Homophobia ?
caesarjbsquitti
1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homophobic
Does this include:
1. Individuals who were victimized by some homosexual pedofiles, ie
priests, and who now have a fear of these same people.
2. Individuals who are fearful of individuals for fear that they may
be bi-sexual.
3. Fear of individuals who may be and carrying the Aids virus , and
especially those within the gay community and their high incidence
rates.
4. Fear of people with a hidden sexual identity ?
Brenda G. Kent
understandable.
but why would someone be afraid of bisexuals? why would someone be
afraid of someone who had AIDS? this is a person who is sick and may
die...why not show them love and compassion and not fear? As far as the
hidden sexuality goes...if we were able to be free to be who we are...we
wou'd'nt have people hiding would we?
Bren who has a lot of gay,bi and lesbian friends.
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005,
caesarjbsquitti
wrote:
--
<a
href=http://searchtimes.com/affiliate/signup_new.php?src=ban-1&AID=1431><img
src=http://searchtimes.com/images/st-banner7.gif border=0></a>
Muz
attack American political conservatives, and has been drained of ALL
MEANING in US culture.
Muz
Brenda G. Kent
Can you prove this?
Bren
--
caesarjbsquitti
1. Judging by the abuse of of children by homosexual pedofiles
priests...Seems like the most dangerous thing to a alterboy is a
homosexual pedofile priest ?
Sources tell us that homosexuals have used the Church as a safe closet.
2. Judging the Aids statistics in NOrth America, the most dangerous
thing to a homosexual is another homosexual ?
3. Judging by the anti-male agenda of many 'women's centres' radical
feminists, including radical lesbian feminists have taken over these
agencies ?
Any truth in these statements ?
Didymus
news:NKkHd.10451$5t2.9569@trnddc01...
> Homophobia is a term confiscated by American political liberals to
> attack American political conservatives, and has been drained of ALL
> MEANING in US culture.
Sort of like "liberal" is a term confiscated by the political and Christian
Right to mean anyone left of Newt Gingrich and Jerry Falwell, and has thus
been drained of ALL MEANING in US culture?
Didymus
Steve Hayes
Confiscated? From whom?
--
The unworthy deacon,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Contact: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/
Ninure Saunders
American Psychiatric Association, (http://www.psych.org/) Homophobia as a
behavioral disorder is discussed in the medical journals and continues to
be studied by groups like the American Psychiatric Association and the
American Psychological Association.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://Ninure-Saunders.tk
Take my polls
http://ninure.100megsfree5.com
My Yahoo Group
http://Ninure.tk
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.MCCchurch.org
The Bible Site - help provide free scripture
http://www.thebiblesite.org
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
Muz
Psychologists.
Muz
Ninure Saunders
<ord...@squittis.com> wrote:
-Is there any truth to the following statements:
-
-1. Judging by the abuse of of children by homosexual pedofiles
-priests...Seems like the most dangerous thing to a alterboy is a
-homosexual pedofile priest ?
-
-Sources tell us that homosexuals have used the Church as a safe closet.
-
-2. Judging the Aids statistics in NOrth America, the most dangerous
-thing to a homosexual is another homosexual ?
-
-3. Judging by the anti-male agenda of many 'women's centres' radical
-feminists, including radical lesbian feminists have taken over these
-agencies ?
-
-Any truth in these statements ?
In a word....
NO.
Matthew Johnson
Exactly! Crimes of linguistic theft occur not only at both ends, but even
everywhere between the ends on the political spectrum.
In fact, if there is any difference between the way the Left and the Right drain
words of all substantial meaning, it is only in the choice of whom to appeal to
with the fallacies used to rationalize the theft.
--
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)
zach
> Though not listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV of the
> American Psychiatric Association, (http://www.psych.org/) Homophobia
as a
> behavioral disorder is discussed in the medical journals and
continues to
> be studied by groups like the American Psychiatric Association and
the
> American Psychological Association.
>
> From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia
WOW. Talk about the tables turning!
