The arguments for: 1. "Homophobia" seems inaptly restricted to fearing gay persons, 2. "Gaycism" seems parallel to "racism."
Arguments against: 1. "-cism" is not a suffix. (Not that you can't have a new suffix. Just in the "-ism" family, there's "-aholism.") 2. "Gaycism" is too silly and the idea it's supposed to express is very serious. (People will wonder what's "gayce"? And the facile rhyming seems lightweight) 3. Why replace a word once you have a word? (The old word comes to mean what people use it to mean. It's pedantic to fret about the roots of a word once it's embedded.)
I say no. Disagree?
IN THE COMMENTS: Internet Ronin puts his finger on what was vaguely troubling me:
Transpose the "c" and "y" and it spells "Gacyism," as in John Wayne Gacy.
पोस्ट्स
१४६ टिप्पण्या:
I've never liked the term homophobia. Gaycism? Far from perfect, but way better than homophobia.
Although I've accepted the use of "homophobia" and even used it for the first time in a post on my blog just yesterday, I've never liked it, for the reason you cite. Hatred of homosexuals is not the same as fear of homosexuals, the latter being the strict definition of homophobia.
Gaycism hardly seems appropriate either and not just because -cism isn't a real prefix. My objection is that it's a derivative word, like all of the -gate words we've used to describe Washington scandals since the days of Richard Nixon. Just as each subsequent scandal--Irangate is one egregious example--have been quite different from the Watergate scandal and so, deserving of their own shorthand descriptions, the phenomenon of prejudice and discrimination against homosexuals warrants a word of its own.
Mark Daniels
Transpose the "c" and "y" and it spells "Gacyism," as in John Wayne Gacy. Neither term recommends itself to me.
IR: You beat me to it.
Bad style. The 1.s and 2.s are too easily confused!
Hatred of homosexuals is not the same as fear of homosexuals, the latter being the strict definition of homophobia.
How about a term for disapproval of homosexual habits? I don't dislike gays, I just think that sticking your reproductive organs up someone's waste tract is sick.
Ever been to a wound care ward? They stitch a plug into your gut so they can drain the tumor after radiation. A little fine tuning by the Cosmetic Surgery industry, and I'm sure some people would try sticking their reproductive organs into that too. Is there any boundry that shouldn't be crossed?
So Fen, lesbians are okay in your eyes, but not gay men?
No. But the lesbians I know form lasting monogamous relationships, while the gay males trolls bars and bathhouses for anonymous sex. Whats up with that?
Besides, among my kids, "gay" is slang for "stupid" as in "that's so gay." So would this new word then describe hatred of stupidity?
On another note concerning Fen's remarks. Without being too graphic, do realize that the male reproductive organ doubles as a waste tube.
Actually, I'm unusually busy this morning and freaking out! Posts like that have a calming effect on me. They are very easy to write, as blog posts go.
FYI, the two Joe's above are two different Joe's. I know there's a joke in there somewhere.
Gaycism is even more inaccurate than homophobia. Homophobia is inaccurate because it suggests anyone who has a certain political outlook must have a mental disorder. One can have reasonable disagreement about whether to pass a gay marriage law or permit gays to serve openly in the military without suffering from a mental illness. Likewise, one can have such reasonable disagreement without being a bigot or massing the power of the state against gays as a class, excluding them from jobs, education, most commercial activity and property rights, voting, jury service, and civil society. One can also have such reasonable disagreement without hating gays, as a member of the Klu Klux Klan might hate minorities. There is a nice all-purpose word that applies to those who are prejudiced, biased, bigoted, or hateful toward gays: bigot. Bigots should simply be called bigots. But people who articulate their reasonable disagreement civilly are not bigots. They certainly shouldn't be called gaycists, which, quite ironically, stigmatizes gays. I see no difference between gay cysts and straight cysts. I wouldn't want either kind.
Phobias are psychological disorders, so when someone is called homophobic that person is being called psychologically diseased.
While it may be apt and true here or there, in some relatively isolated cases, it's just way too broad a brush in the context in which the word is normally bandied about.
An unfair pejorative employed solely to belittle and marginalize all perceived opponents in a blanket way. A logically fallacious argument as well.
Those are the things wrong with it. Anti-homosexual will do nicely.
An unfair pejorative employed solely to belittle and marginalize all perceived opponents in a blanket way. A logically fallacious argument as well.
Completely agree. But its a moot point - the homosexual community owns the term and won't release it, for the reasons you mentioned above.
I'm remembering an old thread here were a gay marriage bill failed and Ann quoted a lesbian asking "Why do they hate me?". We don't hate you, we just don't believe its healthy for society to accept your lifestyle as mainstream.
Actually, I think that antiprohomosexual or unprohomsexual would be more accurate than antihomosexual. Part of the problem is that homophobic has been expanded to include those who personally don't care whether someone is or is not gay or lesbian, but just isn't ready to see the millenia old institution of marriage changed so quickly.
I like both of them.
Besides the goofy etymology of "homophobia" there's the fact that the operative emotion is revulsion, not fear. (Unless the subject is hot lesbians, in which case the operative emotion is "yumm!")
As for "gaycism"...well, really.
They're both really stupid words and so they provide a useful signal that someone who uses them a lot is not worth listening to.
Another problem with "homophobic" is that in reality, its roots mean fear of man, not fear of homosexuals. A more accurate term would probably be "homosexualphobic".
So, continuing my previous post, maybe a better word would be unhomosexualphile (or would it be "non" instead of "un"?)
So, maybe this is where we could bring in "Gay" - for ungayphile or nongayphile.
I'm not sure that most people understand Greek well enough to differentiate between 'fear of' and 'dislike of.'
Besides, the term, 'xenophobic,' more and more frequently applied to extreme anti-immigrant groups like the Minutemen, technically means fear of outsiders (generally considered to mean foreigners), but in my experience (and I've met a few of those folks) they don't fear foreigners as much as hate foreigners.
Though it could be argued that behind every hate, there is at some level a fear. Often it is a fear, expressed consciously or not, that one will be labelled (correctly or incorrectly) as a gay person. Some men who have been vociferously anti-homosexual in their public lives have turned out later to be conducting gay private lives. Maybe they have a level of self-hate or denial in which they feel that persecuting gay people makes them feel less gay. In fact, there was a case several years ago in which a seriously disturbed heterosexual man named Roger Gay, who had been teased unmercifully about his surname for years while he was growing up, opened fire in a gay bar and murdered two or three people, just to prove that he was not gay.
Fen:
I've known gay men who have remained committed to each other for years, so apparently your subset of observation is smaller than the universal set.
In the spirit of trying to combine and rearrange words I took the word "bigot" and came up with "gabot," (with a long 'a' sound) but I don't think that works either, as some people might think of something like Woody's orgasmatron.
Fen, by "the gay male" do you mean to imply that there's only one out there, or that all gay men act a certain way?
Oooh! Gay anal sex! Gay anal sex! It seems to bother Fen too! Tell me, Fen, have you ever gotten a blow job? Isn't sticking your reproductive organ in someone's mouth "sick" too? Forget it. I've had this tiresome discussion too many times (mostly in high school). If you don't like thinking about it, then don't think about it. For some reason the people that say they don't like to think about it think about it a lot.
"...while the gay males trolls bars and bathhouses for anonymous sex. Whats up with that?"
Men like to have sex! Have you ever noticed that?
ANYWAY, I dislike the term "homophobia" for reasons I've written about on this blog. This "word" is even worse.
Unless the subject is hot lesbians, in which case the operative emotion is "yumm!")
Not in my world. The lesbians I know are good peeps, but not the least bit attractive.
do you mean to imply that there's only one out there, or that all gay men act a certain way?
I meant the gay males I personally know. All are 30+ and have a peverted appetite for random anonymous sex. YMMV.
I've known gay men who have remained committed to each other for years, so apparently your subset of observation is smaller than the universal set.
Granted. These guys are all federal employees, so maybe there's some weird connection.
I don't dislike gays, I just think that sticking your reproductive organs up someone's waste tract is sick.
So you have no problem with gays as long as they avoid anal sex? Of course you are equally repulsed by heterosexuals who practice anal sex.
Yes. Anal sex is repulsive.
You stupid gaycist! Neh. Gaycism is awful. How about misohome? misoqueer? Gayters?
Gay people sometimes fear or hate straight people too. This is the subject of a book called Heterophobia, by Daphne Patai. If you change homophobia, then you have to change all the words that have grown up around it, such as Heterophobia.
What's really behind the terms we use:
Daphne Patai writes, "No social group selflessly refrains from using whatever weapons its historical moment makes available in order to gain money, position, fame (of a sort), and retribution, all in the name of equity and righteousness" (35).
Trying to get that whole agenda into a term is what's at stake. The term has to sound scientific, sound, be specific, and yet it has to have claws and teeth (it can't be easily mocked).
It's fun to see words sharpened into better weapons so as to promote an agenda. I nominate "political correctness" as one of the best terms in the culture wars. It makes even the far left stop in their tracks, even if only for a second. Race, gender and class use Marx's terms quite well. Something along those lines is what the left should work on: tie the gay agenda to Marx's coat tails, an duse a term that can easily be traced back to that specific war machine.
Fen, you don't know any straight men who troll bars and have anonymous sex with women they've just met? You must not get out much. I'm pretty sure there are all sorts of people out there having sex you don't approve of. But really, having sex with a wound? I worry that such disgusting images plague your mind.
I just got an invitation to go to London this summer for the wedding of my oldest friend from high school; he's marrying his partner, with whom he's been in a relationship since 1987, when he went to England for a junior year abroad program. While our parents assumed we were dating each other, we were instead working through the coming out process together. Neither of us could have imagined at the time that I'd be standing in his wedding to a lovely man.
Palladin: Oooh! Gay anal sex! Gay anal sex! It seems to bother Fen too!..For some reason the people that say they don't like to think about it think about it a lot.
The question was "should I be lumped in with racists and bigots merely because I find homosexual sexual acts repulsive".
Fen, you don't know any straight men who troll bars and have anonymous sex with women they've just met?
Not since my college days.
But really, having sex with a wound? I worry that such disgusting images plague your mind.
The image was meant to convey my disgust to those who normally don't understand why we're repulsed. Looks like it worked.
Fen, heterosexuals also practice anal sex.
I will add my voice as someone who finds Gaycism a little odd. It's part the John Wayne Gacy thing, but I think the main problem is that it's a weird grouping of letters -- there just aren't many English words with ayci in them. I can't think of any, so that sequence of letters looks very unnatural to me.
Is this my cue to re-rant as ever that 'homophobia' means nothing more and nothing less than 'an irrational fear of sameness'?
Probably, but I'm just home and too tired to bother.
Gaycism is poor. No not poor; it's limp, lame, pathetic.
We need something far more snappy yet robust.
I offer:
Don't-ask-me-if-Dorothy's-been-in-or-you'll-get-a-Slap Syndrome.
Nice big capital S to show it's a genuine, really, really true psychological disorder.
Research grants and professorial Chairs available on request.
"So tell me son when did you start having bouts of DDS?"
"About the time you started wearing Maw's frocks Paw."
"OK son, no need to get personal. Just take those pills that the nice doctor gave you this morning."
Fen, heterosexuals also practice anal sex.
So how do you 'practice' for something like that? What's the exercises and warm-ups?
I'm heterosexual - last time anyone bothered to check - but I've never been near anal sex with a woman. Am I missing something or maybe even disbarred from practice? (What a relief that would be!)
Come to think of it, the only woman who ever asked me (actually she was rather insistent on the matter as I recall) to roger her was an American over here on a Rhodes scholarship.
Didn't stop to check whether she was a liberal or a conservative (which I gather from this blog is how you people differentiate everyone).
I simply made my excuses and fled like a good Englishman.
"should I be lumped in with racists and bigots merely because I find homosexual sexual acts repulsive".
No, you lump yourself with bigots when you prejudge the moral worth of an entire demographic solely on the basis of what you imagine about their sex acts.
"Gaycism" -- the last thing we need is another silly neologism to further trivialize a problem that Fen proves is still with us.
Anal sex is repulsive.
Analcist?
Analcist?
Too close to anal cyst.
Homphobia - I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Gaycist - sounds too much like a boil.
Gaytred. My own invention! It rocks. "Another expample of right wing gaytred." It even sounds good.
Gaytred, the newer neoligism.
Trey
Mortimer Brezny: Homophobia is inaccurate because it suggests anyone who has a certain political outlook must have a mental disorder.... One can also have such reasonable disagreement without hating gays, as a member of the Klu Klux Klan might hate minorities. ...But people who articulate their reasonable disagreement civilly are not bigots.
Racists can civilly articulate their reasonable disagreement about the relative intelligence, moral righteousness, or repulsiveness of different races, as people have throughout history by citing the Bible, global demographics, genetics, cerebral size, etc.. But their civility doesn't exempt them from the label racist.
People (e.g., Fen) who are repulsed by homosexuals fall into a category of people who believe, whether they articulate it civilly or not, that gays are repulsive and morally inferior to straights. I think its fair to assign a label this viewpoint, whether the label is homophobic, anti-gay, or gaycist. There won't be a perfect etymology because the root of the belief will be different for different people (conditioning, hatred, fear, religion, genetics, any combination thereof, etc.), but it will still be grounded in judging and differentiating people on the basis of their sexual orientation.
Gaycist just sounds silly to me. I kind of understand its rationale, but even so, it should be something like "sexual orientation-ist" not gaycist. I think anti-gay can be a suitable choice, and homophobic, though it technically indicates fear, really has evolved a more nuanced meaning. In general, its probably best to use the most specific description possible when speaking of things like this, but sometimes you need terms for more general phenomena like discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
"cism" seems to work (rather than "ism"), as in shortening critCism and ostraCism, which have negative connotations, huh? People should keep in mind that "gaycism" would refer more to opposing homosexuals who are outed, proud, and openly practicing the lifestyle and supporting the gay agenda in contrast to those who are merely homosexuals (self-identified or not), which could be simply attraction to the opposite sex but not necessariy openly practicing it. Sorry, just wanted to delineate a bit. The gay culture is indeed a culture, and there may be even homosexuals (closeted or otherwise) who would be considered "gaycists." There are people who are nonjudgmental and show a homosexual tolerance (as one would a different religion) and do not consider themselves homophobic. But these same people may have no tolerance of the gay agenda and lifestyle and are therefore what people consider "gaycists" but not necessarily homophobic. For the record, "gaycist" still sounds awkward. I would not call a Christian a "jewcist" or a Jew a "Christiancist" just because one or the other refutes my religious beliefs, so people should be careful how/when this term is applied. So "cist" may seem to imply acting against something when one is actually tolerant and peaceable while having a personal belief system.
Gaycist will open the floodgates:
Graycist: Fear of the eldery
Braycist: Fear of Donkey riders
Craycist: Fear of supercomputers
Traycist: Fear of cafeterias.
I do like Gaytred, but suggest Ghatred so you can really see the hate.
It's become solid kid slang.
But they spell it "ghey" not "gay" [?]
you lump yourself with bigots when you prejudge the moral worth of an entire demographic solely on the basis of what you imagine about their sex acts.
And where did I do that?
Try this on your gay friends: tell them you've discovered the joys of abdominal sex: Just a routine cosmetic procedure to create an orifice, then flush it out, sterilize it, add a little lube, and off you go. Its hardly unnatural. And especially delightful if you can attach the the pyloric sphincter between the stomach and the duodenum. Anyone who refuses to normalize and accept my Abdominal Lifestyle is a racist-bigot-abdominophobe
Then step back and mark the looks your gay friends give you.
People (e.g., Fen) who are repulsed by homosexuals
I'm not repulsed by homosexuals. I'm repulsed by their sexual behavior.
Believe it or not, there are those still in America who are neither homo"phobic" (as in "afraid of or hateful towards homosexuals") nor in favor of the homosexual lifestyle. There are those of us, like myself, who believe such a lifestyle to be immoral and to be condemned while NOT being either antagonistic or attacking towards the individuals. There needs to be a word for this as well so that all those who do not embrace the morality of homosexuality are not lumped into one fanatical, inflamitory heap.
Gaytred sounds like a brand of tire.
Customer: Do you have any Goodyear TripleTreds in stock?
Clerk: No, but I have some Goodyear Gaytreds.
The image was meant to convey my disgust to those who normally don't understand why we're repulsed. Looks like it worked.
Perhaps not in the way you intended. Your wound analogy expresses something grotesque about you, not about gay sex.
Fen, your capacity for analogy is breathtaking.
Your wound analogy expresses something grotesque about you, not about gay sex.
Abdominophobe! Bigot!
/damn, you just keep walking into it.
For myself, and I suspect for the majority of people, the reaction to homosexuality isn't hatred or fear or moral outrage, but just "ick." So how about "ickism," or to be more specific "homoickism?" Has a nice ring to it, I think.
And again, none of this applies to the (admittedly rare) case of yummy hot lesbians.
"I'm not repulsed by homosexuals. I'm repulsed by their sexual behavior"
Some might be repulsed by your sexual behavior too, if they dwelled on it as obsessively as you are doing. Fortunately, most people are able to draw the veil of oblivion over the sexual activity of those they don't find appealing.
There are those of us, like myself, who believe such a lifestyle to be immoral and to be condemned while NOT being either antagonistic or attacking towards the individuals.
That strikes me as simply a difference of style, not substance. I don't really care if you have a smile on your face or a bat in your hand while you argue that I am less worthy a citizen than yourself.
But what about all the decadent and effete people, the heterobics, who suffer from heterophobia?
Fortunately, most people are able to draw the veil of oblivion over the sexual activity of those they don't find appealing.
Exactly. If thinking about gays (or non-gays) practicing anal sex gives you the heebie-jeebies, then stop thinking about it. Problem solved.
Racists can civilly articulate their reasonable disagreement about the relative intelligence, moral righteousness, or repulsiveness of different races, as people have throughout history by citing the Bible, global demographics, genetics, cerebral size, etc..
Perhaps you fail to see the work the word "reasonable" is doing in the noun phrase "reasonable disagreement".
Just replace all the "isms" and "phobias" with their true definition: thoughtcrime.
Just to come from a Christian perspective, I regret that the issue is so openly discussed nowadays and that people are so reactionary in either direction. I, too, have moral objections to the practice (just because scripture says that it's wrong), but I am sure that I am flawed enough, with a board in my own eye and, therefore, should seek to govern myself and my own thorns of the flesh, as well as "tame the tongue" from judging others. One can judge himself and frame his children's beliefs, but an individual singling out another and fingerpointing is morally as repugnant in God's eyes as the man who was fully forgiven his large debts by his king but then turned around and beat his servant for the same. We should keep in mind what the king then did to the middle man. God called me free and clear on my debts, so I'm not collecting on anyone else. I think that Christians, when asked, should truthfully answer what the Bible says, especially if for counsel or direction; but to actively persecute one who practices homosexuality, openly or not, is hypocritical and not demonstrative of God's love in any sense.
