130 replies to this topic

[Drew]

Handmaiden07, on May 14 2004, 01:04 PM, said:

May I please request that that discussion be separate?  Bush is the prompter for this discussion, but it isn't about him...

Sorry, QT.

You know. I was going to start just such a poll when I got back from lunch, although I was going to word it a bit differently.  

And all I see here are deep-seated ignorance and fears of religious people brought into the fore because we have a president who expresses a personal faith. I suppose it's not unlike the 60s when people were sure the US would be nothing but a puppet state of the Vatican because Kennedy was a Catholic.

[Kevin Street]

Drew, on May 14 2004, 11:29 AM, said:

I'm not  making that distinction at all. But if you make that distinction, then do you mean that you want a leader who has a moral code and bases decisions on that moral code as long as his or her morality isn't derived from religious faith?

Not particularly. I just want a leader that is clear about his or her convictions and how they are derived. And a voting public that clearly understands the same. But both those things are probably asking a bit much.

[Drew]

Kevin Street, on May 14 2004, 01:36 PM, said:

Drew, on May 14 2004, 11:29 AM, said:

I'm not  making that distinction at all. But if you make that distinction, then do you mean that you want a leader who has a moral code and bases decisions on that moral code as long as his or her morality isn't derived from religious faith?

Not particularly. I just want a leader that is clear about his or her convictions and how they are derived. And a voting public that clearly understands the same.

Well, that's what we have in George Bush.  

But I think the problem is that people really don't want such a person.

They want someone who pays lip-service only to religious beliefs, with the cynical understanding that those things are said just to mollify the rubes in flyover country. God help us all (irony intended) if he should actually mean what he says.

[Gefiltefishmon]

Quote

Quote

(Una Salus Lillius @ May 14 2004, 10:35 AM)
Bush is trying to change the freaking CONSTITUTION based on his own religiously induced homophobia. It's not that the idea coincides with his religious beliefs it's that they are MOTIVATED by them. 

But isn't he playing by the rules? If he can get through a constitutional amendment (which he can't, but let's just say he could), then he hasn't violated his oath or the principles of his office. The amendment process exists for a reason. Nothing precludes him from pushing religiously motivated amendments. And what about politicians who are motivated by religion to promote something you like, such as greater education spending?

<And, you know, the term 'heterosexism' is so much more precise than homophobia. IMO. Just sayin'...>

Agreed especially since homophobia has been proven to be, in reality, latent homosexual desire; a recent study conducted at the University of Georgia by Henry Adams, Lester Wright Jr., and Bethany Lohr indicates that nearly all homophobic males suffer from latent homosexuality.

BTW I voted Opt1 - Your religious views are your own and I'll fight for your right to hold them - just don't attempt to mandate them as the law of the land....

Edited by Gefiltefishmon, 14 May 2004 - 01:47 PM.

[Drew]

Gefiltefishmon, on May 14 2004, 01:44 PM, said:

Agreed especially since homophobia has been proven to be, in reality, latent homosexual desire; a recent study conducted at the University of Georgia by Henry Adams, Lester Wright Jr., and Bethany Lohr indicates that nearly all homophobic males suffer from latent homosexuality.

Oh, please.  

[Gefiltefishmon]

Quote

Quote

(Gefiltefishmon @ May 14 2004, 01:44 PM)
Agreed especially since homophobia has been proven to be, in reality, latent homosexual desire; a recent study conducted at the University of Georgia by Henry Adams, Lester Wright Jr., and Bethany Lohr indicates that nearly all homophobic males suffer from latent homosexuality.

Oh, please.  

Meaning what, Drew? That a scientific study conducted at a leading university is untrue because it disagrees with YOUR viewpoint? OH PLEASE, indeed!  

How many studies have YOU done? How many Psychology degrees do YOU hold? On what do you base your driping sarcasm?

Before you trivialize the research of others perhaps you should consider the facts of the situation, or at the very least review the results of the study. To simply dismiss the results of the study - no matter how much you may disagree - is just plain ornery and contrary.

[Kevin Street]

Drew, on May 14 2004, 11:41 AM, said:

Kevin Street, on May 14 2004, 01:36 PM, said:

Not particularly. I just want a leader that is clear about his or her convictions and how they are derived. And a voting public that clearly understands the same.

Well, that's what we have in George Bush.  

Er... Pardon me? When in the 2000 campaign did Bush say he wanted to throw the US into a blood soaked global crusade to impose democracy on an unwilling middle eastern nation? I think he's been lying to you guys for a long time.

Quote

But I think the problem is that people really don't want such a person.

They want someone who pays lip-service only to religious beliefs, with the cynical understanding that those things are said just to mollify the rubes in flyover country. God help us all (irony intended) if he should actually mean what he says.

Yeah, I agree with you there.

[Godeskian]

Gefiltefishmon, on May 14 2004, 07:53 PM, said:

Meaning what, Drew? That a scientific study conducted at a leading university is untrue because it disagrees with YOUR viewpoint? OH PLEASE, indeed!  

How many studies have YOU done? How many Psychology degrees do YOU hold? On what do you base your driping sarcasm?

Before you trivialize the research of others perhaps you should consider the facts of the situation, or at the very least review the results of the study. To simply dismiss the results of the study - no matter how much you may disagree - is just plain ornery and contrary.

Drew, if you've got proof then link away.