Accusing Christians of homophobia is a bit misleading, however, because
there is apparently a sharp division of whether or not sex outside of
marriage is wrong, and this is the sticking point that on which it is
impossible for professed gay Christians to budge. Likewise, since the
opposing side believes that sex outside of marriage is a sin, it will
not budge either, nor can it. That is the whole argument.
Muz
philosophy. People here "homophobia", and they know that its a liberal
attacking a conservative.
Muz
Brenda G. Kent
1. Judging by the abuse of of children by homosexual pedofiles
priests...Seems like the most dangerous thing to a alterboy is a
homosexual pedofile priest ?
*snip*
Judging from the abuse of children by men...seems like the most dangerous
thing to a child...is a man.
Same kind of analogy.....
Blessings
Bren
Steve Hayes
>Steve Hayes> Confiscated? From whom?
>
>Psychologists.
So aren't psychologists allowed to use it any more, then?
Steve Hayes
>WOW. Talk about the tables turning!
>
>Accusing Christians of homophobia is a bit misleading, however, because
>there is apparently a sharp division of whether or not sex outside of
>marriage is wrong, and this is the sticking point that on which it is
>impossible for professed gay Christians to budge. Likewise, since the
>opposing side believes that sex outside of marriage is a sin, it will
>not budge either, nor can it. That is the whole argument.
Homophobia is a rather silly word, and I'm not sure that it has anything to do
with your "sticking point", which appears to refer to something else entirely.
The problem with the word as a word is that its meaning is obscured by its
constuction. It appears at first sight to the be anonym of "xenophobia". If
"xenophobia" is fear of strangers, that is, people who are different,
"homophobia" appears at first sight to mean "fear of the same". So a homophobe
would be, as Gilbert and Sullivan put it:
The idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone
Every century but this and every country but his own.
But given that people use it to mean "fear of homosexuals", I must say I've
never encountered anyone who appears to suffer from this particular disorder.
I'm not saying that no one suffers from it, though, just that I'm not aware of
having met any. And it doesn't appear to have anything to do with the
"sticking point" that you describe.
I've also noticed something else, though.
Homosexuals come in many different varieties. Some, but by no means all, that
I have known have formed or been part of a homosexual sub-culture, And I've
know some people who are not part of that particular sub-culture to expres
their aversion to such a sob-culture. While I wouldn't describe their aversion
as a "fear" or a "phobia", I suppose that in some people that could develop
into a "phobia", but I would describe it as "heterophobia" rather than
"homophobia", because it is fear of a different cvulture, akin to
"xenophobia". But that's probably the language pedant in me, and will bring
down the wrath of all the pedantophobes in this newsgroups.
But not all homosexuals participate in that particular sub-culture, and some
of them feel just as much of an aversion to it as non-homosexuals. Could one
really describe them as "homophobic"?
Steve Hayes
Nope.
People hear "liberal" and think that it refers to any of a number of
incompatible political philosophies, depending on their degree of education or
ignorance.
Your second sentence betrays the category that you belong to.
Muz
The problem they'd have is that if they used it in a public setting
(outside of psycolological circles) they'd have to explain what the
definition means, because most people understand "homophobia" to be a
democrat term that is used when they're trying to deride a republican,
and have nothing intelligent to say.
Muz
ronin...@yahoo.com
could officially call it homophobia is someone was molested by a
homosexual pedophile and has a 'reason' to fear them. We may call it
that in normal conversation, but I think would be different in
psychological terms. Not sure though. Phobias are usually considered
control issues and have nothing to do with the thing feared. There's my
layman's psychology for you.
Steve Hayes
>Why wouldn't they be allowed?
Why wouldn't *what* be allowed?
Any decent newsreader will allow you to quote the text you are replying to
(and delete the text you are NOT replying to. Using that feature makes it a
lot easier to follow discusions.
Once again, you've lost me. Who are "they"?
In fact your entire paragraph is unintelligible. I don't see what the term has
to do with democracy or republicanism (or monarchy or oligarchy or any other
form of government). Most people (outside psychological circles) understand it
to mean fear of homosexuals, and inside psychological circles as a
pathological fear, amounting to a disorder that needs to be cured. I haven't
come across anyone who suffers from this disorder though, at least not to my
knowledge.
Karen Mercedes
of all other moral considerations. One would think that the only problems
in the world were (allegedly) gay rights and abortion rights.
Murder, war, etc. All morally justifiable? But allowing that human beings
should have the same civil rights regardless of their sexual orientation,
race, religion, nationality, etc.? GOD HELP US!!!
Karen Mercedes
http://www.radix.net/~dalila/index.html
____________________________________________________
A beautiful voice is a glorious gift of our gracious
Creator, and it would show little gratitude were we
not to attempt to use in the best possible way....
- Johann Adam Hiller
B.G. Kent
the world to be getting some....
Who knows?
Not all Christians are this way thought thank God.
B.
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005,
Karen Mercedes wrote:
> Why are so many Christians obsessed with sexual morality to the exclusion
> of all other moral considerations. One would think that the only problems
> in the world were (allegedly) gay rights and abortion rights.
>
> Murder, war, etc. All morally justifiable? But allowing that human beings
> should have the same civil rights regardless of their sexual orientation,
> race, religion, nationality, etc.? GOD HELP US!!!
http://www.searchtimes.com/brouchers/newyear/index.php?AID=1431&src=newyear-1431
Muz
(homophobia) to mean fear of homosexuals
Well, there's your misconception. Most people outside psycological
circles understand it to be a perjorative against anyone who opposes
the homosexual lobby's agenda, and more generally used by liberals to
attack conservatives when they have nothing intelligent to say. (Which
is why it is used so often.)
Mux
Steve Hayes
"Liberal" is a term used by stupid Americans to attack other people whenm they
have nothing intelligdent to say.
Joseph T. Adams
> Why are so many Christians obsessed with sexual morality to the exclusion
> of all other moral considerations. One would think that the only problems
> in the world were (allegedly) gay rights and abortion rights.
> Murder, war, etc. All morally justifiable? But allowing that human beings
> should have the same civil rights regardless of their sexual orientation,
> race, religion, nationality, etc.? GOD HELP US!!!
We have lost sight of the fact that God is Love and that He commands
us to love Him and one another.
On the other hand, some have lost sight of the fact that sin of
*any* kind is a failure to love either God or one another. That ALL
of us have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and, thus, we
all need His grace and mercy.
Joe
zach
You mean like _Leftist_ Liberals attacking Conservatives and classical
liberals with the terms "fascist" and "Nazi", even Christians?
Muz
trying to aid the poor by taxing the rich. It's utterly bankrupt. It
has meaning.
Granted that liberals don't like it because people in the US realize
that it is utterly bankrupt, but it isn't devoid of meaning.
Muz
Joseph T. Adams
> Actually "liberal" refers to a political philosophy big government
> trying to aid the poor by taxing the rich. It's utterly bankrupt. It
> has meaning.
That is a relatively new meaning for the term. Historically, it meant
almost exactly the opposite: opposition to and/or rejection of corrupt
authority, in favor of freedom, both personal and financial.
Theological "liberalism" has always (AFAIK) meant rejection of the
authority of Scripture and/or of the historical Christian Church. The
term itself seems to be a new one in this context.
Joe
Joseph T. Adams
> You mean like _Leftist_ Liberals attacking Conservatives and classical
> liberals with the terms "fascist" and "Nazi", even Christians?
Leftism and fascism are both variants of socialism, and both in
historical practice have required worship of the State, which is
fundamentally opposed to the worship of God.
All governments of which I'm aware, and the vast majority of people in
the world today, including those who consider themselves to be
"conservative," are socialists to one degree or another. It is very
closely related to the fundamental heresy of our time: the belief that
some people should have the power to rule over other people without
their consent. Such power rightfully belongs to God alone, and even
He seems reluctant to use it.
Joe
Milton
places, it typically refers to the opposite ... it refers to less
interference of the government in the economy.
Milton.
"Muz" <themu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:86iLd.338$8a6.245@trndny09...
Chris Smith
> You mean like _Leftist_ Liberals attacking Conservatives and classical
> liberals with the terms "fascist" and "Nazi", even Christians?
>
Yeah, pretty much exactly like that. It's a shame that people can't
discuss things rationally at times. Nevertheless, living according to
Christ's law means neither following one nor another human political
philosophy or group. Many Christians have forgotten that.
--
www.designacourse.com
The Easiest Way To Train Anyone... Anywhere.
Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
MindIQ Corporation
Tom Kelly
news:iuBLd.1228$eD4.909@trnddc05...
> zach <victorth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Leftism and fascism are both variants of socialism, and both in
> historical practice have required worship of the State, which is
> fundamentally opposed to the worship of God.
What is "leftism"? And how have you managed to subsume it under socialism?
Is "leftism" somehow different from liberalism, Communism, democratic
socialism, anarchism, liberal Republicanism, moderate-ism, membership in the
Democratic Party, or a host of other left-of-George Bush points of view? I
think you've got your ideological taxonomy all screwed up.
It is just plain ignorant - and logically fallacious - to lump these
perspectives as though they shared a fundamental philosophy. Historically,
they've disagreed - and even fought - about almost everything. "Worship of
the state" may be an ugly feature of Communism and Facism, but it certainly
doesn't apply to the others. Anarchists like Bakunin sure didn't worship the
state! Nor do European democratic socialists or any of the other
points-of-view I've listed. And nearly all historians consider Fascism to be
rightist, not leftist. Mussolini was certainly no friend of the socialists
and Communists, many of whom he jailed.
> All governments of which I'm aware, and the vast majority of people in
> the world today, including those who consider themselves to be
> "conservative," are socialists to one degree or another. It is very
> closely related to the fundamental heresy of our time: the belief that
> some people should have the power to rule over other people without
> their consent. Such power rightfully belongs to God alone, and even
> He seems reluctant to use it.
There's nothing inherently undemocratic about socialism. Just the opposite,
in fact. There's a strong European tradition of democratic and Christian
socialism, and many European political parties proudly call themselves
democratic socialists. (The Polish uprising against Soviet rule was led by a
Christian Socialist, Lech Walesa. The leading opponents of the Bolsheviks
were the Social Democrats.) Many institutions and practices that have
EXPANDED democracy, equal opportunity and individual rights were originally
advocated by socialists and later adopted by the center. These include
universal sufferage, the right of free association, a social "safety net"
(including social security), desegregation of housing and public facilities,
the right of public demonstration, health insurance, the eight-hour day,
abolition of child labor, equal rights for women,
recall/initiative/referendum, and much more.
Historically, socialists have led the fight AGAINST authoritarianism. Thus,
to claim that socialism is "fundamentally related" to tyranny is absurd. (I
am not a socialist, by the way. But fact is fact.)
And, I gotta ask, what is "heretical" about "the belief that some people
should have the power to rule over other people without their consent"?
Where is "consent of the governed" - or anything like it - in the Bible?
Where did Jesus or Paul advocate democracy? Before the mid-19th century,
where did democratic principles appear in Christian teachings? Who among the
Church Fathers advocated democracy? Or even abolition of slavery? Aquinas?
Augustine? I don't think so. What martyr of the early church died for the
right to vote?
Until the 20th century, there is NOTHING in the history of Christianity to
support your view that authoritarian rule is "heretical," e.g., a departure
from orthodox church doctrine. And even then, only church "liberals" like
Pope John XXIII and Martin Luther King took a strong stand in favor of
democracy. Pope John is still reviled by Catholic traditionalists as a
heretic; MLK's FBI dossier called him a Communist and a dangerous radical.
Your broad-brush proposition that "leftism" is anti-democratic and
anti-Christian is contradicted by history and common sense.
Didymus
Muz
Muz
Steve Hayes
>Actually "liberal" refers to a political philosophy big government
>trying to aid the poor by taxing the rich. It's utterly bankrupt. It
>has meaning.
Liberals' creed: the government governs best that governs least.
Liberals stand for the limitation of powers of government, and for freedom of
speech, movement, worship etc and the right to vote to change the government.
Loberals are opposed to all sorts of totalitarianism, like fascism and
communism.
You really DO need to get this right, otherwise you'll just know that you
don't know what you're taling about.
Steve Hayes
haye...@hotmail.com
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm