Why go on... and on about it...

Marriage determines "legal benefits", not "sexuality".

 

Not a strange as the gays demanding that the government mind their sexuality by demanding that government license and regulate their homosexual relationships

 

Blacks didnt demand tax breaks and governmental entitlements for being black.

 

Now, in California for instance schools are mandated to teach children about homosexuality while being prohibited from providing any information that might reflect badly upon gays. Teaching kids that 61% of the AIDS cases are among men who have sex with men would be prohibited as that might reflect badly upon gays.

 

Why shouldn't homosexuals seek equal rights, as it relates to marrying those they are most compatible with?

 

That's a ridiculous assertion. If Blacks had been taxed unfairly and (as they were) denied certain entitlements/benefits... they would have FOUGHT for the same; just as homosexuals will CONTINUE to fight for equality in marriage.

 

Well, they didn't teach things that reflect badly (in particular) upon heterosexuals or asexuals, did they? Why teach negatives about "gays"?

I CAN see training kids on the actual risks of sexual activity... but there need be no programmed put-down of whatever is perceived to be "gay".

The risk of acquiring AIDS via unprotected sex, is great enough for ANYONE, that there is no need to single-out homosexuals per se. Why teach that "gay" is somehow 'worse' than 'straight'.

That wouldn't be fair/right at all.

 

I also think that Homosexuals should not force their views on others but I am for allowing marriage

equal rights yes, special rights no no

 

Right; no one should 'force' their views. I just want homosexual people to have fully equal rights. Still, politically and legally there is a battle that must be waged; no getting around that.

Okay.

 

Yes they did. I learned about all the health risks of heterosexual sex. Taught about bad behavior of heterosexuals.

 

Equality in marriage would entail marriage for any two consenting adults who desire it. But you want special rights, just for the homosexuals.

 

Changing the law from "one man and one woman" to "two persons" removes the bulk of the discrimination based on gender/sexuality. But some common-sense laws, like prohibition based on age and relations (which I'm pretty sure vary from state to state anyway) will remain. The issue is not closed up for debate though, it's just that this happens to be the "gay and lesbian rights forum"...

Nice dead horse though.

 

I also would guess the amount of homophobes who are gay would be the same % as homosexuals per 100?

 

Several people have made this claim. Let me respond to you all.

Defending black people in the fifties and sixties did not mean white people wanted to be black.
It meant they felt they had a responsibility toward those who did not have the numbers to effect change by their overwhelming majority cudgel.
Supporting gay rights is supporting the idea of freedom for all Americans. Gay issues do effect straight people, because how we treat these people is going to help define who we want to be as a people, as a country.
If you are against gay rights, it effects you in the same way. You are choosing to define our country as a narrow, freedom limiting regime that will not tolerate certain groups and will elevate others, none of whom present a threat to the security of the country. When demographics change and the current majority finds themselves marginalized by numbers, they will regret their choice of freedom limitation for the minority. When white people become the minority, or Christians become a minority, they will lament the day that they tried so hard to limit the rights and freedoms of the people they had the numbers to bully.
Gay rights are your rights, no matter who you are. How we treat these vulnerable members of our society will help define who we are, and who we are going to be.
Fortunately, our history has shown a trajectory of greater and greater rights for more and more people. We are a progressive people, and history shows a progressive arc. I don't see this changing anytime soon, though it will always have to be fought for.

 

The whole terminology of homophobe is rife with corruptive concept, and is a manufactured phobia, with the amazing distinction of being a global mass species diagnosis.

In regards to the OP, branding someone with homophobia is another aggressive pro homosexuality tactic, and is in the same spirit of silencing persons as latent homosexuals who do not agree, or, would be considered anti-homosexual.

It boils down to whether one caves to the labling mechanisms designed to either silence or ostracize, versus, standing on what you personally believe in, for whatever reasons you believe it.

Churches have buckled under the pressure. Some religions refuse to. The governmental arm of education supports it and cultivates the seeds of society to the gradualists eventual victory and the societal cost of that victory is significant.

 

There are studies that have shown some degree of truth in the charges of latent homosexuality in those most vehemently anti-gay. One study got a bunch of heterosexual male volunteers who claimed to have "no problem with gay men", and a group of heterosexual males who said they felt uncomfortable around gay men or did not agree with homosexuality, hooked up their genitals to devices measuring sexual stimulation, and proceeded to show them pornography ranging from lesbian, to straight, to gay men... And found that the group with the most stimulation when shown the gay male porn was the "anti-gay" group.

Obviously it could just be a fluke ect, repeated testing would be necessary to come to any conclusions, but it's interesting nevertheless.

But of course no way am I trying to say all anti-gay males are latent homosexuals/bisexuals, or that it's (*)even fair to accuse anyone of such a thing... But interestingly enough on these forums there have been charges that the people supporting same sex marriage rights must be gay. It's quite the opposite.

I don't see what pressure churches are buckling to. As far as I'm aware churches aren't being forced to do anything, and no one is advocating such a thing.

And what is being cultivated in the education system that will incur a "cost"?(*)

 

Here is a more accurate definition of "homophobia" and information on the actual origin of the "concept". Clearly enough, it isn't as YOU have put it.

That the diagnoses exist, doesn't invalidate the concept of the disorder itself.

And certainly, there is REAL science/research backing the use of the term (homophobia).

 

I can only refer you back to my earlier post, and, given the fact of the vehemence, both physical and verbal shown by all towards homosexuals, would by necessity then make the populace latent homosexuals....under the premise that really, really, really anti-gay posters are latent homosexuals.

Logic would bring it the understanding that of course not all of society are homosexuals, and therefore there is another reason why posters/persons who debate from the anti-homosexual stance, are attempted to be labled as latent homosexuals.

It is an attempt to silence rather than have the dialog. Smear versus Free Speech. It is a very successful tactic in many areas, however, in this particular usage...it is easily exposed as not being possible.

Religion vs homosexuality. Perhaps you are not aware of the past relationships between the two. Buckling was done, although not in the muslim realm of things. They still will hang gays etc.

 

Yeah, that portion that effects homosexuals. And it only seems that way because the gays are so vocal in their demands.

 

Yep, homosexual avoidance can be seen in nature, just as incest avoidance can be seen. Perfectly natural. My male dog freaks out whenever the neighbors male dog tries to mount him. My dog int a homophobe.

 

They view labeling someone a homosexual to be the ultimate insult. Some kind of self loathing mindset going on.

 

Actually anyone who wants to marry a member of their own sex - including bisexuals and platonic same-sex "couples"..

 

Made up heterophobic BS. There is no such diagnosis.

 

I don't believe that it is a self loathing mindset that is at the root of this particular silencing tactic, which does not preclude self loathing in homosexuals or heterosexuals or fat people gay or straight, bolemics gay or straight etc, etc.

I think tactics of smearing people to bring about their silence regarding a debate is the modus operandi of the aggressive pro homosexual voice.

It just so happens it is a weak tactic for this particular smearing for silence topic, of really, really, really anti-homosexual posters are latent homosexuals, since it is so easily disproved.

There are many others that can still hit the mark of bringing silence by smearing. Hatemonger, racist, homophobe etc.

 

Okay, you keep ignoring reality; your choice.