotten around to unpacking that particular assumption) does not occur in the animal kingdom.
Yes, you did say this. I know you are about to complain about my substitution, but I'll deal with that further down the line.
Quoth I: I pointed out that other behaviors do not occur in the animal kingdom, and as such, must be immoral by your definition.
Yes. Given that your main explanation for the immorality of the homosexuality was its "unnaturality" (ie the fact that it does not occur in the animal kingdom), I was interested in learning if EVERY "unnatural" behavior that does not occur in the animal kingdom (eg drinking alcohol) was automatically immoral.
Quoth I: It's simple logic and I believe you know what I am talking about.
Yes. It IS quite simple. I think the reasoning here is very transparent. You may quibble with the potency of the analogy I used (I'll willingly grant that it probably was not the most forceful example), but you'd have to be living in some place where Dyslexia is the native language to somehow derive the exact opposite of what I said from the above sentences.
God . . . Do I have to say everything twice and thrice?
I said that most of our morals are derived from pragmatic concerns, based primarily on the principle of preventing individuals inflicting harm upon each other.
I then asked you how two guys sucking each other's d i c ks were harming anybody.
I am SURE I said this before. How many more times must I say it before it penetrates?
People harming each other = pragmatic concern
Sagamite crying because men kissing grosses him out = subjective problem
*shrug*
Please read again if you have to. I said it pretty plainly that men do demand exclusivity as a trade-off because if he is going to invest his time and resources to raising the offspring, he wants to be sure they are his.
I hate having to repeat myself unnecessarily.
Billions of people also believed that negroes were 3/5 human, if they were human at all.
The fact that a lot of people believed that doesn't make the belief any less irrational.
I believe that form of argument is commonly called argumentum ad populum. And it is listed as a fallacy.
And before you try to suggest that I was the one who introduced this fallacy by citing to the high percentage of American soldiers who are unperturbed by homosexuality, take note that I did not do so as an attempt to appeal to a majority. I did it to prove that your suggestion that the disgust for homosexuality was universal. Whether the anti-gays outnumber the pro-gays or vice versa, the bottom line is that there IS disagreement on the issue and your suggestion that it is disgusting to everybody is false.
Just as you have been dragooned repeatedly by society to eschew homosexuality. If from the time you were an infant you had been exposed to the sight of gay s e x without anybody telling you it was wrong, you would not have this visceral abhorrence for it. Such reactions are the result of nurture, not nature as nobody is born with such prejudices. Hell, when kids first view *heterosexual* intercourse, they tend to find it disgusting and/or terrifying until socialization teaches them that it is something they should look forward to experiencing.
Anyway, whether or not you find the visual of gay congress disgusting is irrelevant, unless we are arguing for gay p o r n to be beamed into every home, or maybe if gay guys were having s e x in the main road.
Nobody is forcing you to THINK about gay s e x. If you see two guys holding hands and your mind immediately visualizes them b u t t f u c k i n g, then perhaps you should ask yourself some serious questions about yourself!
No, I didn't miss anything. But your attempt at mockery still scored a point for me and I felt obliged to acknowledge it.
Pedophilia IS disgusting to people all over the world, but the *definition* of pedophilia varies from society to society.
Where I live (in the United States), a grown man sleeping with a 15-year-old girl is a disgusting, immoral and very illegal case of pedophilia.
If I go to Japan, a grown man sleeping with a 15-year-old might be a bit unseemly, but not as disgusting, immoral and not definitely illegal because the age of consent there is actually 13 years.
In fact, until the 20th century, the age of consent in many European countries was also 13. Back then, having sex with a 14-year-old was not considered particularly revolting or "unnatural" but when the law changed, it became "disgusting."
My point here is that a lot of the "disgust" and "revulsion" is not "natural" . . . It is the result of nurture not nature. If it were purely a natural instinct rather than the result of social conditioning, then the level of "disgust" would have remained constant over time, irrespective of amendments in society's laws.
Yep. You are all over the place. You give the impression of a drowning man grasping at straws. To wit:
The fact that you even attempted to erect that argument was the point at which you showed your hand and revealed how desperate you really were to "win" at any cost. You really should not have even bothered with the physical damage argument because it came off disingenuous, like you were seeking any port in a storm.
Especially since that argument was so poorly thought-out to begin with.
I had to enjoy a good hearty laugh over that one. But still . . . whatever. I'm open to striking that digression from the record and focusing solely on the "unnaturality," which you have STILL failed to demonstrate is equal to immorality.
*waits*
LOL Yes. I still wait patiently for some sort of concrete case--ANY evidence whatsoever--to elevate such statements beyond the realm of personal distaste.
LMAO! Dude, YOU SAID IT! Is this something that I fabricated? YOU attempted to mount an argument based on physical damage, and so I addressed it and now you're mad at me for not pretending that you didn't say something that you clearly did?
Why did you even bother bringing up the physical damage angle if you were unprepared to stand by and it and defend it later?
What a flip-flopper.
*turns to audience* You see why I said he is looking desperate?
Nah . . . I threw it out because I was really interested in understanding the non-religious case against homosexuality.
Like, if someone comes to me and says "I believe homosexuality is immoral because I do not think for myself and I take my directives from a Holy Book tells me that God is sending all these people to a blistering Inferno."
If someone tells me that, I can accept it. I may not agree with them but at least I understand where they're coming from.
But I just don't understand how any thinking person who lives a life guided by reason would come to the same conclusion. . . Unless of course it is simply a case of personal prejudice.
(Full disclosure: I was once a virulent homophobe myself--I mean, I actually went for far as to enact violence upon suspected homosexuals. But I was mostly guided by faith at the time. As I distanced myself more and more from religion and moved in the direction of humanism, I found that my anti-gay stance became harder and harder to sustain on a logical level. So yeah, I'm interested in understanding the cognitive processes of secular homophobes.
I'm quite gratified to say that so far you have confirmed my suspicions, as you've been unable to build much of a case beyond basic personal disgust.)
Nope! That is a completely different flavor of argument, and I'll tell you why:
You first said: Homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural.
In your statement above, the unnaturality defines the immorality. For the purposes of your argument, unnatural = immoral.
Okay. We agree on that, right? Let's move forward,
So. In the same post linked above, the very next statement from you make a qualifying statement, offering a definition of "unnatural." Don't bother getting up. . . I'll copy and paste the quote right here:
So now we have our working definition of "unnatural" (for the purposes of this discussion). To summarize the paragraph above: unnatural = it does not occur in the Animal Kingdom
Are you still with me? I'll repeat it just in case:
unnatural = it does not occur in the Animal Kingdom
Now please note in your quote above that you offered the "it does not occur in the Animal Kingdom" specifically as the reason for homosexuality's "unnaturality." I do not know whether this definition is meant to describe EVERYTHING in the world that is "unnatural," but it is certainly what makes homosexuality in particular "unnatural," right?
So here's what we have:
Homosexuality is immoral (A) because it is unnatural. (B)
A because B.
Then the next statement defines B:
It is unnatural (B) because it does not occur in the Animal Kingdom. (C)
B because C.
We also accept the above statement to be true.
Let's try applying the same paradigm to the flawed argument you tried to attribute to me above:
He is human (A) because he is a man. (B)
A because B.
That statement is true. So let's go to our qualifying statement to give us a definition of B
He is a man because he has blood in his veins.
Okay, That doesn't work. Having blood in the veins is not a sufficient definition because not only men have blood in their veins. Let's try using "has blood in his veins" to define A instead:
He is human because he has blood in his veins.
Nope. Still doesn't work. The premise is inherently flawed, so any conclusion drawn from it will be similarly flawed . . . unlike your "Homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural" and "it is unnatural because it does not occur in the Animal Kingdom," both of which we have accepted to be true.
So no. Your example above has no resemblance whatsoever to my argument. Moving on . . .
Let's look at our qualifying statement again:
It is unnatural (B) because it does not occur in the Animal Kingdom (C)
As we said before, this statement provides us with a definition for "unnatural"
"unnatural" (B) = "that which does not occur in the Animal Kingdom" (C)
Since C is a definition or explanation of B, they essentially share the same value:
Q. What does "unnatural" mean? A. That which does not occur in the Animal Kingdom.
Q. What's the word for that which does not occur in the Animal Kingdom? A. "Unnatural"
Therefore, B = C
Taking that back to our original statement:
Homosexuality is immoral (A) because it is unnatural. (B)
A because B.
But we have ascertained that B = C
Therefore, A because B has the same value as A because C.
Homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural. (And what does "unnatural" mean? - That which does not occur in the Animal Kingdom.)
Homosexuality is immoral because it is(that which does not occur in the Animal Kingdom).
So homosexuality is immoral because it does not occur in the Animal Kingdom.
Sound argument.
To be honest, all of this stuff is so basic that I even feel somewhat embarrassed to have to be breaking this down like this and explaining it to you. I refuse to believe that you don't get this very rudimentary concept. You have GOT to be pretending just to be stubborn. *smh*
That's the thing: I never implied anything like that.
I didn't say that EVERYTHING that is immoral is based on being or not being in the animal world, but you gave "unnaturality" as the *specific* reason for it being immoral, and its absence in the animal world as the *specific* reason for it being unnatural.
Homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural and it is unnatural because it does not exist in the Animal Kingdom.
I should not that the use of because in the syntactical representation of this equation represents causality and thus, a directionality to the series. A is caused by B which is caused by C. If you were to run the series in the opposite direction, you reverse the causality, thus "because" is replaced with "therefore":
It does not occur in the Animal Kingdom, therefore it is unnatural, therefore it is immoral.
Nowhere did I say that everything immoral must be unnatural . . . but I DID say that (according to your logic) anything unnatural must be immoral.
It is immoral because it is unnatural. It is unnatural, therefore it is immoral.
Socrates is a man. But not all men are Socrates.
I made this EXTREMELY clear more than once, and I truly believe you cannot be so thick as to not understand it, so I have to assume that you are playing silly games here.
If you persist on insisting that I said otherwise, please reproduce the exact quote where I did so.
If you wish to amend or clarify your original statement about the relationship between unnaturality and immorality, be my guest; I will then adjust my own accordingly. But this IS what you have said.
The primary question I asked you was "Does unnaturality automatically equate to immorality?"
You never successfully answered it and instead gradually shifted emphasis to how "disgusting" it is . . . "Disgusting" does not equal "immoral."
Unless, of course, you want to introduce a NEW transitive relationship for you to deny later. . . ?
This is getting tiresome.
I won't reply to your comments about the definition of "natural" at the bottom because it's not relevant. I've already agreed to accept that homosexuality is "unnatural" as a valid premise. All that remains is for you to demonstrate how that equates to immorality.
I shan't hold my breath waiting, though . . .
If you expect me to respond to all these after your comprehension issues you must be joking. I haven't got time to waste.
You have agreed homosexuality is unnatural. So since it is unnatural, it is reasonable to say something is dysfunctional about homosexuals. This means they need to be cured, not accepted.
Immorality is subjective no doubt. Just like you find consent as a moral requirement for sex. The good thing is that majority of people find homosexuality immoral AND disgusting. Combined with knowing it is dsyfunctional, that is enough grounds to ban it.
For one, we ban public nudity based on immorality and disgust, despite it being natural. So why should we not ban an act that is all that but unnatural. Logic!
@ topic >>> $hit ! >>> i come back to Nairaland >>> and it's more bad news >>> i consider the 'gay church' as an a prime example of a religious oxymoron >>> talk about gays being bigoted
If you expect me to respond to all these after your comprehension issues you must be joking. I haven't got time to waste.
You have agreed homosexuality is unnatural. So since it is unnatural, it is reasonable to say something is dysfunctional about homosexuals. This means they need to be cured, not accepted.
Immorality is subjective no doubt. Just like you find consent as a moral requirement for sex. The good thing is that majority of people find homosexuality immoral AND disgusting. Combined with knowing it is dsyfunctional, that is enough grounds to ban it.
For one, we ban public nudity based on immorality and disgust, despite it being natural. So why should we not ban an act that is all that but unnatural. Logic!
That's okay . . . I don't expect you to respond because I am quite confident that the argument I presented is airtight, despite your vain flailing away at my supposed "comprehension problems." I've sussed the kind of character you are and I don't expect you to be the kind of person to concede even the slightest defeat. And it's all well and good because (as you might tell from the tone of my last post), I had framed it to more or less be my closing statement as I really have lost interest in continuing going back and forth with you.
But just for kicks, I'll point out more of your baseless and nonsensical statements on the way out:
1. As I said numerous times, I agreed to accept that homosexuality is "unnatural" strictly for the purposes of this discussion because I was more interested in hearing you explain why unnatural = immoral. Had we made any progress (ie had you been a more honest and clear-thinking person) I would have furnished a rack of examples to counter the idea that it IS "unnatural." But unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), we never even got to the point where that was necessary.
2. The concept of consent as the bone of contention in sexual morality is not a subjective issue. IT IS THE LAW.
3. Pointing out that nudity is banned despite being natural is not doing your case any favors. You'll realize that you are actually scoring a point in my column by bringing that up if you take a moment to reflect upon it. But alas, I tire of doing your thinking for you, so I'll let you figure it out on your own.
Well, Sagamite. . . I thank you for contributing some crucial strengthening evidence to my theory about homophobia. It's much appreciated.
That's okay . . . I don't expect you to respond because I am quite confident that the argument I presented is airtight, despite your vain flailing away at my supposed "comprehension problems." I've sussed the kind of character you are and I don't expect you to be the kind of person to concede even the slightest defeat. And it's all well and good because (as you might tell from the tone of my last post), I had framed it to more or less be my closing statement as I really have lost interest in continuing going back and forth with you.
Hmm, I guess as confident as you were and as airtight as your conclusions that you got me to (1) shift my argument from natural to dysfunctional and (2) to switch my bases of condemnation of faggotism from natural to physical damage . Very airtight indeed! We all say how long those lasted despite your confidence.
joepineapp:
But just for kicks, I'll point out more of your baseless and nonsensical statements on the way out:
1. As I said numerous times, I agreed to accept that homosexuality is "unnatural" strictly for the purposes of this discussion because I was more interested in hearing you explain why unnatural = immoral. Had we made any progress (ie had you been a more honest and clear-thinking person) I would have furnished a rack of examples to counter the idea that it IS "unnatural." But unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), we never even got to the point where that was necessary.
You mean like the fact animals do not take spliff that we humans naturally take?
joepineapp:
2. The concept of consent as the bone of contention in sexual morality is not a subjective issue. IT IS THE LAW.
And so? So the law can not be based on subjective morality?
I wonder then why it is against the law to walk unclothed in public. Logic!
joepineapp:
3. Pointing out that nudity is banned despite being natural is not doing your case any favors. You'll realize that you are actually scoring a point in my column by bringing that up if you take a moment to reflect upon it. But alas, I tire of doing your thinking for you, so I'll let you figure it out on your own.
Well, Sagamite. . . I thank you for contributing some crucial strengthening evidence to my theory about homophobia. It's much appreciated.
Until our paths cross again . . .
Really!
I guess lack of comprehension will confuse you in thinking that my stating we should ban something that is unnatural implies we should accept anything that is natural. Comprehension.
That's okay . . . I don't expect you to respond because I am quite confident that the argument I presented is airtight, despite your vain flailing away at my supposed "comprehension problems." I've sussed the kind of character you are and I don't expect you to be the kind of person to concede even the slightest defeat. And it's all well and good because (as you might tell from the tone of my last post), I had framed it to more or less be my closing statement as I really have lost interest in continuing going back and forth with you.
But just for kicks, I'll point out more of your baseless and nonsensical statements on the way out:
1. As I said numerous times, I agreed to accept that homosexuality is "unnatural" strictly for the purposes of this discussion because I was more interested in hearing you explain why unnatural = immoral. Had we made any progress (ie had you been a more honest and clear-thinking person) I would have furnished a rack of examples to counter the idea that it IS "unnatural." But unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), we never even got to the point where that was necessary.
2. The concept of consent as the bone of contention in sexual morality is not a subjective issue. IT IS THE LAW.
3. Pointing out that nudity is banned despite being natural is not doing your case any favors. You'll realize that you are actually scoring a point in my column by bringing that up if you take a moment to reflect upon it. But alas, I tire of doing your thinking for you, so I'll let you figure it out on your own.
Well, Sagamite. . . I thank you for contributing some[b] crucial strengthening evidence to my theory about homophobia[/b]. It's much appreciated.
Until our paths cross again . . .
SMH at the heterophobic comment made by joeppine >>> it reminds me of how a sufferhead mod in in an Opera discussion forum >>> sent messages to all people who advocated against gay marriage (my humble self as well) telling them that their 'homophobic comments' won't be accepted
it's true what they say >>> what a wonderful world
SMH at the heterophobic comment made by joeppine >>> it reminds me of how a sufferhead mod in in an Opera discussion forum >>> sent messages to all people who advocated against gay marriage (my humble self as well) telling them that their 'homophobic comments' won't be accepted
it's true what they say >>> what a wonderful world
GAYrorisms (Gay Terrorism)!!!
And some gits will be asking you how it affects your life if it is decriminalised.
Once decriminalised, GAME OVER! Your views will gradually be suppressed and gay-glorification will be the only mainstream accepted norm. They will even advocate the necessity of indoctrination of your kids formally (through schools) or informally (through popular media of having pro-gay philosophy)
Go to ANY british media and try and say you object to homosexuality and see how you would be attacked and face contumely.
Hmm, I guess as confident as you were and as airtight as your conclusions that you got me to (1) shift my argument from natural to dysfunctional and (2) to switch my bases of condemnation of faggotism from natural to physical damage . Very airtight indeed! We all say how long those lasted despite your confidence.
LOL It's true, though . . . You did go scrambling all over the place trying to justify your irrational stance.
At least I am satisfied that in the end you have been forced to take refuge mostly in the explanation that it is "disgusting." Which of course remains a personal problem.
Sagamite:
You mean like the fact animals do not take spliff that we humans naturally take?
That would be an acute jab at me if I had actually ever even said that. But seeing as I never did, it ends up being a flaccid poke meant to save face.
It makes me feel good when you have to resort to fabrications in order to strike back at me. It shows that you have exhausted all legitimate arguments.
Sagamite:
And so? So the law can not be based on subjective morality?
It could be. But once it is codified into law, it becomes objective. There have been laws that were written based on subjective perceptions and hysteria, but they almost always end up being re-examined and repealed in saner times, once cooler heads can prevail.
And regardless, I am not the one who wrote the law, so even if the consent thing were subjective morality, it is not MY subjective morality. (Though of course, if a rational person takes even a few seconds to think about it, the consent issue is extremely pragmatic.)
Sagamite:
I wonder the why it is against the law to walk unclothed in public. Logic!
LOL I could tell you why, but why should I? You only hear what you want to hear anyway!
Sagamite:
I guess lack of comprehension will confuse you in thinking that my stating we should ban something that is unnatural implies we should accept anything that is natural. Comprehension.
Again, I dare you to find ONE quote where I said such a thing.
Go ahead, liar. Show me where I said this.
You're making yourself look REALLY bad here.
(Granted, I think we BOTH look kind of foolish going back and forth forever over here like this . . . But at least I'm not lying and saying things, then turning around to pretend I didn't say them and blaming it on someone else's "comprehension problems" when the very clear statements are here on the public record! I guess I can take comfort in that . . . )
SMH at the heterophobic comment made by joeppine >>> it reminds me of how a sufferhead mod in in an Opera discussion forum >>> sent messages to all people who advocated against gay marriage (my humble self as well) telling them that their 'homophobic comments' won't be accepted
Um. . . WHAT "heterophobic" comment did I make, pray tell?
And by the way, when have I begrudged anybody expressing their homophobic views?
I've not told Sagamite or anybody else that they are not free to express their homophobia. At no point did I tell him or anybody else that they HAVE to like homosexuals.
All I said is that homophobia is a personal problem, for the most part. And it is their problem to deal with.
@ Sagamite >>> gradually ke ! >>> they are being suppressed as my example and joepine's comment on homophobia clearly shows
one of the points i made on the discussion forum was my observation of the fact that pro-gay points are subtly interposed in the media >> i hope someone won't ask me for exmples >>> though the series 2-and-a-half-men and some slots of Kyle XY should suffice >>> that was part of what the 'concerned' mod called homophobic
Um. . . WHAT "heterophobic" comment did I make, pray tell?
*1
And by the way, when have I begrudged anybody expressing their homophobic views?
I've not told Sagamite or anybody else that they are not free to express their homophobia. At no point did I tell him or anybody else that they HAVE to like homosexuals.
All I said is that homophobia is a personal problem, for the most part. And it is their problem to deal with.
What's the problem there?*2
*1 >>> um ! >>> this is what i was referring to as heterophobic
Well, Sagamite. . . I thank you for contributing some crucial strengthening evidence to my theory about homophobia. It's much appreciated.
care to enlighten me on this evidence >>> b'cos i suppose you came here with the preconcieved notion that disagreement to homosexuality is synonymous with homophobia
It could be. But once it is codified into law, it becomes objective. There have been laws that were written based on subjective perceptions and hysteria, but they almost always end up being re-examined and repealed in saner times, once cooler heads can prevail.
ROFLMAO!!!
Ridiculous thinking level!
So it becomes objective once codified into law? And the fact that homosexuality is codified into law as a sin/abomination/unnatural is objective then? Logical reasoning is beyond you.
joepineapp:
Again, I dare you to find ONE quote where I said such a thing.
Go ahead, liar. Show me where I said this.
You're making yourself look REALLY bad here.
(Granted, I think we BOTH look kind of foolish going back and forth forever over here like this . . . But at least I'm not lying and saying things, then turning around to pretend I didn't say them and blaming it on someone else's "comprehension problems" when the very clear statements are here on the public record! I guess I can take comfort in that . . . )
Lets go through this issue of your lack of comprehension for the last time. It is the main reason it is tooo pointless debating with you, the lack of logic does not help too.
When someone says:
Sagamite:
I [b]guess [/b]lack of comprehension will confuse you in thinking that my stating we should ban something that is unnatural implies we should accept anything that is natural. Comprehension.
When someone says "I guess", a guess is an uncertain assumption, not an accusation/assertion that something has been done.
Lets go through this issue of your lack of comprehension for the last time. It is the main reason it is tooo pointless debating with you, the lack of logic does not help too.
When someone says:
When someone says "I guess", a guess is an uncertain assumption, not an accusation/assertion that something has been done.
LOL! What a copout! So why bother even saying it at all when you know you won't be able to defend it?
Is that supposed to be some lame attempt at wit? If so, I guess I just don't understand that kind of joke. Humor is usually effective when it contains a reference to something that is actually REAL and not all-out fabrications.
It's like you can't get enough of lying. I enjoy it, though . . . It's nice seeing you have to resort to the most baseless taunts when you have nothing else to say.
care to enlighten me on this evidence >>> b'cos i suppose you came here with the preconcieved notion that disagreement to homosexuality is synonymous with homophobia
I wonder!
Is homophobia even a valid word!!!
A phobia is an unhealthy and irrational fear or dislike of something.
My disapproval of homosexuality is surely not an unhealthy and irrational fear or dislike of homosexuals. It is perfectly healthy and rational, and definitely not based on fear.
Homophobia is just a popular and disparaging tag to suppress anti-gay opinions by deviant-lovers and anti-natures (lets use our own).
[b] *1 >>> um ! >>> this is what i was referring to as homophobic
care to enlighten me on this evidence >>> b'cos i suppose you came here with the preconcieved notion that disagreement to homosexuality is synonymous with homophobia
*2 >>> long story
I didn't say that disagreement with homosexuality was homophobia (though it could be argued that it is).
In any case, Sagamite DID open express many symptoms of homophobia:
- visceral, irrational revulsion? CHECK - use of disparaging epithets such as f a g g o t? CHECK - call for criminalization? CHECK - incessant ridicule, especially aimed at another person he has chosen to label as gay (Mobinga)? CHECK - actual FEAR that homosexuals will take over society and wipe out his way of life? CHECK!
Yeah, Sagamite is an out-and-out homophobe and seemingly proud of it. So what is the problem when I call him one?
How does that translate to me being a "heterophobe"? What bad thing have I said about heterosexuals?
I didn't say that disagreement with homosexuality was homophobia (though it could be argued that it is).
In any case, Sagamite DID open express many symptoms of homophobia:
- visceral, irrational revulsion? CHECK - use of disparaging epithets such as f a g g o t? CHECK - call for criminalization? CHECK - incessant ridicule, especially aimed at another person he has chosen to label as gay (Mobinga)? CHECK - actual FEAR that homosexuals will take over society and wipe out his way of life? CHECK!
Yeah, Sagamite is an out-and-out homophobe and seemingly proud of it. So what is the problem when I call him one?
How does that translate to me being a "heterophobe"? What bad thing have I said about heterosexuals?
The problem with this deviant-lover is . . . . . .
I actually kinda like your use of "deviant-lover" because it evokes the classic slur "n i g g e r-lover" which was used by old-school racists against anyone who disagreed with their beliefs (which, by the way, they also argued were based on the "natural" order of the species).
Like I said you have been a very rewarding specimen in my examination of the irrational nature of bigotry. . . Very rewarding indeed!
Oh!!!! It crushes my soul that you called me heterophobic! How shall I go on living?
joepineapp: I didn't say that disagreement with homosexuality was homophobia (though it could be argued that it is).*1
In any case, Sagamite DID open express many symptoms of homophobia:
- visceral, irrational revulsion? CHECK - use of disparaging epithets such as gay? CHECK - call for criminalization? CHECK - incessant ridicule, especially aimed at another person he has chosen to label as gay (Mobinga)? CHECK - actual FEAR that homosexuals will take over society and wipe out his way of life? CHECK!*2
Yeah, Sagamite is an out-and-out homophobe and seemingly proud of it. So what is the problem when I call him one?
How does that translate to me being a "heterophobe"? What bad thing have I said about heterosexuals?*3
*1 >>> neither did i expressly denote, that you said, that disagreement with homos equates to homophobia >>> however your statement that it can be argued is >>> shall i say ? an interesting slant
*2 >>> HETEROPHOBIC >>> checkmate
*3 >>> it is about spuriously dubbing others homophobes as well >>> i do not appreciate an unwanton use of the term
I actually kinda like your use of "deviant-lover" because it evokes the classic slur "n i g g e r-lover" which was used by old-school racists against anyone who disagreed with their beliefs (which, by the way, they also argued were based on the "natural" order of the species).
Like I said you have been a very rewarding specimen in my examination of the irrational nature of bigotry. . . Very rewarding indeed!
*1 >>> neither did i expressly denote, that you said, that disagreement with homos equates to homophobia >>> however your statement that it can be argued is >>> shall i say ? an interesting slant
*2 >>> HETEROPHOBIC >>> checkmate
*3 >>> it is about spuriously dubbing others homophobes as well >>> i do not appreciate an unwanton use of the term
I'm sorry . . . I find it really hard to understand your grammar.
re: 1. I don't know what kind of ambiguous games you are playing but you went out of your way to call me a "heterophobe" and now you are admitting that I said nothing that could be considered "heterophobic" but something something something about "an interesting slant"?
Dude, either I said it or I did not. If you say I did, then show me where. If I did not, then withdraw your statement.
2. I have no idea what that GIF has to do with me.
3. I did not make any "unwanton" use of the term "homophobe." Sagamite is one and I described him as such.
I'm sorry . . . I find it really hard to understand your grammar.*1
re: 1. I don't know what kind of ambiguous games you are playing but you went out of your way to call me a "heterophobe" and now you are admitting that I said nothing that could be considered "heterophobic" but something something something about "an interesting slant"?*2
Dude, either I said it or I did not. If you say I did, then show me where. If I did not, then withdraw your statement. 2. I have no idea what that GIF has to do with me.*3 3. I did not make any "unwanton" use of the term "homophobe." Sagamite is one and I described him as such.*4
*1 >>> go to a grammar school then >>> one has aptly been suggested for you
*2 >>> ambiguous games ? >>> you humor me >>> i showed you what caught my fancy >>> which was this
Well, Sagamite. . . I thank you for contributing some crucial strengthening evidence to my theory about homophobia. It's much appreciated.
- right of legislation to stop/end any criticism of homosexuality especially in the media, only positive things should be said or potrayed (fk free speech, gay rights takes precedence) - hound government staff to publicly support faggotism by force otherwise be terrorised - hound big businesses/companies to have and explicitly promote pro-gay employment policies otherwise be terrorised
you guys are starting to sound pathetic and desperate, wtf Nagging women. Get over it. The argument is boring and frankly annoying too. Love gays, hate gays, who cares , jeez! You believe this logic and explanations and annoyingly long posts, will change anyones opinion overnight.
The good thing is that majority of people find homosexuality immoral AND disgusting. Combined with knowing it is dsyfunctional, that is enough grounds to ban it.
Logic!
Nagging women. Get over it. The argument is boring and frankly annoying too. Love gays, hate gays, who cares , jeez! You believe this logic and explanations and annoyingly long posts, will change anyones opinion overnight.