tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post991285981437697959..comments2024-03-29T03:05:05.850-05:00Comments on Althouse: "I coined the word homophobia to mean it was a phobia about homosexuals.... It was a fear of homosexuals..."Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-82034620655230055412017-03-24T08:14:32.093-05:002017-03-24T08:14:32.093-05:00I always assumed the term came from the fear that ...I always assumed the term came from the fear that one's own child would be homosexual.Wincehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15002449963597087316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-42100526653407336142017-03-24T07:59:34.703-05:002017-03-24T07:59:34.703-05:00Also "normal:" obesity, cardiovascular d...Also "normal:" obesity, cardiovascular disease, alcoholism, adultery, child abuse, addiction, crushing credit card debt, diabetes.<br /><br />Gluttony, pride, lust, envy, sloth, wrath, greed.TrespassersW https://www.blogger.com/profile/03388679190741686543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-25287200912847382162017-03-24T07:43:50.916-05:002017-03-24T07:43:50.916-05:00However, "normal" can also be considered...<i>However, "normal" can also be considered simply as any behavior or trait that is among the many that appear frequently in nature, among which are to-be-expected differences in statistical frequency, while "abnormal" a trait or behavior that is a "freak" or "sport" of nature, (cyclops babies, two-headed animals, etc.). That certain traits and behaviors may be more common does not mean the less common but still frequently occurring behavior or trait is "not normal." It just means that it is a normal minority trait or behavior.</i><br /><br />Guess what? Murder, robbery, rape, assault, all of those are "normal" behavior. <br /><br />What point, exactly, are you trying to make again?TrespassersW https://www.blogger.com/profile/03388679190741686543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-41492183151049631222017-03-23T22:11:14.946-05:002017-03-23T22:11:14.946-05:00He coined the term in the 1960s? Then he lived at...He coined the term in the 1960s? Then he lived at least fifty years too long.Big Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15831645119853118904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-46052105935687165332017-03-23T19:55:35.127-05:002017-03-23T19:55:35.127-05:00" It also appears in the animal kingdom."...<b>" It also appears in the animal kingdom."</b><br /><br />Yes, it does, but as a dominance behavior, not as a productive behavior lending itself to pair-bonding or the rearing of off-spring.<br /><br />Homophobia is a term used to control expression. The natural aversion to areas of the body that lead to disease, primarily.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11127399420995616407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-67749961800030823762017-03-23T19:30:52.102-05:002017-03-23T19:30:52.102-05:00People may not have been afraid of homosexuals but...People may not have been afraid of homosexuals but many were terrified that their children, especially sons, might be "converted" by homosexuals.readeringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16699913625782012426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-34271792887053729372017-03-23T19:25:45.135-05:002017-03-23T19:25:45.135-05:00From now on we should purge gay from our conversat...<i>From now on we should purge gay from our conversations or writings unless we mean lightheartedly happy or carefree.</i><br /><br />Let's replace "gay" with "flamboyant." As in, "the flamboyant Liberace," or "Martina Navratilova's flamboyant entourage."<br /><br />"Fabulous" would also work.Roughcoathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12669030540648967376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-49972239174218066512017-03-23T19:08:10.374-05:002017-03-23T19:08:10.374-05:00Given how homosexuals have acted since they have g...<i>Given how homosexuals have acted since they have gotten power, fear of them appears to have been well placed.</i><br /><br />Good point. They certainly have wreaked havoc on Christians.<br /><br />Not so much on Muslims. What with throat cutting and all.Michael Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18127450762129879267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-17438090514841480212017-03-23T18:57:49.902-05:002017-03-23T18:57:49.902-05:00Just one of many.<a href="http://phobialist.com/" rel="nofollow">Just one of many.</a><br /><br /><br />JackWaynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14711089367463277913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-58894163791507281782017-03-23T18:37:31.074-05:002017-03-23T18:37:31.074-05:00Robert Cook: However, "normal" can also...Robert Cook: <i>However, "normal" can also be considered simply as any behavior or trait that is among the many that appear frequently in nature, among which are to-be-expected differences in statistical frequency, while "abnormal" a trait or behavior that is a "freak" or "sport" of nature, (cyclops babies, two-headed animals, etc.). That certain traits and behaviors may be more common does not mean the less common but still frequently occurring behavior or trait is "not normal." It just means that it is a normal minority trait or behavior.</i><br /><br />I think you're implicitly referencing concepts of "morally good" vs. "morally bad or suspect" behavior here, which in this context I don't care about and which is irrelevant to my own view. If it's a "minority behavior" then it is a behavior <i>different</i> from, wait for it, the norm. You're going round in circles here, because you're under the misapprehension that being able to label the behavior under discussion here as "normal" settles any question about how it should be treated socially and institutionally. But the label tells you nothing about this.<br /><br />We don't have a difference of opinion about sexual morality here, we have a difference of opinion about <i>the purpose and function of a fundamental social institution</i>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1335347847508303002017-03-23T18:37:24.404-05:002017-03-23T18:37:24.404-05:00The other problem here is the delusion of individu...The other problem here is the delusion of individualism, not merely in the here and now but in the timestream. <br />What is the point of living? To exist, for the sake of existing? <br />Is that what countless generations of ancestors struggled, stove off despair, and fought through pain for? <br />Are we somehow the fulfillment and justification of all that trouble, in merely existing, and enjoying whatever it is we enjoy, and ending that line for which so many have gone to all that trouble? <br />Or have we simply been passed the ball in this game, to play it and pass it on?<br />Its clear that the first is wrong, because if that were the categorical imperative then there is no possibility of existence. So it must be the other. buwayahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02388691837737324814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-64799877274536794932017-03-23T18:16:43.138-05:002017-03-23T18:16:43.138-05:00"What is intrinsically preferable about "..."What is intrinsically preferable about "normal?"<br /><br />Its the human spec. The checklist. <br />All systems are go, the engine is ticking over, brakes are good, tank is full, checked the dipstick. <br />Ready to ride. <br />Homosexuals have one quite important system busted. The most important system. <br />We are, like all other animals, designed to reproduce. We are reproducing machines, everything else is auxiliary systems. <br /><br />Why are we full of empathy for people born deaf, blind, missing limbs, and why are there institutions and technology applied to fixing or palliating these other problems - which also are "normal" conditions - but there is intense reluctance to even consider repair of others?buwayahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02388691837737324814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-19659679996810974842017-03-23T18:12:56.375-05:002017-03-23T18:12:56.375-05:00Robert Cook: How can you know that? It's only...Robert Cook: <i>How can you know that? It's only just been legalized. I'd say that it looks like it is having that effect.</i><br /><br />No, it doesn't. Even before the SC ruling on "gay marriage", the cacophony of crazy and chronic dissatisfaction moved on to bold new frontiers in "civil rights". As it must, as long as the belief persists that the non-normal (in the statistical sense) can be made "normal" by legal fiat. (Speaking of superstition and religious impulses...)<br /><br /><i>However, as we see with the persistence of racism decades after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, more than a century after the abolition of slavery, long-held beliefs and biases die long and hard. (Science hasn't killed human superstition and religious impulses.)</i><br /><br />Yeah, yeah, yeah, the fundamental progressive dogma: everything (cause) is exactly the same as everything else. (Except if the individual/group on the left side of the who/whom equation happens to be an Enemy of the People.)<br /><br />And I hate to break this to you, Cookie, but science is not only not on the side of every progressive belief, it's not even relevant to each and every progressive issue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-83398506840421029682017-03-23T17:52:57.012-05:002017-03-23T17:52:57.012-05:00I second what Roy Jacobsen said.
It is a word u...I second what Roy Jacobsen said. <br /><br />It is a word used to "other" anyone who disagrees with the current fashion. I instantly lose respect for anyone who uses it unless they're being intentionally ironic. dbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00457585811847604584noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-26747384099608767442017-03-23T17:36:20.932-05:002017-03-23T17:36:20.932-05:00"Note that achieving 'gay marriage' d...<i>"Note that achieving 'gay marriage' did not have the promised 'civil rights' effect of just making gay relationships respectable and 'normal' like straight relationships."</i><br /><br />How can you know that? It's only just been legalized. I'd say that it looks like it is having that effect. However, as we see with the persistence of racism decades after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, more than a century after the abolition of slavery, long-held beliefs and biases die long and hard. (Science hasn't killed human superstition and religious impulses.)<br /><br />(Deleted and reposted with the replacement of a key word, {"slavery" for "racism"}).Robert Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06951286299515983901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-29830771337547601522017-03-23T17:34:04.726-05:002017-03-23T17:34:04.726-05:00"If it's a minority behavior, it's no...<i>"If it's a minority behavior, it's not, by definition, normal. Excellence is not normal, and neither is depravity. Mediocrity is normal."</i><br /><br />It depends how you define "normal." (See my posts where I agree with you that "normal" means "mediocre.")<br /><br />However, "normal" can also be considered simply as any behavior or trait that is among the many that appear frequently in nature, among which are to-be-expected differences in statistical frequency, while "abnormal" a trait or behavior that is a "freak" or "sport" of nature, (cyclops babies, two-headed animals, etc.). That certain traits and behaviors may be more common does not mean the less common but still frequently occurring behavior or trait is "not normal." It just means that it is a <i>normal minority trait or behavior.</i><br /><br />Another response to that is to point out that obvious: "abnormal," then, cannot be correctly used as a pejorative, but just as an objective statement of lesser statistical frequency.Robert Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06951286299515983901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-88331672836946848572017-03-23T17:29:46.685-05:002017-03-23T17:29:46.685-05:00Robert Cook: I don't know that it was,(though...Robert Cook: <i>I don't know that it was,(though I think it's a reasonable guess). But how does the other commenter know it wasn't?</i><br /><br />I don't know if my theory of ego-salving projection is true, though I think it is more true to human nature, and thus more reasonable, than your equally un-evidenced theory of fear-expressed-as-disgust. How do you know it isn't?<br /><br />Do either of the above two statements rise above stoned-in-your-dorm-room profundities about "who's to say what's really normal, maaaaan?" No.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-45144830062484104042017-03-23T17:21:38.130-05:002017-03-23T17:21:38.130-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Robert Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06951286299515983901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-58229643551454454002017-03-23T17:21:26.740-05:002017-03-23T17:21:26.740-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Robert Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06951286299515983901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-2720588988176264932017-03-23T17:16:18.972-05:002017-03-23T17:16:18.972-05:00"Robert Cook: 'How do you know their disl...<i>"Robert Cook: <b>'How do you know their dislike or disapproval was not, at least in some cases, motivated by fear?'</b><br /><br />"How do you know it was?"</i><br /><br />I <i>don't</i> know that it was,(though I think it's a reasonable guess). But how does the other commenter know it <i>wasn't</i>?Robert Cookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06951286299515983901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-46531471519152176492017-03-23T17:13:58.500-05:002017-03-23T17:13:58.500-05:00Robert Cook: Homosexuality is entirely "norm...Robert Cook: <i>Homosexuality is entirely "normal," in that it appears in all human societies in all eras. It also appears in the animal kingdom. It may be, statistically, a minority behavior, but there are many normal behavioral or physical traits of humanity that are in the minority.</i><br /><br />If it's a minority behavior, it's not, by definition, normal. Excellence is not normal, and neither is depravity. Mediocrity is normal.<br /><br />Whatever the moral status of homosexuality in an individual, a society that "normalizes" (or rather, tries to normalize) homosexuality, pushing nonsense like "gay marriage", has probably reached its silly stage, with significant social disruption coming just around the corner. Note that achieving "gay marriage" did not have the promised "civil rights" effect of just making gay relationships respectable and "normal" like straight relationships. Rather the whole "rights" aspect immediately segued into tranny-palooza, "cis privilege", demands to recognize 4,726 "genders", and oh yes, witch-hunting people who weren't falling in line with the nonsense out of jobs, businesses, and assets.<br /><br />Wonder what's coming next.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-83710232980347768672017-03-23T17:13:13.279-05:002017-03-23T17:13:13.279-05:00Robert Cook said... "Given how homosexuals ha...<i>Robert Cook said... "Given how homosexuals have acted since they have gotten power...."<br /><br />Ha ha! <br /><br />You really need to get out more.</i><br /><br />When the First Amendment is in peril, there is very good reason to fear. If that goes there are two options: tyranny or civil war. I understand both are unpleasant.Static Pinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17083787604745437979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-68420295326272257002017-03-23T16:57:20.645-05:002017-03-23T16:57:20.645-05:00"Ha ha!
You really need to get out more.&quo..."Ha ha!<br /><br />You really need to get out more."<br /><br />Apparently, you've not heard of any bakeries, flower shops or pizzerias being sued out of existence recently.<br /><br />Maybe it's you who needs to get out more.Jim athttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02271099587684174816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-14747282032822344692017-03-23T16:50:14.215-05:002017-03-23T16:50:14.215-05:00Fernandinande: And "homophobic" back to...Fernandinande: <i>And "homophobic" back to 1887.</i><br /><br />Did it mean the same thing?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-88599714513956569112017-03-23T16:49:13.550-05:002017-03-23T16:49:13.550-05:00Robert Cook: How do you know their dislike or dis...Robert Cook: <i>How do you know their dislike or disapproval was not, at least in some cases, motivated by fear?</i><br /><br />How do you know it was?<br /><br />How do you know that the people who push the "-phobia" line aren't motivated by the ego-salving impulse to believe that people who claim to be feel disgust and contempt for them are really motivated by irrational "fear"?<br /><br />Makes at least as much sense, since most people can live a lot more easily with the idea of being feared than they can with the knowledge that they are considered disgusting and contemptible.<br /><br />We can play this game all day long.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com