I have to take a stand on the misuse and abuse of the suffix "phobia", used by alarmist fear mongers to discredit their moral critics. The terms "homophobia" and "Islamophobia" are both disingenuous misnomers aimed at those who take a negative moral stance against homosexuality and Islamism.
I think that a much more accurate suffix will actually please both sides of this question, and that is the suffix misia, which means "hate, hater, hatred; disgust for; revulsion of." You see, while I find homosexuality disgusting (and there are valid reasons for disgust – we find poo disgusting for health reasons, for example), gays would say that I am actually hating. But hey, misia could mean either, so I’m good with this one word. So, I may be guilty of homomisia and Islamomisia, but not phobia.
Although I admit that actually being afraid of Islam is a valid and real phenomenon – what sane person would not fear such a murderous, oppressive system?
Forget these fancy words. "Bigot" fits you perfectly.
Reasonable people can discuss their differences without being bigots. You lefties just love name-calling.
Ah yes, another sloppy use of the English language. Suit yourself.
I will wear, as a badge of honor, the accusation of sloppiness from such as you. In your case, "bigot" is as precise a word as can be found in the English language.
I am bigoted against sin, mine own included.
I will admit to having a sense of homomisia, but Islamophobia doesn't quite make sense. A phobia must be irrational, considering current affairs a fear of Islam is perfectly rational. Don't call me a bigot, I just don't like the idea of 2 guys getting with each other, it goes against nature.
Disliking their mindless fundamentalism isn’t a phobia unless you fear them. If you just detest them, it is simply isslammomisia.
You mean it goes against your definition of nature.
If you don't like it, ignore it. I ignore your sex life. Just don't let your prejudices govern my life.
No…. all of nature. What is the point in a gay lion? Being gay is just as much of a problem as being sterile, it stunts the potential growth of mankind. If I had my way gay's would be allowed to do as they see fit, but not publicly.
"…stunts the potential growth of mankind"?!
Har-de-har-har! Mankind is growing in numbers so fast we're about to destroy everything. What we need is less humans not more.
What is the point in a gay lion? Being gay is just as much of a problem as being sterile, it stunts the potential growth of mankind.
What's the point in a post menopausal woman? Being post menopausal is just as much of a problem as being sterile, it stunts the potential growth of mankind.
If I had my way, Christians would be allowed to do as they see fit, but not publicly.
Hi Taymus:
You wrote: I will admit to having a sense of homomisia, but Islamophobia doesn't quite make sense. A phobia must be irrational, considering current affairs a fear of Islam is perfectly rational. Don't call me a bigot, I just don't like the idea of 2 guys getting with each other, it goes against nature.
I won't call you anything, but I think your comment above (that I bolded) says enough that no one needs to say anything else.
About the so-called "rational" fear of Islam. it is nearly certain that any Muslims you know are very generous and kind and pose no danger to you at all. Their religious beliefs are not dangerous to you, in fact their religioujs beliefs probably motive their kindness so you are benefitted by their beliefs, not threatened. being afraid of their religion is in fact irrational. being afraid Al Q'aida style Islam is a different matter entirely, but the vast majority of Muslmis don't embrace it.
your friend
keith
>> being afraid Al Q'aida style Islam is a different matter entirely
a.k.a. 'true' islam.
>> Don't call me a bigot, I just don't like the idea of 2 guys getting with each other, it goes against nature.
All humans have a natural revulsion to things that go against nature – eating poo or rotting meat, disease, and men having sex are all basically revolting because they are a perversion of nature.
Hi Daniel:
1. About "true Islam": there is an ambiguity in the idea. What IS "actual Islam"? Let's assume that Islam is that which is taught in the Q'uran. You read something in the Q'uran and interpret it as advocating terrorism. The vast majority of Muslims read the same passage and interpret it differently. You'd say they are not reading correctly, that their Islam isn't the real thing. But your objection is ambiguous. Real Islam is by definition "the things that God said in the Q'uran". If you don't believe God spoke through the Q'uran then you have no basis for claiming that any particular version of Islam is the "real" Islam. Real Islam is whatever a Muslim says it is. There is no reason for a non-believer to declare any version of Islam as phoney–that declaration is logically incoherent.
your friend
keith
Great, now stinker is comparing gays to eating sh*t or rotting meat! I still think he's evil.
Daniel, you’re disgusting.
The interesting thing about the religious right is that, not only are they not convincing anyone, they are repulsing decent people. Theirs is truly a losing position and they are speeding to the margins along with UFO and Bigfoot conspirators. And good riddance!
>> Daniel, you're disgusting.
What's amazing is your disgust for truth, and your lack of disgust for what is against nature and perverted.
To the person who did not post his name:
you wrote: What's amazing is your disgust for truth, and your lack of disgust for what is against nature and perverted.
This brings up a deep issue. I apologize for the dispassionate analysis to come, given the seriousness of the topic. You seem to be claiming that gay sex is against nature. But what on earth could being against nature mean? It doesn't violate any laws of physics, otherwise it could not occur. You might claim it uses sexual organs for a purpose other than the purpose for which they were designed. But that objection doesn't make sense either. There is nothing inherently wrong with using something for a purpose other than the purpose for which they were designed. For example, a ball point pen was designed to write things with, but I just the other day used one to punch holes in a paper cup. It did the job just fine even though it wasn't designed for that purpose. So what is the "unnatural" accusation all about? It seems to me that you are DEFINING "unnatural" as "disgusting". I take you to be saying that all decent people are disgusted by the unnatural, but that really just means you claim decent people are disgusted by what's creeps you out–your criteria is totally circular.
A lot of stuff creeps me out too if I were to think about it. My parents had sex at least twice (probably more:-) to conceive my brother and me. Thinking about my parents having sex grosses me out even though there was nothing wrong with their having sex, what with them being married and all. The grossness comes from the fact that THEIR sex life was a private matter between them, and thinking about the details puts me in the mental position of imagining myself violating that privacy. The same is true for you and gay sex. If you find yourself being grossed out at the thought it might be because you don't like the sensation of mentally violating their privacy. Unless you are gay yourself, but in denial. I don't assume that, but I DO think it's interesting the number of hyper-homophobic politicians who have been exposed as gay themselves.
Keith
He means against "natural law" as invented by the Roman church. That means anything they don't like is against some transcendent "law" they claim to discern in nature. It's moralism and theology dressed up in scientific drag. It's a club which they can use to beat those they don't like or who challenge their hegemony. The patriarchy is going the way of the Dodo, thus their hysterical response to any number of things in the modern world. Gays, being the most unpopular minority, are their favorite scapegoats. Thus, the jihad against gay marriage. If they really wanted to save "traditional marriage" they would put constitutional amendments banning divorce on the ballot of all the states, but they don't. That's not the point. They won't give up their privileges for the sake of their values, so they need an external scapegoat to flog. Hypocrites.
Of course, if you're indoctrinated from childhood with these shibboleths and you're whole worldview is based on them, it's going to be hard to shed them without a lot of mental effort and anguish, but it can be done. Evil can and must be resisted. However, their personal tastes and irrational prejudices cannot be allowed to govern the civic rights and responsibilities of their fellow citizens. It is up to decent and honorable people to stand up against these fascists and defend the right.
btw: next time you get in an airplane, meditate on how "unnatural" you're being.
"What's amazing is your disgust for truth, and your lack of disgust for what is against nature and perverted."
How can being gay be "against nature" when gay occurs in nature?
Gay penguins steal eggs from straight couples
Hi Cin:
Another part of nature where homosexuality occurs? Among human beings. The whole "against nature" arguments drives me crazy. It's like the argument "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". If God didn't create Adam and Steve then they must be self-existent deities!
your friend
Keith
In case any body was wondering, I'm not a christian. I actually only know one legit christian (protestant). I don't see how something that so easily preach love instills so much hatred in others. Oh well, it's not like it's going to go away any time soon.
The problem is the Bible and its many archaic mistakes.
The patriarchy is going the way of the Dodo, thus their hysterical response to any number of things in the modern world.
Another example of this was on display in Mumbai. Also, recently, Taliban fanatics threw acid on the faces of schoolgirls in Afghanistan. These monsters hate and fear the modern world, and will go to any length to stop it. Of course, as they are in a tiny, virtually powerless minority, they can only resort to these disgusting and disruptive acts of terrorism, not seriously threatening the world, but making it miserable. I wish seeker and his ilk in the christianist right would get as exercised about these monsters as they do about innocent gay people. Of course, if they did, they'd lose their prime scapegoats.
>> I wish seeker and his ilk in the christianist right would get as exercised about these monsters as they do about innocent gay people.
Perhaps you've missed my many condemnations of Islam.
>> BARRY: demonic and repugnant lifestyle;
I don't know if I'd say demonic, but to each his own.
>> BARRY: the solid historical and Biblical account of God's absolute judgement upon the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah have seemingly done nothing to cause sexually deviant homosexuals to sober up and change their ways.
Yes, I agree. You might enjoy these related posts:
The Sin of Sodom – Inhospitality or Homosexuality?
The Wrath of God II – How God abandons a nation
>>BARRY: No human being was ever "born" a homosexual, and if these persons were ever honest with themselves, they would all admit that they were either molested at some point in their lives OR chose that lifestyle out of their own inner perversion. In short, this is learned behaviour.
I would agree that the majority of homosexuality is caused by environmental factors, but genetic factors could play a part. That does not make it any more natural than, for example, a genetic predisposition to aggression or alcoholism. See:
Homosexuality – Genetic or Environmental?
Root Causes of Male Homosexuality
Causes of same-sex attraction
Hi barry:
I don't really have too much to say about your mostly bigoted commentary ( as well as bad biblical exigesis wrt the story of Sodom and Gemmorah). What I want to comment about is this:
No human being was ever "born" a homosexual, and if these persons were ever honest with themselves, they would all admit that they were either molested at some point in their lives OR chose that lifestyle out of their own inner perversion. In short, this is learned behaviour.
My comment is on the logic of the above bigoted statement. One reason a person might be homosexual (you suggest) is because of his "inner perversion". Are you saying they CHOSE to have this "inner perversion"? If so then prior to their choice they were not perverted so why would they CHOOSE to be? If they were born with this "inner perversion", then are you suggesting that those very people HAPPENED to choose homosexuality as their sin but they could have just as likely chosen, oh, burglery or cannibalism? It seems to me that when you talk about their inner perversion you really just mean their inborn sexual orientation which you call "perversion". It doesn't seem to me that you are denhying the factual claim about inate homosexuality at all.
>> KEITH: Are you saying they CHOSE to have this "inner perversion"?
Careful Barry, this is a trick question (though keith might not mean to be trapping you). There are at least two good (biblical) answers to this question.
1. For environmentally-rooted homosexuality, they may not have consciously chosen this coping mechanism any more than people choose, for example, codependence. But the lack of conscious choice does not mean that they lack the ability or responsibility to CHOOSE to get well and address those inner coping mechanisms now that they are adults.
2. For nature-rooted homosexuality, even if I am born with the proclivity for destructive behavior, that does not excuse me from choosing to overcome my handicap. In addition, if there is a biological underpinning to my handicap, I should want to treat it with medicines.
In both cases, though I did not choose my situation consciously (though I did unconsciously in the first scenario, for self-preservation), I still have the opportunity and responsability to choose to help myself to change and overcome my handicap.
>> KEITH: It seems to me that when you talk about their inner perversion you really just mean their inborn sexual orientation which you call "perversion".
"Perversion" would be a strong and negative word if the person had no choice – perhaps 'handicap' or 'illness' would be kinder and less bigoted (I do agree that the consistent use of 'perverse' is unkind, though as a clinical description of the morality of such activities freely chosen, such a term could be applied without pejorative intent).
I guess that's why, for the nature view, I use the term 'handicap,' and for the nurture, 'dysfunction.'
But when discussing the morality of sexual misconduct, such words as immoral, perverse, and in the case of homosexuality, against nature, are both biblical and denotatively correct, I think.
Hi Daniel:
I wasn't trying to trick our friend Barry (I usually DON'T try to trick people. USUALLY I don't:-). My point was this, really. Barry made the (in my opinion outrageous and unfounded) claim that homosexuality is caused EITHER by (a) being molested or (b) inner perversion–nothing else causes homosexuality, so says Barry. Specifically Barry denies that anyone is born a homosexual–those in category B choose to BE homosexuals, so says Barry. That's what I was trying to understand logically. A non-perverted person does not choose to be perverted (as a matter of logic choosing to be perverted would itself be a sign of perversion). So it seems to me that as a matter of logic, Barry's claim that gays choose to BE gay is logically incoherent. No doubt gays DO choose when they choose to act on their sexual orientation and no gays would disagree.
Barry's comments were unkind as you say–unkind in the extreme I would say. Your description of homosexuality as an illness is certainly kinder. I don't agree with you about it though (as you know:-)
your friend
Keith
The only perversion or handicap or dysfunction on display here is religious fundamentalism. I pity the poor sufferers of this condition like seeker. I don't know whether it's genetic (ie, "inborn") or a chosen lifestyle or a combination of the two. However, I urge sufferers like seeker to get help for his malady. There much be religious deprogrammers who can be employed to rescue him from this serious and destructive lifestyle. Until we can rescue these poor unfortunates, however, we must seek to keep their influence out of the public sector (eg, schools, media, government, etc.) lest they infect and destroy our beloved country (like such religious fundamentalists have in Iran).
To Keith
Let's establish a few fundamentals here guys. 1. Almighty God is The One Who made us and knows what's best for us. 2.The Bible teaches that we are made in His Image and Likeness Gen1:26. God is NOT perverse and cannot sin.
3.He made a man AND a woman for each other and told them to procreate, Gen 1:27&28(not another man to keep the other company). Whatever God does, Satan does the opposite, hence homosexuality, paedophilia, bestiality, incest and other forms of sexual deviance. Even fornication between heterosexuals will be judged, so what chance could the homosexual have of escaping judgement??
4. It is not His wish that any should perish (go to hell)but that all should come to repentance 2 Peter 3:9b(change our ways & obey Him). God is not evil and does not "set up" mankind to automatically go to hell without recourse. We all must denounce our sins (repentance)and turn to Jesus Christ for salvation John 3:16, Rom 10:9-10 &13, Rom 3:10 &23 (among others). I did and walked away from my sinful ways….so can the homosexual.
5. God hates homosexuality and the Bible refers to it as "abominable" & "wicked", Ezekiel 16:50, Genesis 19:4-14, Leviticus 18:22. God's remedy for homosexuality is ALWAYS punishment by death (nothing has changed).A time is coming when every homosexual (and sinner) will try to hide from God but will not be able to find refuge anywhere. Rev 9.
6. No homosexual will ever enter heaven 1Cor 6:9&10, Gal 5:20-21, 1 Timothy 1:9-10. Bear in mind that heaven belongs to God alone and no man has ever challenged God and won!! Before Sodom + Gomorrah were destroyed remember the earth was destroyed before that in the global flood……whether you believe or not is irrelevant; FACT is, it happened. Huge numbers of people blaspheming against God suddenly become the minority and are eventually destroyed. Gen.6:5-8
7. We all have one life to live and then judgement Hebrews. 9:27 (you don't have a spare). Our lives are merely on loan from God; it is not ours as we have no control over when we came into this world nor do we have any control over when or how we will depart; therefore, we should live our lives to please God not offend Him.
8. Since it is clear that God did NOT place homosexuality in anyone, then by whatever claim you make to have "contracted" it, my strong advice is to get rid of it by whatever means necessary. I don't agree with Daniel that the lifestyle can be treated with medicine as it is not a disease. One must confess their sinful condition to God, recognize that Jesus Christ died for our sins and ask Him to rescue you from this most reprehensible condition. Anything else is just a temporary fix.
It's quite evident that you are neither knowledgeable nor adept at understanding and using God's Word 2 Tim 2:15.
Homosexuals like to use the word "bigot" as a attempt to insult others, but in this instance I will gladly accept that adjective as these are clearly NOT my personal views but rather the Word of God that stands in judgement against all who support such a lifestyle. Research the scripture passages yourself for the truth.
Your rancour is not against me or others who rightly reject this lifestyle; but against God, and I hope that everyone will draw upon God's love and repent while there is still time. There are enough nice girls out there for every man on the planet, so reject the filthy lifestyle (its really nasty & unhealthy) and let us serve God as true men!!
To Louis
It is YOUR sexual perversion that must be contained and prevented from infecting the young and innocent that so many homosexuals want to continue to have access to. You have been deceived into believing that the apparent "upper hand" you now have qualifies you to fly in the face of what is decent and morally upright before God.
You will never be able to silence the truth (in the public domain or elsewhere)or force God to accept arrogance and evil in place of good. It is unfortunate that you seem to be so far gone that you actually believe your behaviour is normal and should be accepted.
To Barry:
It is YOUR religious perversion that must be contained and prevented from infecting the young and innocent that so many Christians want to continue to have access to. You have been deceived into believing that the apparent "upper hand" you now have qualifies you to fly in the face of what is decent and morally upright before God.
You will never be able to silence the truth (in the public domain or elsewhere)or force God to accept arrogance and evil in place of good. It is unfortunate that you seem to be so far gone that you actually believe your behavior is normal and should be accepted.
So there…
Pigs reenact Stonewall forty years later.
This is what comes from the tripe barfed up by the likes of Barry and seeker. For those of you who think things have really changed, think again. I sincerely hope that these stormtroopers are punished as severely as the law allows. (Of course, this is Texas, after all. They'll probably get medals.)
HI Barry:
I do not agree with your reading of the Bible (and we almost certainly don't agree on biblical inerrancy anyway), but that's a separate issue and I am not convinced from your tone that you are interested in dialogue on the issue. But I do note something interesting. You wrote:
8. Since it is clear that God did NOT place homosexuality in anyone, then by whatever claim you make to have "contracted" it, my strong advice is to get rid of it by whatever means necessary. I don't agree with Daniel that the lifestyle can be treated with medicine as it is not a disease. One must confess their sinful condition to God, recognize that Jesus Christ died for our sins and ask Him to rescue you from this most reprehensible condition. Anything else is just a temporary fix.
The thing is, I said nothing in my post to indicate my own sexual orientation and I am not gay. It seems (perhaps I am wrong here who knows) that your hostility toward gays has blinded you to the possibility of a straight man defending his gay neighbors from bigoted attack. This is a phenomenon my wife experienced from her students when they discussed California's Prop 8. They simply could not understand why straight people would oppose taking away legal rights from gays. Her students had no problem with the idea that whites could stand up for the civil rights of blacks, but standing up for gays was literally baffling to them.
You later mention my rancor, which you claim is directed not at you but at God. Well, I don't think my post has been particularly rancorous, but more to the point I do NOT have any rancor toward God. I do not believe that God agrees with you about homosexuality.
your friend
Keith
Barry,
1. I don't think that Keith was making a scriptural argument, though you accused him of not knowing how to handle the bible. Though I agree with YOU that hx is condemned by scripture, and keith disagrees with that, I think he is taking issue with your tone. And so am I.
2. As I originally discussed here, I think that disgust for perversion is not only natural, but proper – especially sexual sin. I also think, however, that we ought to be disgusted with our own sin. We ought to also look past the sinfulness of those caught in the snares of this world and their own hurts, and care for the individual.
Hi Daniel:
Barry overstates his biblical argument against homosexuality–he has his thumb on the scale as it were. The story of Sodom has a mob of men demanding that Lot give up his two visitors so that they can rape the men. This passage doesn't imply the mob were homosexual in orientation (homosexual rape can be a power thing, a way to totally humiliate its victim), nor does it imply that a mutually committed and loving homosexual relationship is offensive to God. You'll argue there are plenty of other biblical passages that make a general condemnation of homosexuality–that's a discussion we could have later. but my point here is that Barry's overstated case (along with his seeming malicious tone) might betray an unloving attitude, which is certainly not what God wants from us.
your friend
Keith
Greate site, and I appreciate knowing the PROPER terms for me:
Homomisia
Islamomisia
Now, do I hate islamics or homosexuals?
Absolutely not.
But I hate the SIN the practice, just as I hate the sins in my own life.
IF a homosexual battles against his sin, he is to be loved and helped.
If they battle FOR their sin, declaring that it is NOT sin, that is a different matter – –