I’m not Hitchens, and so I’m often not as articulate when I speak as when I write. But here, after some thought, is what I find annoying about Charlie the Atheist Homophobe’s arguments.
His obsession with words and their proper definitions would be a lot more persuasive if he weren’t being so self-serving and hypocritical about how he argues his position. When he called Tracie and me two weeks ago, the burden of his argument was that the word homophobia has a colloquial meaning that has changed and evolved from its dictionary definition, so as to incorporate such things as “disgust” rather than strictly “irrational fear” (the meaning of “phobia” in a nutshell). Charlie was supportive of this evolution of homophobia’s meaning, of course.
But he is not similarly supportive of a change and evolution of the definition of marriage. While homophobia gets to expand its meaning to include a variety of emotional states, marriage does not get to expand its meaning to include a variety of relationship commitments, including same-sex couples (even though the almighty dictionary says it can). And Charlie’s whole justification for opposing any expansion of marriage‘s definition is an appeal to tradition and consensus, the very things he thinks should be ignored in the case of homophobia.
It’s a pure double standard, of the sort that people who are smart enough to know better often hold, so as to convince themselves that an intellectually and morally offensive point of view is in fact intellectually and morally justified. But as Russell said, if the guy isn’t actually out to impinge on anyone’s rights, then his word games are just so much noise.
I personally still don’t get why people so desperately latch onto these kinds of justifications. I’d find it ridiculously presumptuous of me to instruct a couple of strangers, who happened to be consenting adults, on what term they were allowed to apply to their personal relationship commitment, because “traditional” terms made me uncomfortable. If gay people want to be married and call it “marriage,” how does that harm me? How does it negatively impact my life in any degree whatsoever? What’s it got to do with me anyway? Nothing, that’s what.
And yet Charlie is so desperate to justify his folly that he’ll call my position irrational. Whatever. Seems to me the dude’s on no more sensible, let alone honest, ground than Tony Perkins.
589 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Improbable Joe
June 5, 2011 at 8:55 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Martin:Maybe if you were just a hair quicker on the mute trigger… just to give yourself the space to present your view without the person on the phone shouting over you? I think you guys handled this fairly well, but I think if you'd cut the guy off sooner you might have made your case more clearly and with less difficulty.
Martin
June 5, 2011 at 8:56 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Well, I wasn't in charge of the buttons today. But Russell handled it expertly. The "schmarriage" question was gold.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 5, 2011 at 9:22 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
This is Charlie,You said,"While homophobia gets to expand its meaning to include a variety of emotional states, marriage does not get to expand its meaning to include a variety of relationship commitments, including same-sex couples" That's a FAULTY ANALOGY FALLACYUnlike the word marriage, the term "homophobia" was a misnomer and full of DECEIT every since it was invented. Even though the suffix is "phobia", It was NEVER a phobia. It was NEVER about fear of gays. The person who invented the word didn't even conduct a study to see if the people who he labeled "homophobes" were even afraid of gays in the first place. They allowed this MISNOMER in the dictionary when it was never supposed to be in the dictionary. The suffix "phobia" of the word it outright DECEIT and TRICKERY. The term homophobia has been and still is deceitful by default. So the word never really "evolved" because it was never what it was suppose to mean in the first place.On the other hand, Unlike homophobia, the term marriage is NOT a misomer.. Unlike homophobia, the term marriage was NEVER been deceitful by default. Unlike homophobia, the definition of marriage has always been CLEAR. The problem I have with the gay movement is since they refuse to stop using the term incorrectly, the next best thing is to apply pressure on them to at least acknowledge what studies have discovered about the people who they label "homophobes". The truth is, it's all about disgust and disgust is a disease avoidance behavior.
Martin
June 5, 2011 at 9:39 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
The person who invented the word didn't even conduct a study to see if the people who he labeled "homophobes" were even afraid of gays in the first place.Citation needed.In any event, as I understand the origins of the term in clinical psych, it had to do not so much with a fear of gays as a fear of latent homosexual urges on the part of the homophobe himself, and this fear led to an aversion to homosexuals that bordered on pathology.This is not, of course, to say that all or even a significant portion of anti-gay people have such a fear. Many almost certainly do not. In those cases, the term "homophobia" might apply less well than simply to say the person is prejudiced. But in the end it's all the same. I don't see that prejudice is any more rationally justified by disgust than by fear, particularly when it's a "disease avoidance behavior" that's neither about a disease, nor about something that affects your life in any way whatsoever.Anyway, definitions do change, and that of marriage is expanding to include same-sex couples, as the dictionary.com link reveals. You may not like that fact, but really, that's your problem. Your faux-intellectual justifications for what is simple bigotry still fail to convince.
Trog
June 5, 2011 at 9:46 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
/served.
MethodSkeptic
June 5, 2011 at 9:51 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Oh good god. Can someone post the timestamp for this assclown's call, so I can fast-forward when I get the podcast edition in the morning?Unless he got royally served, you know.
Thy Reaper
June 5, 2011 at 9:57 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@CharlieHomophobia is not a misnomer unless you willfully disregard its common meaning. It still has its medical meaning, but the far more common meaning means something different.This is very similar to a related issue, where 'theory' has both a common and scientific meaning, and creationists so love to purposefully use the wrong definition based on the context.In the case of 'homophobia', using the medical definition in a common context is deceitful, and using the common one in a medical context is confusing. That doesn't mean either definition is inherently wrong or deceitful, just that you're being far too anal about a specific definition that you feel should be the only one.In the case of the use of 'marriage', besides your bizarre preference for a specific definition once again, why should anyone care?
k7leetha
June 5, 2011 at 10:04 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
It's standard religious practice to make assertions that aren't true. It ranges from calling atheism a religion, to insisting that scientific evidence points to a 6,000 year old earth, yet includes varying things such as, "the evidence is 'inconclusive,'" or my favorite old chestnut, "science is flawed because it's created by man." We won't mention that anything we know about the bible would be flawed by that logic, that would hurt their brain. The arrogance and willingness to deceive and lie seen in theists is quite astounding, even to the point that theists have *told me* what I believe, even after being corrected. What the homophobe was doing is classic religious rationalization; protecting and assaulting the same standards in a double-think mindset. It's similar to insisting that evidence for god exists, and having to resort to it being a matter of faith, which can often then "red herring" into the further self-deluded rationale, "you'll understand *when* you have faith." In short, Charlie was a common, lowly mind.
Shaun
June 5, 2011 at 10:06 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Incoming shitstorm detected."The truth is, it's all about disgust and disgust is a disease avoidance behavior."That must make me a homophobephobe.By the way Charlie, is your problem only with regard to this petty marriage "misnomer", or do you actually think that homosexual couples should be treated as second-class citizens by the law?
Tom Foss
June 5, 2011 at 10:10 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Charlie: that's okay, we'll just call you a bigot.I haven't listened to the episode yet, but does Charlie realize that the definition of "marriage" has changed wildly over the course of human history? For most of the time in the west, it's meant "a financial transaction between families where a young woman and some assorted property are sold to a (usually much older) man." In other cultures, it's meant "an arrangement where any number of women are held in sexual servitude by a single man." The idea of "one man and one woman sharing their lives together of their own volition because they're in love" is a comparatively new innovation. And before that, it was "one man and one woman of the same race and religion sharing their lives together of their own volition because they're in love." And all that, of course, ignores marriages of convenience, political marriages, or shotgun weddings. The "one man, one woman, monogamous and in love for life" marriage model makes up a minority of marriages. Not that any of it matters. I don't see what harm is done to Charlie by a gay couple in Massachusetts falling in love, deciding to be monogamous, and applying for the same rights everyone else has to visit each other in the hospital and claim each other on their taxes and so forth.
Tom Foss
June 5, 2011 at 10:18 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Missed this: at least acknowledge what studies have discovered about the people who they label "homophobes". The truth is, it's all about disgust and disgust is a disease avoidance behavior. Citation please. Quick question, Chuck: why don't we feel disgust toward crowds of people? Lots more diseases in crowds than in individual gay people. For that matter, why isn't all sex disgusting? Exactly what "diseases" are communicated by gays and not straights? And before you say HIV, note two things: that it's a recent disease (and so wouldn't explain anti-gay bigotry stretching back into antiquity) and that it crossed over due to butchering bushmeat in Africa. If disgust is a disease-avoidance adaptation, then why weren't the industrializing Africans at the turn of the century adapted to feel disgust toward primates with SIV? And what about cultures who don't have that disgust? There are lots of heteroflexible societies in history (ancient Greece, for instance) who apparently lacked that disgust. Can you demonstrate that there's a biological component (necessary if it's an evolutionary adaptation) and that it's not just cultural? I'd be very interested in seeing that study.
MattSolano
June 5, 2011 at 10:25 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@MethodSkeptic: The atheist homophobe's, who is also not a homophobe, call is within the first ten minutes of today's show…
Harrod
June 5, 2011 at 10:32 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
If Charlie's goal has been to distract us from atheism, he has succeeded. Although his two calls have had a certain rowdy entertainment value, I propose he be limited to the topics of theism & atheism in future shows.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 5, 2011 at 10:35 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
This is Charlie,To Martin, You said,"Citation needed"The burden of proof is on you, Mr. atheist. You should know that. Cite the study that shows homophobia IS rooted in fear. Just like I thought, many pro gay atheists become like Christians when discussing gay issues."In any event, as I understand the origins of the term in clinical psych, it had to do not so much with a fear of gays as a fear of latent homosexual urges on the part of the homophobe himself, and this fear led to an aversion to homosexuals that bordered on pathology"Where's the study to support this??? There is none and the FATALLY FLAWED study from the Univ. Of Georgia doesn't count because1. It was too small ( no more than 70 subjects)2. It wasn't repeated or duplicated even once3. It didn't cover various people from varous cultures and backgrounds4. it was possibly rigged. "This is not, of course, to say that all or even a significant portion of anti-gay people have such a fear. Many almost certainly do not"Then that makes the term homophobia a misnomer and DECEITFUL. Why would anyone invent a word with the suffix phobia added to it KNOWING the word is not really a phobia??? That's like someone inventing the word homo-schizo knowing the people who will be labeled that aren't really schizophrenic. "I don't see that prejudice is any more rationally justified by disgust than by fear, particularly when it's a "disease avoidance behavior" that's neither about a disease, nor about something that affects your life in any way whatsoever"Feces doesn't affect my life in anyway but I have the right to express disgust of it and expressing disgust of gay men is NOT "bigotry" or "irrational"…I don't think you want to claim that every single human is a "bigot" because everyone is disgusted by something. Disgust is not "bigotry". Is that the best you can do? Many pro gays including atheist pro gays are clearly intolerant of anyone who disagrees with their views regarding gay issues and that's TRUE bigotry. Denying someone a Miss America title because of a disagreement is PURE bigotry.Thy Reaper,
atheistdeceitbuster
June 5, 2011 at 10:48 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
To Thy Reaper,"Homophobia is not a misnomer unless you willfully disregard its common meaning"You mean the meaning that doesn't even apply to 99% of the people they label "homophobes"?The "common" meaning is a LIE to begin with. It's like going around calling a bunch of skinny people "fat"…It's fair to say that pro gay atheists support DECEIT in which makes them a bunch of hypocrites. "It still has its medical meaning, but the far more common meaning means something different"Homophobia doesn't even have a diagnostic criteria. Religion and homophobia are equally major bullshit LIES"just that you're being far too anal about a specific definition that you feel should be the only one"That's FALSE,I'm not a "demon" or a "devil" and if a Christian labels me that, I'll become "anal" about that too because deceit and false labels are simply wrong and unethical. Shame on my fellow atheists.I treat pro gay deceit the same I treat religious deceit. Deceit it deceit. I don't conform to religion so what makes you think I will conform to pro gays???
Tom Foss
June 5, 2011 at 10:59 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
You mean the meaning that doesn't even apply to 99% of the people they label "homophobes"?The "common" meaning is a LIE to begin with. It's like going around calling a bunch of skinny people "fat"…No, it's more like calling people "black" or "white" when their skin colors are more variations on brown and peach. Or, as someone mentioned in the previous episode's thread, calling an anti-Judaism person an "anti-Semite," which literally means "against people who belong to Semitic cultures" and, literally, encompasses many Arabs and excludes many Jews.The meanings of words are not always the same as the literal translation of their prefixes and suffixes. "Homophobia" literally means "an irrational fear of the same," which is basically nonsensical. But its definition is different from its literal meaning, and usage defines it as "fear or hatred of homosexuals."It's fair to say that pro gay atheists support DECEIT in which makes them a bunch of hypocrites.No, actually, it doesn't. Not unless those pro-gay atheists are also necessarily committed to opposing deceit. See, "hypocrisy" means acting in ways that are specifically contrary to what you claim to believe or support. I don't conform to religion so what makes you think I will conform to pro gays??? 1. I don't think "conform" means what you think it means.2. What makes you think those two things are in any way analogous?
atheistdeceitbuster
June 5, 2011 at 11:01 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
To Tom Foss,"but does Charlie realize that the definition of "marriage" has changed wildly over the course of human history?"if marriage changes and there's nothing wrong with that, the few states that legalized gay marriage can change back to husband and wife. So change can be good.It's all subjective and no one is right or wrong regarding gay marriage. It just depends on what each society decides to do. "why don't we feel disgust toward crowds of people? Lots more diseases in crowds than in individual gay people. For that matter, why isn't all sex disgusting? Exactly what "diseases" are communicated by gays and not straights?"You're like a Christian asking a bunch of questions based on a lack of rational thought.What study shows 2o% of people who hang out in large crowds every two weeks are at risk of contracting a disease? Std's among gays are so serious, men who have sex with men aren't even allowed to donate blood or plasma. Now that's what I called justified discrimination due to a serious health risk. STudy shows 20% of gay men in large cities have hiv/aids. Gay men are a TRUE disease threat so our evolutionary disgust is justified.
Tom Foss
June 5, 2011 at 11:05 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Harrod: If Charlie's goal has been to distract us from atheism, he has succeeded. Although his two calls have had a certain rowdy entertainment value, I propose he be limited to the topics of theism & atheism in future shows.Great. And after they've discussed how there's no God, what will they do with the other 58 minutes?Listen to the intro again, Harrod, specifically about how the ACA is an organization dedicated to positive atheism and the separation of church and state. That latter bit is the significant part here, since arguments against gay rights and marriage equality, 9 times out of 10, are derived from religious positions. As Rebecca Watson recently pointed out, most of the religious right's current attacks on church/state separation aren't just creationism in schools and Ten Commandments monuments, but attacks on women's rights, reproductive health, and gay rights. Which puts those issues squarely within the purview of the ACA's mission statement. Not that I think they'd need to justify those conversations.
blindmansleeps
June 5, 2011 at 11:05 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Charlie,It seems that you're really placing too much weight on language, and not what's behind the language. Look, as Martin pointed out, there might actually be people who are afraid of homosexuality for a number of reasons. Those people might be homophobes. There might also be people who are disgusted at homosexuality. They would be prejudiced. And you know what? Some people might mistakenly call themselves a homophobe when really they're just prejudiced. *clears throat in an accusing manner* But your whole premise relies on some study showed that all homophobia is based on disgust instead of fear? Or are you sure that this study wasn't just showing that people who call themselves homophobes actually aren't? I want a citation of this study that shows that homophobia is actually disgust and not fear. As Martin said, there have been studies that have shown that homophobia is more about the homophobe than it is the object of the homophobia. I really want a citation. And even if you do have a citation, I'm already skeptical of the study. I want to know how they conducted the study, what were the objectives, all of the variables present, etc. Moreover, I want to know what the results really were, because I sincerely believe you may have misinterpreted the results.
Cyphern
June 5, 2011 at 11:13 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
> Std's among gays are so serious, men who have sex with men aren't even allowed to donate blood or plasma.Got a source for that? The eligibility requirements for blood donation i could find make no mention of sexual orientation at all. Examples: http://www.redcrossblood.org/donating-blood/eligibility-requirementshttp://www.cbccts.org/donating/index.htmhttp://www.donatingplasma.org/whydonate/eligiblity.aspx
atheistdeceitbuster
June 5, 2011 at 11:14 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"No, it's more like calling people "black" or "white" when their skin colors are more variations on brown and peach"This is a HUGE faulty analogy fallacy. Accusing someone of suffering from a "phobia" when they're not really suffering from a "phobia" is NOTHING LIKE calling someone "black" because the word "black" has more than one meaning while the word "phobia' is SPECIFICALLY about an irrational fear. Why won't you pro gay, deceitful, irrational atheists be truthful about it??? You like using the term homophobe because you believe it's a good way to silence or shame people who speak out against gays into silence or politial submission. The word homophobia is nothing but a verbal political weapon…The meanings of words are not always the same as the literal translation of their prefixes and suffixes. "Homophobia" literally means "an irrational fear of the same," which is basically nonsensical. But its definition is different from its literal meaning, and usage defines it as "fear or hatred of homosexuals."It's fair to say that pro gay atheists support DECEIT in which makes them a bunch of hypocrites.No, actually, it doesn't. Not unless those pro-gay atheists are also necessarily committed to opposing deceit. See, "hypocrisy" means acting in ways that are specifically contrary to what you claim to believe or support. I don't conform to religion so what makes you think I will conform to pro gays??? 1. I don't think "conform" means what you think it means.2. What makes you think those two things are in any way analogous? 6/05/2011 10:59 PM
blindmansleeps
June 5, 2011 at 11:16 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
P.S.It's silly for anyone to make a blanket statement about two distinct groups of people. It seems like for you, Charlie, it's either all people who are homophobes are disgusted or not. Instead, it makes a whole heck of a lot more sense to say that there are some who have a fear of homosexuality, and others who are disgusted by it. You're trying to cram both of those into one word that already has a precise definition.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 5, 2011 at 11:19 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"No, actually, it doesn't. Not unless those pro-gay atheists are also necessarily committed to opposing deceit"Pro gay atheists support the gay movement and the gay movement supports and promotes deceit so therefore, anyone who supports the gay movement supports deceit."See, "hypocrisy" means acting in ways that are specifically contrary to what you claim to believe or support"Pro gay atheists are being deceitful and trying to deceive the masses but they're against religion partly because of deceit.I said, I don't conform to religion so what makes you think I will conform to pro gays??? 1. I don't think "conform" means what you think it means.You responded,"2. What makes you think those two things are in any way analogous?" Pro gay atheists and pro gays try to punish certain people by falsely labeling them homophobes and bigots… Conformity is when a person agrees to avoid punishment. So I won't conform for atheists or religion
atheistdeceitbuster
June 5, 2011 at 11:25 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"The eligibility requirements for blood donation "i could find make no mention of sexual orientation at all. Examples: http://www.redcrossblood.org/donating-blood/eligibility-requirementshttp://www.cbccts.org/donating/index.htmhttp://www.donatingplasma.org/whydonate/eligiblity.aspx" I can do even better than that.Men who have sex with men are not allowed to donate. It's standard precedure for all plasma centers.Phone: 1-800-374-4927Address: 4954 van nuys blvdCity: Sherman OaksWebsite: http://www.hemacare.com
blindmansleeps
June 5, 2011 at 11:28 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
And don't start appealing to evolution for moral judgments. That's simply absurd. Hume's ought from is distinction. Enough said. EVEN IF there were some kind of evolutionary disgust towards homosexuality, that simply is the way things ARE and not the way they OUGHT to be. For example, just because we have an evolutionary urge to procreate does not mean that we should go fuck everything with two legs. There's still an "ought" to be present there. And if there were an evolutionary IS statement about disgust for homosexuality, how is it that so many people missed that disgust? Evolutionary Developments never justify anything. ALL they can do is serve as the basis for some kind of justification. But, let's say for a second that we can get morality from evolutionary IS. It doesn't work out too well for you, I think. For example, it seems to me that most of humanity places some kind of value on the respect of persons, or at least desires the respect of persons. Rousseau called it our Second-Order Desires. This would mean that even if we have an evolutionary disgust towards homosexuality, we have another evolutionary urge to respect them as a person capable of making their own choices. Odd how that works out, isn't it? Evolutionary is-statements are never moral ought-statements when left alone.
markgnoinski
June 5, 2011 at 11:28 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
What Charlie does not understand is that the meaning of words change over time and take on extra meanings. A great example is the word 'gay'; it used to be mean merry and carefree. Today it also means a homosexual man. It is slowly gaining another meaning of "absurd", as in, "That movie was so gay." (Also this meaning tends to tick some people off). So, this just means that Marriage 'used' to mean a union between a man and a woman, but now it also means between any two people. Either way though, I think that the Schmarriage was a great word and we should start using that
Martin
June 5, 2011 at 11:29 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
You like using the term homophobe because you believe it's a good way to silence or shame people who speak out against gays into silence or politial submission.Charlie, I'd be perfectly happy to replace "homophobe" with "raving ignorant bigot" in reference to you. No sweat.But anyway, if you're going to make such easily refutable false claims such as that gays are disallowed from donating blood, perhaps you ought to change your nick to "atheistdeceitpurveyor".Why won't you pro gay, deceitful, irrational atheists be truthful about it???I never took clinical psych, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and suggest you're projecting like a motherfucker on at least two of those.Gay men are a TRUE disease threat so our evolutionary disgust is justified.Replace "evolutionary" with "Biblical," and guess who sounds like a Christian now?Seriously, you're impressing no one with this crap. In any case, the majority of HIV infection in Africa has been through heterosexual contact and the sex trade.
blindmansleeps
June 5, 2011 at 11:31 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Dawkins frequently says that we abandon our Darwinian drives every time we use a condom. If you're going to appeal to an evolutionary disgust to say that homosexuality is wrong, then you better stop wearing a condom for the sake of consistency.
Shaun
June 5, 2011 at 11:33 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Std's among gays are so serious"Assuming that the rate of STI's is higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals, of the top of my head, I can think of a possible causal reason for this.Not all people wear condoms to reduce the risk of STI's, the risk of unwanted pregnancy is also a factor. As pregnancy via gay sex is impossible, this may lead to a decrease in the usage of condoms and thereby a higher risk of homosexuals contracting an STI.This isn't an intrinsic fault in homosexuals, Charlie, it may have more to do with a lack of proper sexual education.By the way, if your disgust is about "disease avoidance", then you have nothing to fear from gays with STI's, as they won't be having sex with you anyway."Gay men are a TRUE disease threat so our evolutionary disgust is justified"Why "evolutionary disgust"? Who says that having a portion of homosexuals in our population isn't evolutionarily beneficial?
atheistdeceitbuster
June 5, 2011 at 11:33 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Blindmansleeps"It seems that you're really placing too much weight on language, and not what's behind the language"The entire gay movement uses a word that CLEARLY misleads people into thinking the word "homophobia" is a "phobia" and manages to use the definition "irrational fear" WITHOUT ONE STUDY to support their DECEIT… I'm not putting enough weight on language. The gay movement are CONTORTIONISTS."as Martin pointed out, there might actually be people who are afraid of homosexuality for a number of reasons" Those people might be homophobes"Where are the studies Mr atheist? So far, it's all hearsay. That's what Christians do."There might also be people who are disgusted at homosexuality"More than one study shows it's a FACT that people are disgusted by gays. Disgust is not "prejudice".
Harizl
June 5, 2011 at 11:40 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I would point out that a full podcast of The Infidel Guy featured Charlie.It is on ITunes and is "Episode 500 – Fighting Against 'The Gay agenda'" It is 2 hours long and is actually quite informative. Also, his justifications are hilarious.
Tom Foss
June 5, 2011 at 11:41 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Charlie: if marriage changes and there's nothing wrong with that, the few states that legalized gay marriage can change back to husband and wife. So change can be good.It's all subjective and no one is right or wrong regarding gay marriage. It just depends on what each society decides to do. There's no right or wrong, but changing back to "husband and wife" would be good? Boy, for someone with such a mad-on about word definitions, you seem to have a lot of trouble with them. You realize, Chuck, that no one has changed marriage away from "husband and wife," right? Even the states with marriage equality still allow straights to get married. It's not like it's one or the other, or like there's only so many marriage licenses they can give out each year. You're like a Christian asking a bunch of questions based on a lack of rational thought.You're like a Christian dodging questions and making unsupported assertions. What study shows 2o% of people who hang out in large crowds every two weeks are at risk of contracting a disease? Every year, between 5 and 20% of people get influenza. That means, during flu season, if you're in a crowd of twenty people, chances are one of them is carrying a contagious and potentially fatal disease. And that's just one of the thousands of communicable diseases that are out there (quick citation). Std's among gays are so serious, men who have sex with men aren't even allowed to donate blood or plasma. Now that's what I called justified discrimination due to a serious health risk. And that's what I call discrimination based on a practice started in the '80s and never revised. But this isn't a citation, Charlie, and has nothing to do with data. It has to do with regulations, which may or may not be reasonable and evidence-based. STudy shows 20% of gay men in large cities have hiv/aids.Please provide a link to this study. And, for that matter, why it's relevant. Large cities tend to attract larger proportions of gays (and minorities of other types as well); large cities also tend to have better medical facilities. You may be getting correlation and causation backwards here; HIV-positive folks may flock to cities because A) they have the medical support they need and B) they are likelier to have HIV-positive communities for support and to prevent outside transmission. Not that it supports your thesis, of course. If your argument is that disgust is an adaptive trait based on disease avoidance, then HIV is too new to account for anti-gay bigotry. Incidentally, 26% of women test positive for genital warts. One in six people has genital herpes. If you feel disgust as a disease-avoidance mechanism, Charlie, then why aren't you just an agoraphobic misanthrope?Gay men are a TRUE disease threat so our evolutionary disgust is justified.You have not demonstrated that gay men are a greater disease threat than other groups (incidentally, black men are the next largest group of HIV-positive people. Is racism also evolutionarily justified?).You have not demonstrated that anti-gay bigotry has any heritable component.You have not demonstrated that anti-gay bigotry is the result of specific adaptive traits rather than a side-effect or spandrel.You have not demonstrated why homosexuality would induce these feelings of disgust when other disease-transmitting activities (heterosexual intercourse, being in crowds, eating bushmeat, etc.) do not induce those feelings.You have not provided any citations to support any of your claims. So, once again, who's arguing like the Christian?
atheistdeceitbuster
June 5, 2011 at 11:45 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"ho says that having a portion of homosexuals in our population isn't evolutionarily beneficial?"STUDIES show homophobia is rooted in disgust and study shows disgust is a disease avoidance behavior. On the other hand, not one study shows homosexuals serve some sort of evolutionary benefit. Spreading hiv is not a benefit.I"m going to bed, good nightWhy can't you stop acting like Christians and accept the harsh truth for what it is. God is fake and homophobia is a DISEASE AVOIDANCE BEHAVIORDEAL WITH IT.
blindmansleeps
June 5, 2011 at 11:50 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Charlie, after that response, I'm convinced that you simply don't understand language at all. Either that, or you've got the worst case of selective reading possible. Regardless…http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886901001179"Findings suggest that homophobia is related to heightened levels of masculinity and may develop in men who feel threatened by individuals whom they perceive to have feminine characteristics (e.g. women, gay men)."http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/homophobia.htm"Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia — the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals — is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. "—It seems as if the homophobic reaction is quite a complex one. It might be part disgust, part repressed homosexuality, part anxiety, partly feeling threatened. To say it's all disgust is exactly what I was worried about in your supposed study in the first place: it's a blanket statement that you assume covers all homophobia. However, that's not the case.
Kimpatsu
June 5, 2011 at 11:51 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Marriage" is an important and loaded word though. If I MARRY an American, I automatically qualify for a Green card; if I enter into a CIVIL PARTNERSHIP with an American, I don't. IOW, "marriage" is a LEGAL definition, Charlie's word games notwithstanding.
Tom Foss
June 5, 2011 at 11:54 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
LIKE calling someone "black" because the word "black" has more than one meaning while the word "phobia' is SPECIFICALLY about an irrational fear. Black is "specifically" the absence of color. It is "specifically" not-brown in the same way that phobia is not-hate. Except (as I mentioned in the other thread) we use "-phobia" to mean things other than "irrational fear" in other contexts as well. In biochemistry, certain molecules are described as "hydrophobic" based on their interactions with water (or more specifically, their lack of such interactions). Molecules, lacking minds, are incapable of fear, rational or otherwise. In other words, language isn't as rigid as you want it to be, Charlie. You're wrong. Get over it. You like using the term homophobe because you believe it's a good way to silence or shame people who speak out against gays into silence or politial submission.I use "homophobia" because there isn't a better word to describe anti-gay bigotry. It's the word that our culture has developed to describe that phenomenon, for better or worse. But again, I don't need to use the word homophobe for you, Charlie. "Bigot" is just fine with me. Ignorant bigot is even better, if a little redundant. Pro gay atheists support the gay movement and the gay movement supports and promotes deceit so therefore, anyone who supports the gay movement supports deceit.Which doesn't make them a hypocrite, again, unless they specifically oppose deceit. You have a real problem with reading comprehension, Charlie. Pro gay atheists are being deceitful and trying to deceive the masses but they're against religion partly because of deceit.Ah, now here we come to it. Except that deceit is defined as "The action or practice of deceiving someone by concealing or misrepresenting the truth," and nothing about pro-gay atheists is misrepresenting or concealing the truth, from their perspective. You can bitch and moan about the word "homophobe," Charlie, but would you be any less angry if every time a pro-gay atheist used "homophobe"–the culturally recognized term for anti-gay bigotry–they instead used "anti-gay bigot"? Pro gay atheists and pro gays try to punish certain people by falsely labeling them homophobes and bigots… Conformity is when a person agrees to avoid punishment. I'd say you're being truly labeled a bigot, that is, "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance," Charlie. More than one study shows it's a FACT that people are disgusted by gays. Disgust is not "prejudice". You're right. Prejudice would be "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason," while disgust is "a strong distaste; nausea; loathing." Totally different.
blindmansleeps
June 5, 2011 at 11:55 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
And besides, you haven't answered my big point, which should really turn you on your head. So what if we have an evolutionary disgust, how do you derive a moral-ought out of that is statement?As I said, we also have an evolutionary drive to procreate, yet we all agree that it's wrong to go around raping women. So, something happened between the "is" (the drive to procreate) and the "ought" (thinking it's wrong not to rape women) that made the "is" inferior to the "ought."I don't see how it'd be any different in your case.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 5, 2011 at 11:56 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"But anyway, if you're going to make such easily refutable false claims such as that gays are disallowed from donating blood, perhaps you ought to change your nick to "atheistdeceitpurveyor"Are you ready to feel like an irrational Christian? My source FDAhttp://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htm"Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men Questions and AnswersWhat is FDA's policy on blood donations from men who have sex with other men (MSM)?Men who have had sex with other men, at any time since 1977 (the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors. This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.The policy is not unique to the United States. Many European countries have recently reexamined both the science and ethics of the lifetime MSM deferral, and have retained it (See the transcript of the "FDA Workshop on Behavior-Based Donor Deferrals in the NAT Era" for further information.). This decision is also consistent with the prevailing interpretation of the European Union Directive 2004/33/EC article 2.1 on donor deferrals"
Matthew Meyer
June 5, 2011 at 11:57 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Ugh… I'm sick of the whole definition argument. Claiming that definitions don't change or that words can be put "under attack" is akin to saying that language has never evolved in all of human history — that the people living 10,000 years ago spoke exactly the same language with exactly the same phrases that we speak today.You don't even need to look a few decades to see new words pop up, old words fade out, and existing words change definitions. Look more than a few decades — out to a few hundred years, and you'll see even more dramatic changes. Go back a little more than 500 years to pre-Shakespearean England and they're not even speaking "Modern English" anymore. You wouldn't be able to understand that. Go back a few more centuries to before the Black Death and the Great Vowel Shift and you'll discover the pronunciation of English is not even the same, and you wouldn't be able to pick out more than one or two familiar words (yet differently pronounced)!Words mean what they mean now, regardless of their original intent. For all of it's history, English has been borrowing and warping words from other languages, and today it is one of the most versatile languages on Earth. More than 50% of the words we use today are not technically "English" as they come from Latin and Greek roots via French. North American "English" contains hundreds of words of Native American origin. Every word we use today has changed from its original meaning, spelling, and pronunciation. The argument to a word's past definition is so utterly meaningless, and it betrays a complete lack of thought on the part of the person making the argument. Not even one full minute's worth of brain activity should make it patently obvious that languages change, and if you haven't taken the time to invest that much thought into your argument, then your argument is not worth making.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 12:02 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Hume's ought from is distinction. Enough said. EVEN IF there were some kind of evolutionary disgust towards homosexuality, that simply is the way things ARE and not the way they OUGHT to be"So you want to throw our evolutionary behavior immune system out of the window??? That's not a good idea considering the fact that a million years of evolution has been through a lot more than we can ever match. We should never IGNORE a behavior immune system…That's sillyAlso, consider this."Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men Questions and AnswersWhat is FDA's policy on blood donations from men who have sex with other men (MSM)?Men who have had sex with other men, at any time since 1977 (the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors. This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.The policy is not unique to the United States. Many European countries have recently reexamined both the science and ethics of the lifetime MSM deferral, and have retained it (See the transcript of the "FDA Workshop on Behavior-Based Donor Deferrals in the NAT Era" for further information.). This decision is also consistent with the prevailing interpretation of the European Union Directive 2004/33/EC article
Tom Foss
June 6, 2011 at 12:04 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
On the other hand, not one study shows homosexuals serve some sort of evolutionary benefit.You really know nothing about evolution. Read up, dumbass. Homosexual behavior is found all across the animal kingdom, and is known to be an adaptive trait in various instances (another example are the lizards who are all female and reproduce through parthenogenesis, but need to engage in homosexual conduct to stimulate the process) and not an adaptive (but also not a maladaptive) trait in other instances. Not every trait confers an evolutionary benefit or has an evolutionary explanation. And even if it did, as blindmansleeps pointed out, deriving "right" or "wrong" from them would be committing the is-ought fallacy.
Flexible Elf
June 6, 2011 at 12:04 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
So, we have an evolutionary disgust based on a disease that only became prevalent with Gay men as of 1977? Is this the creationist time-frame of evolutionary disgust?You do understand Gay people existed prior to AIDS/HIV right?People were disgusted to see interracial couples kissing on television and probably still do. So what's the point? Are racists really just afraid of contracting sickle cell anemia or a scorching case of the 'blacks'!? I mean that's the same sort of argument you're making. This is all an exercise in trying to rationalize your bigotry. The more sources you cite, the more you hamstring your argument.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 12:05 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Mathew Meyers,Your'e right…Definitions do change so the few states that have legalized gay marriage can change back to marriage between man and woman. So YOU need to realize that definitions change
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 12:10 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"If you're going to appeal to an evolutionary disgust to say that homosexuality is wrong"That's a straw man fallacy. Theists use those all the timeI never said homosexuality is "wrong". I said gay men elicit disgust an disgust is a disease avoidance behavior. So homophobia is a disease avoidance behavior.
blindmansleeps
June 6, 2011 at 12:11 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"So you want to throw our evolutionary behavior immune system out of the window???That's not a good idea considering the fact that a million years of evolution has been through a lot more than we can ever match. We should never IGNORE a behavior immune system…That's silly"Have you ever used a condom, Charlie? You're throwing evolutionary drives out of the window!We consider it immoral to commit rape. I guess you're okay with rape, too?And seeing how evolution requires procreation, I assume that you're fully aware that you're now morally required to father as many children as your poor groin can push out with as many women as possible. Yes. That's right. Morally required. And, in the medical world, vaccinations are just about the most unnatural slap in the face to evolution we could issue. So, stop vaccinations! Just letting you know some things you're going to have to commit to in order to be consistent.
blindmansleeps
June 6, 2011 at 12:14 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"I never said homosexuality is "wrong". I said gay men elicit disgust an disgust is a disease avoidance behavior. So homophobia is a disease avoidance behavior."So, wait. Homosexuality is then a moral action. And you are disgusted with a moral action. Wow. This just keeps getting better.
jonathan romita
June 6, 2011 at 12:16 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
charlie, you're a bigot. if you want the proper definition of that just search it in a dictionary. Martin is way to intelligent to waste his time arguing with a bigot about a topic that has little relevance to the show. I want to see the host and co host destroy some christian's ideas, not get a vocabulary lesson!
blindmansleeps
June 6, 2011 at 12:22 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"I said gay men elicit disgust an disgust is a disease avoidance behavior. So homophobia is a disease avoidance behavior."There is another little flaw in your syllogism here. Well, homophobia isn't a disease. And disgust is used in many ways conversationally than "disease avoidance behavior." For example, I can say that the Yankees disgust me. Yet, the Yankees aren't a disease that I'm trying to avoid. That might not be a literal use of the word, but it's common nonetheless. You're taking the common use of the word and mistaking it for the literal. But, I'm pretty sure that homosexuality isn't a disease. I mean, I've never heard of anyone catching homosexuality. And if they were to say something as silly as that, I'd probably just assume that they were *AFRAID* of homosexuality. Hmm.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 12:24 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
the other hand, not one study shows homosexuals serve some sort of evolutionary benefit. "Read up, dumbass. Homosexual behavior is found all across the animal kingdom""dumb ass"???? You just broke the respect code you straw man fallacy spewing FAGGOTI never denied that homosexuality and mental disorders don't occur in the animal kingdom stupid queer.Homosexuality AND mental disorders occur in the animal kingdom. So homosexuality is no more natural than mental disorders. AS a matter of fact, Schizos and queers BOTH have abnormal brain structures.Hey faggot, When queers accuse me of "hate speech", keep in mind that I didn't break the respect code. Respect me and I'll respect you, ya nasty faggot. DES mothers increases the risk of a female fetus going gay. That's a PRENATAL ERRORtaking certain diet pills while pregnant increases the risk of a female fetus going gay. that's a PRENATAL ERROR.There's evidence that mercury POISON causes some birds to go gay. so that's caused by fuckin TOXINS.There's evidence that a woman's body mistakens the male fetus for being a foreign object and attacks it when the woman has already gave birth to several males.The existence of queers is PROOF that natureis NOT perfect and god is NOT real….Queers are a common malfunction in nature.
Martin
June 6, 2011 at 12:29 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
If you want to use supposed evolutionary drives as a justification for your views, well heck, all we're supposed to do as far as evolution is concerned is live long enough to pass on our genes through reproduction, and then die to make way for the next generation. So you could say that if you live long enough to become a grandparent, you're denying your evolutionary drive.There are any number of ways we've done an end run around evolution. The whole of modern medicine, which seeks to cure every disease imaginable, is devoted to it.Using evolution to justify what is nothing more than routine anti-gay prejudice is really just the naturalistic fallacy all over again. And as Tom Foss has pointed out, homosexual behavior is not unique to homo sapiens. So it's an ignorant position at best.Yes it's true, heterosexuals find gay sex distasteful or even disgusting. That's part of being heterosexual. Expanding that distaste for the act (which no heterosexual is in any way obligated to take part in) into some elaborate series of justifications for treating an entire group of people as undeserving of the same rights as the mainstream is accurately termed bigotry. (I know you said on the show that you're happy for gays to have all the same rights as married straights as long as they don't call their union a "marriage." But why you think calling something by a different name makes it something else is still a mystery to us.)Anyway, I'm disgusted by brussels sprouts. But I'm pretty sure they won't give me a disease.
webjr
June 6, 2011 at 12:29 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Charlie, Please point us to the, "more than one study", Facts of the disgust for gays?The following is taken from a very nice assay about the Topic "Homophobia" (http://www.bidstrup.com/phobia.htm)It's disgusting! Has the person who says that ever watched sausage being made?There are many things that go on in society that we would consider disgusting, but we don't outlaw them just because of that. In fact, many of these activities are quite essential to the functioning of a modern society, but we simply turn our minds to other matters and don't concern ourselves with them.Heterosexuals need to remember that they themselves are 'disgusting' to many homosexuals; it will come as quite a surprise for them to discover that the feeling is mutual. Yet it would be ludicrous for the gay person to suggest that heterosexuality ought to be persecuted; why shouldn't it work just as well the other way around? Isn't respect and tolerance a two way street?And frankly (pun intended) you disgust me, but I can live with that, can you?
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 12:33 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
flexible elf,"So, we have an evolutionary disgust based on a disease that only became prevalent with Gay men as of 1977? Is this the creationist time-frame of evolutionary disgust?"Are you ready to feel like an irrational Christian?Guess what? disgust of gay men existed before religion and disgust is a disease avoidance behavior. So therefore, disgust of gay men is a clear indication that gay men have always been a disease threat. Disgust is like a window to the past. It tells us what's bad for us.Before you use the race card, not one study shows racism is rooted in disgust Mr "atheist"You pro ghay athests are just like Christians. There's so much you don't understand.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 12:35 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Heterosexuals need to remember that they themselves are 'disgusting' to many homosexuals"Where's the study to support this? You pro gay atheists are just like christians.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 12:40 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"People were disgusted to see interracial couples kissing on television and probably still do"Are you ready to feel like a dumb ass Christian AGAIN?Not one study shows racism is rooted in disgust. Not one study shows interacial couples elicit disgust. Disgust of gay men is UNIVERSAL. Even the few societies that accepted homosexuality at one time ended up turning completely against it. You're just like those dumb Christians. You think you have a point but then you end up feeling dumb.
erauqssi
June 6, 2011 at 12:41 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Charlie:Read this article http://lesswrong.com/lw/ny/sneaking_in_connotations/
Thy Reaper
June 6, 2011 at 12:44 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Not one study shows racism is rooted in disgust. Not one study shows interacial couples elicit disgust. Disgust of gay men is UNIVERSAL. Even the few societies that accepted homosexuality at one time ended up turning completely against it."No, that universal disgust of gays is just you and bigots like you.
Martin
June 6, 2011 at 12:45 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Charlie, the petulant replies are just making you sound more and more desperate. If people who point out the myriad failings in your arguments are "just like Christians," then seriously, you've run out of ammo long ago even though you keep squeezing those triggers.Protip: You need to quit talking about "studies" without citing them.Again, racists consider interracial sex disgusting. Does this mean that people of different races pose a "disease threat" to one another? Or does it just mean that racists are stupid?Again, I'm disgusted by brussel sprouts. So does this mean they pose a "disease threat" to me? Or do I just not care for the taste?See, here's what you aren't considering: that disgust can be rooted in ignorance, stupidity, or a simple case of "different strokes," as much as any kind of legitimate "threat".
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 12:49 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
""http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/homophobia.htm""Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia — the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals — is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. "Are you ready to feel stupid again???This is nothing but a FLAWED STUDY.1, too small (mot even 70 subjects)2. wasn't repeated or duplicated EVER3. didn't cover a variety of cultures and backgrounds4. It was contradicted by more reliabe studies more than once.5.possibly rigged.
webjr
June 6, 2011 at 12:52 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@atheistdeceitbusterCharlie, I made not claims about any studies. You did however make that claim. All I ask was you back that claim up. Oh, by the way do a Google Search on; "disgust of heterosexuals by homosexuals". Note you'll get about 5 million hits, the top ten being very to the point. Their not studies of course there opinions as was stated in my previous post.Oh again, I'm still disgusted by you.
Thy Reaper
June 6, 2011 at 12:54 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Charlie, how was it flawed? The study makes the results rather clear, and even provides alternative explanations of the results. It makes no sweeping claims about the nature of the result – indeed, it makes barely any claims about the result at all.The part you seem to disagree with is a summary of a theory that would explain the response they observed, but that isn't even really important in that study at all.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 12:55 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"See, here's what you aren't considering: that disgust can be rooted in ignorance,"but being the fact that studies show homophobia is rooted in disgust and gay men are in fact a disease threat, the disgust of gays is in fact a disease avoidance behavior. (http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htm)Homophobia rooted in disgust, not fear(Jeffrey Lohr, Bunmi Olatunji, Suzanne Meunier)disgust as an evolutionary survival instinct, disease avoidance behavior, and linked to morality(Adam K. Anderson Hanah Chapman) stupidity, or a simple case of "different strokes," as much as any kind of legitimate "threat""
Martin
June 6, 2011 at 12:57 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Okay, Charlie, new rule. One more bullshit crack telling the people who are arguing with you that they're "just like dumb ass Christians," and I'm going to disemvowel your stupid ass. You are no longer arguing or even trying to defend your position like an adult. Wailing about what you think "studies" do or don't show, without links or citations for backup, is not an argument. Comparing your opponents here to Christians is especially egregious and stupid, since it's obvious to everyone here who isn't out of his goddamn mind (that is, everyone but you) that your anti-gay ravings are far more in line with Christian attitudes than ours and you damn well know it.Frankly, you lost any kind of argument you could have hoped to make a while ago, and you're just flailing around trying to save the scraps of your ego at this point. But you'll get a chance to redeem yourself. Don't say I never gave you nothin'.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 1:02 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
MARTIN,"Again, racists consider interracial sex disgusting"Not one study shows racism is rooted in disgust. I'll tell you like I tell Chritians. Hearsay won't work."I'm disgusted by brussel sprouts"Not one study shows any type of vegetables elicit disgust.You FAILED AGAIN.My sourcesGay men are a health risk to public safety(http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htm)Homophobia rooted in disgust, not fear(Jeffrey Lohr, Bunmi Olatunji, Suzanne Meunier)Disgust is a disease avoidance behavior, and linked to morality(Adam K. Anderson Hanah Chapman)gay men elicit disgust(knobes)
Martin
June 6, 2011 at 1:02 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Having read the FDA page, what I saw was that the ban on blood donations was indeed based on the potential risk of infection, but there is no discussion on the page of "disgust." Indeed, no passage anywhere on the page makes a moral value judgment about homosexual relationships. It merely points that that the risk of infection is statistically higher among men who have sex with men.Still, you're finally getting around to the citations. That's better.
Martin
June 6, 2011 at 1:04 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Not one study shows any type of vegetables elicit disgust.You FAILED AGAIN.Uh…fucktard? I don't need a "study" to know how I feel about brussel sprouts.>
Flexible Elf
June 6, 2011 at 1:06 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Guess what? disgust of gay men existed before religion and disgust is a disease avoidance behavior."People have been disgusted by interracial and even intertribal or interethnic couplings "before religion" and by your argument that same disgust is "disease avoidance behavior." care to explain that? You know what don't bother because much like the rest of what you've said, you really haven't thought it out. Homosexuality and Bisexuality have been prevalent in many cultures of antiquity.. where none-such disgust for the act existed.. it wasn't considered even deviant behavior. Where did the evolutionary disgust go? Maybe.. it was.. *gasp* a societal thing."So therefore, disgust of gay men is a clear indication that gay men have always been a disease threat"You're willing to grant your disgust as an indicator for Gay (male) sex as some sort of evolutionary queue. My are you trusting of your instincts.. it's almost like… wait for it.. faith. Since your whole argument pretty much hinges on AIDS/HIV your point is foolish. Unless of course we are hardwired to be afraid of having a good sense of decor.Not to mention you're willing to discount other 'disgust' or even 'pleasure' sensations as evolutionarily unfounded which means.. *giggle* you're cherry picking! Hmmm it's almost like.. No I won't go there. (Sorry Martin)You're also making plenty of equivocation fallacies with the word 'disgust' anyway. A racists' use of disgust at seeing an interracial couple kissing and your definition of disgust toward a gay couple kissing is indistinguishable as much as you'd like the contrary.Homosexual behavior is found all across the animal kingdom. Your knowledge about evolution is an indictment of our educational system…you're really starting to look like you're sautering into the troll category with all the ad hominems and talks about 'conforming' as if equality is some kind of shadow agenda.I would really like to continue, but there's paint drying somewhere I'm sure. *yawn*
mmorten
June 6, 2011 at 1:06 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
just taking your offensive analogy to its logical conclusion… are you disgusted by flu victims. did the flu victims do anything that merits your disgust, or are you simply making a special pleading argument?
Matvande
June 6, 2011 at 1:07 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Was not happy to see a whole 9 minutes spent on a wingnut that doesn't understand basic language evolution, especially one who is incredibly rude and doesn't understand fallacies.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 1:19 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
To everyone I've been debating with,"are you disgusted by flu victims. did the flu victims do anything that merits your disgust"Many people won't even kiss their own husband or wife when they're suffering from the flu..That's because they're disgusted.Cite some studies that shows racism is rooted in disgust??? If you can't, your claims are simply baseless.Using race as an attempt to appeal to emotions and spew faulty analogy fallacies is getting old. Try that on Christians. It doesn't work with me.Cite some studies that shows vegetables elicit disgust. If you can't, your claims are simply baseless.I don't believe what pro gays say regarding gay issues. Just like I don't believe what Christians say regarding religionI need EVIDENCE. Gay men are a health risk to public safety(http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htm)Homophobia rooted in disgust, not fear(Jeffrey Lohr, Bunmi Olatunji, Suzanne Meunier)Disgust is a disease avoidance behavior, and linked to morality(Adam K. Anderson Hanah Chapman)gay men elicit disgust(knobes) It all makes sense considering these facts1. There's evidence that gay men are a health risk to SOCIETIES worldwide. Gay men are one of the few groups who can't even donate blood.2. Study shows homophobia is rooted in disgust3. Study shows disgust is an evolutionary disease avoidance behavior. 4. Gay men are in fact the undisputed champs of some of the worst std's WORLDWIDE.
rmguest
June 6, 2011 at 1:22 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
It seems apparent that Charlie is a bit of a troll who employs a bait-and-switch tactic to generate controversy thereby getting his kicks and everyone elses goat. It wouldn't make any difference what the subject matter was. He could claim the sky is red and not blue just to be contrary to see if he could get a rise from the person unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end of his poke. A troll and nothing more I think.
Matvande
June 6, 2011 at 1:23 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I'm with rmguest. This Charlie guy is pretty clearly a Poe.
mmorten
June 6, 2011 at 1:28 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
ahh but are disgusted by the existence of flu victims. you seem to be disgusted by the existence of gay people even though there is an extremely minute chance that you will catch a disease from them. (far more chance at catching the flu) (just to say I don't buy your premises, but since you are putting this up and I'm extremely bored, I'm going on your premise)
webjr
June 6, 2011 at 1:45 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
By the way, I figured I'd share some info on him. He's a failed rap artist known as CharlieboyCheckm who's only trying to fire up controversy towards gay folk so he can peddle his hate rap. Among his antics were creating sockpuppet accounts to rate himself as "AWESOME music!" (made obvious by the fact that HE is the ONLY "artist" these "people" recommended).
articulett
June 6, 2011 at 1:52 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Thinking of my parents having sex disgusts me. I don't really want to know about most peoples' fetishes either. I'm also disgusted by bigots having sex come to think of it. I think bigots should have the same rights allowed to non-bigots in their states… but I think marriages between them should be called scarriages. I mean they can have all the same privileges of marriages, but people like Charlie can only have "scarriages" because thinking of them procreating and spreading whatever genes makes them bigoted disgusts me.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 2:16 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
mmorten"you seem to be disgusted by the existence of gay people even though there is an extremely minute chance that you will catch a disease from them"I'm disgusted by feces even though I know I will never stick my hand in it. I'm disgusted by dirty smelly homeless drunks but I know I will never touch them.So do you get it now? I feel like I'm debating with Christians.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 2:17 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Any person who can't tolerate my disgust of gays and my position on gay marriage is in fact a bigot
Shaun
June 6, 2011 at 2:22 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@MartinBrussels sprouts protip! Try making a cut in the bottom, and put a couple of teaspoons of sugar in the water with them. It takes the bitterness away
@CharlieIsn't past your bedtime already?By the way, if disease aversion is your main reason for being homophobic, why aren't you racist? There's a huge HIV epidemic in Africa right now, so those darkies must be viewed with disgust and avoided, amirite?
Lukas
June 6, 2011 at 2:31 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Charlie, are you saying that disgust is always a disease avoidance behavior and always justified?
farmboy
June 6, 2011 at 2:41 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"if marriage changes and there's nothing wrong with that, the few states that legalized gay marriage can change back to husband and wife. So change can be good."Oh, so this change is good? But if states that didn't legalize gay marriage legalize it (and change their definition of marriage) that's somehow bad?Why? Oh, wait, I know why. Because you're a bigot.Change CAN be good, you say. So it's mostly bad then? Progress. Equality. You'd desperately cling to your preferred cherrypicked definition of marriage or homophobia just so you can justify your bigotry.
KK_Me
June 6, 2011 at 2:52 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Actually in my small home nation (the principality of Liechtenstein) there is just an election going on to allow same sex couples to marry. I voted Yes of course, though it might currently only affect 10 couples or so (our nations population is around 36'000).Let's hope that despite consisting of 80% catholics and there being quite some noisy right wing nuts (we have a small closeted nazi segment) we get to pass the law. The buzz around it seems to be going in the right direction and the government supports a "Yes" as well.
jhanley4
June 6, 2011 at 3:17 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
-England/United Kingdom – visited or lived in from 1980 to 1999-Western Europe – visited or lived in since 1980-Born in, lived in or had sex with anyone who lived in, or received Blood products in Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Niger or Nigeria since 1977 -people who have spent a cumulative three months in Great Britain or those who have spent six months in any part of Europe since 1980If you fall in any of these categories you are deferred indefinitely from giving blood just like men who have sex with men. You have stated that homosexuals are a "disease threat" and being disgusted by them is "justified" because of this. If your opinion is not about bigotry but rooted in facts as you claim surely you would have no problem saying you are disgusted by africans and europeans as they are also a disease threats.
Dances_with_the_beast
June 6, 2011 at 3:21 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
This underlines what happens when an atheist takes on a strictly theistic conclusion. Without being able to quote the bible the arguments are insubstantial word play. Learn from Julia Gillard, an atheist who is against gay marriage but has avoided answering any questions on the subject. Because, she knows a secular argument against gay marriage will just make her look stupid.
jhanley4
June 6, 2011 at 3:23 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Any person who can't tolerate my disgust of gays and my position on gay marriage is in fact a bigot."By calling your bigoted we are being bigoted to your bigotry…gotcha
Hortan
June 6, 2011 at 3:29 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Charlie, My name is Jonas.I have never(as far as I can recall anyway)been disgusted by gays, admittedly I was a bit weirded out when I learned about them in sex ed, and I am a heterosexual, am I abnormal?
jhanley4
June 6, 2011 at 3:29 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@dances Are you implying that theist using theistic arguments don't look stupid.
farmboy
June 6, 2011 at 4:27 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/01/30/equal/Charlie's basically saying that because we're intolerant of his bigotry we're discriminating against him, as if he has some special right to label homosexuals secondrate citizens.It's what theists have been doing since the beginning. And his justification for it? It's icky. What is? Man on man sex.But they never mention girl on girl sex. Because then suddenly it isn't disgusting, it's amazing and not a threat, and all consistency goes straight out the window!
farmboy
June 6, 2011 at 4:30 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
All they're asking for is equality and Charlie would stand in the way of this progress by clinging to a tradition of bigotry, just like the pro-slavery, pro-segregation and anti-woman's rights following had done for ages, and when we cite those occassions it's suddenly nothing like what he is proposing!Is he that selectively blind?
Admin
June 6, 2011 at 4:38 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Ironically, the word 'gay' itself has undergone quite a transformation in language and definitions, just over the last century. These changes are much more than the change required to go from marriage as straight-only to one that includes gays. And as another poster pointed out, the meaning of 'marriage' has already changed throughout history, with some current dictionary definitions already including gays. I wonder if Charlie, apparently being a black man himself, would like to have this debate with that southern preacher who refused to marry the inter-racial couple because it is not what the word 'marriage' used to mean.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay#OverviewCharlie's argument is silly, boring, and has little to do with atheism. Please do not entertain this argument from him on the show ever again.
EJ
June 6, 2011 at 5:02 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
THIS ENTIRE THREAD IS AN ARGUING WITH AN IDIOT FALLACY.
tonyD
June 6, 2011 at 5:11 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I find Charlie, boring. As for his definition of Homophobia, I bet hes not disgusted by Lesbians.If you are disgusted by Lesbians, Charlie then your definition stands.But i think all Heterosexual men will find that answer very telling. I found the Fine tuning argument more interesting its lame but interesting.I would say that observation of the Universe would suggest that Humanity as a species was fine tuned by Evolution to live on this planet in this universe.I would be prepared to say that the Universe is God.Is the Universe self aware? I have no way of knowing.But no reason to think so.Erm does that make me a theist?
EJ
June 6, 2011 at 5:18 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Considering that we are considered part of the universe then yes, the universe is self-aware.
Ptah
June 6, 2011 at 5:22 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Have Charlie on again. Have him say "studies show" again. Then tell him that studies show homophobes are turned on by gay porn:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014
farmboy
June 6, 2011 at 6:03 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Considering that we are considered part of the universe then yes, the universe is self-aware."That's very close to committing a Composition Fallacy.Don't presuppose mankind exists because it was meant to. There's no reason to think that; it's merely human-bias and arrogance and sollipsism and the desire to feel special. The universe doesn't end or begin with humanity. We're just there.Humanity adapted to Earth via evolution. Earth, not the Universe, mind. Big difference. Humans would die instantly when exposed to the vacuum of outer space!
JT
June 6, 2011 at 6:38 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Charlie: "It's because oranges grow on apple trees."Bob: "Why do you think oranges grow on apple trees?"Charlie: "That is a strawman fallacy! Only irrational theists use those!"
CCH
June 6, 2011 at 6:44 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
It appears he's been banned from Atheist Nexus as well: http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-national/is-atheist-rapper-charlie-check-m-a-bigot-and-a-homophobe-or-do-we-just-disagreeQuite how someone who claims to represent the Free Thought movement can be so myopic is beyond me.
Tom Foss
June 6, 2011 at 7:09 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Tondeb got there first: what about lesbians? You won't find anything barring them from giving blood, because lesbian sex is generally pretty safe. Heterosexual sex is a better transmission vector. So why aren't all women disgusted by the thought of disease-ridden heterosexual contact?I'm going to look at your citations, Charlie, but here's the irrational leap you're almost certainly making: even if disgust is a mechanism developed for disease-avoidance, it does not follow that every instance of disgust is always reliably a disease-avoidance reaction.It would be nice if we had a natural mechanism for reliably avoiding disease, but if it existed, we'd expect history to have gone quite differently. Why is it that, for the whole of human history, people weren't disgusted by not washing their hands or medical implements? Why is it that we had to discover independently that those activities lowered the rate of disease transmission before we became disgusted by the guy who passes the sink on the way out of the bathroom? Why is it that, for most of the history of the western world, we happily tossed pots of urine and feces into the street? Why is it that everyone living from the Renaissance up to the reinvention of indoor plumbing wasn't in a perpetual state of disease-avoiding disgust? Why would those behaviors, responsible for most classical ilness, fly under our disease-avoidance radar, but gay men–who only present an increased risk if you fuck them–would trigger it? Score another sloppy point for evolution.Or does the disgust kick in only after we've independently discovered that the behavior or group is a disease risk? In which case, disgust isn't necessarily a disease-avoidance reaction, but a reaction to the perception of a disease risk. In which case disgust like yours is easily more a matter of misunderstanding, misinformation, prejudice, and innumeracy, than actual disease-aversion.
Martin
June 6, 2011 at 7:43 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Again, Tom, you've put your finger on the nub of why Charlie's "disease avoidance" argument fails so epically: straight people aren't avoiding gay sex, even if they are disgusted by the thought of it, because they're afraid of disease. They're avoiding gay sex because they're not gay.And anyway, you're right that people don't instinctively avoid potential disease threats either. Cleanliness and sanitation are comparatively recent phenomena in Western civilization. We literally cannot conceive of how filthy pre-modern cities were. And through most of Christian medieval Europe, people hardly ever bathed at all, partly because of church warnings about the evils of their own naked bodies, and partly due to ignorant ideas that bathing left open pores which increased the likelihood of sickness.So any argument that it's somehow natural and intuitive for people to avoid disease causing things, and thus homophobia is part of our self-preserving nature, shows a total ignorance of history, to say the very least.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 7:58 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
To Tom Foss,You said,"Charlie, but here's the irrational leap you're almost certainly making: even if disgust is a mechanism developed for disease-avoidance, it does not follow that every instance of disgust is always reliably a disease-avoidance reaction"but gay men elicit UNIVERSAL DISGUST. People in EVERY culture of EVERY society have found gay men disgusting. Even the few societies that accepted homosexuality ended up turning completelly against it. It makes perfect sense because as science catches up with our disgust, we're beginning to understand why our disease avoidance behavior is causes us to frown up on gay men. Men who have sex with men can't even donate blood. Think about it. Gay men are in fact the undisputed champs of std's.
CCH
June 6, 2011 at 8:02 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
No, gay men do not elicit universal disgust – they disgust you. Please do not speak on behalf of the civilised community in which you live in a feeble attempt to convince us that we all think like you but are somehow in denial.
Petr Kudláček
June 6, 2011 at 8:02 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Any person who can't tolerate my disgust of gays and my position on gay marriage is in fact a bigot." I am quoting this again just to underline the self-righteous stupidity of this particular caller.Two points:1) Marrige was not always clearly defined as one man one woman. Throughout history you had all sorts of versions of marrige including marrige with animals and even today: Marrige with multiple women.2) Most importantly: WHAT DOES IT MATTER?! If a gay couple loves each other and want to get married I am more than happy to let them do it. How pathetic do you have to be to significantly impede the life of others just so your skewed up view of the definition of one word is upheld?Do us all a favour and kill yourself horribly.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 8:03 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
To Thy Reaper,"Charlie, how was it flawed"A study that small is unreliable. ON top of that,it has never been duplicated or repeated AND it didn't cover a variety of cultures.
Petr Kudláček
June 6, 2011 at 8:04 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@atheistdeceitbuster: Please show me your source on ancient greece being disgusted by homosexual behaviour…
barefoot hiker
June 6, 2011 at 8:06 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@Charlie:the gay movement supports and promotes deceitExplain how, specifically.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 8:07 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
CCH"No, gay men do not elicit universal disgust – they disgust you"Like Christians, you're completely disregarding studies and historyStudies and history shows there's a common disgust of gay men that is among every culture of every society. Even many people who support gay marriage are disgusted by them. Even the societies that embraced homosexuality ended up turning completely against it.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 8:09 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Please show me your source on ancient greece being disgusted by homosexual behaviour" Nice straw man fallacy. Christians do those all the time.AGAIN, even the FEW societies that accepted homosexuality ended up turning completely against it. NOT ONE society has ALWAYS accepted homosexuality.
Petr Kudláček
June 6, 2011 at 8:11 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Nice straw man fallacy. Christians do those all the time.AGAIN, even the FEW societies that accepted homosexuality ended up turning completely against it. NOT ONE society has ALWAYS accepted homosexuality."So when is the actual citation coming up?
CCH
June 6, 2011 at 8:12 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Studies and history shows there's a common disgust of gay men that is among every culture of every society"Please cite your sources. Which societies that "embraced" homosexuality turned completely against it? Furthermore, how would that matter in any way? Even if every society prior to our own had been as bigoted as you regarding homosexuality, how does that make it somehow the correct attitude?
Petr Kudláček
June 6, 2011 at 8:14 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@CCH: Exactly. Since all the previous societies aren't around anymore perhaps not emulating their behaviour is the way to go…
MattSolano
June 6, 2011 at 8:16 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
A friend of mine, Michael Jones, would like me to pass the following along: "Charlie, disgust is as much a conditioned response as a disease avoidance behaviour, and as much a response to individual foibles of gustatory aesthetics as to conditioning or to the presence of disease. Your attempt to explain away your disgust at gay sexuality is a transparent piece of sophistry; you try to disguise a prejudice by claiming that it is a response to threat in the absence of any evidence that a threat exists. Your sense of being threatened by gay people exists only in your mind; you are in fact irrationally afraid of gay people. In other words, you are homophobic according to the strict meaning of the term. Your aggressive nit-picking over so trivial an issue as the elasticity of the term in common usage, and your unspecified but obvious and dubious assumption that irrational fear of gay people has no correlation with irrational hatred of gay people and the commission of acts of violence against them, and that the term 'homophobia' is therefore an inappropriate descriptor for the motivation for gay-bashing, is irrelevant to the issue of anti-gay violence at best, and at worst covertly supports anti-gay sentiments.""Martin: In debate involving the meaning of terms, insist on agreement as to which dictionary will be used as the source of the meaning of all terms referred to as part of the ground rules, before the debate begins – I suggest the Oxford English Dictionary. Personally, I have little time to waste on people who spend all their time attacking the people they claim to support and share views with over hair-splitting details, particularly when they distract from and/or trivialise the issues of a serious debate. 'Homophobic' or anti-gay violence is an ugly fact; it needs to be addressed. The strict details of the dictionary definition of the words 'marriage' and 'homophobia', and the question of whether these terms can be, or have been used in what can be called 'deceptive' fashion,are fripperies by comparison. If Charlie wants to be the conscience of atheism, let him stick with his own atheism and allow the rest of us to do the same."
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 8:16 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
barefoothiker,"Explain how, specifically"1. The gay movement supports the use of the term homophobia KNOWING it's a complete misnomer, deceitful by default and is not even a phobia. Even after the gay movement realized homophobia is rooted in disgust and not fear, they still continued to purposely use it incorrectly…Being the fact that it's such a misnomer,they shouldn't be using it at all2. The gay movement CONSTANLTY spew a false dillemma fallacy by claiming gay marriage is a "rights" issue when many people oppose gay marriage but support gays having full equal rights.3. The gay movement CONSTANTLY spew faulty analogy fallacies and appeal to emotions by comparing gays to the black race. Many pro gays even attempted to put words in Martin Luther King's mouth without a shred of tangible evidence that MLK would have supported gay marriage.
blindmansleeps
June 6, 2011 at 8:23 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"A study that small is unreliable. ON top of that,it has never been duplicated or repeated AND it didn't cover a variety of cultures. "I'm gonna need a study of this study that shows that it is not justified.I NEED EVIDENCE! Hearsay doesn't mean anything!Look, studies are a fantastic thing. But, we're still dealing with an is-ought problem. Studies cannot give us ought judgements; they only show what IS.
CCH
June 6, 2011 at 8:26 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
1. You're getting hung up on semantics. The point about it being a phobia versus disgust has already been dealt with, so I won't linger on that. Secondly, you keep talking about purpose – why would using the term "homophobia" instead of "disgust" make the slightest bit of difference? Cui bono?2. How is being denied marriage not a rights issue!? If you are being denied the right to marry, you are e priori being denied a right.3. What words have been put in MLK's mouth? Moreover, what is the difference between equal rights for homosexuals and equal rights for all races?
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 8:26 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
cch and petr,Homophobia is alive and well in ancient greece..That's the same place where homosexuality was accepted at one time..The question is, what happened??? Like always, people turn to religion to explain the unexplained. So something happened that caused people to run to religion for comfort. Religious people show a pattern of running to religion when something goes WRONG.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 8:27 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
cch petrCorrrecton: Homophobia is alive and well in Greece
Ptah
June 6, 2011 at 8:29 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Charlie is just a cockgobbler in denial.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 8:35 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"The point about it being a phobia versus disgust has already been dealt with"No it hasn't..It's not over. STUDIES show disgust is a disease avoidance behavior. Disgust of gay men is a perfect example being the fact that homophobia is worldwide. LIke Christians, many pro gay atheists completely disregard studies when they're not in your favor. Shame on you. "How is being denied marriage not a rights issue!?" because many people who oppose gay marriage support gays having full equal rights"What words have been put in MLK's mouth?"Many pro gays claimed MLK would have stood for gay marriage "Moreover, what is the difference between equal rights for homosexuals and equal rights for all races?" There is no difference. There is however, differences is identities.There's also no difference between polygamists rights, incest rights and gay rights. .
barefoot hiker
June 6, 2011 at 8:36 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@Charlie:"The gay movement supports the use of the term homophobia KNOWING it's a complete misnomer"Well, no, Charlie; you've repeatedly (and repeatedly and repeatedly and repeatedly) purported it to mean something other than what it is commonly understood to mean; that's not the same thing. It may please you to insist the word "orange" actually applies to a colour commonly referred to as "blue" on the basis of what it once meant to fishermen in the 12th century, but that's hardly binding on the rest of us. They know what they mean when they use the word, and so does everyone else: this is the purpose of communication. You can stand on a street corner on a tinfoil soapbox till you need a shave, telling us we don't know what we mean when we say what we mean, but we're not obliged to agree that you're right. If you're about disgust, fine… you need to find another word for yourself, not insist a billion English-speakers agree that they're deliberately misleading the world when they use a word and as a result, turn on a dime to suit you. That's nuts.people oppose gay marriage but support gays having full equal rightsIf they refuse to recognize the right of a person to marry another person whom he/she loves, then by definition they do NOT support equal rights where homosexuals are concerned. The twee reply to this is that gays would have the same right to marry people of the opposite sex as anyone else, which is the sophistry of whitewashing it with clever wordplay and simply avoids the issue by pretending it doesn't exist. It does, and anyone who actually DOES espouse equal rights for gays accepts that. If they don't, they're claiming something they don't embrace, and that's hypocrisy, your eighth deadly sin."faulty analogy fallacies and appeal to emotions by comparing gays to the black race"In what aspect is it false? Do they claim to have endured 500 years of slavery? Not to my knowledge. No, they claim that, like blacks once were, they are prohibited from the enjoyment of certain rights taken for granted by others, but denied to them in their own particulars. This appears to me to be entirely above board and an apt use of analogy, one aimed at opening the eyes of others who have understood the wrongs done to one group and may begin to understand the sensibilities of another."Many pro gays even attempted to put words in Martin Luther King's mouth"How many? Can you name any? Give us examples?
CCH
June 6, 2011 at 8:39 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Homophobia is alive and well in ancient greece..That's the same place where homosexuality was accepted at one time..The question is, what happened??? Like always, people turn to religion to explain the unexplained. So something happened that caused people to run to religion for comfort. Religious people show a pattern of running to religion when something goes WRONG"Wow. Just wow. You've sort of got it bang-on, but completely the wrong way around, if that makes sense. For the sake of argument I'm going to respond assuming your premises are correct. You seem to be implying that the Ancient Greeks turned to religion to cope with homosexuality, completely ignoring that the Ancient Greeks already had their own polytheistic religion in which homosexual activity was accepted. Furthermore, if by "religion", you mean "Christianity" (Greek Orthodox being prominent over there), you're dead right. This was not a reaction to homosexuality though, but the reverse. People became more homophobic as the Christian message of anti-homosexuality was being preached more and more. So whereas you once had a society that was tolerant of homosexuality, it was the religion that turned them against it, not vice versa.Re our other thread, when I said "dealt with", I meant "discussed on this forum". "Full equal rights" includes marriage, so you're making no sense there.I'm happy to let people speculate as to whether MLK would have supported gay marriage, when in truth it doesn't make the blindest bit of difference. So what if he didn't?
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 8:40 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Look, studies are a fantastic thing. But, we're still dealing with an is-ought problem. Studies cannot give us ought judgements; they only show what IS. the entire gay marriage fight is based on "ought" judgements. Gays say "we ought to get marriage"The flawed study (univ of Georgia) is obvioiusly flawed. All you have to do is count the number of subjects. That alone makes it unreliable. NOt to mention it was never duplicated even once. It was also contradicted
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 8:41 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
CharlieThe term you're looking for for your marriage/shmarriage divide is "Separate but equal". I'm going to take a inductive leap and presume you understand the arguments against that. It's a matter of identity. A=A, B=B if A=C and B=C than A=B.The only reason to remove gays from marriage is to create an elite institution so as to oppress them in some way. By all practical elements two committed gay people are as married as two straight. Charlie, let's imagine for a moment the absurd notion that you actually have gay friends. Say you'[re invited to a wedding where they solidify their commitment. Are you going to insist to them they cannot call it marriage? "Homophobia is alive and well in ancient greece..That's the same place where homosexuality was accepted at one time..The question is, what happened??? Like always, people turn to religion to explain the unexplained. So something happened that caused people to run to religion for comfort. Religious people show a pattern of running to religion when something goes WRONG."Christianity went wrong, you fuckwit."AGAIN, even the FEW societies that accepted homosexuality ended up turning completely against it. NOT ONE society has ALWAYS accepted homosexuality."Because no society is eternal No society by your regards has ALWAYS accepted monogamy or marriage. You're same argument can be made by communists————————————————Your own "Agnostic Theist" caller sounds like Shiloh, a troll from Pharyngula.
Eric Pommer
June 6, 2011 at 8:44 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Wow, you guys are letting yourself be lead around by a red herring here.So WHAT if people's anti-gay bigotry is based on disgust, instead of fear? It's a debatable point, but ultimately it's completely irrelevant to the issue of gay rights. I personally find the image of my parents having sex rather disgusting, and I'm sure studies would support the notion that many other people do as well. I'm sure a lot of people find the image of senior citizens or morbidly obese people having sex to be disgusting. But so what?There's no rational path from that disgust to curtailing the freedoms of those involved.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 8:45 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
""The truth is, it's all about disgust and disgust is a disease avoidance behavior.""If you're avoiding homosexuals like a disease…congrads you ARE phobic.
barefoot hiker
June 6, 2011 at 8:46 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@Charlie:There's also no difference between polygamists rights, incest rights and gay rights.Or the rights of people to marry between races, faiths, or Beatles fans and rose cultivators. If it's between two consenting adults, what skin is it off your nose, my nose, or anyone else's? There are lots of things in the world that I, and you, would not chose to do, even given the option and the right to do so. That doesn't equate to proposition that they should not be allowed. NASCAR — watching overpaid nobodies in clown suits and clown cars go 'round and 'round and 'round in a circle for hours — comes close to disgusting me, but my dad gets a kick out of it; why should I insist it be banned, if I could? I don't know whether it was Jefferson or Franklin who made the remark about my rights ending where my neighbour's nose begins, but it's a good one.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 8:46 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Ancient Greeks already had their own polytheistic religion in which homosexual activity was accepted"That's IRRELEVANT. History shows people use religion to explain negative events as they come alone. How many people claimed 911 was caused by a punishment from god??? When something goes wrong, people throw God or the devil right in the middle of it all. My point is, regardless of what was going on before they turned against homosexuality, something obvioiusly went wrong and that's when they threw god in it.
barefoot hiker
June 6, 2011 at 8:48 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@Charliethe entire gay marriage fight is based on "ought" judgements. Gays say "we ought to get marriage"Much like non-whites and women used to say "we 'ought' to get the vote", even though the law (or rather, those empowered to make it) at the time disagreed. You're on the cusp of catching on.
Callum
June 6, 2011 at 8:48 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@CharlieYou talked before about how feces disgusts you. Does this mean that it is wrong for people to produce feces? I am fine with you being disgusted by homosexuals. I disagree with you but that is your reaction and that is fine. But how do you get from this behavior disgusts me therefore it should not exist at all.In terms of history there are cultures that have accepted homosexuality and never turned on it. Ancient Greece never turned on homosexuals, they turned upon the philosophers, and on the people who didn't agree with their religion but never on people who were homosexuals. Then their culture died out. So your comment that there are no cultures that don't find homosexuality disgusting is unfounded.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 8:49 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
ing,"If you're avoiding homosexuals like a disease…congrads you ARE phobic"So you're claiming disgust is a phobia?studies please????Now that's irrational…think about it. Disgust is a disease avoidance behavior, not a phobia.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 8:49 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"That's IRRELEVANT. History shows people use religion to explain negative events as they come alone. How many people claimed 911 was caused by a punishment from god??? When something goes wrong, people throw God or the devil right in the middle of it all. My point is, regardless of what was going on before they turned against homosexuality, something obvioiusly went wrong and that's when they threw god in it. "Argument from "historical retardation"
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 8:51 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"So you're claiming disgust is a phobia?studies please????Now that's irrational…think about it. Disgust is a disease avoidance behavior, not a phobia. "I'll spell it out because you are a cargo cult logiciana) Disease is something that provides a real dangerb) Avoiding something that poses no danger LIKE a disease is treating something that is not dangerous as dangerousc) Such a behavior is phobic; responding to a stimuli with a disproportionate fear/avoidance response. You're no different than Tesla avoiding fat people or human hair
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 8:55 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Seriously you're as fucking pathetic as a dog who freaks out on hardwood floors. You're panicky and emotional about a non issue and you look ridiculous doing it. The only difference is that the damn dog isn't insane enough to insist to others that the floor is dangerous. I honestly see no difference between you and someone who is convinced that the color yellow is dangerous. It's an irrational behavior and one that your mind is desperate to justify. I don't believe most people labeled homophobes are mentally ill in some regard but your behavior makes me think that you might be. Get professional help. You have issues.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 8:58 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"The term you're looking for for your marriage/shmarriage divide is "Separate but equal"THAT'S FALSE Different identities is not separate but equal Are you claiming because I"m "african american", and you're maybe "white", we're separate but equal??YOure IRRATIONAL."The only reason to remove gays from marriage is to create an elite institution so as to oppress them in some way"How in the hell could we oppress gays if many people who oppose gay marirage will support FULL EQUAL RIGHT??? AND THAT'S INCLUDING the ATHEIST prime minsiser of australia "By all practical elements two committed gay people are as married as two straight"That depends on what you consider marriage. Mariage to me is husband and wife. That's the identity of marriage"Charlie, let's imagine for a moment the absurd notion that you actually have gay friends. Say you'[re invited to a wedding where they solidify their commitment. Are you going to insist to them they cannot call it marriage?" if it's against the law, of course. if it's not against the law, I will just watch them model after heteros because that seems to be all they want to do. There's usually the woman playing man and the woman playing herself. That's how gays get down. haha. They model after heteros
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 8:59 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"So your comment that there are no cultures that don't find homosexuality disgusting is unfounded."There are extensive tomes of romantic prose and praise of homosexual love from Feudal Japan. And while Western influence and other social factors have made it less acceptable Japan is still somewhat less homophobic than the west in some regards. Btw read Rene Girad before you insist that people society turns on during times of trouble actually deserve it. You're same argument could be made to justify pogroms. There has never been a culture that permanently tolerated Jews after all /snark
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 9:01 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"if it's against the law, of course. if it's not against the law, I will just watch them model after heteros because that seems to be all they want to do.There's usually the woman playing man and the woman playing herself. That's how gays get down. haha. They model after heteros "A) So you would insist that they could not use the term?b) Your ignorance is baffling. C) Define Husband and Wife.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 9:02 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"THAT'S FALSEDifferent identities is not separate but equal Are you claiming because I"m "african american", and you're maybe "white", we're separate but equal??YOure IRRATIONAL."You want two institutions that are legally equal but kept separate. How is that not separate but equal?
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 9:04 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Charlie, you clearly gate gays, are ignorant of what being gay is, and want to prevent them from doing things that don't involve you at all or hurt anyone else, and you compare them to disease. Yet you call me irrational? One of us is talking out of emotion and trying to dress it up in the lab coat of rationality…the other one is Ing
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 9:05 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Seriously you're as fucking pathetic as a dog who freaks" You just broke the respect code you freak of nature. Your developmenal malfunction is pathetic causing a pathetic thinking pattern. I have news for your queer ass. You're not THE NEW BLACK RACE YOU DELUSIONAL FREAK."I honestly see no difference between you and someone who is convinced that the color yellow is dangerous:That's because your brain is gay.It's not functioning properly. What about polygamy?? Is opposing that like racism too???? Now, when you fellow queers acuse me of "hate speech", remember, you broke the respect code, queer. IF you respect me, I'll respect you, ya bitch.
The Invisible Pink Unicorn
June 6, 2011 at 9:08 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Okay, please stop. Everyone. Charlie made his mind up well before he called the show the first time. Starting at 5:15 this exchange occurs:Russell: Why should straight people get married?Charlie: Because the word marriage has been established to be the identity of the ultimate commitment between man and woman.Russell: Established by who?Charlie: By the majority of the societies in the world. People around the world have already established another name for marriage which is "husband and wife".Russell: So this is just a case of majority rules? So if a majority now decides that it's okay for-Charlie:(cutting Russell off)Actually, actually, that is a strawman fallacy, I never claimed that. Nice try.Now in the interest of full disclosure, I didn't quote Charlie's second statement verbatim, but that's because it was a confused, disjointed set of statements that barely made sense when listened to and would probably make even less sense if read. But the sentence that starts with "By the majority" is verbatim so I won't hear any arguments that claim I took your words out of context Charlie.Like others have pointed out, Charlie is a rude, arrogant, and not particularly smart person. I don't mean that as a dig against Charlie, I honestly feel those traits accurately represent his character.I wouldn't mind more deconstruction of the call for educational and entertainment purposes, but to continue having this conversation with Charlie is an excercise in futility.
CCH
June 6, 2011 at 9:08 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Charlie, you lost the right to be respected a long time ago.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 9:08 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"You just broke the respect code you freak of nature. Your developmenal malfunction is pathetic causing a pathetic thinking pattern. I have news for your queer ass. You're not THE NEW BLACK RACE YOU DELUSIONAL FREAK."A) Wow you assume I'm gay because I disagree with you. How do you not know I'm not black and straight? B) And you honestly say that you are not biggoted."That's because your brain is gay.It's not functioning properly. "Ad hom mother fucker"Now, when you fellow queers acuse me of "hate speech", remember, you broke the respect code, queer.IF you respect me, I'll respect you, ya bitch. "Oh did I break your respect code by disagreeing with you? So sorry. "What about polygamy?? Is opposing that like racism too???? "If you have a husband and wife who both agree the other can date and have relationships would you be against it?
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 9:09 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"You want two institutions that are legally equal but kept separate. How is that not separate but equal?" That's a straw man fallacy. You must think you're debating with a christian.I never mentioned "two institutions". Marriage and gayrriage can be under the same instituion. So again, it's not separate but equal. that was a nice deceitful attempt to appeal to emotions.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 9:10 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"I wouldn't mind more deconstruction of the call for educational and entertainment purposes, but to continue having this conversation with Charlie is an excercise in futility. "Keeping Charlie talking is futile for him, but for me it serves the purpose of exposing his absurdity and irrationality further. As we see he unravels like a spool and when his 'reason' is challenged he falls back on the sort of volatile hate and bile I see from white supremacists and other bigots.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 9:12 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
""You want two institutions that are legally equal but kept separate. How is that not separate but equal?"That's a straw man fallacy. You must think you're debating with a christian.I never mentioned "two institutions". Marriage and gayrriage can be under the same instituion. So again, it's not separate but equal. that was a nice deceitful attempt to appeal to emotions. "BWahaha ok, so how is that different? It's the same institution? So why can't it have the same name? A=C +B=C == A=BThat's what we call "Logic" you might want to try it sometime. Oh and it's not a fucking strawman just because I'm repeating your argument.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 9:13 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Oh did I break your respect code by disagreeing with you? So sorry"Here's when you broke teh respect code."Seriously you're as fucking pathetic as a dog who freaks"
PCGamingStandards
June 6, 2011 at 9:14 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Semantic arguments are stupid and quite frankly not worth the time of anyone involved.Language is a pain in the arse, a lot of words are fuzzy, there is no single source for a definition and so no one can claim an authority on the matter. Not only that but words change their meaning over time.The best thing to do is simply explain what you mean, kind of like the way Matt D asks people what they believe and why, because labels just don't cut it.To be honest I find it more interesting why someone would crusade for this particular argument, it really does seem like closeted homosexuality, it's fairly well known that anger and disgust towards homosexuals and their behaviour can be caused at least in part by peoples own discomfort with their own sexuality.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 9:14 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@CharlieUmmm yeah making a comparison to show how it's like a phobia. You have a stimuli which poses no danger to you and you respond as if it does. Your panicked, emotional style of talk sounds to me like a Dog skittering and sliding across the floor in a panic.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 9:15 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"So why can't it have the same name? A=C +B=C == A=B"because that would be disrepsecting the value placed on the identity called marriage.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 9:16 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"To be honest I find it more interesting why someone would crusade for this particular argument, it really does seem like closeted homosexuality, it's fairly well known that anger and disgust towards homosexuals and their behaviour can be caused at least in part by peoples own discomfort with their own sexuality. "Considering how fast Charlie went to screaming faggot at me, I cannot rule that out. I can't say it is either though. Charlie has psychological issues and it may just be a irrational fear/repulsion like a crippling fear of clowns.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 9:17 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
""So why can't it have the same name? A=C +B=C == A=B"because that would be disrepsecting the value placed on the identity called marriage. "Ah. So something about homosexuals is BAD and thus associating them with marriage is disrespectful to them?Thus separate but equal. Same reason we can't risk letting the races mix and mingle.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 9:17 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@ingSTUDIES show fear and disgust derive from completely different places. Go ahead with your christian-like behavior and disregard studies.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 9:19 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"STUDIES show fear and disgust derive from completely different places. Go ahead with your christian-like behavior and disregard studies. "Cite themBut it doesn't MATTER. Treating something harmless like disease (as you did) or like a danger is a psychological problem. Btw. ONE of us is for hating people because they break an Abrahamic law and the other is Ing. Which one of us is like a Christian? Is there anything more Christian than fag bashing?
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 9:20 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Ah. So something about homosexuals is BAD and thus associating them with marriage is disrespectful to them?"That's another STRAW MAN FALLACY and you're appealing to pityMy point is, marriage to heteros is like homosexuals to gays. That was established before gay marriage made it's way into the political arena.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 9:20 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Oh and STUDIES show that homosexual is normal, not contagious, natural, and beyond someone's control and isn't due to a 'malfunction'. If you want to play Logic Tennis we keep the net up for both of us, we don't' take it down when you want to serve.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 9:22 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
""Ah. So something about homosexuals is BAD and thus associating them with marriage is disrespectful to them?"That's another STRAW MAN FALLACY and you're appealing to pity"It's not STARWMAN you said it. Explain how it isn't what you said. What is disrespectful about lumping gays in with straights under marriage. WHAT exactly?
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 9:23 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Charlie most theists against gay marriage I know are ideologically ignorant. You are actually hateful and virulent.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 9:23 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Oh and I note no apology or explanation on why you think I'm gay and thus feel you can attack me as brain damaged?
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 9:26 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Charlie are you aware there is evidence for a natural and evolutionary selected for underpinning for racism? It's true. The idea is that fear/disgust of those who are different than those you raised with was a benefit to protect people from competing tribes or some such. I'm sure you'll grant the same "disgust" argument to racists as you demand for yourself.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 9:26 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Cite them"Gay men are a health risk to public safety..They're not even allowed to donate blood(http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htm)Homophobia rooted in disgust, not fear(Jeffrey Lohr, Bunmi Olatunji, Suzanne Meunier)Disgust is a disease avoidance behavior, and linked to morality(Adam K. Anderson Hanah Chapman)gay men elicit disgust(knobes) "But it doesn't MATTER. Treating something harmless like disease (as you did) or like a danger is a psychological problem"So you're saying disgust is a psychological problem. Now that's irrational. Disgust is a disease avoidance behavior.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 9:28 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"So you're saying disgust is a psychological problem. Now that's irrational. Disgust is a disease avoidance behavior. "Because WHAT are you avoiding? "Gay men are a health risk to public safety..They're not even allowed to donate blood"No they aren't. The Blood donation policy is outdated and has been criticized for quite some time. And the public safety WOULD have been from HIV, which was first IDed in the US in gay populations. Gay itself poses no risk. A clean gay poses less risk than a HIV straight.
Callum
June 6, 2011 at 9:30 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Its a psychological problem when you are trying to avoid a disease that is not a threat to you. That is where the irrationality lies
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 9:30 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@CallumOr something that Isn't a fucking disease.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 9:31 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Explain how it isn't what you said. What is disrespectful about lumping gays in with straights under marriage. WHAT exactly?" In our minds, marriage is all about man and woman. When we think of marriage, man and woman comes to mind. When we attach two men or two women to marriage, it's not the image that we've grown to value and accept as the identity of marriage.Just like when gays think of the word "homosexuals", gay people come to mind, not mentally ill patients.So we have grown to value the identity and image of marriage. GET IT NOW???
JT
June 6, 2011 at 9:33 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Charlie makes me more empathetic to the plight of homosexuals, if this is the sort of cutting blathering irrationality they receive from others.Atheism doesn't seem so hard now.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 9:33 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"In our minds, marriage is all about man and woman. When we think of marriage, man and woman comes to mind.When we attach two men or two women to marriage, it's not the image that we've grown to value and accept as the identity of marriage."No not WE. YOU! And that's not the point. You agreed that A=C and B=C so what is it about B that makes it disrespectful to lump it in with A.There's no reason NOT to change the identify if it's more inclusive and makes some people's lives easier while hurting no one else. GET IT NOW.
Callum
June 6, 2011 at 9:33 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
[i]In our minds, marriage is all about man and woman. When we think of marriage, man and woman comes to mind.[/i]Thats not true. not in our minds. in your mind. in my mind marriage is about commitment and love, something that transcends gender
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 9:35 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Charlie isn't just a shitty logician and a shitty atheist, he's a shitty person. If anyone is brain damaged it's charlie due to his retarded empathic abilities
Callum
June 6, 2011 at 9:36 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I think we should adopt the shmarriage label. and leave regular old marriage label to gather dust in the religious institutions. then the definition of marriage will shift to an antiquated ritual held by religious crazies
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 9:37 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Because WHAT are you avoiding?" Disgust of feces causes human to avoid feces because our brains have evolved to develop a behavior immune systemDisgust of gay men causes humans to avoid gay men because our brains hae evoled to develop a behavior immune system.The blood donation policy was enforce by FDA. Go ahead and challenge them. Once the media catches on, that will only promote the fact that gay men are a health risk. So please, challenge FDA
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 9:37 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@CallumNo. Charlie is the reason we need the marriage label. He needs to learn that life is not about what makes him comfortable.
The Invisible Pink Unicorn
June 6, 2011 at 9:39 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Tell that to the actors in the 2 girls 1 cup video…
Callum
June 6, 2011 at 9:39 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
you can aviod feces and gay people all you want. But where does the moral claim come from. That being homosexual is wrong?
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 9:39 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Disgust of feces causes human to avoid feces because our brains have evolved to develop a behavior immune systemDisgust of gay men causes humans to avoid gay men because our brains hae evoled to develop a behavior immune system."Think for a fucking second. If that was true HOW ARE THERE GAY MEN!? If gay people were dangerous those without the gay avoidance would have died off. Not everyone has that avoidance even straights. So you're full of shit. "The blood donation policy was enforce by FDA. Go ahead and challenge them. Once the media catches on, that will only promote the fact that gay men are a health risk. So please, challenge FDA "In Africa Black Heterosexuals are the big risk for HIV and other diseases. You want to play that card? Should white people be disgusted by blacks because of the perceived statistical likelihood of carrying disease?
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 9:40 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@Callumhe's using the "Gays are a public health threat" like they're spreaders of filth and disease.An argument made from studies by anti-gay fucking Christians. But no WE'RE like Christians. Charlie just uses them as sources.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 9:41 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Oh and if your fucking disgust evolution was valid at all, people would be disgusted by mosquitoes considering they're histories greatest killer of humans.A fear of them would FAR outweigh any fear of gay or feces.
Callum
June 6, 2011 at 9:42 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@ IngA label is just that, a label. It holds no inherent value. Its what is underneath that matters. Its the meaning.
Ptah
June 6, 2011 at 9:42 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Charlies mind is so full of the juicy cocks he imagines sucking that there is no place for rational thought.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 9:43 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Oh sorry not fear "disgust"Cause objectively you can tell the difference between an animal avoiding something because of fear and avoiding because of disgust (sarcasm) rather than just one avoidance response to stimuli.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 9:43 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"There's no reason NOT to change the identify if it's more inclusive and makes some people's lives easier while hurting no one else"If not having a simple identity hurts gays, that means gays have other issues that need to be dealt with like some self esteem problems It's not like something was ever taken away from gays. The identity of marriage has always been about man and woman…It's not even a tradition. It's a definition of a word.
Callum
June 6, 2011 at 9:44 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@ IngI second that. A disgust of mosquitoes would be the be all end all of disease avoidance behavior.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 9:44 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@CallumI disagree. Language informs thought and influences it.If that were true we would still be calling Black people racial slurs because it's just labels. No the labels have baggage which infer and imbue additional emotional weight and value. Marriage is important because of that. Giving up the label is a surrender and implicit agreement of lesser status.
k7leetha
June 6, 2011 at 9:46 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Charlie is a closet homophobe.
Next.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 9:46 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"A label is just that, a label. It holds no inherent value"If that's the case, we can change the definition of "homosexual to mean anyone with an abnomal brain structure. We'll simply broaden the definition. Are you okay with that? AFter all, it's just a label.(sarcasm)
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 9:47 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"It's not like something was ever taken away from gays. The identity of marriage has always been about man and woman…It's not even a tradition. It's a definition of a word. "Bullshit. Gay marriage existed. Gay relationships were esteemed and valued in other societies. There are legal rights and privileges and social acknowledgments tied to marriage. Denying it from gays because they were so hated in the past that it was defined so as to alienate them is absurd. The difference between "Partner" and "Spouse" is clear in our language. Partner is vague, business? Romantic? Tennis? Spouse is clear.
ghostcat
June 6, 2011 at 9:48 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@atheistdeceitbuster It's not simply disgust that makes you a homophobe. I'll admit that engaging in homosexual sex would be disgusting for me. I personally wouldn't do it. And I'm sure many homosexuals find heterosexual sex equally disgusting and wouldn't engage in it either. It's not the disgust itself, it's how you decide to act on it. I think you can still say "I think gay sex is nasty" and not be labeled a homophobe. It's when you say "I think gay sex is nasty, and therefore I want to stop other people from doing it, or discriminate against them" that labels you as a homophobe. It's a phobia when what other people do makes you insecure and you act to limit them.If you think homosexuals spread disease more than heterosexuals, you are simply wrong (heteros engage in anal too), and clinging to that irrational belief is a phobia.
Callum
June 6, 2011 at 9:48 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@ CharlieThe definition of a word comes from its use and its use is dictated by tradition. You have one view about how the word marriage is/should be used and we have a different one. We are all now at an impasse.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 9:49 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"If that's the case, we can change the definition of "homosexual to mean anyone with an abnomal brain structure. We'll simply broaden the definition. Are you okay with that? AFter all, it's just a label.(sarcasm) "Because they don't HAVE an abnormal brain structure.Jesus fucking Christ, I have a spelling abnormally, and I am driven nuts by your spelling mistakes. Are you just typing with one hand? Here's a new evolutionary narrative for youHomosexuality is on the same spectrum and in the same bundle of behaviors as pair bonding and social bonding. To form tight communities to survive and provide team work evolution co-opted the sex related pair bonding so it could tie the early human societies.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 9:50 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Oh and Charlie is dead wrong about the disease because the safest sex is lesbian sex.
Callum
June 6, 2011 at 9:50 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
If you want to shift the label then fine but then homosexual people will find a new label that more accurately reflects who and what they are. Also it wouldn't be a broadening because homosexuals are not a subset of the group "People with abnormal brain structures".
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 9:51 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
ing,"Marriage is important because of that. Giving up the label is a surrender and implicit agreement of lesser status"Why give up anything??? Sacraficing is unneccessary. Adding is better than taking. We can just make up a new word for gays.Queeriagegayrriageparriage smarrriageseriouslygaygaged in instead of engaged (joking)geddings instead of weddings (joking)
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 9:53 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"lso it wouldn't be a broadening because homosexuals are not a subset of the group "People with abnormal brain structures"Tha'ts FALSE. Just like I tell Christians, get ready for the harsh truthStudy shows homosexuals brains are not like heteros. They literally have different brain structures in specific regions. The same is true for schizophrenic people
Callum
June 6, 2011 at 9:54 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
How is a union between a man and a woman and better or worse than a union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman??
Rorschach
June 6, 2011 at 9:55 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@Charlie (atheistdeceitbuster)- That's a terrible argument. By that standard, no one should work in sewage systems or as septic tank drainers or even as farmers (if you're surrounded by manure). I'm not doubting that you might be disgusted by homosexuals, but how you act so anal retentive about the inclusiveness of the word marriage to exclude homosexuals you do seem homophobic whether you want to be or not.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 9:56 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Oh and Charlie is dead wrong about the disease because the safest sex is lesbian sex"That's a STRAW MAN FALLACY. You pro gays argue very similar to christians.I never even mentioned gay women ( Lesbians are gay women) in regards to the disease avoidance behavior.
Callum
June 6, 2011 at 9:57 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
the same is true for those who like James Blunt music. and those who have synesthesia. and those who are geniuses and those who are savants. You have a different brain structure to me, the point is that they are not significantly different to warrant being called "abnormal"
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 10:03 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Homosexuality is on the same spectrum and in the same bundle of behaviors as pair bonding and social bonding"Are you ready to feel stupid????If your claim was true, many birds wouldn't need to be exposed to MERCURY POISON to go gay.Mercury poison causing birds to go gay is a clear indication of a DAMAGED BRAINThere's a difference between social bonding and a male bending over like a bitch to get fucked like a bitch. REAL MEN WITH whole male brains don't do shit like that.You FAILED AGAIN
Rorschach
June 6, 2011 at 10:05 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@atheistdeceitbuster-now you're nitpicking your information. Google homosexuality in animals and look at the wiki for it.
EJ
June 6, 2011 at 10:07 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Blacks are 12.6% of the country and were 46% of all new AIDS cases last year. 75% of which came from heterosexual contact.Charlie, do you think the racism and the jim crow laws of the 19th and 20th century could have been disease avoidance behaviors?
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 10:07 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"How is a union between a man and a woman and better or worse than a union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman??" That's a loaded question. You know Christians use those a lot.It's not a "better" or 'worse" issue. It's an identity issue. I
Callum
June 6, 2011 at 10:10 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Calm down. you have committed the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" right there. If you are not going to cite sources when you make claims like this then it is pointless to continue. You could just make things up. Also it doesn't show a damaged brain it shows a different brain. maybe mercury is the process that nature uses to induce homosexuality in birds.
EJ
June 6, 2011 at 10:11 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Now Charlie is just being intellectually dishonest, there's quite a bit of research out there on homosexuality in other species. To focus on some study with mercury is being willfully ignorant.Citation, since posting one seems to be a rite of passage in this thread:http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspxAlso, I'm wondering if Charlie is familiar or maybe apart of those racist nationalists that Dillahunty recently wrote a note about on his facebook page.
Callum
June 6, 2011 at 10:12 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
If it is no better or worse the why wont you allow them to be included in the marriage label?
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 10:12 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Blacks are 12.6% of the country and were 46% of all new AIDS cases last year. 75% of which came from heterosexual contact"THIS IS DECEIT AND TRICKERY.1. STudy shows black GAY AND BISEXUAL MEN are fueling the hiv rates among blackshttp://www.aidsmeds.com/articles/hiv_black_young_1667_13623.shtml2. Study shows proverty, not race is linked to hiv rates.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/19/health/main6691867.shtml
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 10:16 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
ej AND MARTIN"Now Charlie is just being intellectually dishonest, there's quite a bit of research out there on homosexuality in other species"That's a straw man fallacy. Christians use those a lot… I never claimed that homosexuality and mental disorders don't occur in many speciesMental disorders and homosexuality occur throughout natureMental disorders and homosexuality are both caused by environmental and genetic factors although the genetic factors are weak. Abnormal brain structures have been detected in mental disorders and homosexuality. HAPPY NOW????
ghostcat
June 6, 2011 at 10:19 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@atheistdeceitbuster For someone who loves to shout "STRAW MAN!" you seem to put a lot of them forward. Mercury poisoning can cause irritability. Does that mean that all irritability is brain damage? Is mercury poisoning necessary for homosexuality? Are birds humans? You are putting forth one unsourced study suggesting correlation in a separate species as causation in another. Also, we can now add "NO TRUE SCOTTSMAN" to your list of fallacies, because no REAL MAN WITH a whole male brain would use that argument.
EJ
June 6, 2011 at 10:22 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Actually it's not, it's a separate statistic. What is "deceit and trickery" is you saying that they are fueling the HIV rates when that site only says that they are the fastest growing population. The fact that they are the fastest growing does not mean they are the majority. Seeing that your study was done in 2007 and the results I posted were done in 2008. Gays are still the minority of black AIDS cases. Here's a fallacy for you, it's called special pleading. You can't dismiss the AIDS among blacks because of ulterior reasons and be numb to the contributing factors of the high AIDS rate among gays.
Lukas
June 6, 2011 at 10:22 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
The identity of marriage has always been about man and womanSimply not true. It's the most common form, but by no means the only one. Not presently and not historically.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 10:27 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"If it is no better or worse the why wont you allow them to be included in the marriage label?" Because we value the established identity of marriage. According to your argument, there's nothing wrong with changing the identity of everything including ethnic groups, races, cars, countries, states, genders,ectlet's change the definion of man to mean man or woman. Your argument is flawed
Rorschach
June 6, 2011 at 10:28 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@atheistdeceitbuster- You sure do love that word "strawman fallacy" don't you? The implication in your argument (a segment mentioned below) was that homosexuality is not natural and takes a damaged brain for an animal to engage in it. I have not strawmanned you in attacking a part of your argument where you strongly imply that homosexuality in animals is not a natural occurence in your little sexist quip about social bonding. "Mercury poison causing birds to go gay is a clear indication of a DAMAGED BRAINThere's a difference between social bonding and a male bending over like a bitch to get fucked like a bitch. REAL MEN WITH whole male brains don't do shit like that."
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 10:30 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Are birds humans?"I'm not the one who mentioned other species to begin with. IF you want to discuss other species, we can. If you don't then dont mention them because I will mention mercury poison
EJ
June 6, 2011 at 10:33 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Actually you said just that…."If your claim was true, many birds wouldn't need to be exposed to MERCURY POISON to go gay.Mercury poison causing birds to go gay is a clear indication of a DAMAGED BRAINThere's a difference between social bonding and a male bending over like a bitch to get fucked like a bitch. REAL MEN WITH whole male brains don't do shit like that."Anyone with inductive reasoning skills can see that you are saying that no normal species would exhibit homosexual behavior.I hate to say this to another person, but Charlie you are just not an intelligent person. You don't get that you don't get it. I'm also skeptical of your claim that you think gays deserve equal rights if you would say something like "There's a difference between social bonding and a male bending over like a bitch to get fucked like a bitch."Often times as an atheist you will reach a point in a religious debate where you realize that a person has a portion of their psyche barricaded against reason. I am now at that point.
Rorschach
June 6, 2011 at 10:34 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Even if you do talk about other species (in this case birds), you're only talking about one kind of species. What about black swans, mallards,or even vultures?
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 10:37 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"is you saying that they are fueling the HIV rates when that site only says that they are the fastest growing population"this is easyblack GAY men have the highest cases of hivhttp://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=82999935-1457-4d81-b88f-836719746f43hiv linked to proverty, not racehttp://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=11194623
Patrick
June 6, 2011 at 10:44 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Wow, Charlie sure likes to SHOUT when he rebuffs those slippery LOGICAL FALLACIES!!!! ZOMG!!! Time for a commenters ethics panel…
JT
June 6, 2011 at 10:49 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"is you saying that they are fueling the HIV rates when that site only says that they are the fastest growing population"this is easyblack GAY men have the highest cases of hivhttp://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=82999935-1457-4d81-b88f-836719746f43Did you note that the article has nothing to say about causation? Have you heard of the phrase "correlation does not equal causation"?The biggest spread of HIV/AIDS, ultimately, is non-monogamous and large numbers of relationships.It's very hard to be monogamous when society persecutes you, and especially doesn't let you establish the #1 arrangement to be monogamous. Thus, allowing them to marry would likely reduce the infection rates. So ironically, the rationale for disallowing them from marrying would be one of the main causes of them having that reason.Now, I know what you're likely to say "LOLOLOL STRAWMAN!! YOU LIKE CHRISTIAN"You're also saying that it's not that they can't [go through functional process the same as marriage]. Obviously, all these citations about diseases and harm and whatever are 100% unambiguously moot to the question of whether they should be allowed to [go through functional process the same as marriage].As you just earlier pointed out, it comes down to "disrespecting" marriage. So why all these references to "studies" to show how awful male homosexuality is?The labeling doesn't change whether there's any harm, or not.If it comes down to just a word, then the conversation is over. I don't care about disrespecting the word, when definitions change over time. I care about disrespecting people, which you have given plenty of evidence that you don't.