People (e.g., Fen) who are repulsed by homosexuals fall into a category of people who believe, whether they articulate it civilly or not, that gays are repulsive and morally inferior to straights.....but it will still be grounded in judging and differentiating people on the basis of their sexual orientation.
Sexual behavior is the primary issue, not orientation.
It's not right to label all who oppose homosexual behavior as haters/bigots/homophobes any more than it is right to label the 19 year old who has sex with his 17 year old girl friend a rapist.
I don't think enslaving another person because of his race counts as a thought crime.
It's not right to label all who oppose homosexual behavior as haters/bigots/homophobes
Sure. But we can call actual bigots what they are without using the word gaycism.
Perhaps you fail to see the work the word "reasonable" is doing in the noun phrase "reasonable disagreement".
I see the word "reasonable" but there's a bit of subjectivity in determining what is reasonable. I don't think moral stigmatization and repulsion on the basis of sexual orientation is any more reasonable than on the basis of race, but people try to express such views on "reasonable" terms, such as by reference to the Bible or science. My point is that the civility of the discourse doesn't ultimately bear on whether a viewpoint is racist or homophobic.
Southworth There are those of us, like myself, who believe such a lifestyle to be immoral and to be condemned while NOT being either antagonistic or attacking towards the individuals.
Elizabeth That strikes me as simply a difference of style, not substance. I don't really care if you have a smile on your face or a bat in your hand while you argue that I am less worthy a citizen than yourself.
But thats not what Southworth said, and your reaction is typical of those who refuse to allow for such a distinction. He doesn't hate gays, but because you can't counter his reason, you resort to tagging him as a hater.
Its why the Gay Rights movement has stagnated.
Its why the Gay Rights movement has stagnated.
Interesting assertion. I'm not sure how you judge stagnation, but it seems to me that gay rights initiatives have been quite successful with public support for same sex marriage, gay adoption, gays in the military all increasing over the past decade. The main success of anti-gay initiatives has getting states to formally declare same sex marriage illegal, which it already was, or making it harder to change the law in the future. Stagnation hardly seems an apt description of the gay rights movement today.
Also, the leading gay rights voices are not unanimous in the pursuit of marriage equity.
Fen, I am disgusted by certain behaviors exhibited by the likes of Newt G. and Rudy G. Any idea how I can translate that into a blanket condemnation of any minority group?
I am disgusted by certain behaviors exhibited by the likes of Newt G. and Rudy G. Any idea how I can translate that into a blanket condemnation of any minority group?
As a faithfully-married heterosexual I will join you in the condemnation of that particular minority group commonly called adulterers. I just hope adultery is not genetic.
Shouldn't people who reject the word "homophobia" for etymological reasons reject the use of the word "gay" to mean "homosexual" on etymological grounds as well?
Peter Hoh: You just hit the G-spot.
Interesting assertion. I'm not sure how you judge stagnation, but it seems to me that gay rights initiatives have been quite successful with public support for same sex marriage, gay adoption, gays in the military all increasing over the past decade.
I know countless people who are non-homophobic, including all of my friends and family. I can't think of a single one of them who had his or her mind changed because of gay rights activists. It would be fair to say that at least some of them accept gays *despite* gay activists, who tend to be incredibly in-your-face, insulting, and generally obnoxious.
What you're witnessing is cultural change that is happening despite the efforts of pro- and anti-gay activists to alter its course.
Cedarford is so obnoxious that sometimes I really wonder whether she is a liberal disguising herself as a conservative to make conservatives look bad.
I wonder how the gay lifestyle is going to work out under sharia, once the EU is largely Muslim, say, by 2015 or so.
Gaycism?
Is that 'new word' really worth writing about?
Seriously, one would think that the 'gay community' (if there is such a thing) has much larger concerns ahead of them, such as not being stoned to death.
But we can talk about a new word correlating racism with antipathy towards gays. It's much less scary, too.
Don't mind the burning cars in France. Or the scarves worn by non-Muslim women just to avoid being harrassed. Or the beheadings. Fiddle on.
But Newt and Rudy aren't just adulterers. They ditched their wives, with whom they had children, and married their affair partners. Twice, if I have my facts straight. This seems to me to be a greater affront to marriage than mere adultery of the Clinton or Sherwood variety.
Gays and lesbians are not trying to redefine marriage. Straights did that. Gays and lesbians are just wondering why they can't be included, now that the rules have been rewritten.
If all Fen can offer is the yuck factor, well, that's not much. Fen, give me principle, not feelings, with which to govern.
Stagnation hardly seems an apt description of the gay rights movement today.
Well its hardly resonating with me. Perhaps because the gays are so eager to label me a homophobe bigot for merely expressing in good faith why I don't support their movement. Thats the problem with words like "homophobia". I'm actually on the fence re gay marriage, but the "bigot" rhetoric makes me want to throw my hands up and tune you guys out.
Look, if you're going to argue that some humans are "wired" to be attracted homosexually, you can't deny that others are "wired" to be repulsed by it. Or insist they are haters because of it. Thats no different than hetero's claiming homo's are freaks for being wired the way they are. You can't have it both ways.
"...The party member knew what constituted right conduct, and in exceedingly vague, generalized terms he knew what kinds of departure from it were possible. His sexual life, for example, was entirely regulated by the two Newspeak words sexcrime (sexual immorality) and goodsex (chastity). Sexcrime covered all sexual misdeeds whatever. It covered fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and other perversions, and, in addition, normal intercourse practised for its own sake. There was no need to enumerate them separately, since they were all equally culpable, and, in principle, all punishable by death. In the C vocabulary, which consisted of scientific and technical words, it might be necessary to give specialized names to certain sexual aberrations, but the ordinary citizen had no need of them. He knew what was meant by goodsex — that is to say, normal intercourse between man and wife, for the sole purpose of begetting children, and without physical pleasure on the part of the woman: all else was sexcrime. In Newspeak it was seldom possible to follow a heretical thought further than the perception that it was heretical: beyond that point the necessary words were nonexistent."
--1984, appendix....
And it dawns on me that the phrase "global warming" is really just another way of saying "the weather."
Cedarford may be on to somethting. Maybe a better place for "phobia" is in "buggerphobia". After all, it is a distaste of (or, maybe even fear of) anal sex between males that really turns a lot of people off to the gay lifestyle. And then we could use "buggerphile" to describe those who approve of the gay lifestyle.
Perhaps Ann Coulter might have an idea based "bigotry"?
give me principle, not feelings, with which to govern.
