RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone

RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 4:49:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Your link does nothing to discount Homophobic from meaning the conception most people have of it. Using your superpowers, precisely what conception do "most people" have? Would that be the first one you trotted out from Stonewall... Homophobia is the irrational hatred, intolerance, and fear of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people or the second one you linked from Oxford... Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people or maybe one of these... quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I think you will find all dictionaries say pretty much the same thing. Well compared to the Oxford, Cambridge adds fear and omits prejudice: fear and dislike of homosexuals Merrian-Webster adds discrimination and qualifies the fear as irrational: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals American Heritage introduces irrational hatred, but omits prejudice and discrimination: irrational hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality Collins swaps intense for irrational, but omits prejudice and discrimination: intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality So, those are all "pretty much the same thing"? Bear in mind this is an intelligence test. You wouldnt know an intelligence test if it bit you on the arse Kirata. Keep on kidding yourself you are right, if it makes you feel any better. That's what I like about you, Polite. You can always be relied upon to turn your losses into a flamboyant crash. [:)] K.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 4:54:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant Have a problem with what the authors of the articles I cited have to say? Take it up with them. Oh the fucking irony. How soon you forget your own posts on the matter. And as I told you...if you'd bothered to listen instead of just thinking you know all there is to know about me or any other conservative white Christian male on the board...I read what the authors said, I cited the parts that were relevant or interesting...And I moved on, content in knowing that my gay friends and family members know me much better than you ever will.

Lucylastic -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 5:27:51 PM)
cant handle the heat stop throwing gasoline on it.

PeonForHer -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 7:12:53 PM)
quote: The addition of 'homosexuality' in these definitions...especially those using the term 'fear of'...allows for someone to tell you that any time you stand against gays in any way, it is because you fear the homosexual within yourself. quote: Have a problem with what the authors of the articles I cited have to say? Take it up with them. Those authors questioned the use of 'homophobia' in part because it suggested that people's hatred of gays was somehow 'matched' by a fear of them. They suggested a new term. But, the thing is: new terms often don't catch on, despite being considered to be more accurate. I think it more likely that the word 'homophobic' is going to lose its 'fear' connotation. Notwithstanding the various dictionary definitions, the sense I get from people around me is that it already has come to mean just 'hatred of gays' (excepting those cases - quite a few of them, actually - of high-profile anti gays who are found to have had homosexual relationships). To me, this isn't surprising. The term is major currency in politics - and those sorts of terms change their meaning very rapidly indeed.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 7:37:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: The addition of 'homosexuality' in these definitions...especially those using the term 'fear of'...allows for someone to tell you that any time you stand against gays in any way, it is because you fear the homosexual within yourself. quote: Have a problem with what the authors of the articles I cited have to say? Take it up with them. Those authors questioned the use of 'homophobia' in part because it suggested that people's hatred of gays was somehow 'matched' by a fear of them. They suggested a new term. But, the thing is: new terms often don't catch on, despite being considered to be more accurate. I think it more likely that the word 'homophobic' is going to lose its 'fear' connotation. Notwithstanding the various dictionary definitions, the sense I get from people around me is that it already has come to mean just 'hatred of gays' (excepting those cases - quite a few of them, actually - of high-profile anti gays who are found to have had homosexual relationships). To me, this isn't surprising. The term is major currency in politics - and those sorts of terms change their meaning very rapidly indeed. Hmmm...in the public vernacular for 50 years and still used by some in just that..."you're afraid of..." Way. How many threads have we seen it on where those in disagreement with a gay issue were told theye were homophobic AND that they were afraid of gays and of their own sexuality?

thompsonx -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 7:39:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity And when the recipe calls for water, substitute cow or dog urine instead But then, I aint no Christian In most jurisdictions that would most likely be called attempted mass murder at the least and certainly murder in the first degree should someone die from such an enterprise.

Paladin54 -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 7:45:41 PM)
Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not a civil right. Smokers are discriminated against everyday and no one cries to their defense. People of conviction have the right to shun the perversion.

PeonForHer -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 8:00:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Paladin54 Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not a civil right. Smokers are discriminated against everyday and no one cries to their defense. People of conviction have the right to shun the perversion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all that was balls, wasn't it?

PeonForHer -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 8:02:12 PM)
quote: How many threads have we seen it on where those in disagreement with a gay issue were told theye were homophobic AND that they were afraid of gays and of their own sexuality? I don't know. I can't recall seeing that come up frequently, but YMMV.

JVoV -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 8:04:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Paladin54 Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not a civil right. Smokers are discriminated against everyday and no one cries to their defense. People of conviction have the right to shun the perversion. You need Jesus. Srsly.

dcnovice -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 8:05:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Paladin54 Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not a civil right. Smokers are discriminated against everyday and no one cries to their defense. People of conviction have the right to shun the perversion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all that was balls, wasn't it? [image]https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2179/2165083148_0cb090bc32_b.jpg[/image]

thompsonx -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 8:11:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx It would appear that The term ‘‘religious exercise’’ includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief. Is refering to the use of church land for those activities that may not be compelled as a tennant of belief but rather those things like bingo games or bake sales and so forth. CHAPTER 21B - RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION 2000bb. Congressional findings and declaration of purposes. 2000bb-1. Free exercise of religion protected. 2000bb-2. Definitions. 2000bb-3. Applicability. 2000bb-4. Establishment clause unaffected Section 2000bb-2. Definitions (4) the term "exercise of religion" means religious exercise, as defined in section 2000cc-5 of this title. K. If the distinction is not as I have noted how else do we explane the two different definitions for what would otherwise appears to be the same thing? (3) Free Exercise Clause The term ‘‘Free Exercise Clause’’ means that portion of the first amendment to the Constitution that proscribes laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. (7) Religious exercise (A) In general The term ‘‘religious exercise’’ includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

kdsub -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 8:12:25 PM)
I wonder who the sock is? Butch

Gauge -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 8:15:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Paladin54 Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not a civil right. Equality is a civil right. Who gives a fuck about anything else? quote: Smokers are discriminated against everyday and no one cries to their defense. Because all smokers are gay? Being a smoker isn't comparable to being a homosexual. It isn't even in the same ballpark. Fuck, it isn't even the same planet. quote: People of conviction have the right to shun the perversion. People of conviction? What does that even mean? That you call homosexuality a perversion is indicative that your "conviction" is based on some religious foundation? I could be wrong though. You know what I find amusing as hell? When Jesus walked this planet, he befriended the shunned, the sinful and the wicked. The only folks he really ever got truly angry with were religious folks. Let that sink in a moment before your next post.

thompsonx -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 8:16:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Paladin54 Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not a civil right. Legal choices in a free society are a civil right. Smokers are discriminated against everyday and no one cries to their defense. You are mistaken. Smokers are required to respect the rights of others by not poluting the air they breath. People of conviction have the right to shun the perversion. And yet you have voluntarily sought out perverts to associate with by being here...why?

Moderator3 -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 9:20:48 PM)
I guess I was a little late for this one. I'm sorry, but it looks like you all have this handled. Maybe not what I would have done as a mod, but surely kinder than some would expect.

thompsonx -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 9:56:28 PM)
I am pretty good at this sort of thing...You are welcome

CreativeDominant -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/6/2015 10:03:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: How many threads have we seen it on where those in disagreement with a gay issue were told theye were homophobic AND that they were afraid of gays and of their own sexuality? I don't know. I can't recall seeing that come up frequently, but YMMV. Oh, I can think of one poster...not on this thread...who loved to use those two implications together. About 4, 5, 6 yrs ago...And after.

bounty44 -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/7/2015 6:42:07 AM)
found this when I was looking for something else, and its appropriate here: "No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises from civil authority" - Thomas Jefferson

bounty44 -> RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone (4/7/2015 6:46:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: Paladin54 Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not a civil right. Smokers are discriminated against everyday and no one cries to their defense. People of conviction have the right to shun the perversion. You need Jesus. Srsly. if I am reading this rightly, you are somehow suggesting jesus was pro-homosexual? or that because the poster says something, seemingly according to his religious conscience but that is in disagreement with your position, that he already doesn't have jesus? that there is no way a Christian could hold such a position?

Page: << < prev 39 40 [41] 42 43 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875