Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Aerethan wrote:I was meaning in more of a legal sense, in the way that anyone born in America is American, regardless of where they lived at any time after birth.

Ah, right, that makes sense.

Hey it took Manny less than 5 posts to play the "homophobe" card.
Well done Manny..... well done.

You even beat Melissia.

Gg

Aerethan wrote:
I also think most African people would be pissed off to be associated with many "African-Americans" in our country. I like to think that Zimbabwe has more class than downtown Detroit.

I don't know about that, but I do agree that the term "African-American" is applied too broadly here. There are some African-Americans, though they would likely add their country of origin to "American" instead of the continent, but for the most part "black" is a more appropriate moniker if we're referring to racial background.

The way I always describe it is as this: My great-grandparents on my dad's side were fresh off the boat from Poland. My grandfather was born 5 years after that, he was Polish-American because his family was Polish and they lived in Polish Chicago.

My dad is American, but with a strong Polish flavor. That is, he seems American at first, but know him for a bit and you can see his heritage in the way he acts and the things he likes.

I'm American, you look at me and I have Central European features, but other than that I'm indistinguishable from anyone else in the Upper Midwest; aside from very minor dialect and accent differences. I don't even like Polish food.

The same applies to pretty much everyone, though with varying rates of integration.

generalgrog wrote:Hey it took Manny less than 5 posts to play the "homophobe" card.

What card, Groggy? People who are bigoted against homosexuals are conventionally referred to as homophobes. If someone asks "What's 2+2?", do I need to spend a long time teaching them arithmetic, or can I just say "4"?

I feel you on not liking the food of your heritage. British food is terribad.

For me, my grandparents moved here a few years after WWII. The first two kids were born in England, the 3rd in Canada and the last 2 in the US, one of which is my dad.

My dad is far from British-American. No accent, no traditions, none of that. He's a Californian. As such, I'm a Californian. No accent, and my only traditions are enjoying moderate weather and owning more than one car.

I don't think that English heritage carries much once outside of the UK. Scottish and Irish perhaps.

No, I stated the homophobe card first.

It's not a race though. Not one anyone wants to win.

The term "homophobic" itself is an insult.

It's not that people fear homosexuals. It is that they disapprove.

By your standards I should be called mustardphobic.

Aerethan wrote:It's not that people fear homosexuals. It is that they disapprove.

Homophobia itself, as it is used by modern society, doesn't indicate fear. Phobia in the modern sense indicates a strong and irrational dislike or fear of something.

Be that as it may... actually, I would go so far as to say that most of those who "disapprove", as you would put it with your weasel wording, are in fact motivated by a sort of fear. Certainly it is irrational.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:

d-usa wrote:President Obama's executive branch has frozen my pay to help keep federal spending down.

His executive branch has also deported more people than any other president. Surely that counts as something.

w00t!

Yeah kinda sucks having to choose between the guy who froze your pay and the guy who'll fire you.

But frozen pay is still pay at least

Aerethan wrote:The term "homophobic" itself is an insult.

Only if you take it as such. You can try to redefine the word, but it's common parlance.

Aerethan wrote:It's not that people fear homosexuals. It is that they disapprove.

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hatred leads to suffering. Yoda called it.

Most disapproval of homosexuals stems from ignorance and fear.

How the word is used means feth all to it's actual definition.

Is the N-word any less offensive if said by a black person?

So I don't really care what context people are misusing the word with, the word itself insists a fear of homosexuality.

I don't know of anyone personally who disapproves of homosexuality on the basis that they are afraid of surprise buttsecks by some bear in a park bathroom.

There isn't anything to fear in it. It isn't contagious, and unless the homosexual in question is Bobby Trendy, then in most cases it isn't even noticeable.

Aerethan wrote:
It's not that people fear homosexuals. It is that they disapprove.

Phobia in the sense of "homophobia" is distinct from the psychological understanding of phobia, such as agoraphobia.

Its confusing in the sense only the English language can be.

Mannahnin wrote:

Aerethan wrote:The term "homophobic" itself is an insult.

Only if you take it as such. You can try to redefine the word, but it's common parlance.

Aerethan wrote:It's not that people fear homosexuals. It is that they disapprove.

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hatred leads to suffering. Yoda called it.

Most disapproval of homosexuals stems from ignorance and fear.

And yet, ignorance =/= fear.

I'm ignorant of advanced physics, but I don't fear it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So we agree, it should be renamed Homoignorance.

I can accept that.

Mannahnin wrote:
Most disapproval of homosexuals stems from ignorance and fear.

Some of the fear is legitimate, not that homosexuals are actively working to subvert America, but their acceptance does make life difficult for a select group of people that find that particular form of sexuality distasteful.

Of course, in that case, its a matter of "Too bad."

Aerethan wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Aerethan wrote:The term "homophobic" itself is an insult.

Only if you take it as such. You can try to redefine the word, but it's common parlance.

Aerethan wrote:It's not that people fear homosexuals. It is that they disapprove.

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hatred leads to suffering. Yoda called it.

Most disapproval of homosexuals stems from ignorance and fear.

And yet, ignorance =/= fear.

I'm ignorant of advanced physics, but I don't fear it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So we agree, it should be renamed Homoignorance.

I can accept that.

Bigot works just as well.

If someone think your "choice" on sexuality gives them the right to pass laws restricting those who "chose" differently, then that someone is being a textbook bigot.

Aerethan wrote:How the word is used means feth all to it's actual definition.

Are you going to tell the Democrats and Republicans that they can't use those names anymore, because they're not accurate descriptions? The strict literal meaning of a word is not always exactly how it's used in real life. A Porch Monkey doesn't refer to a generic lazy person, absent any racist meaning, just because Randall from Clerks wasn't aware of the racist meaning. Terms have widespread usages and meanings that we have to (at least so some extent) accept and get used to.

Aerethan wrote:So I don't really care what context people are misusing the word with, the word itself insists a fear of homosexuality.

If you're just noticing this now, maybe you're a bit out of the loop and should do some reading and catch up on the subject a bit

Aerethan wrote:There isn't anything to fear in it. It isn't contagious, and unless the homosexual in question is Bobby Trendy, then in most cases it isn't even noticeable.

That's right. But it's not a rational fear. It's a visceral, emotional reaction.

I would like to point out that 'phobia' doesn't mean fear in the literal sense either. It mean intense dilike, hatred, disaproval, or fear. For example Anglophobia is an intense dislike of the english not fear of the english

The sad thing about all this is that there are people out there so brainwashed, that they actually think that homosexuality is rational.

GG

generalgrog wrote:The sad thing about all this is that there are people out there so brainwashed, that they actually think that homosexuality is rational.

GG

It's more rational than homophobia, considering that 1500 non-human species not only engage in homosexuality, but have equal or larger percentages of their populations prefer it in comparison to humans.

Or are we so "brainwashed" that we're imagining the natural world engaging in it, too? The only "brainwashing" going on is that people are taught to think it's unnatural.

Most people with homophobia also can't see their parents getting it on in the house with them in it. Is same sex marriage a major issue with the upcoming election? Believe the reason DOMA has a stay on it is due to the states not resolving the issue themselves. Since the federal gov't recognize marraiges within the states. So state constitution have to amend their constitution.

My state has generated enough signatures to overturn the gay marriage law enacted in March. 56,000 homophobes signed it.

And Huffington post says polls show majority of Marylanders are ignorant homophobes that will vote to repeal.

GG

edit....in case you don't understand sarcasm this post is an example of it....

Damn the population from the Eastern Shore and their church going ways

generalgrog wrote:The sad thing about all this is that there are people out there so brainwashed, that they actually think that homosexuality is rational.

No less rational than heterosexuality.

No one, rationally, thinks "Damn, that chick is fine."

No one, rationally, thinks "Damn, that chick is fine."

that and a few other um...adult fun thoughts involving that female

generalgrog wrote:My state has generated enough signatures to overturn the gay marriage law enacted in March. 56,000 homophobes signed it.

No, enough signatures to put the law to referendum.

generalgrog wrote:
And Huffington post says polls show majority of Marylanders are ignorant homophobes that will vote to repeal.

As of when?

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:The sad thing about all this is that there are people out there so brainwashed, that they actually think that homosexuality is rational.

No less rational than heterosexuality.

No one, rationally, thinks "Damn, that chick is fine."

Marriage in general is not all that natural. Shouldn't we be fething left and right to make as much offspring as possible?

Aerethan wrote:The term "homophobic" itself is an insult.

It's not that people fear homosexuals. It is that they disapprove.

By your standards I should be called mustardphobic.

saying someone is homophobic allows an "out" to the accused.

It is saying "I assume you are acting the way you are because of a fear of the unknown not because of some more evil/deranged/anti-social cause that may be too deep-rooted to leave any hope for you.

Ignorance can be countered through education and exposure. Certain other motivations are more concerning...

d-usa wrote:

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:The sad thing about all this is that there are people out there so brainwashed, that they actually think that homosexuality is rational.

No less rational than heterosexuality.

No one, rationally, thinks "Damn, that chick is fine."

Marriage in general is not all that natural. Shouldn't we be fething left and right to make as much offspring as possible?

You forgot the part where you have to raise them to.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:The sad thing about all this is that there are people out there so brainwashed, that they actually think that homosexuality is rational.

No less rational than heterosexuality.

No one, rationally, thinks "Damn, that chick is fine."

The propagation and survival of the species isn't more rational than the exact opposite of that?

Of the two, only one ends with survival beyond a single generation.

Research indicates that having some gay people may be advantageous for the continuation of the species/tribal group, even if those individuals do not breed.

As a specific example, the Allies sure benefitted from having Alan Turing on our side. They helped make sure that our society won out over the rival "tribe".