Provide evidence rather than ignoring the results because you don't agree

[QueenTiye]

Well, and I want to be clear too - it sounds like (and I resent contributing further to the threadjacking, but in the interest of peace...) Gelfitefishmon is distinguishing between TRUE homophobia and what is now being called "heterosexism" and stating that TRUE homophobia is defined by these studies this way... have I misunderstood?

HM07

[Drew]

Gefiltefishmon, on May 14 2004, 01:53 PM, said:

Quote

Quote

(Gefiltefishmon @ May 14 2004, 01:44 PM)
Agreed especially since homophobia has been proven to be, in reality, latent homosexual desire; a recent study conducted at the University of Georgia by Henry Adams, Lester Wright Jr., and Bethany Lohr indicates that nearly all homophobic males suffer from latent homosexuality.

Oh, please.  

Meaning what, Drew? That a scientific study conducted at a leading university is untrue because it disagrees with YOUR viewpoint? OH PLEASE, indeed!

Heh. I'd love to see the "science" that proves a nebulous, meaningless term like "homophobia," let alone connect such nebulousness with the equally nebulous "latent homosexual desire."

Let's leave the Freudian analysis on the couch (or under it) where it belongs. Sometimes (I'd say most of the time) a cigar is just a cigar.

[Gefiltefishmon]

No Handmaiden you got it right - TRUE homophobia is an irrational fear of homosexual contact - what's usually termed homophobia is in reality heterosexism

Edited to add: And I didn't mean to threadjack, I was just agreeing with Rov  

Edited by Gefiltefishmon, 14 May 2004 - 02:10 PM.

[Gefiltefishmon]

I know this is gonna seem like threadjacking AGAIN but I can't let it alone.

Quote

Heh. I'd love to see the "science" that proves a nebulous, meaningless term like "homophobia," let alone connect such nebulousness with the equally nebulous "latent homosexual desire."

Actually Drew - the study recorded erections. Getting an erection from Gay Porn is pretty much a sign of desire, Latent or otherwise - so how nebulous is an erection? Had you read the study - you would know this.

[QueenTiye]

Actually - I do believe that is a topic for EtU, and I have some questions about it - so maybe you'll start a topic and provide the links?

HM07

[Godeskian]

Drew, on May 14 2004, 08:04 PM, said:

Heh. I'd love to see the "science" that proves a nebulous, meaningless term like "homophobia," let alone connect such nebulousness with the equally nebulous "latent homosexual desire."

Let's leave the Freudian analysis on the couch (or under it) where it belongs. Sometimes (I'd say most of the time) a cigar is just a cigar.

Is that an evasion Drew? perhaps because you are unable to find any evidence to refute it with so you have to attack it rather than responding?

[Drew]

Cyberhippie, on May 14 2004, 02:28 PM, said:

Drew, on May 14 2004, 08:04 PM, said:

Heh. I'd love to see the "science" that proves a nebulous, meaningless term like "homophobia," let alone connect such nebulousness with the equally nebulous "latent homosexual desire."

Let's leave the Freudian analysis on the couch (or under it) where it belongs. Sometimes (I'd say most of the time) a cigar is just a cigar.

Is that an evasion Drew? perhaps because you are unable to find any evidence to refute it with so you have to attack it rather than responding?

If it can be called science, it's a fuzzy science at best, and really shouldn't be taken any more seriously than feng shui (which, along with palmistry, numerology, and the existence of hodags I'm sure I could "prove" if given enough federal grant money). Am I evading? No. Rather I am giving it as much credence as it deserves. That is to say none at all. The argument that those who are against homosexual behavior are themselves latent homosexuals is a common retort, and amounts to nothing more than schoolyard-level name-calling. (In fact, I think the last time I heard such an assertion was in the schoolyard.) I had no idea anyone would take it seriously. But given that, I have no doubt that someone somewhere will try to "prove" it.

Sorry about the threadjacking, QT.

[QueenTiye]

**AHEM** Back to the topic at hand.  Two people so far have voted for option 1, and s people so far have voted for option 4.  What are the reasons?

Quoting GFM:

Quote

BTW I voted Opt1 - Your religious views are your own and I'll fight for your right to hold them - just don't attempt to mandate them as the law of the land....

Contrasting this with my own position:

Quote

I don't agree with the proposition that enacting a law that happens to have its origins in a person's religious beliefs is the same thing as establishing a religion. It may be that others of differing religious backgrounds happen to think that that religion has a good idea...and as long as the religion itself is not on the discussion board as law - the idea itself, articulated into secular policy - is valid, and can be put up for public debate.

Can you clarify why you feel my position is inappropriate, GFM?

And - may I ask those who voted option 4 to clarify their position?  Would you wish to enact a law stating as much - that if you have religious views you can't hold office? (I ask that in spite of the fact that Rov has already shown from the constitution elsewhere that no tests about a person's beliefs can be made regarding whether or not they can hold office)

HM07

Edited by Handmaiden07, 14 May 2004 - 03:02 PM.

[Godeskian]

I voted for 4

I think that the onl;y way to run a secular goverment is by secular people

I also realise it will never happen as long as religion remains with the power it has today.

[QueenTiye]

So you would discriminate against religious people?  Or do you view that as somehow not discriminatory?

[Godeskian]

Nope

not what I said,

I want the people running a secular nation to run it in a secular fashion. A truly religious person cannot do that because their views and opinions and thoughts towards life are shaped, in part, by their religion.

[Bad Wolf]

Okay the constitution guarantees the right to free practice of religion.  But if we start saying "Yes you've free to be religious but that excludes you from..." that is no better than saying, yes you can sit on this bus but only in the back or yes you can go to school but not with  kids who are white.