Principle says that if homosexuality is not deemed a threat to society, then the government should endow homosexuals with the same rights and privledges extended to hetero's. And vigorously pursue any discrimination or violence towards the minority homosexual community.
If homosexuality is in fact a biological fact and it has been around since the beginning, it looks to me like society as a whole has done reasonably well.
I'm thinking of a book [Roman author?] that states the "five signs of a nation in decline", one of which is tolerance of homosexuality [anyone know what book?]. If ancient societies warned us about the consequences of homosexuality, would you be open to their arguments?
Fen, I hate to play the race card, but many people in past generations were repulsed by the idea of a black man kissing a white woman. I don't think you have to go back very far to hear that attitude expressed. I think it was the basis for the plot of several episodes of "All in the Family". Can you defend that feeling of revulsion? I mean, nobody was forcing them to kiss people of another race. The people who were kissing one another were consenting adults.
Compare and contrast, if you like.
If ancient societies warned us about the consequences of homosexuality, would you be open to their arguments?
If ancient societies warned us about the consequences of not throwing virgins into the volcano, would you be open to their arguments?
But Newt and Rudy aren't just adulterers. They ditched their wives, with whom they had children, and married their affair partners. Twice, if I have my facts straight. This seems to me to be a greater affront to marriage than mere adultery of the Clinton or Sherwood variety.
Cheating on your wife with a woman who you then proceed to marry is, in my opinion, less contemptible than Clintonian "stick your dick in anything that'll wriggle" behavior. Newt and Rudy fell in love with women they weren't married to. I think they had an obligation to suffer in silence and honor their vows -- but sleeping with a woman because you want to marry her is still a lot classier than sleeping with a woman because she's a convenient jizz receptacle.
I'm thinking of a book [Roman author?] that states the "five signs of a nation in decline", one of which is tolerance of homosexuality [anyone know what book?].
I do not know the name of the book. Was one of the four other signs of decline the publishing of books on the decline of a nation?
How about the german term:
"Schwulenhass"
which translates as faggot-hatred?
It's got that Nazi pinache, especially if you replace the final "ss" with the beta-looking es-zet character.
Peter--"to ROGER her...?" Since my given name is Roger, should I take offense? File a lawsuit? Do I detect rogerphobia in that term? please advice soonest!
As ever two nations divided by a common language!
Our usage of the name 'Roger' as a verb 'to roger' meaning have - often rough - man-on-man anal sex derives not from a generalised dislike of persons of that name, but from a WWII RAF joke:
"Cleared for take-off Captain."
"Roger Wilco."
"No thank you very much Sir, Wilco's not my type. Safe journey and God speed you home."
Day Six of the Blithering Misogynist Law Professor Refusing to Say Word One About the Corruption Scandal Consuming the United States Justice Department.
But she has time to make an "Al Gore is fat!" joke.
What a fucking maroon...
Thanks god both idiocy and boring have been copryrighted and trademarked.
Now he's cornered the market.
Next up: 'moronic brownshirt f***s' offsets.
At last, a global cooperation effort I can really get behind.
Dave, the only scandal related to the Justice Department are the politicians who feign offense that presidential appointments are political, always have been and always will be.
(Of course, the "scandal" is ultimately a good thing as long as it detracts congress from actually doing anything.)
Would that be one of the Pottsville Maroons? Who once were the disputed champions of pro football way way back before there was an NFL.
Cheating on your wife with a woman who you then proceed to marry is, in my opinion, less contemptible than Clintonian "stick your dick in anything that'll wriggle" behavior. Newt and Rudy fell in love with women they weren't married to. I think they had an obligation to suffer in silence and honor their vows -- but sleeping with a woman because you want to marry her is still a lot classier than sleeping with a woman because she's a convenient jizz receptacle.
Ah yes - leaving your family and kids and announcing your intentions to do so at a press conference, on Mother's Day, or on a phone call to the hospital where they're receiving cancer treatment is always more classier than a one-off isn't it. The only thing you left out was Guiliani wife #2 deserved it and that restraining order on wife #3 from entering the governor's mansion where they were having sex was just meddling with destiny. But I'm sure Newt and Rudy knew beforehand they wanted to marry them before they had sex the first time.
Why all this sudden hatred toward adulterers. Are we seeing adulterphobia? (Or is that adultercism?) If those men could have civil unions, or better, marriage to those mistresses, then we could prevent those ugly divorces.
Naked Lunch: Clinton was worse. I believe that's the lesson we're to learn.
Dave said, in 3/20/07:
Day Six of Absolute Silence on the US Attorney scandal that's threatening to bring down the Bush Administration from the Blithering Idiot.
Dave went on to say, on 3/21/07:
Day Six of the Blithering Misogynist Law Professor Refusing to Say Word One About the Corruption Scandal Consuming the United States Justice Department.
Apparently Dave is trapped in some sort of Groundhog Day scenario, doomed to repeat day six of Ann's alleged silence over and over again. The real question, though, is whether the ailment that causes him to Capitalize random Letters in his sentences is also responsible for the time warp he's stuck in.
Clinton was worse. I believe that's the lesson we're to learn.
Clinton sexually harassed and discriminated against subordinate employees. Newt and Rudy did not. If you think the Clinton lesson was about an extra-marital affair, you're still confused.
Fen said...
How about a term for disapproval of homosexual habits? I don't dislike gays, I just think that sticking your reproductive organs up someone's waste tract is sick.
Ever been to a wound care ward? They stitch a plug into your gut so they can drain the tumor after radiation. A little fine tuning by the Cosmetic Surgery industry, and I'm sure some people would try sticking their reproductive organs into that too. Is there any boundry that shouldn't be crossed?
Yesterday Fen was saying that people who care too much about animals should be subjected to psychological studies to find out if his theory is true that people who love animals were raped as children.
Today Fen exposes his own deep psychological problems.
We now know that Fen went to a wound care ward and couldn't stop thinking about sticking penises into the guts of cancer patients.
Hmmm. I don't much care what people do in their bedrooms, as long as they're having fun. But I don't wanna go to a hospital and run into a creep obsessing about sticking penises in people's wounds. Call me a Fenophobe.
He also hates anal sex so much he can't stop posting about it.
I don't see what's so odd about people playing with each other's butts. There's a lot of nerve-endings going on back there. Straight people enjoy butt play too. You're not forced to think about what other people do in their bedrooms.
Ah yes - leaving your family and kids and announcing your intentions to do so at a press conference, on Mother's Day, or on a phone call to the hospital where they're receiving cancer treatment is always more classier than a one-off isn't it
Since we're comparing Rudy and Newt to Bill Clinton it doesn't matter how classy "one-offs" are. Clinton was well past having a "one-off" extramarital fling before he ever entered the 1992 Presidential race.
And I certainly consider Clinton's humiliation of his wife -- conning her into helping him cover up affair after affair, assuming you believe her claims that she wasn't aware of his endless cheating -- to be far worse than either divorce announcement.
Gaycist will open the floodgates...
Cystcist - an unnatural fear of cysts
My point is that the civility of the discourse doesn't ultimately bear on whether a viewpoint is racist or homophobic.
That's a fine point except for the fact that it is an irrational response to my actual statement. I wrote that civil articulation of a reasonable disagreement is not bigotry and bigotry should be plainly called what it is. I never argued that racists are reasonable or that bigots are reasonable or that civility is a panacea for racism or bigotry or that civility is sufficient proof of reasonableness, as should be plain to anyone who read my first comment. The point is that a reasonable disagreement expressed civilly is not justification for verbally abusing another person by claiming she is mentally ill. Such a nasty tactic perhaps could be justified if the reasonable disagreement were expressed disrespectfully.
I'm not the cystcist. It's my oncologist.
Yes LoafingOaf, I see the wound-sex analogy really set you off. You're all offended & frothing because I compared one abomination to another abomination.
Mortimer, I interpreted part of the logic underlying your original point to be that people can have reasonable disagreement about whether homosexuality is repulsive or morally inferior, but that racism is per se unreasonable. Therefore, people who disapprove of homosexuality may be have "reasonable disagreements" or they may be bigots, whereas there are no "reasonable disagreements" about the inferiority of certain races, so racists are all bigots and its unfair to compare racists to homophobes (or whatever you call them).
I think racism can be as "reasonable" as homophobia however less prevalent its acceptance is, so I don't get why you don't like an umbrella term for disapproval of people on the basis of sexual orientation comparable to an umbrella term for disapproval of people on the basis of race.
MM
Worse how? Worse than whom? I bet Chelsea doesn't think it was "worse".
Joseph, I see what you're saying, but the weakness in your line of reasoning is the assumption that "reasonable" discussion of the differences between races equates to racism. Not always so.
Unless you think pointing out something like 99% of starting cornerbacks are black because they have better sprint/jump skills is a racist comment.
I'd delete that too Rev lol.
Mortimer, I interpreted part of the logic underlying your original point to be that people can have reasonable disagreement about whether homosexuality is repulsive or morally inferior, but that racism is per se unreasonable. Therefore [nonsense omitted].
You interpreted wrong. The reasonable disagreements I referred to were political, e.g., (1) whether a state should pass a gay marriage law or (2) whether gays should serve openly in the military. Neither necessarily has anything to do with moral inferiority or repulsion. I do not mention moral inferiority or repulsion anywhere in my initial post. I think your reaction to my initial post is proof that one can surely know unreasonableness when he sees it and point it out successfully to others.
Worse how?
Worse because dignity is more important than a superfluous second income.
Worse than whom?
I'll give you a hint: we were comparing Clinton's behavior to that of Rudy and Newt.
I bet Chelsea doesn't think it was "worse".
Bet away. I would be envying Rudy's kids if I was in Chelsea's situation.
Bet away. I would be envying Rudy's kids if I was in Chelsea's situation.
Rudy's kids seem to feel differently. Maybe it was the public humiliation of them and their mother. Your posts are rich with irony though, I'll give you that.
Rudy's kids seem to feel differently.
I look forward to you providing a link to Rudy's kids saying they'd have preferred it if their dad had acted like Bill Clinton. Of course, they've never said that, so I'm probably in for a long wait.
Of course, that information by itself wouldn't tell us anything unless we also knew how Chelsea felt Rudy's behavior compared to Bill's. She's never gone on the record about that. Indeed, the last time the subject even came up around here you lefties got your panties in a bunch over the very *notion* that someone might as Chelsea how she felt about her dad's cheating.
Maybe it was the public humiliation of them and their mother.
Given that neither they nor their mother were publicly humiliated that seems pretty unlikely. It isn't like Rudy propped Donna up in front of a microphone to natter on about how the stories of his cheating were part of some vast left-wing conspiracy.
Ann posts about sex and then takes the day off whilst everyone spins on and on with an obvious thread.
101 things to do in Madison before you're dead.
...Poem for the day entitled 'No Way To Run A Blog'
I look forward to you providing a link to Rudy's kids saying they'd have preferred it if their dad had acted like Bill Clinton. Of course, they've never said that, so I'm probably in for a long wait.
What I said was I betted that Chelsea was thankful her parents stayed together. Unless you think Chelsea would have preferred Bill running off with Monica and separating with Hillary at a press conference.
"Ann posts about sex and then takes the day off..."
As if I was off having sex! I have a job you know!
Revenant, I suppose that adultery has been around as long as the institution of marriage. The two seemed to coexist for centuries. I think it would be a stretch to argue that adultery has undermined marriage. If marriage has been undermined, I suggest that you look to a more recent development: the widespread practice of divorce and remarriage.
I do not argue that divorce should be banned. Nor would I argue that divorced people have failed and should be shunned. Rather, I note that the current practice of divorce and remarriage has altered the landscape enough that it's no great stretch that gays and lesbians wonder why they can't participate in marriage -- at least as far as it is recognized by the state.
Here's Maggie Gallagher in a review of David Blankenhorn's new book.
To survive, every human culture must find ways to attach and reinforce human erotic yearnings to the double-bonding process: the man and woman to each other, the man and woman to their child. Marriage has a special status because performing this task is urgently necessary to the entire society, and not just the man and woman who do it.
The same-sex marriage debate tends to deconstruct marriage out of existence: Marriage turns out not to be anything in particular, just a word for two people in some kind of close relationship seeking something called “benefits” from government.
Certainly it can no longer be the one thing it has always been: society’s special acknowledgment that channeling men and women’s erotic yearnings for each other — for intimacy, closeness, sexual desire, companionship, economic support and children — is necessary, not only for the couple but for the whole society. To get to gay marriage, this is the idea that must go.
I argue that this idea is already gone in our culture. Using this idea to keep gays and lesbians from enjoying the civil protections of marriage while extending those same benefits to the likes of Rudy and Newt and their latest companions strikes me as unfair.
The Gallagher quote can be found in greater context here:
http://familyscholars.org/?p=6350
I'll second the person who said that Clinton was worse because he was using his power to get sex from subordinates, up to pressuring them with intimidation. And if someone doesn't "get" why that's wrong then I guess feminism has failed us all.
An example would be my high school principle. Had he been cheating on his wife people would have disapproved of the example. But he was cheating on his wife with the secretary whom he then threatened when she tried to break it off and *then* he tried to cut a deal with the school board essentially offering to *not* drag people's reputations through the mud if they gave him a free pass.
It's entitlement and abuse of power and authority. It's viewing subordinates as a perk of the job.
Oh, and gaycism is a stupid word.
I'm actually very proud of my school board... after they fired him they found out that he'd left his previous two or three jobs (I can't remember if we were the "third" time, but it was at least three in all) after the *exact* same scenario, workplace sexual favors that clearly violated standards of sexual harassment so that he faced termination and an offer to leave quietly if they gave him a good recommendation.
Not letting him get away with it yet again is probably the only reason I have to be proud of my school and it's enough.
Naked (and synova): I was joking -- and pointing out that whenever the sexual proclivities of a Republican are mentioned, someone will always, without fail, compare it to Clinton, and inevitably you get the whine Well Clinton was Worse!.
synova, it sounds like the references weren't checked very well at the initial hire, but good for them for tossing the guy.
We can play "Clinton was/was not worse" all night long, and it should be able to distract from the more substantive issue of whether or not the institution of marriage has been undermined already by the culture's acceptance of remarriage to one's mistress.
the more substantive issue of whether or not the institution of marriage has been undermined already by the culture's acceptance of remarriage to one's mistress.
Again, I think thats a faulty line of reasoning. Like claiming additional stress on a structure is acceptable because the structure is already damaged.
What are you people talking about? So using "gay' isn't good enough? Listen, I'm old enough to remember words you don't want to know about when talking about homosexuals. (Boy, does that sound clinical) Stick with "gay."
Speaking of sticking things (which seems to have been a big topic here), in my opinion anal sex is like communism. Its a great idea in theory. But in practice it's bloody, painful, and people get hurt.
I'd like to point out that finding certain things repulsive and finding the idea of people doing them repulsive is *not* a case of gaycism. A person can have a gagging "ick" reaction without wishing harm on or even disliking the other people.
Fen, it seems that you are opposed to putting additional stress on the "damaged structure" of marriage. Fair enough, but where to draw the line? Do you propose that we redraw the line where it used to be, or are you content to leave the structure listing?
I firmly believe that human rights evolve. 2,000 years ago, slavery was quite commonplace and even in the most liberal Greek 'Democracy' only a small fraction of the older men (and no women or young men) got to vote. Even two hundred years ago, women, blacks and Native Americans in particular were treated very badly by today's standards (though they probably all considered it the 'way the world was' and had Biblical passages to back it all up (not hard to select and selectively interpret passages from the hundreds of pages in scripture.)
Forty years ago, there was no slavery, but segregation was still a position that some people were defending. Today, most of them are ashamed of that fact and either deny that they ever did, or say they were wrong, or say nothing at all about it.
Now, I may be speculating and I certainly have no crystal ball, but I strongly suspect that forty years from now I'll not be a bit embarrassed to tell people that I supported the rights of gay people, while there will be plenty of people now speaking out against gay rights who in forty years will either have to lie about what they said, apologize or say nothing about what they were doing today.
Unless you think Chelsea would have preferred Bill running off with Monica and separating with Hillary at a press conference.
If my father acted like Bill Clinton I'd be glad to see him go.
I'm actually very proud of my school board... after they fired him they found out that he'd left his previous two or three jobs [due to sex scandals]
Yeah, thumbs-up to the school board.
In my former home town of Memphis the city school director, Willie Herenton, got caught putting his mistress on the school system payroll. She'd been drawing a salary for some time without ever showing up to work. Not only was that not enough to get rid of him -- he then proceeded to run for mayor, and won, against an incumbent whose only flaw was white skin. He's currently on his fourth term. The only way he's leaving office is in FBI handcuffs.
As if I was off having sex! I have a job you know!
Your thought not mine;)
Anyway, you do have a job - feeding my/our/their blogging addiction:)
Wow, I've learned so much. Marrying your mistress is far more noble than reconciling with your wife. The Catholic church has been progressive and enlightened in its handling of priests who abused their office. I can't wait for what the new day holds.
Feel now the effects of having a Jew-hating, homosexual-hating creep like Cedarford stinking up the Althouse comments for so many months.
Palladian: Feel now the effects of having a Jew-hating, homosexual-hating creep like Cedarford stinking up the Althouse comments for so many months
Could you support that with something more than assertion? I'm looking over Cederford's comment and don't see what you see.
peter hoh: Fen, it seems that you are opposed to putting additional stress on the "damaged structure" of marriage.
I'm conflicted. On one hand I have gay friends/family who are in healthy relationships that suffer under the current "separate but equal" anachronism of civil unions. I'm not convinced that civil unions [and other legal recourses] provide all the benefits of marriage and it doesn't seem fair. I also recall a time when my wife and I were having trouble, and how easy it would have been to walk away from the relationship, if not for the covenant of marriage. So in one sense we are pushing homosexuals into a lifestyle of multile unstable relationships.
OTOH, I'm concerned that we will redefine marriage out of existence. If we allow same gender marriage, how can we refuse unions based on polygamy or adult incest? I think society takes the strength of marriage & family for granted. We've gotten a taste of what happens when its disolved - an 80% out-of wedlock birthrate in the black community [I still can't believe that stat]. Those kids are doomed, esp the males who lack a patriarchal figure to reign them in while they are transitioning to adult.
It seems to me that on the ‘pro-gay’ side, it’s an all or nothing proposition. If I don’t accept homosexuality in its totality then I am a bigot. In other words, their position is you can’t say ‘I have nothing against gays’ but ‘I’m repulsed by their lifestyle’. Well I have nothing against gays, none of my best friends are gay and I am repulsed by gay sex.
Then again I don’t view two homosexuals through a sexual lens anymore than I do a hetero couple. The position that I or anyone is a bigot because we think gay sex is repulsive is ridiculous. There are a lot of lifestyle activities that are considered repulsive to someone.
For example, I deer hunt and for many people, stalking and killing Bambi is sadistic, barbaric, cruel and repulsive yet because I have a hankering for deer meat should not make me any less of a person than say, Freddie Mercury who was, an openly gay man, and a great entertainer. You might think deer hunting is repulsive but it’s not what defines me as a person. I actually have an acquaintance who finds eating meat disgusting so does that make her a bigot toward carnivores?
There are, among gay activists, those who have the attitude that others must accept and love them. Then there are those who don't care what others feel about them, they just want the same basic rights as everyone else.
Here's Dan Savage, in an excellent post on the Tim Hardaway flap.
The gay and lesbian civil rights movement would make more strides if we could separate the issue of liking us from the issue of not discriminating against us.
Fen, my concern is that while marriage may have not been "defined out of existence," it has been fundamentally redefined by heterosexual couples.
Conflicted? Yeah, me too. I just think that it won't work to keep gays and lesbians out of marriage when Rudy and Newt get to enter the institution with their current girlfriends.
And I'd love to add a Democrat to my short list of prominent politicians who have ditched the wife and married a mistress. Any suggestions?
One of my favorite lines in all this came from a fellow who, when Tom Cruise announced his "engagement" to Katie Holmes, wanted to start a tongue-in-cheek campaign against celebrity marriage.
If the measure though is to find people with the minds to become superb engineers, then further to the truly elite - the patterns of success reverse and the Japanese prevail in similar disproportionate numbers over Jamaicans....
You're playing with fire here, unless you can accept your theory that somehow Japan or China are smarter than Americans because they are graduating more engineers. Complete nonsense. If you took an IQ of a black American versus a direct family member in a dirt village in Africa, the black American would test higher. They should be exactly the same under your theory.
Zero sum eugenics crap.
If you took an IQ of a black American versus a direct family member in a dirt village in Africa, the black American would test higher.
Are you using provincialism [the father of prejudice] to attack racial prejudice?
Marrying your mistress is far more noble than reconciling with your wife.
"Reconciling with your wife". Heh.
Rudy and Newt married their girlfriends, not their mistresses. They were divorced when they remarried. But yes, divorcing a wife who doesn't need your support is better than serially cheating on her and "reconciling".
I just think that it won't work to keep gays and lesbians out of marriage when Rudy and Newt get to enter the institution with their current girlfriends.
I support gay marriage, but that argument's nonsensical. Rudy and Newt entering into marriage with their GIRLfriends does nothing to alter the millennia-old concept of marriage as a heterosexual institution.
And you're not being kept out of marriage. You're being kept out of government marriage benefits. What Rudy, Bill, and Newt do doesn't have anything to do with that, either.
You're playing with fire here, unless you can accept your theory that somehow Japan or China are smarter than Americans because they are graduating more engineers.
Well, actually, Japanese and Chinese people DO have, on average, higher IQs than white people.
If you took an IQ of a black American versus a direct family member in a dirt village in Africa, the black American would test higher. They should be exactly the same under your theory.
They shouldn't, actually. Most black Americans have Caucasian ancestry, due to female slaves having been frequent targets of rape or seduction by their "owners".
So if there was a "smart gene" that was more common in whites than in blacks, we would expect it to be more common in American blacks than in African blacks, and thus for American blacks to fall between whites and African blacks in average intelligence. Which, in fact, they do. That doesn't mean the theory is correct, of course.
I'd also note that even if American and African blacks both had "pure" ancestry we would still only expect the two to be equal if there were NO other factors in intelligence. We know that this is not the case -- for example, malnutrition in childhood causes lower intelligence in adulthood, so we would expect children of African dirt farms to be less intelligent just from that.
The problem is that no matter how many variables are accounted for, the IQ difference between various races never entirely goes away. That doesn't prove that there is a genetic factor in intelligence that correlates to race -- but it DOES mean that the people claiming that it is a fact that no such factor exists don't have a leg to stand on.
Rev, please check your assumptions. I am married.
Rev wroteRudy and Newt entering into marriage with their GIRLfriends does nothing to alter the millennia-old concept of marriage as a heterosexual institution.
Sure, but it shows that this culture has tossed aside the millennia-old concept of marriage as a lifelong union. I seem to recall that a long time ago, some guy told his followers about the importance of that lifelong bond, but he was clearly not with the times. That Mark 10:9 verse is such a wet blanket. I've been looking for the part where he says that it's okay to ditch your wife for your girlfriend, but I haven't found it yet. Please help.
Rudy and Newt, as Ron before them, have done a great deal to pave the way to same-sex marriage.
Oh, and by the way, please let me know if you can think of any prominent Democrats who have divorced their wives to marry their GIRLfriends, as if there's such an important disctinction between a married man having a girlfriend and having a mistress.
C'mon, Rev. It's been an hour. Can't you name a single prominent Democrat who has pulled a Newt?
I'm pretty sure Gary Hart was squeaky clean.
And Joseph Kennedy certainly wasn't playing tricks with Catholic annulment.
Hmm, wasn't there something in the news recently about Governor James McGreevey?
And that nonsense about Gavin Newsome was surely just that.
BTW, Peter, Joseph Kennedy answers your direct question. I threw in the rest because it was just too fun.
(Divorcing your wife to hook up with your boyfriend seems pretty close for McGreevey. If New Jersey had gay marriage, he could have fully qualified for your question!)
Joe, I can't figure out if Joe Kennedy had an affair with Anne Kelly while still married to Sheila Rauch. If so, then he qualifies. Have any citations?
As for the other two, they don't qualify for the full Newt and Rudy. From what I can tell, Gary Hart is married to his first and only wife, not Donna Rice. And McGreevy is not partnered with his affair partner, Golan Cipel. Newsom? Not prominent by a long stretch, but still, he's not married to the woman with whom he was having an affair.
Don't know. I do Kennedy hadn't yet received his annulment before marrying Kelly and figure he slept with her before his divorce came through.
(Do not interpret this as a defense of Newt. I think the guy's a slimeball. He's also one of those people who just grates my nerves when he speaks, even if I agree with him in substance.
Also, my beef with Clinton is that he had such poor taste in women and was so boorish about hitting on them.)
What is the reason that a label is sought?
Begin with what you are trying to put a name to, then, name it. Try to be precise an descriptive.
Don't assume that to disagree is to hate, to fear, to be revulsed by, to be bigoted, and so forth.
If such assumptions are what you are describing, then use a descriptor for the person voicing the assumptions, not to describe the person who disagrees with you.
Aww, I wanted to have the last word.
How about "aheterocism?"
To include discrimination against non-heterosexuals (trans, queer and bisexuals, etc)
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा