What Exactly Do You Mean When You Label Someone As A "Homophobe"?

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Well congrats you just now opened a can of worms. You are starting to show some bias and I was really with you on this topic and understood you fully.

You made an excellent point about throwing labels so quickly then show that stupid chart. All that shows me is poor lifestyle decisions based on ones critical logical thinking. Stupid people thinking theres no risk cause I cant see anything. Stupidity thats all it is.

Originally posted by journey2010
He was also a known pedophile with a preference for teenaged boys.

edit on 13-6-2011 by journey2010 because: see above

I'm quite sick of that word being thrown around so freely. Like so many others, you apparently do not know what it means.

Originally posted by Enkii
supposedly some 67% of men have had homosexuals encounters at some point in their lives, yet only 10% are admittedly gay in our society. do the math. also look at hate crimes where boys are rape and murdered for being gay. the grand irony of it all!

Where the hell did you get these numbers?

reply to post by ModernAcademia


First. As previously stated, I am in a committed, mature relationship. With the absence of drug use and random sexual encounters, that chart does not describe me. However, since you wish to say that me being gay means this will happen.. or has a higher chance of happening... Then I ask this question:

If you were black, how would you describe that there was a MUCH larger chance of you having AIDS/HIV than if you were white? Any statistic can be used to discriminate against any group of people.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2f4c31fb1be9.png[/atsimg]

Originally posted by AngryOne

Originally posted by journey2010
He was also a known pedophile with a preference for teenaged boys.

edit on 13-6-2011 by journey2010 because: see above

I'm quite sick of that word being thrown around so freely. Like so many others, you apparently do not know what it means.

A pedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to children. My grandfather was a priest who was sexually attracted to children (teenaged boys) and acted upon this attraction. Numerous men have come forward over the last ten years with first hand accounts of this, including members of my family.

How do I not know the definition?

Originally posted by topherman420
You are starting to show some bias and I was really with you on this topic and understood you fully.

I am actually not really giving my opinion though
Just going deeper into the topic, of course if we talk about something we have to have progression right?

We can't just stand in the same x,y coordinate on the debate forever, no?

Originally posted by topherman420
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

Well congrats you just now opened a can of worms. You are starting to show some bias and I was really with you on this topic and understood you fully.

Uh Yeah - - - not surprised considering the OP. I'm surprised it took this long.

Let's refresh what the OP says (basically trying to justify his own opinions):

"But this thread is not about homosexuality, it's about the word homophobia"

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Certainly Well, to the best of my ability.

Misinformed implies (in my mind) that you have been given some information that was not entirely true. Perhaps not a total lie ( although could be in some cases).

I'm also going to throw in 'Ignorance' here: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness (from Merriam dictionary).

I could assume your 'misinformation' comes from a number of places: church, MSM, family members, friends, the list goes on. Now this 'misinformation' comes from (IMO) general 'ignorance'. In other words, most of the people spreading 'misinformation' have no authority on the topic, and in fact, barely have information. Or their information has been passed on from others with no experience.

So let's assume you know zero gay people. You have never been to a gay club/bar/establishment. The only information you have is based on hearsay or movies, etc. Depending on your lifestyle, the people you surround yourself with may have a negative bias towards gays, pushing you further from even having the idea that your beliefs on the subject could be anything but correct. Now you're in a position where all your information, albeit based on hearsay and mostly MSM, is now fact for you. The only way to change your mind (cause of being human ) would be to force you to live with a homosexual family. To show you they are just the same, and in most all cases, because they have to be, better.

I will ask- what are you afraid of? Two mom's? Two dad's? Are you afraid? Maybe just worried that because it's not 'normal' their may be some adverse affect? I'm not trying to be rude, just trying to understand.



Let me know if this makes sense. If not, I'll try, try again.

Thanks for the conversation

reply to post by journey2010


This is getting off topic, but....put simply, teenagers are not children; at least, not as far as this subject is concerned. I mean, are you saying that anyone with an attraction to anyone under the age of 18 is a pedophile? Look it up, because that's not how it works.

reply to post by AngryOne


By teenager, I am referring to 13 and 14 year old boys. (In some cases, younger. My brother was 8.)

reply to post by ElizaAshdene


you did not answer my question, as I knew you wouldn't
I asked you to pinpoint my misinformation not tell me possible sources of the same misinformation that you cannot pinpoint.

In case you still don't understand, quote me saying something based on misinformation

reply to post by ModernAcademia


In order to pinpoint where your misinformation lies, we would have to know your stance on the subject and your reasons for thinking that someone like journey should not adopt, and what are the reasons you base those conclusions on.

reply to post by topherman420


Exactly, and that is presicely why you do not say someone is misinformed, when they didn't even state their opinion yet

My bad

I had attempted intelligent debate and horribly failed. At the OP- you're right, I could never answer your question to your satisfaction as you had already decided so. Upon looking back at your prior post- I don't know what I was thinking, attempting to answer a question with so little given variables as "so if I am somewhat against gays being allowed to adopt how would you label me?" I even made every attempt to say things like 'could' and 'assume' so one would understand I was adding a hypothetical situation because of my lack of initial information. I suppose one could say I was 'ignorant' to your situation, being that I only know you through a handful of posts, so I should never had offered my expertise, for my expertise may seem to have nothing to do with your situation. Touche. Touche.

I have been set up, and took the bait. For that, feel free to laugh or giggle, whatever be your preference.

Good luck with your thread. Hope you find some answers you are seeking.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
reply to post by topherman420

 

Exactly, and that is presicely why you do not say someone is misinformed, when they didn't even state their opinion yet

I had reasoned this, thank you for clarifying. You obviously know the delicate nature of these threads.

First of all, yes, the word sucks. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that the term was orginally coined by someone in the anti-homosexual camp in an attempt to save face. Perhaps they didn't feel they deserved the biggot label, so they coined their own term that had less of a negative association to it.

I don't think I've ever actually used the word... it just doesn't work. IMO, its just a fear of social shifting, not exclusive to the homosexual debate. If the social majority embrasses homosexual acceptance it would mean those who are against homosexuality are no longer in the moral majority. I would fear no longer being considered "normal".

On a side note, I think I'd like to take a moment to coin my own term; homo-obsessive. Because its very clear to me that there are more than a few folks on this board who exhibit that trait.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


If heterosexuals are homophobics then homosexuals are heterophobic.

These new labels the gays and the dense come up with these days.......but guess what, no one is listening!

Originally posted by jjkenobi
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

What I see from the MSM and my local liberal friends is anyone who doesn't bow down and obey every command from the gay community and give them anything and everything they think they deserve is labeled a homophobe.

Maybe in your own little world it is, but in reality it's not. There's no proof that this is truly the case.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

If heterosexuals are homophobics then homosexuals are heterophobic.

These new labels the gays and the dense come up with these days.......but guess what, no one is listening!

edit on 13-6-2011 by bluemirage5 because: (no reason given)

Idiotic post. The word is nearly 40 years old, it's hardly new.

Its a political term whose time has come in an effort to demonize those who dont agree with that particular sexual bent.....if you dont endorse and laughingly and willingly welcome any one of those people into your life with open arms,you are officially a homophobe and thus open to prosectuion of a hate crime....

If you fear Homosexuals having the same Equal Rights as Heterosexuals - - then yes I consider you Homophobic (no matter your reasoning). This would include adoption rights and marriage.

There are many people who have difficulty accepting Homosexuals - - but still believe they deserve Equal Rights.

I do not consider them Homophobic.

reply to post by Annee


Good breakdown on the definition