They have caught themselves in the trap of their own making.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4752959HardWorkingDem (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-02-09 10:57 AM
Original message
Can we quit with automatic labels of "homophobic", "racist", "sexist" et cetera
Advertisements [?]
Let me state this upfront:
I believe two of the same sex should be allowed "marriage" and all benefits that heterosexual couples receive. I am all for people loving any other people of any other different type as long as it is consensual and no one is getting hurt and all are adults.
But what is really growing tiresome is the automatically labeling of people as homophobic, racist, sexist or whatever if they don't feel the same way or make critical comments.
The reason I bring this up is because a couple of issues ago The Progressive had a cover illustration of Obama and McCain kissing. Those who complained about it (most because The Progressive kind of failed to explain the point of their cover) were most commonly referred to as "homophobic" in the letters section.
Frankly, seeing two men in a sexual manner does nothing for me and for it to do nothing for me does not make me "homophobic" but instead heterosexual. Labeling people homophobic under circumstances like this and when they have minor criticisms does not make people automatically homophobic and to label them as such only harms the larger picture.
Lets save these labels for the asses that really deserve them.
No doubt hoping that this will start a tread condemning conservatives.....
Wrong when dancing with the homo mafia of DU.
TechBear_Seattle (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-02-09 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
6. Legal marriage does not have scare quotes
You raise good points, but your first sentence makes it very difficult to take you seriously.
xchrom (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-02-09 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
7. i feel like these threads are an attempt to make lgbtiq people to stop
identifying as such.
if we are not lgbtiq -- maybe we'll just go away.
and if not go away -- at least we'll look like the wall paper -- invisible.
yardwork (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-02-09 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #10
34. Ok. One example of "real homophobia" is opposition to legal marriage for gay people.
I'm identifying it.
I call it sanity but whatever..
PaulHo (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-02-09 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
9. Point well taken but your example is bad.
>>>>The reason I bring this up is because a couple of issues ago The Progressive had a cover illustration of Obama and McCain kissing. Those who complained about it (most because The Progressive kind of failed to explain the point of their cover) were most commonly referred to as "homophobic" in the letters section.>>>
Hard to conceive that this would be perceived by anyone as anything but an implicit putdown of homosexual behavior. Understand : I didn't see it or read it so my context is minimal.
I'd like to see some of these various debates take place with new and improved vocabulary. Words lose their meaning over time esp. when they are used in political debate. "Homophobia" is overused by some to the point of meaninglessness. Bill Clinton's observation that Obama could be expected to do well North Carolina because Jackson had done well there and there was large AA population in the state was a statement of fact and thus no more "racist" than the observation that the western regions of NC tend to be more mountainous than coastal areas. To some people, anyone critical of Israeli foreign policy... even if the critics are Jews...are presumptively guilty of "anti-Semitism."
Point: indiscriminate use of these "isms" as epithets, 1. distorts the original meaning of the term; (Dare I say, *trivializes* them?). 2. obfuscates and discourages productive debate and analyisis.
Except if they are Republicans that is.
thecatburgler (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-02-09 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Clinton was being racist.
Remember that only a few weeks before he made that remark, Hillary was polling well ahead of Barack among A/A voters. When it appeared that Obama was going to do well in SC, Bill made that flippant comparison to Jackson (I mean really - why was it necessary to go back a full 20 years?) to trivialize Obama's anticipated win there. Edwards won the SC primary in 2004, so why couldn't Bill have compared Obama to him?
polmaven (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-02-09 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Bill made no "flippant" comparison.
Are you aware that, the question(s) immediatly before his answer to that particular question were about Jackson...from the same questioner, I think...(I may be incorrect on that part).
The point is, he did not just pull Jackson out of thin air. The TOPIC of the questions had been ABOUT Jackson.
Nothing "flippant" or racist about it.
Unless he was a Republican that is.
yardwork (1000+ posts) Fri Jan-02-09 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #16
33. No. If you oppose gay marriage you are homophobic. Period.
Stop trying to wriggle out of it. Choosing a religion that agrees with one's bigoted stance doesn't make one any less of a bigot.
donheld (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-03-09 02:11 AM
Response to Original message
39. Sorry but I'm with those who say
If you're against gay marriage you're a Homophobe. No exceptions.
On and on it goes as they all are trying to stake a claim to the highest ground of victimhood.
How does it feel to have your own hate come around and bite you in the butt DUmbasses?
