• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay marriage a threat to humanity's future: Pope

Wessexman said:
See bold, plus I do not have to accept how a word has changed it meaning,
Click to expand...
You don't have to accept it, of course not. You can refuse to accept that 'gay' now means 'homosexual', but in doing so you make yourself look rather foolish. The origins of a word are always interesting, the current meaning of a word may indeed have changed somewhat between origin and modern usage. For example:
fundamentalist
coined 1920 in the religious sense (as is fundamentalism), from fundamental + -ist. Coined in Amer.Eng. to name a movement among Protestants c.1920-25 based on scriptural inerrancy, etc., and associated with William Jennings Bryan, among others.
Click to expand...
From: Online Etymological Dictionary.

Do you think that using the word fundamentalist is really only accurate when discussing protestant biblical inerrancy? Of course not. The meaning has changed, whether you or tohers accept that change or not. Had it not changed the term Islamic Fundamentalist would be entirely oxymoronic.

No. These are vague terms, but fundamentalism is a reaction to modernism which adapts many of its aspects, it is very narrow, literal and concerned with rather rigid fundamentals.
Click to expand...
You see? You've just placed a modern definition on the word that does not relate directly to its origins. That's fine with me, even though I don't accept your new definition. You have every right not to accept the OED's definition of homophobia, but don't expect anyone else to accept your redefinitions of the lexicon with the same degree of respect that's accorded to the OED.
 
Last edited:
Sunbelt said:
It's gay sex when one homosexual male penetrates another homosexual male. It's straight sex when a male and a female get it on. There are distinguishing factors. It's how we conservatives shed light on your clouded logic.
Click to expand...

Well, of course sex by gays is gay sex.

But it's not like gays can do sex acts that straights can't, or don't all the time.
 
Sunbelt said:
No, it didn't. You were using the same stupid redirection ploy that all liberals use when they are cornered. If you can't answer a question, blame George Bush or the conservatives!!!
Click to expand...

Yep, way over your head.

I don't like legalized gay marriage. That's my beef. I happen to be a traditionalist when it comes to this subject, and homosexuals should have no part in it. Just like polygamists, bigamists, or lovers of beasts should have no part in it.
Click to expand...

Mine mine mine!

What about interracial couples? Banning those is "traditional" too.

An argument based on nothing more than "it's traditional" isn't an argument.
 
Sunbelt said:
Problem not solved. We still have to deal with the agendas, media messages, leftist educators.... Phew! so much work yet to be done!
Click to expand...

No you don't. If we had gay marriage, there would be no more "agendas" or media messages necessary.
 
Wessexman said:
You do know there are traditional Christians ways of reading and interpreting Scripture right? That these fully explain why we do not have to maintain the Jewish dietary laws but do have to keep to basic sexual morality and other such rules?
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that Christians have a long tradition of cherry picking.
 
Wessexman said:
It is funny when people make comments about beliefs and viewpoints they clearly know little about. A clear understanding of the Catholic Church's position makes your joke rather weak, inaccurate and silly.
Click to expand...

Lighten up, Francis.
 
ric27 said:
Why do gays define themselves by their sexuality? Ask your buddy ;)


​
Click to expand...

He doesn't define himself that way. Why do you define yourself by ignorance?
 
One problem with constantly slinging the term "homophobia" around is that it loses its power. "Phobia" means "irrational fear."

Another problem is that it's so frequently misused. Those who don't approve of homosexuality don't necessarily fear it; they don't like it and don't approve of it.
 
nota bene said:
One problem with constantly slinging the term "homophobia" around is that it loses its power. "Phobia" means "irrational fear."

Another problem is that it's so frequently misused. Those who don't approve of homosexuality don't necessarily fear it; they don't like it and don't approve of it.
Click to expand...

True, but there are many that when it really comes down to it have an "irrational" fear of homosexuality. There is one poster who "fears" that his children will see two homosexuals kissing. That is a homophobe by definition. Others "fear" that gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage. Which the whole marriage fear thing is funny considering that heterosexuals have a 50% divorce rate anyway.
 
My point is that "homophobe" and "homophobia" are consistently misused on threads such as this to brand those who don't approve of same-sex marriage, etc. Not approving isn't the same as fearing and, IMO, it's an attempt to marginalize the opinions of those with whom you disagree.
 
nota bene said:
My point is that "homophobe" and "homophobia" are consistently misused on threads such as this to brand those who don't approve of same-sex marriage, etc. Not approving isn't the same as fearing and, IMO, it's an attempt to marginalize the opinions of those with whom you disagree.
Click to expand...

Well unfortunately when those who as you put it "don't approve" are questioned on why, often times the way they articulate that disapproval would lead one to believe it is rather irrational.
 
nota bene said:
Not approving isn't the same as fearing and, IMO, it's an attempt to marginalize the opinions of those with whom you disagree.
Click to expand...

I agree with you there on that principle. However, in many cases once you find out WHY the person doesn't approve, it is mainly out of fear. Hence why some use the term homophobe.

If you come up to me and say you don't approve of homosexuality because the bible tells you so. That is not being a homophobe. If you say it is because you fear it will destroy the sanctity of marriage. That would earn the label homophobe.
 
TheNextEra said:
True, but there are many that when it really comes down to it have an "irrational" fear of homosexuality. There is one poster who "fears" that his children will see two homosexuals kissing. That is a homophobe by definition. Others "fear" that gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage. Which the whole marriage fear thing is funny considering that heterosexuals have a 50% divorce rate anyway.
Click to expand...

I also have a problem with the no fault divorce laws that allow the divorce rate to be that high (though the widely touted statistic "half" of all marriages ending in divorce is a matter of some dispute). It waters down the societal perception of marriage, turns it into a transitory and frivolous enterprise to be entered into and departed with lightly, and IMO is one of the reasons same sex marriage is now being considered.
 
Last edited:
ChuckBerry said:
I also have a problem with the no fault divorce laws that allow the divorce rate to be that high (though the widely touted statistic "half" of all marriages ending in divorce is a matter of some dispute). It waters down the societal perception of marriage, turns it into a transitory and frivolous enterprise to be entered into and departed with lightly, and IMO is one of the reasons same sex marriage is now being considered.
Click to expand...

The main point being, homosexuals don't affect the "sanctity" of marriage. Heterosexuals have been tearing the "sanctity" of marriage down all on their own.
 
I agree, but I don't think a proper response to the situation is "let's water down the societal meaning of marriage even more". I would prefer people to be honest and just shack up. Civil unions for hospital visitation, wills, child custody, etc. Leave "marriage" alone.
 
ChuckBerry said:
I agree, but I don't think a proper response to the situation is "let's water down the societal meaning of marriage even more". I would prefer people to be honest and just shack up. Civil unions for hospital visitation, wills, child custody, etc. Leave "marriage" alone.
Click to expand...

I don't see gay marriage as "watering down marriage even more" so I will have to disagree with you there. Marriage is what you make of it and if you want to trivilize yours that is your right and your problem. Gay marriage no more affects my marriage than a neighbor buying a blu-ray affects my marriage. If someone's marriage is ****ty, that's on them, not because of some other marriage.
 
My point is that the further the definition of marriage slides, the less serious we as a society will take the institution. Marriage, traditionally, is between a breeding pair of man and woman, a union made permanent to have a stable foundation for the rearing of children.

No fault divorce makes it easy for two people to break up a family. Though a couple may have serious problems, having the out of divorce can often make people look for a way out rather than hash out their differences.

Now that breaking up a family is relatively easy, the whole purpose of marriage (making a foundation for a family) is compromised. That opens the door to expanding the definition of marriage and thereby the definition of family. Moving the goalposts indeed.
 
ChuckBerry said:
My point is that the further the definition of marriage slides, the less serious we as a society will take the institution. Marriage, traditionally, is between a breeding pair of man and woman, a union made permanent to have a stable foundation for the rearing of children.

No fault divorce makes it easy for two people to break up a family. Though a couple may have serious problems, having the out of divorce can often make people look for a way out rather than hash out their differences.

Now that breaking up a family is relatively easy, the whole purpose of marriage (making a foundation for a family) is compromised. That opens the door to expanding the definition of marriage and thereby the definition of family. Moving the goalposts indeed.
Click to expand...

Well you're free to interpret that as being the reason gay marriage is being looked at, but I disagree with you. I think gay marriage is being looked at because as a society people are realizing that being gay is not as bad as people were making it out to be in the past. More progressive views accepting gay people as human beings and not treating them as stigmitations in society is the reason for gay marriage being looked at in my opinion.

However, even using your example, heterosexuals are still responsible for THEIR OWN marriages and noone else is responsible for them. You can blame no fault divorce all you want but in the end it's the people, not the policies of no fault divorce, that make their own decisions.
 
nota bene said:
One problem with constantly slinging the term "homophobia" around is that it loses its power. "Phobia" means "irrational fear."

Another problem is that it's so frequently misused. Those who don't approve of homosexuality don't necessarily fear it; they don't like it and don't approve of it.
Click to expand...
Christ alive! How many more times do you need to have the definition of 'homophobic' explained to you? "Extreme and irrational dislike of homosexuals". It's an adjective, not a feckin' diagnosis.
 
nota bene said:
One problem with constantly slinging the term "homophobia" around is that it loses its power. "Phobia" means "irrational fear."
Click to expand...

That fits perfectly with some people though, including some on this thread.
 
nota bene said:
Not approving isn't the same as fearing
Click to expand...

That's true. One shouldn't use the term lightly. However, some who say they simply don't approve end up revealing that their disapproval is clearly rooted in fear or hatred and isn't rational.
 
nota bene said:
Those who don't approve of homosexuality don't necessarily fear it; they don't like it and don't approve of it.
Click to expand...

There is a natural tendency in language towards the condensation of ideas into single words. In this case, the term "homophobia" eliminates the need to say "dogmatic prejudice against sexual orientation devoid of rational thought", "acting out against inner sexual feelings in conflict with social mores", or "manifestation of sexual insecurities based upon overly expressed ego needs reliant in the approval of others".

We just say "homophobic" because it is easier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom