• 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!

Slander in Politics

If a person smears a Christian as a "homophobe," should that person returh fire?


  • Total voters
    27
My cousin's gay, yet somehow we manage to have respectful and interesting discussions about it and other morals in society. :shrug:

Well, then, maybe you're just not a homophobe. ;)
 
I couldn't quite work out whether you agree or disagree with Wessexman's restriction of the use of the word to its original psychoanalytic meaning.

One can use the word(s) beginning 'homophob-' in its original, psychoanalytical sense, of course. A statement such as: "According to the psychiatric report on the accused, his violent behaviour may be related to his deep seated homophobia. The victim, he says, made sexual advances and he reacted in an inappropriately violent manner." The wider and more common use of the word in the modern vernacular, and attested to by its modern and universal dictionary definitions, suggests that the meaning has changed.
But it can still hold some of the original meaning, because the term phobia is a key part of the word and we don;t have to accept every trendy neologism.
 
I can't find anything to disagree with in your post. Dictionary definitions do tend to be a snapshot in time of perceived meaning. As soon as a word is published its meaning may have changed in popular social and cultural understanding.

Coincidentally, as I'm rwriting this I'm listening to a BBC Radio 4 programme about the evolution of words. That is sooo weird! Pure coincidence, it just followed on from the midday news. They are discussing the etymology of the word 'stroke'. At the moment they are explaining that in early English the word derived from the idea of being struck by the hand of God. Interesting stuff. Check it out, you can listen to it here....
Is Stephen Fry the presenter? ;)
 
I didn't want to show my agreement or disagreement in this case - but the larger focus isn't about the psychoanalytical meaning - that's a red herring. The majority of people use a modern vernacular colloquially, not via a definition. Rap music, local cultural norms, television, popular culture.... all of these meanings and sub-meaning and slangs have much more to do with how we process language than the actual etymology of words. Even highly educated and professional are ignorant of their own language beyond what they learned in schools. I think we're looking at the issue the wrong way. We should be looking at how these words are used culturally and socially to understand the meaning and not in the modern dictionary definitions.
Up to a point I agree, but with this word this is how it is used and it carries its sinister attempt at diagnosis easily recognisable in the word with the term 'phobia'.
 
Imo, it just depends on the individual poster. If someone doesn't like homosexuals, doesn't like Christians, doesn't like white trash, or whatever their particular dislike is, it doesn't equate to poor character. It's just personal opinions, and not a moral or character issue. I don't care what people like or dislike, because that's not the things on which people should be judged.

However one chooses to respond is up to them, and whether or not they desire to get into a pissing contest.
 
Up to a point I agree, but with this word this is how it is used and it carries its sinister attempt at diagnosis easily recognisable in the word with the term 'phobia'.

An irrational fear is a phobia. It often applies.
 
Imo, it just depends on the individual poster. If someone doesn't like homosexuals, doesn't like Christians, doesn't like white trash, or whatever their particular dislike is, it doesn't equate to poor character. It's just personal opinions, and not a moral or character issue. I don't care what people like or dislike, because that's not the things on which people should be judged.

Sure. It's when they try to apply their dislikes to public policy when they go too far.
 
Sure. It's when they try to apply their dislikes to public policy when they go too far.
Would opposing gay marriage met the criteria of going too far? Can someone oppose gay marriage and not be a homophobe?
 
Would opposing gay marriage met the criteria of going too far? Can someone oppose gay marriage and not be a homophobe?
Of course you can, it's just that those non-homophobic opponents are not the ones driving the debate or speaking out in public.
 
Of course you can, it's just that those non-homophobic opponents are not the ones driving the debate or speaking out in public.
If it is possible to not be a homophobe and oppose gay marriage, then how did you come to this conclusion?

I mean do homophobes have something like a mark of Cain on their foreheads?
 
Last edited:
"Homophobe" implies irrational fear/contempt/hatred for homosexuals. Christians who view homosexuality as a sin have none of those ill feeling towards homosexuals.

:shrug:

That would be true of the Christian that was, in fact, exercising his faith correctly. In the real world, there are many Christians (and Christians are flawed like everyone esle) who's wrath for homosexuality crosses the line to HATE for homosexuals. They hide behind the mantra of hate the sin; love the sinner, but they ware really hating the sinner as well.

In fact, the Evangelical community, as a whole, as a sinful jones for homosexuality. Yes, it is a sin as set forth in many places in the Bible, but its not a sin that Christ even spoke once about. Christ, OTH, spoke extensively about money, greed and the sanctity of marriage (not that is was between one man and one women, but that it was marriage for life). In fact, Christ said that to re-marry after divorce (with the except of adultery by the other spouse) was adultery.

See core message of Christ in the Beatitudes Matthew 5 and 6:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...+5&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...10&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...06&version=NIV

Its amazing to me that the morality of many Evangelicals is so selective. When was the last time an Evangelical challenged the American love of money? (Greed is not only not good, its a sin?) One wonders if most of these people have even read the Gospel. Sorry, but until you hear a Christian express outrage at all sinful actions of our society, including divorce and love of money, they have little credibility speaking on behalf of God. Instead, they are using the Lord's name in vain in speaking on behalf of their own fears and their own hate.
 
Last edited:
A ‘smear’, as the word is being used in this poll, is to damage someone's reputation by slandering, making false accusations. The way this poll was written Wake clearly presumes that calling someone that is a Christian homophobe is a smear. That is simply not correct, one who calls himself a Christian may or may not be a homophobe. And what other word would one use other than homophobe that is more accurate and not a swear word or the ilk. All the choices in his poll suffer from the presumption that describing a Christian as a homophobe is a smear. All kinds of people are homophobes, maybe most people are. What is most interesting is that many Christians think that they are being singled out as homophobes. Why is that? That is the part I find interesting.
 
Both politics and the news media must be cleaned up.
Here we need better people....maybe 50 years from now.
Scumbags die hard.
And Newt Gingrich was correct in "chewing out" the media - they had it coming !
Now we must examine the behavior of Mr Gingrich (NOT his personal life, that is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.)
 
I have a few questions.

I notice that there are people who are more socially-liberal who, continuously, insult the more socially-conservative for their stances on social issues.

This is what I ask: If a liberal slanders a Christian by calling him/her a "homophobe/whatever," why should that person not turn around and insult the person's degenerate moral character?

What do we do about this? Why is it that those more on the left are allowed to smear people with epithets of "racist/homophobe/bigot/etc?"
There is more than a little truth to this, IMO. It would not hurt for the so-called Christians to clean up their act...They must acknowledge their humanity.

Why shouldn't those being smeared with those malicious insults not turn around and at least chastise them on their moral degeneracy?

Or, better yet, why can't we seem to get people [all people] to stop smearing/insulting each other?
A gentleman does not stoop to any lower level; if so, he is NOT a gentleman.
Both conservatives and liberals do this silly insulting of each other.
Try debating instead.
Yes, I know this is difficult if not impossible...
 
Would opposing gay marriage met the criteria of going too far? Can someone oppose gay marriage and not be a homophobe?

Sure, I think one can. But I think many oppose it due to hatred of gays.
 
If it is possible to not be a homophobe and oppose gay marriage, then how did you come to this conclusion?

I mean do homophobes have something like a mark of Cain on their foreheads?

No, but they tend to talk about WHY they oppose gay marriage.
 
Sure, I think one can. But I think many oppose it due to hatred of gays.

I don't oppose gay marriage out of hatred of gays. :shrugg:

Many liberals talk about keeping a tolerant, open mind, yet many are far too inclined to jump to conclusions and call those who are against gay marriage to promarily be "hateful of gays."

Talk about hypocrisy.

And it's also rich how some people are saying that you can be a Christian AND a homophobe. A true Christian does not hate, or at least tries not to. No Christains are perfect, but they strive to uphold their morals and not sin. Perhaps a Christian can err and hate gays, but it certainly isn't hateful/homophobic to oppose gay marriage. The left needs to open its eyes on this and stop painting all Christians who oppose gay marriage as "homophobes."
 
No, I don't think an irrational fear is a phobia. I think a phobia is more particular than that.

You are correct.

What we see are many liberals who act like armchair pstchiatrists, and label people they don't really know as "homophobes."

What they don't get is that "phobia" denotes this:

pho·bi·a/ˈfōbēə/
Noun:
An extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something: "he had a phobia about being under water"; "a phobia of germs"; "a snake phobia".

Imagine a person who has a phobia of rats. A single rat can send that person with rat-phobia running and screaming. WTF is with these liberals who try to equate Christians against gay marriage as having a "phobia?" The left errs on this issue.
 
Sometime it pays not to argue with an idiot. Observers of the argument may not be able to figure out who the idiot is.
 
Sometime it pays not to argue with an idiot. Observers of the argument may not be able to figure out who the idiot is.

There are no idiots in this discussion. :shrug:
 
You are correct.

What we see are many liberals who act like armchair pstchiatrists, and label people they don't really know as "homophobes."

What they don't get is that "phobia" denotes this:

Imagine a person who has a phobia of rats. A single rat can send that person with rat-phobia running and screaming. WTF is with these liberals who try to equate Christians against gay marriage as having a "phobia?" The left errs on this issue.


Homophobia is a term invented by the pro-gay marriage crowd to try to shame and slander opponents of gay marriage, much like when they used to falsely call gay marriage opponents closet homosexuals. However falsely accusing the anti-gay marriage crowd of having a phobia towards gays seems to have stuck.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom