C.Wainwright (eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk) wrote: : I : |> Jim, : |>  : |> I always thought that homophobe was only a word used at Act UP : |> rallies, I didn't beleive real people used it. Let's see if we agree : |> on the term's definition. A homophobe is one who actively and : |> militantly attacks homosexuals because he is actually a latent : |> homosexual who uses his hostility to conceal his true orientation. : |> Since everyone who disapproves of or condemns homosexuality is a : |> homophobe (your implication is clear), it must necessarily follow that : |> all men are latent homosexuals or bisexual at the very least. : |>  :  : Crap crap crap crap crap.  A definition of any type of 'phobe comes from : phobia = an irrational fear of.  Hence a homophobe (not only in ACT UP meetings, : the word is apparently in general use now.  Or perhaps it isn't in the bible?   : Wouldst thou prefer if I were to communicate with thou in bilespeak?) :  : Does an arachnophobe have an irrational fear of being a spider?  Does an : agoraphobe have an irrational fear of being a wide open space?  Do you : understand English? :  : Obviously someone who has  phobia will react to it.  They will do their best : to avoid it and if that is not possible they will either strike out or : run away.  Or do gaybashings occur because of natural processes?  People : who definately have homophobia will either run away from gay people or : cause them (or themselves) violence. :   Isn't that what I said ... What are you taking issue with here, your remarks are merely parenthetical to mine and add nothing useful.  : [...] :  : |> It would seem odd if homosexuality had any evolutionary function : |> (other than limiting population growth) since evolution only occurs : |> when the members of one generation pass along their traits to : |> subsequent generations. Homosexuality is an evolutionary deadend. If I : |> take your usage of the term, homophobe, in the sense you seem to : |> intend, then all men are really homosexual and evolution of our : |> species at least, is going nowhere. : |>  :  : So *every* time a man has sex with a woman they intend to produce children? : Hmm...no wonder the world is overpopulated.  Obviously you keep to the : Monty Python song:  "Every sperm is sacred".  And if, as *you* say, it has : a purpose as a means to limit population growth then it is, by your own  : arguement, natural.  Consider the context, I'm talking about an evolutionary function. One of the most basic requirements of evolution is that members of a species procreate, those who don't have no purpose in that context.  :  : |> Another point is that if the offspring of each generation is to : |> survive, the participation of both parents is necessary - a family must : |> exist, since homosexuals do not reproduce, they cannot constitute a : |> family. Since the majority of humankind is part of a family, : |> homosexuality is an evolutionary abberation, contrary to nature if you : |> will. : |>  :  : Well if that is true, by your own arguements homosexuals would have  : vanished *years* ago due to non-procreation.  Also the parent from single : parent families should put the babies out in the cold now, cos they must, : by your arguement, die.  By your argument, homosexuality is genetically determined. As to your second point, you prove again that you have no idea what context means. I am talking about evolution, the preservation of the species, the fundamental premise of the whole process. :  : |> But it gets worse. Since the overwhelming majority of people actually : |> -prefer- a heterosexual relationship, homosexuality is a social : |> abberation as well. The homosexual eschews the biological imperative : |> to reproduce and then the social imperative to form and participate in : |> the most fundamental social element, the family. But wait, there's : |> more. : |>  :  : Read the above.  I expect you to have at least ten children by now, with : the family growing.  These days sex is less to do with procreation (admittedly : without it there would be no-one) but more to do with pleasure.  In pre-pill : and pre-condom days, if you had sex there was the chance of producing children. : These days is just ain't true!  People can decide whether or not to have  : children and when.  Soon they will be able to choose it's sex &c (but that's  : another arguement...) so it's more of a "lifestyle" decision.  Again by : your arguement, since homosexuals can not (or choose not) to reproduce they must : be akin to people who decide to have sex but not children.  Both are  : as "unnatural" as each other.  Yet another non-sequitur. Sex is an evolutionary function that exists for procreation, that it is also recreation is incidental. That homosexuals don't procreate means that sex is -only- recreation and nothing more; they serve no -evolutionary- purpose.  :  : |> Since homosexuals have come out the closet and have convinced some : |> policy makers that they have civil rights, they are now claiming that : |> their sexuality is a preference, a life-style, an orientation, a : |> choice that should be protected by law. Now if homosexuality is a mere : |> choice and if it is both contrary to nature and anti-social, then it : |> is a perverse choice; they have even less credibility than before they : |> became prominent.  : |>  :  : People are people are people.  Who are you to tell anyone else how to live : their life?  Are you god(tm)?  If so, fancy a date?  Here's pretty obvious dodge, do you really think you've said anything or do you just feel obligated to respond to every statement? I am not telling anyone anything, I am demonstrating that there are arguments against the practice of homosexuality (providing it's a merely an alternate lifestlye) that are not homophobic, that one can reasonably call it perverse in a context even a atheist can understand. I realize of course that this comes dangerously close to establishing  a value, and that atheists are compelled to object on that basis, but if you are to be consistent, you have no case in this regard. :  : |> To characterize any opposition to homosexuality as homophobic is to : |> ignore some very compelling arguments against the legitimization of : |> the homosexual "life-style". But since the charge is only intended to : |> intimidate, it's really just demogoguery and not to be taken : |> seriously. Fact is, Jim, there are far more persuasive arguments for : |> suppressing homosexuality than those given, but consider this a start. : |>  :  : Again crap.  All your arguments are based on outdated ideals.  Likewise the : bible.  Would any honest Christian condemn the ten generations spawned by : a "bastard" to eternal damnation?  Or someone who crushes his penis (either : accidently or not..!).  Both are in Deuteronomy.  I'm sure your comment pertains to something, but you've disguised it so well I can't see what. Where did I mention ideals, out-dated or otherwise? Your arguments are very reactionary; do you have anything at all to contribute?  :  : |> As to why homosexuals should be excluded from participation in : |> scouting, the reasons are the same as those used to restrict them from : |> teaching; by their own logic, homosexuals are deviates, social and : |> biological. Since any adult is a role model for a child, it is : |> incumbent on the parent to ensure that the child be isolated from : |> those who would do the child harm. In this case, harm means primarily : |> social, though that could be extended easily enough. : |>  : |>  :  : You show me *anyone* who has sex in a way that everyone would describe as : normal, and will take of my hat (Puma baseball cap) to you.  "One man's meat : is another man's poison"! :   What has this got to do with anything? Would you pick a single point that you find offensive and explain your objections, I would really like to believe that you can discuss this issue intelligibly.