Homosexuality debate (split from climate change thread)

[Jedidiah]

No. It's an academic term that has a formal, neutral context, even if can be a bit inaccurate. It has been used as an insult, but it's more than that.

The only area in which a phobia is discussed academically is that of Clinical Psychology. You have admitted it is not a legitimate clinical phobia by the name homophobia. If there were it would have to refer to fear of homosexuals and homosexuality. Not only have you admitted that it is not a legitimate psychological description, But I have never heard or seen it used in even a pseudo academic fashion.

When uses it is virtually always as a condemnation and insult, just as is the word faggot. There is no meaningful difference except where you attempt to defend use of one and condemn the other.

[fm93]

So, you don't use it, but you defend its use... interesting.

Sort of like how I don't smoke or drink alcohol but defend other people's right to do so.

And in some cases, it isn't. For instance, if I am joking around with my best friend, and playfully call him a "fag", that is in no way worse than someone intentionally berating a traditional marriage defender with the term "homophobe".

I assumed it was clear that I meant a comparison in the same manner (i.e. using "homophobe" in an insulting sense and using "faggot" in an insulting sense).

Depending on the context. As I said, insults are insults, and no one is forcing anyone to be offended. That is a conscious choice on the offended party.

This rhetoric should be taken out back and shot.

You think society as a whole is objective???

The societal structure by which we measure these things is objective.

No it isn't. It is an insult. Plain and simple. If it were an "academic term", then it would have scientific support, which you have admitted that it doesn't.

It can be a misleading term but also be used in a formal, academic sense. Look at the cosmological event that's called "the Big Bang," for instance.

Sure. People say all kinds of hurtful things toward others, gay or not. The point remains that only you can choose to be offended by words directed at you, or choose to not be offended. It's just as much of a choice as the one who chose to say the words.

No, it really isn't. People can condition themselves to feel less pain or not be bothered by it, but the response is first an instinctive reaction. "Choice" makes it sound like someone had a jury deliberating in his/her head about how to feel.

It's a made-up term with no foundation in the term "phobia", therefore it has to be meant in another way. And quite frankly, having seen the spread of its usage, I have concluded that it is meant to shame, and no other purpose. If you disagree, please cite a few examples where it was meant as a less than negative characterization.

Even though it's not a clinical diagnosis, would it not make sense to describe the Westboro clan's attitude towards gay people as homophobic?

You missed the whole point. The point is the hypocrisy of those who sling the "homophobe" word as an insult while whining about being insulted. It's an irony meter explosion.

Oh yes it is! 100%, yes it is. It is condescending and belittling someone for being condescending or belittling. Magnitude is irrelevant when it comes to claiming offense over insulting terms. Either be offended over ALL offensive terms or none. It's hypocrisy to draw imaginary lines on what is "too far"

All-or-nothing tends to be a fairly narrow-minded approach. "I know I just have a papercut while the patient over there has a severed limb, but magnitude is irrelevant, doctor. Either treat ALL injuries the same or don't treat them at all."

[fm93]

or to put it another way Square_Peg like other liberals think that any group they consider as PC have the right to be protected from speech that offends them any that is not considered PC don't have that right there by showing their hypocrisy.

Sigh. You really need to expand your view. I'm not a liberal. Not being conservative is not the same thing as being liberal.

The only area in which a phobia is discussed academically is that of Clinical Psychology. You have admitted it is not a legitimate clinical phobia by the name homophobia. If there were it would have to refer to fear of homosexuals and homosexuality. Not only have you admitted that it is not a legitimate psychological description, But I have never heard or seen it used in even a pseudo academic fashion.

You've never heard of people who characterize the Westboro clan's attitude as homophobia? It is a neutral term in this context to describe the condition of being irrationally aversive to homosexuality, and is not an insult.

When uses it is virtually always as a condemnation and insult, just as is the word faggot. There is no meaningful difference except where you attempt to defend use of one and condemn the other.

What do you not understand about the concept of one term having deep emotional and historical baggage from years of the word being used in the context of severe oppression and mistreatment, whereas another term lacks that?

[Jedidiah]

You've never heard of people who characterize the Westboro clan's attitude as homophobia? It is a neutral term in this context to describe the condition of being irrationally aversive to homosexuality, and is not an insult.

When I have heard/read the term homophobia used about the Westboro idiocy it was insulting not neutral. How could anyone be neutral about the Westboro garbage?

[Bill the Cat]

Sort of like how I don't smoke or drink alcohol but defend other people's right to do so.

Or how you defend others' right to use other slurs that the left feels are "oppressive"... oh wait...

I assumed it was clear that I meant a comparison in the same manner (i.e. using "homophobe" in an insulting sense and using "faggot" in an insulting sense).

It wasn't. And if that's the case, then neither is more or less insulting. Both would be used in the same insulting fashion to shame the other. The fact that you consider one worse than the other by using current societal acceptance of one insult shows just how subjective your claim is. In fact, I would argue that "homophobe" is actually worse because, unlike "faggot" which is a slur used to insult someone, the "homophobe" hammer is used to paint the individual as not even worthy of continuing the conversation. Few words like "homophobe" are meant to completely silence the remaining discussion. It is often employed as the conversation stopper, deeming the "phobe" unworthy to continue to be tolerated.

This rhetoric should be taken out back and shot.

It's basic bully prevention "rhetoric" . It is what we are taught when we are toddlers. "Sticks and stones" and all that. Words only have the ability to offend you if you let them. Let me say it this way... which would offend you more?

1) Congratulations, "faggot", you got the job.
2) Sorry sir, you didn't get the job because you are a homosexual with sub-standard intelligence.

The societal structure by which we measure these things is objective.

That's why it keeps changing...

It can be a misleading term but also be used in a formal, academic sense. Look at the cosmological event that's called "the Big Bang," for instance.

Where is the term "Big Bang" ever used in a negative and insulting way with the intent of shutting down the conversation (And Jorge doesn't count...)

No, it really isn't.

Yes it really is.

People can condition themselves to feel less pain or not be bothered by it, but the response is first an instinctive reaction.

Of course they can condition themselves. We call that "maturity"

"Choice" makes it sound like someone had a jury deliberating in his/her head about how to feel.

They do. Unless they have a brain malfunction that does not allow their conscience to act.

Even though it's not a clinical diagnosis, would it not make sense to describe the Westboro clan's attitude towards gay people as homophobic?

No. Their actions can be described as pure hyper-ideologically driven stupidity.

All-or-nothing tends to be a fairly narrow-minded approach.

Not in this case. It forces you to validate the feelings of one person while slamming the feelings of someone else.

"I know I just have a papercut while the patient over there has a severed limb, but magnitude is irrelevant, doctor. Either treat ALL injuries the same or don't treat them at all."

Ahem... no Try this one:

But Your Honor, the last guy was going 30 miles over the speed limit. I was only going 15. Why should I be fined too? His was much worse. I should be let off scot-free because his infraction was far worse than mine.

[fm93]

Or how you defend others' right to use other slurs that the left feels are "oppressive"... oh wait...

Why the emphasis on "the left?" Those slurs were and ARE used in oppressive contexts, regardless of what one's political leanings are. This should be obvious.

It wasn't. And if that's the case, then neither is more or less insulting. Both would be used in the same insulting fashion to shame the other. The fact that you consider one worse than the other by using current societal acceptance of one insult shows just how subjective your claim is.

That's not what I've argued.

In fact, I would argue that "homophobe" is actually worse because, unlike "faggot" which is a slur used to insult someone, the "homophobe" hammer is used to paint the individual as not even worthy of continuing the conversation. Few words like "homophobe" are meant to completely silence the remaining discussion. It is often employed as the conversation stopper, deeming the "phobe" unworthy to continue to be tolerated.

Actually, "faggot" WAS used to silence the discussion and paint the individual as not being worthy of conversation. That's because quite a few people who were called faggots were ostracized by their own family, abused and sometimes even killed for being gay, thereby silencing them permanently and painting them as not being worthy of basic dignity and life, let alone conversation. When's the last time "homophobe" was used in that context?

It's basic bully prevention "rhetoric" . It is what we are taught when we are toddlers. "Sticks and stones" and all that. Words only have the ability to offend you if you let them.

It does not begin as a conscious choice, but as an instinctive reaction.

Let me say it this way... which would offend you more?

1) Congratulations, "faggot", you got the job.
2) Sorry sir, you didn't get the job because you are a homosexual with sub-standard intelligence.

I'm not gay, so I wouldn't know. I'd have to ask a gay person. But I do suspect that something like "We don't hire faggots like you" would strike a deeper chord than the first option.

That's why it keeps changing...

