SSM why are you voting no?

Penny Tration · 09-05-2015 08:38AM

stefanovich wrote: »

Just pointing out that your argument here sort of rests on the assumption that being homophobic is bad.

Just what does homophobia mean? Does it mean more than its direct interpretation like pedophilia? Does it mean you want to attack and kill all homosexuals or does it mean that you are scared of them or their culture?

Homophobia is generally taken as an irrational dislike/fear/hatred of gay people.

You speak about the assumption that homophobia is bad - so enlighten me as to what is good about homophobia?

As for the ridiculous hyperbole in the second paragraph - lol.

stefanovich · 09-05-2015 08:52AM

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

Homophobia is generally taken as an irrational dislike/fear/hatred of gay people.

You speak about the assumption that homophobia is bad - so enlighten me as to what is good about homophobia?

As for the ridiculous hyperbole in the second paragraph - lol.

Hard to find a neutral definition of homophobia. The use of the word "irrational" in yours already shows bias.

Someone should be able to feel antipathy toward homosexuality without being demonised.

Penny Tration · 09-05-2015 08:59AM

stefanovich wrote: »

Hard to find a neutral definition of homophobia. The use of the word "irrational" in yours already shows bias.

Someone should be able to feel antipathy toward homosexuality without being demonised.

Irrational is the word used to describe a phobia. It's got nothing to do with a bias, it's how phobias are defined.

I see you're dodging my question.

People can feel whatever they like. If they choose to voice their opinions, I equally have the right to insult their opinions.

oscarBravo · 09-05-2015 08:59AM

stefanovich wrote: »

Someone should be able to feel antipathy toward homosexuality without being demonised.

Why?

Should someone be able to feel antipathy toward women or black people without being called out for it?

stefanovich · 09-05-2015 09:19AM

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

Irrational is the word used to describe a phobia. It's got nothing to do with a bias, it's how phobias are defined.

Popular usage makes the word a lot more loaded than a simple phobia. There are huge negative connotations, words have a lot of power. Of course it shows bias. What word would you use to describe a person who feels uncomfortable with homosexuality?

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

I see you're dodging my question.

Not really, just not sure why you asked it. Are you really sure you want to go down the road of what is good about homophobia? The word is too loaded and I can't really use it in good faith. People are entitled to a variance of opinions however.

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

People can feel whatever they like. If they choose to voice their opinions, I equally have the right to insult their opinions.

Fair enough!

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why?

Should someone be able to feel antipathy toward women or black people without being called out for it?

Why are you comparing this to racism and sexism?

sunshine and showers · 09-05-2015 12:59PM

stefanovich wrote: »

Why are you comparing this to racism and sexism?

That comparison is made for a very simple reason: racism and sexism are based on discrimination against people for something they can't help - ie the colour of their skin or their gender.

Being "against" gay people (homophobia or whatever you choose to call it) is similar. People can't help being gay. They are born that way.

Guy:Incognito · 09-05-2015 01:21PM

sunshine and showers wrote: »

They are born that way.

I sense an incoming tangent that attempts to distance it from the rest of the post.

sunshine and showers · 09-05-2015 01:25PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I sense an incoming tangent that attempts to distance it from the rest of the post.

If people still believe that people aren't born gay, then I really have nothing to say to them to try to convince them otherwise. Arguing with that kind of ignorance is less productive than banging your head off a brick wall.

Royal Legend · 09-05-2015 06:49PM

Saying that people who vote No are homophobic is like saying that people who feel uncomfortable around black people are Nazi's.

elfy4eva · 09-05-2015 06:56PM

Royal Legend wrote: »

Saying that people who vote No are homophobic is akin to saying that people who feel uncomfortable around black people are Nazi's

No it's not that's ridiculous....it's like calling people who are uncomfortable with black people xenophobic which it is.

Royal Legend · 09-05-2015 07:05PM

elfy4eva wrote: »

no it's not that's ridiculous....it's like calling people who are uncomfortable with black people xenophobic which it is.

People can be uncomfortable around people because they do not understand their culture, creed or beliefs, it does not make them xenophobic, it just means they are uncomfortable with the unknown or something they are unfamiliar with.
Yes there are homophobic people that will definitely vote No, but there are also others that will vote No because they do not fully understand the amendment and will look to keep the status quo and others that will vote No because the church they worship in says vote No, it does not make them homophobic.

This unfair labelling of people, this Political Correctness that you must have the popular view or else you get labelled a racist or a homophobe is getting worse by the day.

Royal Legend · 09-05-2015 07:28PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The unfair labelling of people as liberals or politically correct for being uncomfortable around people with homophobic or racist views is getting worse by the day.

Yes it has gone from one extreme to the other, the original extreme was that if you had a left agenda, supported gays, etc etc then you were a wimpy liberal that could never be let into power.

Now if someone voices an alternative opinion on anything to do with race, creed or sexuality, then they are labelled as being ignorant people, racist, homophobic.

Enda Kenny will not debate this issue IMO because he does not believe in it, he is using this referendum as a deflection away from Water, Banks, Health. It is more important for him to sway to the populist view, he is using this IMO as a legacy issue for him and his government.

C14N · 09-05-2015 07:48PM

Royal Legend wrote: »

Yes it has gone from one extreme to the other, the original extreme was that if you had a left agenda, supported gays, etc etc then you were a wimpy liberal that could never be let into power.

Now if someone voices an alternative opinion on anything to do with race, creed or sexuality, then they are labelled as being ignorant people, racist, homophobic.

That's because that's what those words were coined to describe. It's really weird the number of people who passionately argue points that are fundamentally homophobic and are then upset when they're labelled as homophobes. The belief that gay people should not be entitled to the same rights before the state as heterosexuals is undisputedly homophobic. It's discrimination against homosexuals because you do not think a gay couple should have the same legal status as a straight one (often it's extended further than this by also believing a gay couple are inherently going be substandard as parents). From Mirriam-Webster's dictionary:

Definition of HOMOPHOBIA

: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

If you're going to go against it, at least own the homophobia and try to defend it.

Royal Legend · 09-05-2015 08:01PM

C14N wrote: »

That's because that's what those words were coined to describe. It's really weird the number of people who passionately argue points that are fundamentally homophobic and are then upset when they're labelled as homophobes. The belief that gay people should not be entitled to the same rights before the state as heterosexuals is undisputedly homophobic. It's discrimination against homosexuals because you do not think a gay couple should have the same legal status as a straight one (often it's extended further than this by also believing a gay couple are inherently going be substandard as parents). From Mirriam-Webster's dictionary:

If you're going to go against it, at least own the homophobia and try to defend it.

P.S I have not decided what way to vote yet, but people's assertion that if I or anyone votes No makes them homophobic is complete BS.

You are deciding to pigeon hole me just because I am debating an opinion versus yours, read my post on the thread that was closed earlier on this same subject and then come back to me.
Tunnel vision is not a good way to look at the world.

C14N · 09-05-2015 08:07PM

Royal Legend wrote: »

P.S I have not decided what way to vote yet, but people's assertion that if I or anyone votes No makes them homophobic is complete BS.

You are deciding to pigeon hole me just because I am debating an opinion versus yours, read my post on the thread that was closed earlier on this same subject and then come back to me.
Tunnel vision is not a good way to look at the world.

I have said nothing about you personally. All I've said is that the belief that homosexual people should not be entitled to the legal privileges of marriage is intrinsically homophobic, which it is. It fits very neatly into the definition of the word and that's why people who hold the belief are often called "homophobic".

pauliebdub · 09-05-2015 08:21PM

I'm voting yes, but I've heard quite a few different opinions why people are voting no. I'm from rural Ireland and have encountered a lot of no's amongst friends and neighbours.

One reason is fear of change, if something isn't broken why fix it? Heterosexual marriage should be kept special and the way it is.

Another reason is a discomfort with gay men in particular, a few straight men have said that it is not healthy or should be encouraged or normalised.

Another reason is religion, if the church are against it then it's a no.

A few people I know have moved to the yes side due to the media coverage, there's nothing like an emotive story to appeal to peoples better nature.

pauliebdub · 09-05-2015 08:23PM

It's worth noting that nobody has mentioned children or surrogacy when explaining their reasons for voting no.

Royal Legend · 09-05-2015 08:51PM

pauliebdub wrote: »

I'm voting yes, but I've heard quite a few different opinions why people are voting no. I'm from rural Ireland and have encountered a lot of no's amongst friends and neighbours.

One reason is fear of change, if something isn't broken why fix it? Heterosexual marriage should be kept special and the way it is.

Another reason is a discomfort with gay men in particular, a few straight men have said that it is not healthy or should be encouraged or normalised.

Another reason is religion, if the church are against it then it's a no.

A few people I know have moved to the yes side due to the media coverage, there's nothing like an emotive story to appeal to peoples better nature.

People who fit into your second point for voting No could be seen as homophobic, but allow for the possibility that they have never met a homosexual or have met some and cannot connect, does been shy to talk to homosexuals or just unable to fit into a way of thinking make those people homophobic?

Point 1 and 3 I cannot see how someone can then define these groups of people as homophobic.

If you want to see real homophobia, go to Russia, absolutely what they are preaching there from a government standpoint is extreme homophobia

Royal Legend · 09-05-2015 08:58PM

C14N wrote: »

I have said nothing about you personally. All I've said is that the belief that homosexual people should not be entitled to the legal privileges of marriage is intrinsically homophobic, which it is. It fits very neatly into the definition of the word and that's why people who hold the belief are often called "homophobic".

Not if people believe through their religion that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Catholics are not the only ones to have this view. So what is being stated is that to be Catholic is to be homophobic

In this day and age, religion has become an easy target. The de-churching of this country is for a different debate.

pauliebdub · 09-05-2015 09:02PM

Royal Legend wrote: »

People who fit into your second point for voting No could be seen as homophobic, but allow for the possibility that they have never met a homosexual or have met some and cannot connect, does been shy to talk to homosexuals or just unable to fit into a way of thinking make those people homophobic?

I agree with this, I wouldn't call any of these people homophobic, they're just uncomfortable with unfamiliar situations having grown up and lived in a fairly insular rural community. I don't know if they have ever met anyone who is openly gay.

The Magnificent Falcowboys · 09-05-2015 09:05PM

Because its wrong

Royal Legend · 09-05-2015 09:11PM

pauliebdub wrote: »

I agree with this, I wouldn't call any of these people homophobic, they're just uncomfortable with unfamiliar situations having grown up and lived in a fairly insular rural community. I don't know if they have ever met anyone who is openly gay.

And that's my point, you see it posted here, you hear and see it in the mainstream media, if you are a potential NO voter, then you are classed as backward and/or homophobic, and this is wrong in the extreme.

There are a lot of people who will vote No because they don't understand the issue, don't understand Gay people, don't know gay people, have a completely wrong view of gay sexuality or follow their religion which does not accept homosexuality in marriage, who are all afraid to speak up in public to say they might vote No, because of politically correct media agenda, that makes them out to be bad people.

C14N · 09-05-2015 09:25PM

Royal Legend wrote: »

Not if people believe through their religion that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Catholics are not the only ones to have this view. So what is being stated is that to be Catholic is to be homophobic

In this day and age, religion has become an easy target. The de-churching of this country is for a different debate.

It's still homophobic, it's just that your religious beliefs happen to express homophobia (as indeed the Bible does).

Previously, in the LDS Church (also known as Mormonism), black people were not allowed to obtain priesthood based purely on the belief that their skin colour was an indication of the Mark of Cain. I'm sure they sincerely believed that and therefore thought that black people were descended from the first murderer but that doesn't mean that belief wasn't racist because it still discriminated against people on the basis of race, which is what racism is.

You don't have to be attending weekly Klan meetings to be racist and you don't have to think homosexuality warrants the death penalty to be homophobic. Far more moderate views than that are generally still technically homophobic.

Royal Legend · 09-05-2015 09:35PM

C14N wrote: »

It's still homophobic, it's just that your religious beliefs happen to express homophobia (as indeed the Bible does).

Previously, in the LDS Church (also known as Mormonism), black people were not allowed to obtain priesthood based purely on the belief that their skin colour was an indication of the Mark of Cain. I'm sure they sincerely believed that and therefore thought that black people were descended from the first murderer but that doesn't mean that belief wasn't racist because it still discriminated against people on the basis of race, which is what racism is.

You don't have to be attending weekly Klan meetings to be racist and you don't have to think homosexuality warrants the death penalty to be homophobic. Far more moderate views than that are generally still technically homophobic.

Googled it, this is the first definition

Homophobia is the hatred or fear of homosexuals - that is, lesbians and gay men - sometimes leading to acts of violence and expressions of hostility. Homophobia is not confined to any one segment of society, and can be found in people from all walks of life.

I am sure that there are people who are voting No who hate homosexuals and also people who are hostile towards them as well. but there are also people who don't feel or act that way who will be voting No, so according to this definition they are not homophobic.

wupucus · 09-05-2015 09:38PM

I will be voting no because I think marriage should be confined to the union of a man and a woman - I think the idea of two men getting married is quite frankly, ridiculous and yes you are right I am homophobic - I find the concept of homosexuality repulsive

C14N · 09-05-2015 09:47PM

Royal Legend wrote: »

Googled it, this is the first definition

Homophobia is the hatred or fear of homosexuals - that is, lesbians and gay men - sometimes leading to acts of violence and expressions of hostility. Homophobia is not confined to any one segment of society, and can be found in people from all walks of life.

I am sure that there are people who are voting No who hate homosexuals and also people who are hostile towards them as well. but there are also people who don't feel or act that way who will be voting No, so according to this definition they are not homophobic.

That's great and all but it doesn't change the fact that there are more expansive definitions that include general discrimination such as the one I posted above (and sourced). Incidentally, I Googled it and the first definiton was:

"Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people". Again, an accurate way to describe those who, at least, believe that homosexuals are not fit to be parents.

The point is that using "homophobia" to describe discrimination against gay people (for example, making it illegal for them to marry as a straight couple would) is a legitimate use of the word.

C14N · 09-05-2015 09:48PM

wupucus wrote: »

I will be voting no because I think marriage should be confined to the union of a man and a woman - I think the idea of two men getting married is quite frankly, ridiculous and yes you are right I am homophobic - I find the concept of homosexuality repulsive

See? This guy gets it.

Royal Legend · 09-05-2015 09:55PM

C14N wrote: »

That's great and all but it doesn't change the fact that there are more expansive definitions that include general discrimination such as the one I posted above (and sourced). Incidentally, I Googled it and the first definiton was:

"Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people". Again, an accurate way to describe those who, at least, believe that homosexuals are not fit to be parents.

The point is that using "homophobia" to describe discrimination against gay people (for example, making it illegal for them to marry as a straight couple would) is a legitimate use of the word.

But a lot of people who may vote No do not dislike or are prejudiced against gay people, not understanding homosexuality is not prejudice, you cannot dislike someone if you don't know them. You keep taking your argument to the extremes of people, the way you are talking makes it sound like we are repealing the type of law that is being instigated by the Russian parliment

C14N · 09-05-2015 10:22PM

Royal Legend wrote: »

But a lot of people who may vote No do not dislike or are prejudiced against gay people, not understanding homosexuality is not prejudice, you cannot dislike someone if you don't know them. You keep taking your argument to the extremes of people, the way you are talking makes it sound like we are repealing the type of law that is being instigated by the Russian parliment

That is a prejudice though. I'm sure it very often is borne out of ignorance than any sort of spite (take stories about somebody coming around as soon as a family member comes out and they actually find out more about it) but that's what prejudice is. Being homophobic or generally prejudiced doesn't always mean that you're an all-round terrible person, it usually just comes from an inability to empathise.

Nowhere have I implied that a No vote would be anywhere on the scale of the anti-gay laws in place in Russia. Gays in Ireland would still have almost all of the rights that straight people would have, as far as I'm aware, the only right they do not have is the right to marry (although that obviously entails a whole host of other rights that you gain as a married citizen). Nowhere have I mentioned extreme people either, quite the opposite.

I'm arguing that homophobia does not need to be extreme to still be accurately classed as such. I don't think homophobia should be illegal or punishable. As unintentionally sarcastic as it might sound, I sincerely think the RCC should absolutely have the right to maintain the homophobic practice of not recognising same-sex marriages because it does conflict with their beliefs as a religious organisation. However, it's still important to recognise that those views are homophobic because they still treat gay people differently to straight people.

Royal Legend · 09-05-2015 10:30PM

C14N wrote: »

That is a prejudice though. I'm sure it very often is borne out of ignorance than any sort of spite (take stories about somebody coming around as soon as a family member comes out and they actually find out more about it) but that's what prejudice is. Being homophobic or generally prejudiced doesn't always mean that you're an all-round terrible person, it usually just comes from an inability to empathise.

Nowhere have I implied that a No vote would be anywhere on the scale of the anti-gay laws in place in Russia. Gays in Ireland would still have almost all of the rights that straight people would have, as far as I'm aware, the only right they do not have is the right to marry (although that obviously entails a whole host of other rights that you gain as a married citizen). Nowhere have I mentioned extreme people either, quite the opposite.

I'm arguing that homophobia does not need to be extreme to still be accurately classed as such. I don't think homophobia should be illegal or punishable. As unintentionally sarcastic as it might sound, I sincerely think the RCC should absolutely have the right to maintain the homophobic practice of not recognising same-sex marriages because it does conflict with their beliefs as a religious organisation. However, it's still important to recognise that those views are homophobic because they still treat gay people differently to straight people.

I do not have an issue with your view because it is your own personal view. my own view of what is described as homophobic behaviour is different to yours that is all.

My main point is that some people on the No side, or are not sure to vote yes or no, are afraid to express themselves because of the fear of been pigeon holed as been homophobic when they do not dislike gay people, and that is is the mainstream media that is propagating this theory that they are lesser people.

SSM why are you voting no?

Comments