Your point being...? Objective doesn't mean something never changes. Again, "faggot" is deeply offensive because it was used and still is used in the context of widespread systemic oppression and persecution on a cultural and institutional level and thus carries much emotional and historical baggage. In other words, the societal structure was stacked against gay people in ways that allowed for terrible mistreatment, abuse and injustice to happen. The word "homophobe," when used in an insulting manner, will objectively have that type of deep impact due to emotional and historical baggage when straight people experience that.

Where is the term "Big Bang" ever used in a negative and insulting way with the intent of shutting down the conversation (And Jorge doesn't count...)

I don't see how that's relevant. (Although ironically, the person who coined the term initially meant it in a derogatory manner. I don't think that's the case with "homophobia," though.)

Of course they can condition themselves. We call that "maturity"

A poor choice of words, since it implies that someone who continues to feel offended is immature. People's feelings and emotions move at different levels, and in some situations people should feel offended--if you believe that you and your brethren are deserving of human respect and dignity, feeling angry that someone hates you for who you are and is trying to discriminate you is a logical reaction to have.

They do. Unless they have a brain malfunction that does not allow their conscience to act.

You're telling me that your brain doesn't generate instinctive feelings? That when you hear something, the message goes to a part of neurological center that first consciously evaluates both sides before you have any sort of feeling at all? Fascinating. Does this work for physical pain as well? Someone slaps you in the face and you consciously ponder "Hmm...should I feel pain or not? Let's flip a coin. It's heads. I think I won't bother feeling pain today?"

No. Their actions can be described as pure hyper-ideologically driven stupidity.

Which is influenced by an irrational aversion to homosexuality, which academics have decided to call "homophobia," which in this case is clearly intended to be descriptive rather than an insult.

Not in this case. It forces you to validate the feelings of one person while slamming the feelings of someone else.

Not really. Both people's feelings are taken to be valid. It's just that the scope of one is much more significant. It's a comment on just how bad the other person has had it, not a dismissive hand-waving that says you haven't had anything bad at all.

Ahem... no Try this one:

But Your Honor, the last guy was going 30 miles over the speed limit. I was only going 15. Why should I be fined too? His was much worse. I should be let off scot-free because his infraction was far worse than mine.

No. My analogy is far more accurate because it involves a feeling that naturally occurs due to various types of injurious experiences, whereas yours involves actions. Yours is also fallacious in that I wouldn't claim that the person who drove 15 MPH over the limit shouldn't be punished at all. What I'd argue is that the 15 MPH speeder should be fined X amount, while the 30 MPH speeder should be fined 2X.

[Zymologist]

Which is influenced by an irrational aversion to homosexuality, which academics have decided to call "homophobia," which in this case is clearly intended to be descriptive rather than an insult.

Out of curiosity, if the term really is meant descriptively and not insultingly (some of the time, at least), then why do you not use it?

[Bill the Cat]

Why the emphasis on "the left?" Those slurs were and ARE used in oppressive contexts, regardless of what one's political leanings are. This should be obvious.

Because the left is the political side making an issue of the "feelings being hurt", not the right.

That's not what I've argued.

If you say so...

Actually, "faggot" WAS used to silence the discussion and paint the individual as not being worthy of conversation.

No it isn't. It is often used to antagonize someone to continue an argument. "Homophobe" is specifically used to squelch an argument from a position of self-awarded "sensitivity superiority".

That's because quite a few people who were called faggots were ostracized by their own family, abused and sometimes even killed for being gay, thereby silencing them permanently and painting them as not being worthy of basic dignity and life, let alone conversation. When's the last time "homophobe" was used in that context?

The terms are dissimilar, so comparing their "contexts" is improper. And no one has ever called a another person a "faggot", and that word itself killed them. So, your attempt to separate two derogatory terms by mentioning other non-dependent actions is fallacious. And by non-dependent actions, I mean that the abuse can occur without the slurs.

It does not begin as a conscious choice, but as an instinctive reaction.

And as we mature, we learn that our basic instincts need to be controlled by logical decisions, including our getting offended. A mature human learns to master those instincts.

I'm not gay, so I wouldn't know. I'd have to ask a gay person. But I do suspect that something like "We don't hire faggots like you" would strike a deeper chord than the first option.

All I am asking is which do you believe is more offensive, calling them a "faggot" or actually oppressing them solely for being one?

Your point being...? Objective doesn't mean something never changes.

Yes it does. Objective standards are independent of societal whims.

Again, "faggot" is deeply offensive because it was used and still is used in the context of widespread systemic oppression and persecution on a cultural and institutional level and thus carries much emotional and historical baggage.

And when one matures, they learn to separate word and deed. Immature people can't.

In other words, the societal structure was stacked against gay people in ways that allowed for terrible mistreatment, abuse and injustice to happen. The word "homophobe," when used in an insulting manner, will objectively have that type of deep impact due to emotional and historical baggage when straight people experience that.

We are experiencing it now with the liberal backed "sensitivity training", fines, suspensions, and public ostracizing of anyone who dares speak against homosexual behavior. We are forbidden from expressing our First Amendment right to free speech by our employers, like Alec Baldwin, Mike Priefer, Yunel Escobar, Nate Diaz, Kobe Bryant, Alan Gordon, Marc Burch, and a host of others. When deliberately applied, the term "homophobe" has ended careers in politics, the ministry, sports, entertainment and education.

I don't see how that's relevant. (Although ironically, the person who coined the term initially meant it in a derogatory manner. I don't think that's the case with "homophobia," though.)

The first recorded use in print of the term "homophobia" was by activists Jack Nichols and Lige Clarke in their May 23rd column in Screw magazine, 1969. I can assure you, it wasn't used in a positive light.

A poor choice of words, since it implies that someone who continues to feel offended is immature.

They are. Allowing your base instincts to rule your logical processes is one of the basic marks of immaturity.

People's feelings and emotions move at different levels, and in some situations people should feel offended--if you believe that you and your brethren are deserving of human respect and dignity, feeling angry that someone hates you for who you are and is trying to discriminate you is a logical reaction to have.

I don't care who hates me. When they actively discriminate through deed, then a mature response can be had. Allowing your emotions to rule your actions is immature.

You're telling me that your brain doesn't generate instinctive feelings

No. I am telling you that a mature person pauses before the instincts are acted upon and weighs the consequences of action.

That when you hear something, the message goes to a part of neurological center that first consciously evaluates both sides before you have any sort of feeling at all? Fascinating. Does this work for physical pain as well? Someone slaps you in the face and you consciously ponder "Hmm...should I feel pain or not? Let's flip a coin. It's heads. I think I won't bother feeling pain today?"

You are intentionally being obtuse. If someone slaps me in the face, I will not be in control of the signals sent to my brain by the affected nerves, but what I AM in charge of is whether I will give the slapper the satisfaction of me putting my hand to my face, or standing there stone faced and unresponsive. Maturity comes in when you decide whether or not to act instinctively or deliberately.

Which is influenced by an irrational aversion to homosexuality,

Irrational by whose standard? I see full rationality in opposing homosexual behavior.

which academics have decided to call "homophobia," which in this case is clearly intended to be descriptive rather than an insult.

It is meant to be accompanied by guilt-inducing and mental illness connotations, therefore, it is an insult.

Not really. Both people's feelings are taken to be valid. It's just that the scope of one is much more significant. It's a comment on just how bad the other person has had it, not a dismissive hand-waving that says you haven't had anything bad at all.

No, it is allowing one group to use a hateful and insulting slur because they supposedly have been "oppressed" by another. And it is rank hypocrisy.

No. My analogy is far more accurate because it involves a feeling that naturally occurs due to various types of injurious experiences, whereas yours involves actions.

No yours doesn't. It tries to compare a routine paper cut to an amputated extremity. Your analogy has nothing to do with this topic.

Yours is also fallacious in that I wouldn't claim that the person who drove 15 MPH over the limit shouldn't be punished at all. What I'd argue is that the 15 MPH speeder should be fined X amount, while the 30 MPH speeder should be fined 2X.

So, you admit that people who call others "homophobes" should be fined, fired, ostracized, etc, but just at a lesser degree?

[fm93]

Because the left is the political side making an issue of the "feelings being hurt", not the right.

Which implies that people who lean left tend to be more compassionate than people who lean right. Is that the intended takeaway here? That people who lean right are too callous to care when fellow human beings tell them that they find certain terms deeply hurtful?

No it isn't. It is often used to antagonize someone to continue an argument.

Not even close. It's used to demean and dehumanize someone as if he/she doesn't matter. As if he/she is less than equal in terms of intrinsic human worth and dignity.

"Homophobe" is specifically used to squelch an argument from a position of self-awarded "sensitivity superiority".

So literally every instance of usage that you've heard has gone something like "Shut up, homophobe?"

The terms are dissimilar

Then what are you arguing about? That's precisely what I've claimed, and how this whole thread got started in the first place.

And no one has ever called a another person a "faggot", and that word itself killed them. So, your attempt to separate two derogatory terms by mentioning other non-dependent actions is fallacious. And by non-dependent actions, I mean that the abuse can occur without the slurs.

No one is arguing otherwise. The point is that the word "faggot" can evoke painful memories and conjure terrible images of those times of abuse, whereas "homophobe" (even when used with an intent to insult rather than describe) can't do that.

And as we mature, we learn that our basic instincts need to be controlled by logical decisions, including our getting offended. A mature human learns to master those instincts.

Logical decisions control the actions following the instinctive feeling, not the instinctive feeling itself. You have the causative process backwards.

All I am asking is which do you believe is more offensive, calling them a "faggot" or actually oppressing them solely for being one?

Your wording implies that you believe "faggot" is a fitting term for gay people. Assuming that you meant "calling them a faggot or actually oppressing them solely for being gay," I'd suspect that a gay person would feel more angered at being demonstrably oppressed...but I don't understand how that's at all relevant.

And when one matures, they learn to separate word and deed. Immature people can't.

What do you mean by "separate word and deed?"

We are experiencing it now with the liberal backed "sensitivity training", fines, suspensions, and public ostracizing of anyone who dares speak against homosexual behavior.

The two situations aren't even remotely similar. Your civil rights and liberties aren't being violated, since you aren't being discriminated against on the basis of protected characteristics or forbidden to marry. Religious and political groups don't release widely disseminated hate speech about you in which they claim that you're likely to be diseased or a pedophile. You aren't bullied on the basis of your orientation.

We are forbidden from expressing our First Amendment right to free speech by our employers

The right to free speech doesn't mean that you can't be ostracized by society or punished by a private employer for saying something offensive/distasteful.

like Alec Baldwin, Mike Priefer, Yunel Escobar, Nate Diaz, Kobe Bryant, Alan Gordon, Marc Burch, and a host of others.

Good grief. Priefer said "We should round up all the gays, send them to an island, and then nuke it until it glows." Baldwin called someone a fellatio-performing slur in a much more crude manner than the sanitized version that I presented, and the rest of those people are idolized by millions of young kids and adolescents who strive to emulate those athletes' every move. Of course they should've been punished and then educated about the hurtful nature and potential damaging impact of their words.

When deliberately applied, the term "homophobe" has ended careers in politics, the ministry, sports, entertainment and education.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

The first recorded use in print of the term "homophobia" was by activists Jack Nichols and Lige Clarke in their May 23rd column in Screw magazine, 1969. I can assure you, it wasn't used in a positive light.

Who said it was ever used in a positive light? "Neutral (aka without a deliberate intent to offend)" isn't the same as being positive or negative.

They are. Allowing your base instincts to rule your logical processes is one of the basic marks of immaturity.

No one is saying that "base instincts" should rule over logical processes.

I don't care who hates me. When they actively discriminate through deed, then a mature response can be had. Allowing your emotions to rule your actions is immature.

I've said nothing about allowing emotions to rule one's actions.

No. I am telling you that a mature person pauses before the instincts are acted upon and weighs the consequences of action.

Which is precisely what many gay people who feel offended happen to do. But it doesn't magically erase the fact that they instinctively experience feelings of anger.

You are intentionally being obtuse. If someone slaps me in the face, I will not be in control of the signals sent to my brain by the affected nerves, but what I AM in charge of is whether I will give the slapper the satisfaction of me putting my hand to my face, or standing there stone faced and unresponsive. Maturity comes in when you decide whether or not to act instinctively or deliberately.

We see an issue by now--you're assuming that I'm talking about action when I'm not. All I've been saying is that one doesn't have a conscious choice over how one instinctively feels upon hearing a certain word. How one chooses to act upon that feeling is utterly irrelevant to what I've said.

Irrational by whose standard?

You want to argue that the Phelps clan's aversion to homosexuality, which they verbally express by using the word "faggot" in every damn sentence and physically express by picketing funerals and gleefully telling people that deceased gay folks are going to hell is rational?

I see full rationality in opposing homosexual behavior.

There you go again. You're making assumptions about behavior/action where it isn't mentioned. Far too many people here words like "gay" or "homosexuality" and automatically think of sexual intercourse between two males (for some reason the image of two females hardly ever occurs to people). But the words simply refer to the orientation; i.e the nature of experiencing feelings of attraction only towards members of the same sex.

It is meant to be accompanied by guilt-inducing and mental illness connotations, therefore, it is an insult.

You personally may find it insulting, but in the particular instance it was not intended to be an insult.

No, it is allowing one group to use a hateful and insulting slur because they supposedly have been "oppressed" by another.

The oppression was and is very much real. There's no "supposedly" about it. And for the last time, genuine slurs derive their sting from evoked memories of widespread mistreatment and injustice, which "homophobe" cannot evoke.

No yours doesn't. It tries to compare a routine paper cut to an amputated extremity. Your analogy has nothing to do with this topic.

It has everything to do with the topic, which is magnitude of pain.

So, you admit that people who call others "homophobes" should be fined, fired, ostracized, etc, but just at a lesser degree?

No. I would personally tell those people "'Homophobe' is hardly the best term to use; just describe them as 'anti-gay' or 'having homonegativity.' Otherwise you're being a tad insensitive towards people with genuine phobias."

[fm93]

Out of curiosity, if the term really is meant descriptively and not insultingly (some of the time, at least), then why do you not use it?

Because I believe that it cheapens the experiences and suffering of people with genuine phobias, and because I think terms like "homonegativity" or "anti-gay" suffice and are more accurate.

[Bill the Cat]

Which implies that people who lean left tend to be more compassionate than people who lean right.

More like overly hyper-sensitive

Is that the intended takeaway here? That people who lean right are too callous to care when fellow human beings tell them that they find certain terms deeply hurtful?

No. The takeaway should be simply "grow up". They are just words.

Not even close. It's used to demean and dehumanize someone as if he/she doesn't matter. As if he/she is less than equal in terms of intrinsic human worth and dignity.

I'm sure some cases are meant to mean that. But there are many words that mean that too.

So literally every instance of usage that you've heard has gone something like "Shut up, homophobe?"

Pretty much. When it is applied to someone making comments that are contrary to full acceptance of homosexual behavior (and yes, that IS what it is about, not the professed attraction itself.) it is meant to silence that person and brand them with a term that implies mental illness and is meant to induce guilt for using the comments. It is not meant to foster a continuing discussion.

Then what are you arguing about? That's precisely what I've claimed, and how this whole thread got started in the first place.

I mean the targets of each slur are different. You are claiming that one is "far worse" than another. I disagree.

No one is arguing otherwise. The point is that the word "faggot" can evoke painful memories and conjure terrible images of those times of abuse, whereas "homophobe" (even when used with an intent to insult rather than describe) can't do that.

But being labeled a "homophobe" can also lead to abuse, discrimination, monetary discipline, and loss of gainful employment, while being called a "faggot" will elicit champions to defend you from any andf all discrimination. Therefore, being labeled a homophobe is now worse than being called a faggot.

Logical decisions control the actions following the instinctive feeling, not the instinctive feeling itself. You have the causative process backwards.

That's what I said.

Your wording implies that you believe "faggot" is a fitting term for gay people.

As much as any slur is "fitting". I also jokingly call my best friend one from time to time, among other things, as does he toward me. Sue me.

Assuming that you meant "calling them a faggot or actually oppressing them solely for being gay," I'd suspect that a gay person would feel more angered at being demonstrably oppressed...but I don't understand how that's at all relevant.

Because words are not what oppresses people. That's what the "easy to offend" group needs to get through their wadded up panties.

What do you mean by "separate word and deed?"

I've already explained it many times. It's basic anti-bullying defense. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can NEVER hurt me. If you simply allow words without deeds to offend you, you need to grow the hell up.

The two situations aren't even remotely similar. Your civil rights and liberties aren't being violated, since you aren't being discriminated against on the basis of protected characteristics or forbidden to marry.

When you have been forced to attend 16 mandatory hours of "sensitivity training" under threat of docked pay, then you can lecture me about being discriminated against based on speech. But until that day, you have no leg to stand on.

Religious and political groups don't release widely disseminated hate speech about you in which they claim that you're likely to be diseased or a pedophile.

Do I need to remind you of the group labeled a "hate group" by the liberal SPLC, and what it cost them? Face it, Peggie, you are either talking from blatant ignorance or willful dishonesty.

You aren't bullied on the basis of your orientation.

It's worse for us. We are bullied for our opinions.

The right to free speech doesn't mean that you can't be ostracized by society or punished by a private employer for saying something offensive/distasteful.

So glad you understand that it happens, and frequently at that.

Good grief. Priefer said "We should round up all the gays, send them to an island, and then nuke it until it glows." Baldwin called someone a fellatio-performing slur in a much more crude manner than the sanitized version that I presented, and the rest of those people are idolized by millions of young kids and adolescents who strive to emulate those athletes' every move. Of course they should've been punished and then educated about the hurtful nature and potential damaging impact of their words.

And that "punished and educated" is institutionalized discrimination. Thank you for realizing that.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Being labeled a "homophobe" has caused people to lose their livelihoods. If you don't see how that is discrimination, then you are a fool.

Who said it was ever used in a positive light? "Neutral (aka without a deliberate intent to offend)" isn't the same as being positive or negative.

There is no "neutral" use of the word, Peggie. It is intended to shame the opponent's comment or belief in EVERY instance. I dare you to show otherwise.

No one is saying that "base instincts" should rule over logical processes.

That is what happens when someone claims that they are offended by someone else's comments. Their basic instinct rules out over their logical process of not allowing mere words to elicit an outward emotional response.

I've said nothing about allowing emotions to rule one's actions.

Claiming offense is just that.

Which is precisely what many gay people who feel offended happen to do. But it doesn't magically erase the fact that they instinctively experience feelings of anger.

Never said that it would. But mature people do not act upon that initial feeling. They realize that they are just words, and can not do any harm.

We see an issue by now--you're assuming that I'm talking about action when I'm not. All I've been saying is that one doesn't have a conscious choice over how one instinctively feels upon hearing a certain word. How one chooses to act upon that feeling is utterly irrelevant to what I've said.

You are claiming that one word is "worse" than another. I am countering that they are not either better or worse. They are both only words. The actions behind the usage is where the "worse" comes into play, and the one that is now worse is not the one you have claimed.

You want to argue that the Phelps clan's aversion to homosexuality, which they verbally express by using the word "faggot" in every damn sentence and physically express by picketing funerals and gleefully telling people that deceased gay folks are going to hell is rational?

Their aversion is rational, but their methods for expressing it is not.

There you go again. You're making assumptions about behavior/action where it isn't mentioned. Far too many people here words like "gay" or "homosexuality" and automatically think of sexual intercourse between two males (for some reason the image of two females hardly ever occurs to people).

Psychoanalyze much?

But the words simply refer to the orientation; i.e the nature of experiencing feelings of attraction only towards members of the same sex.

Sorry, no. As with nearly every Christian who does not bow to societal pressure, and who maintains a biblical outlook on human sexual behavior, we have a rational reason to oppose homosexual behavior. The attraction is simply seen as a sinful propensity, but not a sin in and of itself. Framing it in any other way is a straw man.

You personally may find it insulting, but in the particular instance it was not intended to be an insult.

Yes it was.

The oppression was and is very much real. There's no "supposedly" about it. And for the last time, genuine slurs derive their sting from evoked memories of widespread mistreatment and injustice, which "homophobe" cannot evoke.

Oh yes it can. And until you have been labeled one, and suffered the repercussions of being labeled one, you are 100% ignorant of the injustice that results.

It has everything to do with the topic, which is magnitude of pain.

I'm sorry, but no. Your subjective opinion of which is comparable to a "paper cut" now is thoroughly irrelevant, which makes this analogy weak. I've already shown you a half dozen specific public instances where the result was far more painful to the one labeled "homophobe" than the one labeled a "faggot"

No. I would personally tell those people "'Homophobe' is hardly the best term to use; just describe them as 'anti-gay' or 'having homonegativity.' Otherwise you're being a tad insensitive towards people with genuine phobias."

And then somehow punish them for that "homonegativity", right?

[lilpixieofterror]

Which implies that people who lean left tend to be more compassionate than people who lean right. Is that the intended takeaway here? That people who lean right are too callous to care when fellow human beings tell them that they find certain terms deeply hurtful?

Your majesty, if I may correct your poor logic here for a moment, could you just not being charitable because a person dares to disagree with you? Could it be possible that people's versions of 'compassionate' are simply different than your own? My take away is that you don't know what you're talking about and should be quiet until you do learn what you are talking about. For example, what is more 'compassionate', to let somebody live in a delusional fantasy or to cure them from their delusional fantasy? Your highness, perhaps you should learn what 'compassion' is all about before you attempt to lecture others for not having any for simply daring to disagree with you?