JT
June 6, 2011 at 10:50 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Sorry, mods, I'm not sure if it failed or hit spam filter, so trying again."is you saying that they are fueling the HIV rates when that site only says that they are the fastest growing population"this is easyblack GAY men have the highest cases of hivhttp://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=82999935-1457-4d81-b88f-836719746f43Did you note that the article has nothing to say about causation? Have you heard of the phrase "correlation does not equal causation"?The biggest spread of HIV/AIDS, ultimately, is non-monogamous and large numbers of relationships.It's very hard to be monogamous when society persecutes you, and especially doesn't let you establish the #1 arrangement to be monogamous. Thus, allowing them to marry would likely reduce the infection rates. So ironically, the rationale for disallowing them from marrying would be one of the main causes of them having that reason.Now, I know what you're likely to say "LOLOLOL STRAWMAN!! YOU LIKE CHRISTIAN"You're also saying that it's not that they can't [go through functional process the same as marriage]. Obviously, all these citations about diseases and harm and whatever are 100% unambiguously moot to the question of whether they should be allowed to [go through functional process the same as marriage].As you just earlier pointed out, it comes down to "disrespecting" marriage. So why all these references to "studies" to show how awful male homosexuality is?The labeling doesn't change whether there's any harm, or not.If it comes down to just a word, then the conversation is over. I don't care about disrespecting the word, when definitions change over time. I care about disrespecting people, which you have given plenty of evidence that you don't.
PCGamingStandards
June 6, 2011 at 10:51 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"In our minds, marriage is all about man and woman. When we think of marriage, man and woman comes to mind."As others have quite rightly pointed out, this is in YOUR mind, when I think of marriage I think of the legalities and responsibilities involved between 2 parties. Why? Because I think it's a stupid idea and has no merit beyond legal advantages.Many other people think of other things, love, commitment etc, they're not as jaded as me obviously.The point is people see it differently, society is diverse and you appear to be the only person here who is asserting their view on marriage is somehow the de-facto."Disgust of gay men causes humans to avoid gay men because our brains hae evoled to develop a behavior immune system."This is quite frankly the most laughable thing I've read in a long time.Do you have any credible sources that indicate that homosexuals are any kind of a risk to heterosexuals when it comes to spreading disease?Disgust is an emotion, not everyone has it, it's clearly not evolutionary in this case because not all, in fact very few people have this kind of behaviour. It's more than likely nurture rather than nature, your social bias has caused you to view homosexuality as disgusting, the same way Muslims are disgusted when people draw Mohammed.Why don't you make like the rest of the 21st century and drop your social bias and replace it with a bit of acceptance, come to terms that homosexuality doesn't threaten you or your manhood and just get over it.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 10:55 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"REAL MEN WITH whole male brains don't do shit like that." "Crux of the issue. REAL MEN are threatened by being associated with that. Charlie is probably also fairly misogynistic going by this logic. "Even if you do talk about other species (in this case birds), you're only talking about one kind of species. What about black swans, mallards,or even vultures? "Blackswans? I see what you did there
Not to mention Bonobos. You know our closest non-human relative?
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 10:56 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Martin,Homosexuality is no more natural than mental disorders.Again, Mental disorders and homosexuality occur in many species.Mental disorders and homosexuality are both caused by environmental and genetic factors although the genetic factors are weak.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 10:57 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Regardless of my gender or sexuality I would never TOUCH someone like Charlie. He is in no way a REAL MAN to me at all. The thought of any contact with him is repulsive.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 10:58 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Homosexuality is no more natural than mental disorders.Again, Mental disorders and homosexuality occur in many species.Mental disorders and homosexuality are both caused by environmental and genetic factors although the genetic factors are weak. "It's not a mental disorder. That's what people are trying to tell you. It's a natural behavior on a preference spectrum. There are even strong evolutionary reasons why homosexuality would be selected FOR.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 10:59 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Gay relationships were esteemed and valued in other societies"but what happened??? Something obviously went wrong and people turned completely against homosexualityHistory repeats itself often so don't expect a gay utopia.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 11:02 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"but what happened??? Something obviously went wrong and people turned completely against homosexuality"Western Imperialism.You know…the sort of thing that introduced slavery. You want to argue that? Hey you know what, Africans used to have great civilizations and empires. What happened there!? There must be a reason Black run society always goes to shit /spitsYou're a disgusting bigot
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 11:05 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"History repeats…"When people don't learn from it. Finish the quote if you're going to paraphrase it, bigot.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 11:06 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"It's not a mental disorder. That's what people are trying to tell you. It's a natural behavior on a preference spectrum"That's a straw man fallacy. You pro gay atheists are constantly proving that you are argue like Christians.I never claimed that homosexuality is a mental disorder. My point is, they are similar regarding nature.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 11:07 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
And no I don't accept any ideas of racial superiority or that. But I don't reject that because of ideology, my ideology is formed because of the evidence showing the contrary. Charlie should tread carefully because the same sorts of studies have been done to argue blacks as inherently less intelligent or recently less attractive.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 11:09 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"I never claimed that homosexuality is a mental disorder. My point is, they are similar regarding nature. "You fucking liar. "REAL MEN WITH whole male brains don't do shit like that.""People can check what you say. You are a liar. And a fucking blind hypocrite, Charlie you argue more like a Christian than any atheist I've ever seen.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 11:10 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Western Imperialism."You know…the sort of thing that introduced slavery. You want to argue that?" As an atheist, you should know that negative events causes people to run to religion. When people dont understand something that's not good, they turn to relgion for answers.People didn't understand their disgust of gay men so they turned to religion for answers.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 11:10 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Charlie you do not know what any of the fallacies mean so stop using them.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 11:11 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"As an atheist, you should know that negative events causes people to run to religion. When people dont understand something that's not good, they turn to relgion for answers.People didn't understand their disgust of gay men so they turned to religion for answers. "No you idiot. Religion introduced the taboo. The cultures did not HAVE disgust as you know it. That's what we've established. You cannot assert that into reality.
Thomas F. Bourque
June 6, 2011 at 11:12 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I'm going to make a point and not refer to anyone else in doing so. This is to avoid having the word "fallacy" thrown at me in relation to someone else's statements.If a person posits that the word "marriage" is to only apply heterosexual couples and some other word (I'll use "shmarriage") is to refer only to homosexual couples, and both words give the respected couples equal rights under the law, then that person is arguing:1) to restrict the definition of "marriage" to mean a union that excludes homosexuals.and2) for the use of a new term for homosexual unions that are in every way equal to marriage under the law If we use the word "institution" in conjunction with "marriage" (institution of marriage), then I propose that we should also use it in conjunction with "shmarriage" in the same way (institution of shmarriage), since they are essentially the same thing except for the sexual preferences of the respected parties.We now have two separate institutions that are completely equal in regards to the law. Separate but equal.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 11:13 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I'm starting to think Fagbashing is Charlie's religion. He even crafted that nice origin myth for it.
ghostcat
June 6, 2011 at 11:13 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@atheistdeceitbusterJust curious, but is there any amount of evidence that would change your mind on this issue? If so, what would it take?
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 11:14 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"You fucking liar" THE QUOTE below is not insinuating that gays are mentally ill. "REAL MEN WITH whole male brains don't do shit like that"Are you ready to feel stupid???Simply having a abnormal brain structure is not neccessarily a mental disorder. you FAILED AGAIN
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 11:14 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@GhostcatMy theory is a six pack /snark
JT
June 6, 2011 at 11:15 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"It's not a mental disorder. That's what people are trying to tell you. It's a natural behavior on a preference spectrum"That's a straw man fallacy. You pro gay atheists are constantly proving that you are argue like Christians.I never claimed that homosexuality is a mental disorder. My point is, they are similar regarding nature.It was just a coincidence Charlie put those two together.I mean, if someone had said "Mental disorders and black people occur throughout nature", Charlie absolutely would not have drawn any association between those two things just happening to be lumped together.I myself frequently bring up two completely unrelated things in the same sentence that have nothing to do with one another beyond the fact they both exist. It's called communication skills.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 11:15 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Are you ready to feel stupid???Simply having a abnormal brain structure is not neccessarily a mental disorder.you FAILED AGAIN "Yet you argue like it is, knowing people would take it that way. That necessarily is lying. http://xkcd.com/169/
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 11:16 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Klans men and Charlie are alike.Because they're both made of carbon..nothing beyond that.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 11:17 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Charlie you haven't by any chance been on the Infidel Guy Show have you? Because you're argument and insane style of repetition and bigotry is frightfully familiar.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 11:20 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Just curious, but is there any amount of evidence that would change your mind on this issue? If so, what would it take?"Evidence regarding what? There's evidence in my favor, not yours..Im the one whos been citing studies. As far as gay marriage is concerned, it's about identities. Nothing more an nothing less and there's evidence that marriage is an identity of husband and wife. If gays accepted a word similar to marriage with full rights, I would support them.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 11:20 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Charlie let me fill you in.I am not talking to you because I believe you have anything valid to say.I am not talking to you because you are remotely intelligent.I am not talking to you to convince you.I am talking to you to keep you talking because I know that you yourself are the best fucking evidence against your argument. Keeping you talking lets you lay out more and more of your bile and bigotry and shows everyone exactly what your type are like.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 11:21 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"If gays accepted a word similar to marriage with full rights, I would support them. 'Then why not marriage? What harm does it do?
barefoot hiker
June 6, 2011 at 11:22 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@CharlieDisgust is a disease avoidance behavior, not a phobia.This is a self-defeating definition. Avoidance is driven by fear: fear, however slight, of a consequence, however remote. You own definition incorporates fear: the fear of disease. "Disgust" is the reaction, avoidance the outcome.Incidentally, disgust is not necessarily to do with disease. After all, the reaction you're garnering here is not really the result of people equating your views to a physical disease, but to their bleak and rather Orweallian upshot with regard to a free society.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 11:24 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@Barefoot HikerAnd even odder that he keeps coming to this and arguing that Homophobia with it's psychological implications is wrong…but this proves that it's right. He has a irrational fear/disgust and argues for it rather than acknowledging it's irrationality. Fear is indeed the mindkiller. The little death that brings total mental oblivion
barefoot hiker
June 6, 2011 at 11:25 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@CharlieDifferent identities is not separate but equalIn this, you're correct; "separate but equal" is based on the exploitation of different identities, to the detriment of the identity with less political, social, or economic power.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 11:27 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@barefoot hikerThe point we made with the separate but equal is that it's the same argument and the only reason to legally divide the separate identities is because one views one is inherently inferior. I've had this argument with non-white racists "blank culture doesn't HATE the other race…they just don't want to mix with them and have their culture tainted" Tainted, by WHAT?
JT
June 6, 2011 at 11:28 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
If gays accepted a word similar to marriage with full rights, I would support them.So now that we've got you on record about that statement, let me ask.Do all the studies and discussion about how "bad" male homosexuality is no longer apply because the word "marriage" isn't used?
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 11:28 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
To Tom Bourgue"If we use the word "institution" in conjunction with "marriage" (institution of marriage), then I propose that we should also use it in conjunction with "shmarriage"That's where you're creating your own argument to argue against in which makes it a straw man fallacyMarriage and shmarriage can be under ONE institution…It's possible for One institution to have two entitiesThe instution of marriage consist of two entities in which are mariage and gayrriage. So, it's not "separate but equal"Nice attempt to use the struggles lf blacks as a DECEITFUL TACTIC.Institute – to establish, organize and set in operation.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 11:33 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
barefook hiker,"to the detriment of the identity with less political, social, or economic power"this is a SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY.Christians use those all the time. We have blacks, whites, asians, ect. Does being labeled "black" gives me less political power? Did we have to change the label "black" to be allowed to vote?
barefoot hiker
June 6, 2011 at 11:35 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@CharlieThey're not even allowed to donate bloodEssentially because of attitudes like yours. One to one, straight people are just as prone to contracting, spreading, and dying of AIDS as gay people; they also indulge in unsafe sex; they also are prone to promiscuity. There's nothing particular about gay people relative to straight people in any of the regards that affect the spread of AIDS other than their partners are of the same gender — and so this prohibition is, rightly, being legally challenged. After all, blood is screened no matter who gives it. Declaring you're not going to bother with blood from gay people on a basis you figure it's full of AIDS and not worth your time is every bit as prejudiced as refusing to accept blood from black people because it might end up in white people. Blood is NEEDED. Take it, test it, use it. Period. Anything else is blind prejudice that costs lives.
Thomas F. Bourque
June 6, 2011 at 11:35 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
[b]That's where you're creating your own argument to argue against in which makes it a straw man fallacy[/b]This shows clearly that you have no idea what a straw man fallacy is. In order for it to be a straw man fallacy, I would have to be characterizing a person's argument in a fashion that is easier to argue against. I made no reference to anyone else.Also, I made no reference to "the struggles of blacks".
Rorschach
June 6, 2011 at 11:35 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Why are you opposed to marriage being inclusive towards gays. Simply saying it's an identity issue is loose grounds to oppose it. Have you considered that this is an identity issue for gays as well? That they are wanting to be recognized within the marital institution too and not wanting their kind to be dumbed down to the "schmarriages" of civil union (which doesn't always allot them equal rights). I don't think it's so much an identity issue for you as it is one of privileged bigotry. Why your blood curdles at the thought of homosexuals being associated with marriage, I know not why. But vying for exclusivity of the word on little basis other than "it's an identity issue" is a true portrait of how small-minded and fearful you are. I mean it's a word at its most inclusive meaning "a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship". Since when did that come to mean "only people of heterosexual stature get this label"?
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 11:37 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Avoidance is driven by fear"This is VAGUE AND IRRELEVANT.Many things could cause avoidance. fEAR, ANGER, DISGUST, ECT.The difference is, disgust SPECIFICALLY evolved as a disease avoidance behavior.
JT
June 6, 2011 at 11:37 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"to the detriment of the identity with less political, social, or economic power"this is a SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY.Please. Tell us what a slippery slope fallacy is, and how it applies here. His premise is that not being able to get married doesn't give you the same rights as married couples would. He might not understand that you're supposedly for "full rights" of this alternative to marriage.But even if that was your stance, that they wouldn't get full rights, it would be like saying:Bob: "If they don't give me a soda, then I won't have a soda"Charlie: "Slippery slope fallacy!".. because definitionally, your social/economic power, granted through marital rights, would not be granted.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 11:42 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Thomas,"In order for it to be a straw man fallacy, I would have to be characterizing a person's argument in a fashion that is easier to argue against"that's exactly what you did… You FALSELY assumed I argued in favor of a separate institution in which I did not.
Ibis
June 6, 2011 at 11:43 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
There's a difference between social bonding and a male bending over like a bitch to get fucked like a bitch. REAL MEN WITH whole male brains don't do shit like that.It took a while for the truth to out. But there it is. Like most homophobes, Charlie, in the end, is just a plain vanilla misogynist.
Thomas F. Bourque
June 6, 2011 at 11:44 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Charlie said:Thomas,"In order for it to be a straw man fallacy, I would have to be characterizing a person's argument in a fashion that is easier to argue against"that's exactly what you did… You FALSELY assumed I argued in favor of a separate institution in which I did not. ——————–I made no reference to you whatsoever.
Nathan
June 6, 2011 at 11:44 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
As a gay person I honestly don't care what word you use for the legal contract that grants me the same rights as a straight person. Unfortunately, the word marriage is written into many legal contracts such as health insurance in companies. To get my insurance with my partner's company we had to pay twice as much as a heterosexual couple simply because we don't have the word marriage. A marriage contract in the my state is less than 100 dollars, but to get one of the legal contracts that come with a marriage my partner and I will have to pay a lawyer 500 dollars for it, because I don't have the word marriage. There are over 1000 legal benefits that come automatically with marriage, start doing the math on that. To say that we can get all the same rights and easier is an outright lie. Charlie says we should already get the same rights just not the word. So Charlie go out and campaign to have all these legal documents changed so that the word marriage and whatever you want to call us mean the same thing when it comes to legal contracts. Though I don't think you'll do that because most of your arguments have been there to back up your disgust for us. Which is fine, I don't care if you like us, or if your disgusted by us. Oh, also, even if my legal contract says schmarriage, I'm still going to say my partner and I are married, and what are you going to do about that? You can't own a word.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 11:47 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
jt, "to the detriment of the identity with less political, social, or economic power""Please. Tell us what a slippery slope fallacy is, and how it applies here"A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some…He's FALSELY assuming different identities will lead to "less political, economic and social power".
JT
June 6, 2011 at 11:51 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Let's grant for a second that Charlie's assertions about the negativity of male homosexuality are true.Why does that matter if the "m-word" is used, but not if a 100% identical version, that doesn't use the "m-word", is used?If we're talking about something that's functionally the same, the same bad consequences should apply to each. For some reason, he's fine with the harm done to the group using word-A, but not word-B.If it just comes down to "respect", then I'm sorry, but we're not so irrational to assume that one's subjective perceptual opinion should dictate people's rights. We need something more logical and rational than that.Tradition of words doesn't matter either, as they regularly grow over time. As others have pointed out, "marriage" has had by no means a one-definitional history. Get over it.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 11:55 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Like most homophobes, Charlie, in the end, is just a plain vanilla misogynist" Thats a red herring fallacyI love women. It just disgust me to think that some men play the role of women. I don't usually call women bitches. I was just making a point.
JT
June 6, 2011 at 11:56 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
jt, "to the detriment of the identity with less political, social, or economic power""Please. Tell us what a slippery slope fallacy is, and how it applies here"A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some…He's FALSELY assuming different identities will lead to "less political, economic and social power".It's weird how you get what a slippery slope is, then totally misuse it.I already explained this. His error is not understanding that you are okay with them having the same rights – not about a slippery slope.If he was right and you were not in favor of giving them the same rights, it would be definitionally less "less political, economic and social power" – because they'd not be receiving the same "less political, economic and social power".Marriage is more than just two people being together. There's tax deductions. There's automatic right granting over spouses. Etc.So if you don't grant that, they'd have less. Where exactly is the slippery slope?
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 11:59 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Jt,You're way way way off base. I have to say the same thing to Christians."Let's grant for a second that Charlie's assertions about the negativity of male homosexuality are true""Why does that matter if the "m-word" is used, but not if a 100% identical version, that doesn't use the "m-word", is used?"First of all, that's a loaded question and a straw man fallacy.My argument regarding Disgust of gays is unrelated to my argument regarding the gay marriage issue.They are two completely different arguments.
Nathan
June 6, 2011 at 12:01 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"It just disgust me to think that some men play the role of women."Then stop thinking about gay sex all the time, seems simple enough. You don't have to participate in it, you don't have to watch gay porn, you don't even have to think about it.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 12:02 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
jt,"If he was right and you were not in favor of giving them the same rights"but he was not right as usual so that's another straw man fallacy..I'm in favor of gays having full rights without the word marriage.
JT
June 6, 2011 at 12:06 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
jt,"If he was right and you were not in favor of giving them the same rights"but he was not right as usual so that's another straw man fallacy..I'm in favor of gays having full rights without the word marriage.So do you concede that it wasn't a slippery slope then?Are you going to answer my question about the relevancy of the "harmful" effects of male homosexuality to whether the "m-word" is used or not?..or the relevancy of an irrational emotion like "respect" to guide us in making that decision?
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 12:07 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Then stop thinking about gay sex all the time"That's a straw man fallacyYou simply don't get it.Gendered views aren't wrong or right.My views are very gendered. So as soon as I know a man is gay, I automatically view him as playing the role of women. It's not thinking about "sex". It's just that he likes men in a sexual way and according to my gendered views, that's the role of women, not men.
JT
June 6, 2011 at 12:11 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Let's grant for a second that Charlie's assertions about the negativity of male homosexuality are true""Why does that matter if the "m-word" is used, but not if a 100% identical version, that doesn't use the "m-word", is used?"First of all, that's a loaded question and a straw man fallacy.What does my question assume that makes it loaded? I'm curious if you know what this fallacy is too.My argument regarding Disgust of gays is unrelated to my argument regarding the gay marriage issue.Ah, so that's why no one can understand your shitty communication skills, and thus, keep misunderstanding you. You have two separate arguments going on.Do you understand that if you can't explain yourself, and people misunderstand you, that it might not be because they're using fallacies?They are two completely different arguments.Then I guess the one I'm interested in is the "m-word" issue.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 12:11 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
jt,"Are you going to answer my question about the relevancy of the "harmful" effects of male homosexuality to whether the "m-word" is used or not?"It's disrespectful towards our valued identity of marriage. So disrespect is simply unethical. It's not about "harm" it's about respect and good ethics.Not only did he use a slippery slope fallacy, he used a straw man fallacy in which lead to the slippery slope fallacy
Rorschach
June 6, 2011 at 12:11 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Again that's YOUR problem. If you've come to find yourself deeply obsessed with your own idea of gender roles, it's not the homosexuals fault that YOU think that men should love women not men. I find it hard to believe that you don't have cognitive dissonance in how you'd support full rights of gays using a different definition but you still harbor hegemonic disgust for homosexuality.
JT
June 6, 2011 at 12:13 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Apparently I should have read that last post backwards. I see the "loaded" part now.As loosely as you use the term, all statements are loaded, because they're ALL assuming something. Go figure. There's a little more to it than that.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 12:16 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Jt,"Ah, so that's why no one can understand your shitty communication skills, and thus, keep misunderstanding you"Its not my fault that you FALSELY assume shit without even checking. The problem is, you pro gay atheists are used to debating with Christians so you assume that I used their same arguments…
JT
June 6, 2011 at 12:17 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
jt,"Are you going to answer my question about the relevancy of the "harmful" effects of male homosexuality to whether the "m-word" is used or not?"It's disrespectful towards our valued identity of marriage. So disrespect is simply unethical.Respect has nothing to do with ethics. Ethics is about how to handle morally ambiguous problems.I don't respect you. That's not unethical.Again, if it comes down to "respect", your argument has no basis in rationality.Not only did he use a slippery slope fallacy, he used a straw man fallacy in which lead to the slippery slope fallacyDo I have to explain it a third time? He did not use a slippery slope. The fact that not giving Bob a soda means he doesn't have a soda is not a slippery slope.It's either that, or you have constructed a strawman, thinking he said something he hasn't, and you are assuming technicalities in his point that don't exist.
Nathan
June 6, 2011 at 12:18 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@atheistdeceitbusterWell that is your view and that's fine. I find it strange that the only way you can view people is how you have determined what their role in bed is.But maybe I'm making another straw man fallacy, since you think everyone is doing that.Are you just talking about sex, you already said you weren't. So are you saying every gay man is cooking in the kitchen, what are you trying to imply? What is the proper role of men? Working on cars, being the top? We don't know you have never defined your position. You already want gay people to have the same rights but a different word, if gays accept a different word, why are you spending so much time trying to convince people that gays are diseased?What is your goal?
JT
June 6, 2011 at 12:20 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Jt,"Ah, so that's why no one can understand your shitty communication skills, and thus, keep misunderstanding you"Its not my fault that you FALSELY assume shit without even checking. The problem is, you pro gay atheists are used to debating with Christians.Yes, actually, it is your fault. If you weren't such a poor communicator, it wouldn't have been a question that talking about how "bad" male gays are, and how the very same group of people shouldn't be able to use the "m-word" has absolutely nothing to do with one another. so you assume that I used their same arguments..You are employing a strawman argument, assuming that we made such as assumption.I haven't assumed that you have used the same arguments. I have been dealing the the arguments you have presented, in one poorly constructed manner, or another.
John K.
June 6, 2011 at 12:21 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I was not able to find the complete study Charlie keeps touting online, but I was able to find a couple decent news stories about it:http://mentalhealth.about.com/library/sci/0602/blhomo602.htmhttp://tampabaycoalition.homestead.com/files/703NoFearFactorInHomophobiaStudyClaims.htmFirstly, I find it really ironic that Charlie dismissed other studies for having too small a sample size, while this one consists of 138 participants. Moreover, though, it is most interesting to me that one of the authors of this study specifically contradicts Charlie’s assertion that “homophobia” is an evolution based avoidance mechanism:*Article citation*Lohr suspects that the type of disgust associated with homophobia arises from social conditions rather than psychological ones — that it represents a prejudicial attitude more akin to racism than to phobia. If that's the case, any attempt to treat or reduce homophobia would have to be conducted through a process of attitude reformation, which could occur in a social context such as homes or schools rather than in a clinical setting. "If contempt and disgust drive homophobia, then it seems more of a moral or social problem than a psychopathological one," Lohr said. "If we start to consider negative attitudes pathological — implying that there's something medically wrong with prejudiced people, that they're somehow sick with their own attitudes — that seems to me misguided."*End citation*So even if the term is a misnomer, this study shows that “homophobia” is akin to racism. It in no way justifies what Charlie is arguing, even asserting what Charlie has denied many times.The entire idea that disgust is a legitimate motivation while fear is not is completely absurd.
ghostcat
June 6, 2011 at 12:21 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@atheistdeceitbuster So you would delay gays basic rights because of your pedantry on your perceived definition of the word "marriage"? Would you hold back the 14th amendment until blacks could come up with a word of their own that meant "black citizen"? You are on the wrong side of history on this one. People will look back on these conversations and cringe that anyone ever thought this way.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 12:23 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
RORSCHACH,"I find it hard to believe that you don't have cognitive dissonance in how you'd support full rights of gays using a different definition but you still harbor hegemonic disgust for homosexuality"1. Nature2. ethics3 values1. disgust of gay men is NATURAL2. Supporting gay rights is a part of my code of ethics3. Opposing gays using the word marriage is a part of my value systemGET A CLUE
JT
June 6, 2011 at 12:26 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Just FYI, charlie,Strawman arguments aren't when someone misunderstands you. It's when someone misrepresents you. Typically, misrepresentation doesn't occur back to the person who's being misrepresented.It's going to happen that people will misunderstand each other. We don't begrudge theists that, as long as they honestly concede they were wrong, and try not to repeat it.Unlike you wailing about strawman arguments every time they have a misconception, we just correct them and continue. It's when the misrepresentation is purposeful and deceitful that it's a problem… not every time someone misunderstands what you're trying to say.
Nathan
June 6, 2011 at 12:26 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@atheistdecitbusterWhy don't you have any disgust for gay women?
Rorschach
June 6, 2011 at 12:27 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
1.If it's natural to disgust then how come you come to cite gendered values for your disgust, not nature2. and 3. Conflict with eachother. Why make a special allowance for using the word marriage whereas you (allegedly) support them across the board?
JT
June 6, 2011 at 12:27 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@CharlieIs it rational to base a social policy based on a subjective opinion?
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 12:28 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
RORSCHACH and GHOSTCAT,"So you would delay gays basic rights because of your pedantry on your perceived definition of the word "marriage"it's easier for gays to obtain full, equal rights without the word marriage because most people would support equal rights without the word marriage for gays…The problem is, religous people are so used to using a religious argument, they're not exposing their identity/value argument because they think their religious argument is more important.
Nathan
June 6, 2011 at 12:31 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"it's easier for gays to obtain full, equal rights without the word marriage because most people would support equal rights"No it isn't, state senators have worked to even prevent gay couples from seeing each other in hospitals. Your argument is faulty.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 12:33 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
John K,"So even if the term is a misnomer, this study shows that “homophobia” is akin to racism. It in no way justifies what Charlie is arguing"Are you ready to feel stupid?ANY TYPE OF DISGUST is more akin to racism than a phobia.Digust of feces is more akin to racism than disgustDisgust of bestiality is more akin to racism than disgustDisgust of incest is more akin to racism than disgust.GET A CLUE. You pro gay atheists are NOT smart, just deceitful. I'm an evolved atheits.
CCH
June 6, 2011 at 12:33 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
So now the only reason you don't support homosexuals being able to use the term "marriage" is because other people wouldn't approve of it for religious and/or historical reasons?
JT
June 6, 2011 at 12:34 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I'm an evolved atheits.That's just beautiful. Thread. Complete.
Dances_with_the_beast
June 6, 2011 at 12:34 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Crew needs to clarify when they say "with a false premise you can prove anything". This is slightly wrong, with a false premise you can imply anything, not prove. To prove something you must use the formula A and (A implies B) therefore B. The computer nerds will know that if A is false the AND operator will never return true. But the implication operator (<=): 0 <= 0 and 0 <= 1 therefore implications are always true with a false premise.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 12:37 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
RORCHACH,"how come you come to cite gendered values for your disgust, not nature"That's a loaded question….Disgust is natural and disgust of gay men fuels my gendered views.
Rorschach
June 6, 2011 at 12:37 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I disagree that it'd be easier and you do too based on what you've said. And it's not just the religious who argue, it's YOU too! When you call gays a health risk you're offering a justification for your disgust….even though you claim to support them. These kinds of justifications are likewise used by Christians to invalidate gay marriage (or shmarriage) on the grounds it's a cultural poison and you know that too. Add to it that you have yet to address why you maintain it's nature to be disgusted by gays when you cite the matter of you being deeply gendered as the source for your disgust, and I think you have got to be one of the most confused/ignorant people I've ever wasted time on.
Nathan
June 6, 2011 at 12:39 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
atheistdeceitbuster what is your issue, just curious?
Rorschach
June 6, 2011 at 12:42 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
It's not a loaded question. I've pointed at an area of flaw where you use gender to justify your disgust. You've shown yourself that it isn't natural rather your embracement of hegemonics that is your rational for disgust. You call it a loaded question just to dress up your argumentative suit, which by the way looks horrible on you. You have no basis to show that your disgust is natural.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 12:42 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
RORSCHACH"These kinds of justifications are likewise used by Christians to invalidate gay marriage (or shmarriage) on the grounds it's a cultural poison and you know that too"That's a FAULTY ANALOGY FALLACYI oppose gay marriage because of the identity issue. Nothing more an nothing less. I simply value the identity of marriage as husband and wife…On the other hand, there are SCIENTIFIC STUDIES showing gay men are a health risk. the FDA won't even allow them to donate plasma. I would love to see the gay movement take on FDA.
John K.
June 6, 2011 at 12:44 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@atheistdeceitbusterIt was a quote from one of the authors on the implications of your precious study.I will agree at this point that what you are talking about is not based in fear, call it homophobia or whatever you like, but it is in no way vindicated because of that. You will notice I used scare quotes to imply a less common use of the term."Digust of feces is more akin to racism than disgust".You have degraded into near gibberish.
Tom Foss
June 6, 2011 at 12:47 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I've tracked down some information on the "studies" that Charlie keeps citing. The first, which Charlie described as "Homophobia rooted in disgust, not fear," is covered here and here. I wasn't able to track down an abstract of the actual article. Here are some key quotes, though:By using a research tool known as the Padua Inventory, which assesses contamination obsessions, the researchers found "a perception of contagion that feeds into homophobia."In other words, that the homophobes perceive a risk of contamination. More relevant:Lohr suspects that the type of disgust associated with homophobia arises from social conditions rather than psychological ones — that it represents a prejudicial attitude more akin to racism than to phobia.[...]"If contempt and disgust drive homophobia, then it seems more of a moral or social problem than a psychopathological one," Lohr said. "If we start to consider negative attitudes pathological — implying that there's something medically wrong with prejudiced people, that they're somehow sick with their own attitudes — that seems to me misguided."So even the authors of the study Charlie cites believe that anti-gay disgust or bigotry is not psychopathological, not medical, and is instead "a moral or social problem." Immediate and obvious problems with the study: it's a survey of graduate students, so it's a small non-representative sample size, and it appears that the metric they used is specifically designed to gauge contamination phobias, which may have biased the results in that direction. Notably, from one of the authors: Olatunji said the researchers did not yet know the extent to which the results could be replicated in a broader sample. "Obviously you don't want to make generalizations when you don't have a very inclusive population," Olatunji said. "That may be something we may be able to address in the future." Charlie is clearly jumping the gun, and it's hilarious that the authors admit that their study has the same kinds of problems that Charlie cited in other quoted studies in the thread. One more quote for irony:Olatunji said that anti-gay hostility is a prejudicial attitude more closely resembling racism than a phobia.
Tom Foss
June 6, 2011 at 12:49 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
As to the other study, it appears to be this one, which does indeed talk about the evolutionary origins of moral disgust. Specifically, how the evolutionary mechanism which causes us to react negatively to things like rotten food was hijacked by the moral part of our brain to elicit similar responses to moral offenses. More information's available here and here.So where did Charlie get this wrong? Aside from his basic misunderstanding that this means "moral disgust" has an evolutionary advantage, he apparently hasn't read past the first couple of sentences. While the disgust response to bitter foods probably did have an evolutionary advantage related to disease avoidance, the study showed that similar responses are elicited from situations where disease isn't even involved. Specifically the last test, where participants were cheated and experienced the same sense of moral disgust. What it does not state is that all disgust is necessarily out of disease avoidance (and in fact, that some disgust obviously is not), that the disgust mechanism is reliable for detecting disease (obviously the bitter and sour liquids these participants took were not disease-causing agents), or that disgust toward homosexuality is an evolved or adapted trait (homophobia was not tested in this study).So, Charlie, "study shows" nothing of the sort with regard to your claims. Next time, make sure you understand what the hell you're talking about.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 12:49 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
RORSCHACH"I've pointed at an area of flaw where you use gender to justify your disgust"I just told you…..Disgust fuels my gendered views. There's nothing wrong with that"You have no basis to show that your disgust is natural". Are you ready to feel stupid? Study shows homo "phobia" is rooted in disgust not fear. (Olatunji, doctoral student Suzanne ) 2. Gay men elicit disgust (knobe 2006) 4. Disgust is an evolutionary disease avoidance behavior (Hanah Chapman)
Rorschach
June 6, 2011 at 12:53 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Of all the things you choose to attack, you attack an alleged faulty analogy fallacy? I was saying that your justifications for disgust were likewise used by the very christians you try and distance yourself from and that it's counter intuitive to your position of "supporting gays" to label them as health risks. Scientific studies don't show that gays are health risks, it demonstrates the need for healthful measures of safe-sex practices for gays. Your connotation is in no way supportive and only shows what kind of traitor/hypocrite you are. And as I've pointed out before, the whole identity issue stands on weak grounds. Why do you discount it as an identity issue for gays as well?
John K.
June 6, 2011 at 12:56 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@atheistdeceitbusterContinuing to use studies in your argument that have been demonstrated not to imply what you say they imply?You are done.
Rorschach
June 6, 2011 at 12:57 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
You still haven't demonstrated it's a genetic/evolutionary issue. You've just shown it's disgust that brings about a phobia and this is more linked to sociology of gender/sexuality. Not so much genetics or evolutionary behavior.
JT
June 6, 2011 at 12:58 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
And I'm still not sure why it's rational to base social policy on subjective opinions!
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 1:01 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
So, Charlie, "study shows" nothing of the sort with regard to your claims. Next time, make sure you understand what the hell you're talking about. You're the one who didn't read the whole study or didn't understand it and that link doesn't have all the information. It's just a small part of it.Here's a quote"Disgust is an evolved psychological system for protecting organisms from infection through disease avoidant behaviour. This ‘behavioural immune system’, present in a diverse array of species, exhibits universal features that orchestrate hygienic behaviour in response to cues of risk of contact with pathogens. However, disgust is also a dynamic adaptive system. Individuals show variation in pathogen avoidance associated with psychological traits like having a neurotic personality, as well as a consequence of being in certain physiological states such as pregnancy or infancy. Three specialized learning mechanisms modify the disgust response: the Garcia effect, evaluative conditioning and the law of contagion. Hygiene behaviour is influenced at the group level through social learning heuristics such as ‘copy the frequent’. Finally, group hygiene is extended symbolically to cultural rules about purity and pollution, which create social separations and are enforced as manners. Cooperative hygiene endeavours such as sanitation also reduce pathogen prevalence. Our model allows us to integrate perspectives from psychology, ecology and cultural evolution with those of epidemiology and anthropology. Understanding the nature of disease avoidance psychology at all levels of human organization can inform the design of programmes to improve public health"
Tom Foss
June 6, 2011 at 1:02 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Hm, looks like one of my comments got eaten by the filter. I'm sure it'll show up eventually.
Kazim
June 6, 2011 at 1:03 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I freed six comments from the spam filter. It seems to get really overzealous on long comment threads. Bad spam filter! Bad!
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 1:05 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"I was saying that your justifications for disgust were likewise used by the very christians you try and distance yourself from" My justification of disgust is based on SCIENTITIFIC STUDIES…If christians agree with science, they're right.
Tom Foss
June 6, 2011 at 1:05 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Congrats, Charlie, you've shown you can copy-paste, but not that you actually understand what's being said. It'd be nice for you to provide a link to what you're copypasting from, but it's largely irrelevant. Nothing in that quote addresses any of the points I made with respect to your misinterpretation of the Chapman-Anderson study.
Rorschach
June 6, 2011 at 1:09 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
The thing is you're discounting how society has an influence on disgust. I'm saying that you're discounting the matter of society's influence on the "yuk factor." Here's a quote you might have missed from the study: "If contempt and disgust drive homophobia, then it seems more of a moral or social problem than a psychopathological one," Lohr said. "If we start to consider negative attitudes pathological — implying that there's something medically wrong with prejudiced people, that they're somehow sick with their own attitudes — that seems to me misguided."
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 1:11 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
John K.Considering the fact that FDA doesn't even allow gay men to donate blood, gay men must be a health risk…They wouldn't not allow them for nothing. So the disgust of gay men is NOT irrational. They are a TRUE health risk.Also, study shows disgust is NATURALhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070328101621.htmQUOTE"The reason we experience disgust today is that the response protected our ancestors," said Dan Fessler, associate professor of anthropology and director of UCLA's Center for Behavior, Evolution, and Culture. "The emotion allowed our ancestors to survive long enough to produce offspring, who in turn passed the same sensitivities on to us." Across a series of subtle and ingenious studies, Fessler has managed to illuminate the ways in which disgust may have served to protect our ancestors during such biologically precarious situations as pregnancy and to maximize the likelihood of our forbears' reproduction when they were at their most fertile"
Rorschach
June 6, 2011 at 1:11 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
No, you're justification is based off of a flawed interpretation of the studies.
Petr Kudláček
June 6, 2011 at 1:14 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I just don't understand what is Charlie trying to achieve. Regardless of all the argumentation here regarding history, semantics and studies the bottom line is there is no good reason not to allow gay people to marry and while homophobia might be a misnomer of sorts who really gives a shit if it serves its purpose?
barefoot hiker
June 6, 2011 at 1:14 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@CharlieYou know Christians use those a lot.You know, for a guy who dotes on accusing other people of using strawman arguments, you pull this one out waaaaaaay too often.
barefoot hiker
June 6, 2011 at 1:21 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@Charlie"Avoidance is driven by fear"This is VAGUE AND IRRELEVANT.It's neither. It's a direct, plain statement… five words: a subject, copula verb, and adjectival phrase. Nothing vague about it. It's also entirely germane to your central theme.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 1:21 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Here's a quote you might have missed from the study: "If contempt and disgust drive homophobia, then it seems more of a moral or social problem than a psychopathological one"But you're not considering other studies showing disgust is an EVOLUTIONARLY behavior immune system.
Tom Foss
June 6, 2011 at 1:22 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Charlie also doesn't seem to understand the naturalistic fallacy (even if something evolved naturally does not mean it's right/useful/reliable), circular logic ('gay men are a disease risk because the CDC won't let them donate blood, and the CDC wouldn't have that rule unless they were a disease risk'–which has nothing to do with marriage, morality, or lesbians), and evolution (which is not some wise guiding hand that produces perfectly-reliable instincts, nor is it something that is likely to cause major effects over the course of two to three generations, nor does it suggest that every emotion and notion is the direct result of an adaptive trait).Needless to say, these are the least of his misunderstandings, but they're significant nonetheless. He's a kook, and his ratio of abuse/coherence is rapidly approaching Mabusian proportions.
Rorschach
June 6, 2011 at 1:25 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I AM! But I'm saying that an evolutionary impulse isn't exclusively evolutionary influenced! The way your social schema is oriented heavily influences whether you feel disgust or not. It is not purely instinctual.
JT
June 6, 2011 at 1:25 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
He's trying to reach ascension into the Timecube dimension. It can take years of argument and mental focus to reach that stage of atheits evolution.
barefoot hiker
June 6, 2011 at 1:25 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@Charliethis is a SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY.No, it's not, actually. A slippery slope fallacy is one that presents an original case or fact and insists it extends to an outcome that does not necessarily follow. That's not what I was doing in observing that disadvantaged groups end up on the business end of "separate but equal" arrangements.
Tom Foss
June 6, 2011 at 1:30 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
But you're not considering other studies showing disgust is an EVOLUTIONARLY behavior immune system. No, you idiot, I'm recognizing what those studies actually say, which is that disgust began as a way to avoid disease (and not necessarily a reliable one, since it could be triggered by any bitter or sour taste or foul smell, not just those caused by rotting food or disease-spreading agents) but was hijacked by the moral part of the brain, so that situations and stimuli with absolutely no chance of causing infection would elicit a disgust response. Such situations included, as the study showed, being cheated in a transaction.
barefoot hiker
June 6, 2011 at 1:32 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@CharlieIt just disgust me to thinkYou're admitting, right here, that disgust is not necessarily tied to an avoidance of disease. There's no threat of a physical disease to be gained in avoiding an idea, which is what you're talking about when you use "disgust" here. You've just tacitly disavowed your own conviction by using the word this way.Perhaps you need to invent another word, because "studies show" you're not using it in the way it was originally intended (at least, as you purport).
barefoot hiker
June 6, 2011 at 1:36 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@CharlieMy justification of disgust is based on SCIENTITIFIC STUDIESI'd venture to say it's been long obvious to everyone here, Charlie, that in fact your disgust isn't based on "scientific studies"; rather, it's culturally based, rooted in latent Christian doctrine, and that you've gone out of your way to cherry pick these "scientific studies" both as a means of self-justification after the fact and as a paper-thin shield against the charge that simply parroting the Christian party line.
harise
June 6, 2011 at 1:52 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Can anybody please tell me what homosexuality has to do with atheism??Just because some theists justify their homophobia with their fairy-tale-book? Guess what, all others will find other made up reasons.
CCH
June 6, 2011 at 1:55 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@HariseIntrinsically nothing of course. However, you'll tend to find people debating all sorts of things on here, and as (from my experience) the majority of atheists tend to be on the liberal side of the fence, we'll jump to the defence of liberal values and will deride bigotry as and when we come across it. That, and we just enjoy a good argument sometimes, no matter what the subject!
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 2:10 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"I love women. It just disgust me to think that some men play the role of women. "If women are fine what's wrong with men acting like women.Back to basic logic A=A
gd44
June 6, 2011 at 2:11 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
All I can say is that I become immediately suspicious of the motives of anyone who is ferociously bigoted against another group. I don't spend this much time or energy thinking about or discussing my own sex life let alone that of others. And, as usual, the bigots cannot present a reasoned, rational argument to justify their opinions.
Eric Pommer
June 6, 2011 at 2:12 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Can't get enough of these "Are you ready for X?" responses. Please give us some more of those, Charlie.What I'd like to know is, even if "homophobia is a disease avoidance behavior" as you claim, what the fuck does that have to do with whether gays should be allowed to get married or not?
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 2:14 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
You know even if Homophobia is disease avoidence behavoir there's the problem that humans are not purely instinct driven. As I stated there are theories that xenophobia is danger avoidance behavior…the fact that it has a natural origin means squat because we should be able to recognize that evolution has not fitted us perfectly into being 'nice' and 'just'. It's up to us to swallow our pride and choke down our disgust at times when the needs of our higher brain function override that of reflex. Charlie is basically arguing that he's a dumb animal who can't move beyond instinct.
Rorschach
June 6, 2011 at 2:15 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I'm wondering if Charlie's done or if he's just eating lunch.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 2:16 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Oh and I doubt that Charlie 'loves women'.In all meanings of the phrase.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 2:16 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@RorschachHe'll be back soon. This is more or less his religion.
JT
June 6, 2011 at 2:17 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
What I'd like to know is, even if "homophobia is a disease avoidance behavior" as you claim, what the fuck does that have to do with whether gays should be allowed to get married or not?He says it doesn't. He just happens to be having two debates at the same time.1) Whether homosexual males are "bad" or not2) Whether they should be allowed to use the "m-word" or not, even though he is happy to say that it would be functionally identical to the "not-m-word".These two arguments just happen to be occurring at the same time, and it's just coincidence they're both about a negative attitude towards one select group of people.
JT
June 6, 2011 at 2:18 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
And he wonders why everyone is "misrepresenting" him.
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 2:20 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@JtPure deceit and trickery on our part repeating and responding to exactly what he said.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 2:32 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Tom Foss,You're about to feel like the complete fool you are."No, you idiot, I'm recognizing what those studies actually say, which is that disgust began as a way to avoid disease"You just proved my point dumb ass and the disease avoidance behavior has proven to be useful today.That makes perfect sense because gay men are in fact the undisputed champs of std's. FDA won't even allow them to donate blood so the disease avoidance behavior even in the present correlates with scientific studies to this day. "(and not necessarily a reliable one, since it could be triggered by any bitter or sour taste or foul smell, not just those caused by rotting food or disease-spreading agents)"Don't forget about visual disgust. "but was hijacked by the moral part of the brain"You're WRONG…The moral part of our brains evolved and guided us on our do's and dont's to avoid toxics and diseases. So we will naturally be against things that our disgust evolved us not to do. We will naturally see it as a threat. GET A CLUE so that situations and stimuli with absolutely no chance of causing infection would elicit a disgust response. Such situations included, as the study showed, being cheated in a transaction.
Rorschach
June 6, 2011 at 2:36 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
And…..he's back.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 2:39 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
ing,"Charlie is basically arguing that he's a dumb animal who can't move beyond instinct"Avoiding eating your own feces is instictive because of the bad smell. So are you willing to move beyond that and eat your own shit??So are you a shit eater????Our disease avoidance behavior towards gay men is obviously useful today because it actually correlates with FDA. FDA doesn't allow gay men to donate blood so gay men are obviously a health risk to society.Disguts of gay men – health risk to society So we're disgusted by the RIGHT people, that's for sure. Out of all the people in the world, the disease avoidance behavior should be used on gay men and it is because studies shows it..It all makes perfect senseBy the way, this argument is unrelated to the gay marriage argument.
gd44
June 6, 2011 at 2:43 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"So we will naturally be against things that our disgust evolved us not to do"What should I do about the evolving disgust I feel at bigots? Being anti-gay is equally as disgusting as being anti-black. Subjugation of anybody for things they cannot control is immoral in the highest order. So you are disgusted by homosexuals. Good for you. Keep it to yourself. The rest of the world should not have to adjust their behavior to make sure that you never feel uncomfortable. Such intolerance is simiular to so many imams and pastors who are eager to draw offense at inconsequential things.
Chris Morse
June 6, 2011 at 2:44 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Methinks the lady (Charlie) doth protest too much.
Rorschach
June 6, 2011 at 2:44 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I'm disgusted by two-faced hypocrites like yourself who has still managed to miss the point after 340 comments.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 2:44 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Tom Foss,"Charlie also doesn't seem to understand the naturalistic fallacy (even if something evolved naturally does not mean it's right/useful/reliable)" Are you ready to feel like the IDIOT you are???but that also doesn't mean it can't be right or useful.In the case of gay men, our disease avoidance behavior (disgust of gay men or homophobia)correlates with the findings of FDA and CDCCDC – 1 in 5 gay men are infected with hivFDA – gay men can't donate plasma or blood because they have been deemed as a public health risk to public safety t
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 2:52 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"What should I do about the evolving disgust I feel at bigots?" First of all, expression of disgust is not "bigotry"Bigot – a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members You're bigoted towards anyone who acknowledges FACTS about the disgust of gay men AND your'e bigoted towards anyone who opposes gay marriage."Being anti-gay is equally as disgusting as being anti-black"Are you ready to feel like an idiot???Study shows homophobia is rooted in disgust but not one study shows racism is rooted disgust. Disgust is natural. I can't help it, sorry. "Subjugation of anybody for things they cannot control is immoral in the highest order"Disgust is good for us. We should listen to it. That's why FDA won't allow gay men to donate blood. Disgust of gay men( homophobia)is good for us. So you are disgusted by homosexuals. Good for you. Keep it to yourself. The rest of the world should not have to adjust their behavior to make sure that you never feel uncomfortable. Such intolerance is simiular to so many imams and pastors who are eager to draw offense at inconsequential
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 2:53 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Look, I have to go now… I'm tired of debating against 10 pro gay "atheist" at one time.
Ibis
June 6, 2011 at 2:53 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Oh, and by the way, Charlie, your understanding of anthropology is crude and amateurish. Consider the following:…as humans became more reliant on social groups and the cultural information they provided, basic disgust was co-opted by the emerging tribal instincts to help perform a variety of novel functions that arose in conjunction with this increased sociality. In doing so, disgust’s most characteristic features, features that initially evolved to solve adaptive problems linked to poisons and parasites, were brought to bear on those new functions in the social domain. Moreover, it is exactly this *imperfect fit* between the basic disgust response and many of those social functions it was later coopted to perform that gives rise to the sorts of puzzling results turning up in the recent research on moral cognition. In short, some of the more troubling features of moral judgments discussed in the first section can be understood as cognitive byproducts, generated by the mismatch between “unanticipated” problems and the kludgy solutiondisgust helps provide.(continued because blogger hates long posts)
JT
June 6, 2011 at 2:56 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
pro gay "atheist"There is a difference between pro-rights and pro-gay, you know.But in either case – Unapologetically.
gd44
June 6, 2011 at 2:56 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"In the case of gay men, our disease avoidance behavior (disgust of gay men or homophobia)correlates with the findings of FDA and CDC"Yet homosexuals do not have this alleged evolved disgust. Therefore your argument fails. If you're going to divide people up and tell us who to hate and why, make sure you have a damned good argument. So far you don't have a single one.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 2:59 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Ibis,"Oh, and by the way, Charlie, your understanding of anthropology is crude and amateurish" BULLSHIT,Until you can't refute this, you have nothingIn the case of gay men, our disease avoidance behavior (disgust of gay men or homophobia)correlates with the findings of FDA and CDCCDC – 1 in 5 gay men are infected with hivFDA – gay men can't donate plasma or blood because they have been deemed as a public health risk to public safety So the disgust we evolved is obviously useful today.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 3:04 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
gD44,"Yet homosexuals do not have this alleged evolved disgust. Therefore your argument fails"Do you realize how irrational your claim is??That's like saying muddy pigs aren't disgusted by muddy pigs so therefore humans can't be disgusted by muddy pics.Gay people have gay brains. We are disgusted by what they find sexually appealing(referring to the gay people of the same sex of our own)
John K.
June 6, 2011 at 3:06 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
If I had presented arguments based on misused studies, and then had the actual studies presented and had it pointed out where I misused them, I would be "tired of arguing" as well.If there is any instance where a disgust instinct can be shown to prompt the wrong behavior, it cannot be used as a justification for any behavior. This is basic logic.The very authors of the study he touts state that "homophobia" is disgust based and similar to racism.This guy was out of ammo 100 posts ago.
gd44
June 6, 2011 at 3:09 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"You're bigoted towards anyone who acknowledges FACTS about the disgust of gay men AND your'e bigoted towards anyone who opposes gay marriage."I haven't heard you present anything more than a collection of disparate facts (many of which appear to be things you're making up) and I have no strong opinions on marriage, gay or straight. All I see is you attempting to justify your disgust of homosexuals and doing a remarkably poor job of it. "Disgust of gay men is good for us"No, actually it's not… because you're nurturing your misanthropy, which is inherently anti-human. This kind of divisive tribalism is the cause of too many problems already and is a signature feature of many religions. It's a shame you fail to recognize the analogies. I don't care if you dislike homosexuals. But stomping your feet over it to the extent that you have has damaged whatever credibility your position may have had. Now, there is no mystery that it had none to begin with.
gd44
June 6, 2011 at 3:15 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Gay people have gay brains. We are disgusted by what they find sexually appealing(referring to the gay people of the same sex of our own)"You said humans evolved a disgust of homosexuals. I pointed out that homosexuals do not have this alleged "evolved disgust". Then you call me irrational and present an apples-to-oranges analogy in order to distract from the point that your argument failed. I don't expect intelligent arguments from someone who has yet to provide one. All I can say is that I hope you find a bit of peace with yourself and overcome your masturbatory justifications for your disgust. It's kind of an undesirable quality.
Lukas
June 6, 2011 at 3:16 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some…Well, at least he knows about wikipedia.So as soon as I know a man is gay, I automatically view him as playing the role of womeI suspect it's more that you worry that he views you like a woman.I simply value the identity of marriage as husband and wife…Why? What's so important about it?Considering the fact that FDA doesn't even allow gay men to donate blood, gay men must be a health risk…They wouldn't not allow them for nothing.Because the FDA is always right and never bows to any kind of political pressure.
barefoot hiker
June 6, 2011 at 3:16 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@CharlieThat's like saying muddy pigs aren't disgusted by muddy pigs so therefore humans can't be disgusted by muddy picsNo, Charlie, it's not like saying that because humans and pigs have separate evolutionary histories that would account for that difference, and humans and other humans do not.
barefoot hiker
June 6, 2011 at 3:20 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@CharlieAvoiding eating your own feces is instictive because of the bad smell.You'll say anything, won't you? Just pull it right out of thin air… Christians do that, Charlie. Okay, so how do you account for the fact that dogs do just exactly what you're saying there's no way they possible could, given that they have a sense of smell thousands, and for some chemicals, millions of times more sensitive than our own? Please feel free to pull another "fact" out of thin air to explain the previous one.
barefoot hiker
June 6, 2011 at 3:24 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@CharlieGET A CLUE. You pro gay atheists are NOT smart, just deceitful. I'm an evolved atheits.Charlie, you're a bigoted BS artist who nobody here agrees with… so get your OWN clue, and leave ours alone.
Petr Kudláček
June 6, 2011 at 3:28 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I am still waiting to hear Charlie state his case against homosexuals/same-sex marrige. I will willfuly concede your silly word game with homophobia – how does that justify you in your bigoted views against gay rights?And by rights I mean they are to be treated the same as heterosexuals. Not like the *rights* of blacks to have their own water fountain for *people of colour* or *schools for people of colour*.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 3:43 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
bare foot hiker,"No, Charlie, it's not like saying that because "humans and pigs have separate evolutionary histories that would account for that difference, and humans and other humans do not" Are you forgetting that homosexuals are homosexuals so therefore, what heterosexuals find disgusting, homosexuals find sexually appealing???Also gay people's brains are wired and structured differently and it obviously ruined their natural disgust of same sex attractionDisgust of homosexuality is a part of being heterosexuals. STraight men are disgusted by same sex sexual attraction and same for straight women.If that's not obvious to you, you have to be delusional
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 3:46 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"The very authors of the study he touts state that "homophobia" is disgust based and similar to racism"You failed to understand that disgust of anything is more like racism than a phobiaAlso, not one study shows racism is rooted in disgust.
Tom Foss
June 6, 2011 at 3:47 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
You're about to feel like the complete fool you areYou'd be the undisputed expert..You just proved my point dumb ass and the disease avoidance behavior has proven to be useful today.That makes perfect sense because gay men are in fact the undisputed champs of std's.Citation please. Gay men top the list for HIV, followed by blacks, bur there are lots of other STIs. Please show that gay men both lead the pack in all STIs and have done so for the entire history of anti-gay bigotry.Not that it matters. The study you cited showed that not all disgust comes from disease-avoidance, merely that both moral and physical disgust provoke the same response. The wild conclusions you are drawing from this study are wholly unsupported.FDA won't even allow them to donate blood so the disease avoidance behavior even in the present correlates with scientific studies to this day. A regulation is not a study, Charlie. Please stop citing it as if it were.Also, the FDA forbids blood donations from people who have traveled overseas or done IV drugs. By your logic, world-travelers should elicit the exact same response as gay men.More than that, gay men who haven't had sex since 1977 should provoke no disgust, since they're free to give blood. And straight-identified guys who just give head now and then are probably safe too, since oral is a low risk for transmitting HIV.Interestingly, the "disgust" seems to correlate well with social norms and taboos, far more than with any scientific finding. Odd, that.Don't forget about visual disgust. Irrelevant. What's relevant is the moral disgust, which clearly had no disease-causing component.You're WRONG…The moral part of our brains evolved and guided us on our do's and dont's to avoid toxics and diseases.If I'm wrong, then the authors of the study are wrong, because I'm repeating what they sain, you numbskull. Being treated fairly (the subject of the last test) has nothing to do with avoiding toxins or diseases. In fact, the test showed that people experience disgust reactions to things that cannot cause disease (flavors and smells of harmless products, photographs) and to things that have no disease-avoidance component (unfair treatment), showing that even if the disgust reaction were always in response to disease agents, it can have false positives. GET A CLUELEARN TO READ.One more thing: your 1 in 5 statistic is a lie, omitting the key qualifier: in certain major cities. And while you're very quick to dismiss and deny the equally-well-supported link between blacks and HIV, you ignore the confounding factors that inflate this statistic. To sum up: you have made unsupported claims, you have misinterpreted the research, you have made generalizations and drawn overly broad conclusions that even the researchers say are unsupported, you have criticized other research for the same flaws that your studies show, and you have commuted a smorgasbord of fallacies. Please feel free to come back when you are mature and literate.
gd44
June 6, 2011 at 3:49 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Also gay people's brains are wired and structured differently and it obviously ruined their natural disgust of same sex attraction"Now you've made a claim which requires justification. Don't just make stuff up. Show us the science that supports the point I listed above
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 3:51 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
bare foot hiker,Until you can't refute this, you have nothingIn the case of gay men, our disease avoidance behavior (disgust of gay men or homophobia)correlates with the findings of FDA and CDCCDC – 1 in 5 gay men are infected with hivFDA – gay men can't donate plasma or blood because they have been deemed as a public health risk to public safety So the disgust we evolved is obviously useful today
Ibis
June 6, 2011 at 3:53 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
(continued)Common sense and anecdotal evidence is supported by recent research showing that disgust is indeed operative in a number of different types of these social norms. In these cases, the emotion provides the types of intrinsic motivation mentioned above, including motivation to comply with the norm in question, to avoid the actions they prohibit, and to punish or direct punitive attitudes at transgressors of the norm. Indeed, disgust has been shown to play such roles in a number of different types of norms, including the rules of table etiquette (Nichols 2002a, 2002b, 2004), taboos restricting the consumption of meat (Fessler & Navarrete 2003), and taboos against incest (Lieberman et al. 2003, Fessler & Navarette 2004). [...]More generally, the anthropologist Richard Shweder and his colleagues have called attention to an entire class of norms that follow the logic of disgust, which they call purity norms (Shweder et al. 1997, Haidt et al. 1997, Rozin et al. 1999). As their name suggests, purity norms are often understood as regulating issues of purity, not only guarding the sanctity of the physical body, but also protecting the soul from contamination and spiritual defilement. Indeed, purity norms are often distinguished from other classes of norms, such as harm norms or fairness norms, in that transgressions of purity norms usually do not result in direct physical harm or the inequitable treatment of any person. More traditional or religious cultures often see transgressors of a purity norm as defiling themselves by disrespecting the sacredness of God (or the gods), or by violating the divine order. Purity norms are not completely absent from largely secular cultures, however; their presence is just not as central to the social structure or prevailing moral code. They are often given a different justification in secular cultures, as well: transgressions of purity norms are usually conceived of as “crimes against nature” or violations of the natural order.Also confirming commonsense suspicions are recent neuroimaging experimentsthat link the disgust response to prejudices and ethnic membership. This research showsdisgust to be operative in sustaining a class of biases and prejudicial attitudes towardsthose in particular outgroups or tribes. As was mentioned above, distinct emotions are often associated with the different types of attitudes directed at different outgroups andtheir members (Cottrell & Neuberg 2005). Particularly interesting (if not completelysurprising) is the demonstration that disgust is often the emotion linked to the mostextreme prejudices, directed at members of the lowliest, most vilified and dehumanizedethnicities (Harris & Fiske 2006).All quotations from Moral Disgust and The Tribal Instincts Hypothesis by Daniel R. Kelly, a paper to appear in Signaling, Commitment and Emotion, Eds. R. Joyce, K. Sterelny and B. Calcott. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 3:57 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Petr, w"ill willfuly concede your silly word game with homophobia – how does that justify you in your bigoted views against gay rights?"Hey dumb ass,The two arguments are unrelated. homophobia (disease avoidance behavior)is unrelated to why I oppose gay marriage
Ibis
June 6, 2011 at 3:59 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Oh, and for good measure, for Martin from the same paper: "Certain types of perfectly edible (i.e. non-poisonous) food disgust some people as well. Common offenders in this category include cuisine like Brussels sprouts, escargot, caviar, pork rinds, Whoppers and deep-fried Twinkies."QED
gd44
June 6, 2011 at 4:01 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Let's use some Charlie LogicAccording to this site (http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm), 42.6% of people with AIDS are black. Therefore, our "evolved disgust" of blacks is justified. It's good for us and protects our health. Good luck going through life with this kind of thinking, sir.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 4:05 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
gd44,"Now you've made a claim which requires justification. Don't just make stuff up. Show us the science that supports the point I listed above" BULLSHIT,SOURCESGay Brains Are Wired Differently Say Scientistshttp://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/111663.phpLESBIAN'S BRAINS NOT THE SAMEhttp://www.outsidethebeltway.com/lesbians_brains_not_same/Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex.http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 4:07 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
ibis,"Certain types of perfectly edible" "certain" doesn't mean ALL.Until you can't refute this, you have nothingIn the case of gay men, our disease avoidance behavior (disgust of gay men or homophobia) correlates with the findings of FDA and CDCCDC – 1 in 5 gay men are infected with hivFDA – gay men can't donate plasma or blood because they have been deemed as a public health risk to public safety
gd44
June 6, 2011 at 4:08 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"BULLSHIT,SOURCES"Great! Now all you have to do is show how this "different wiring" has "obviously ruined their natural disgust of same sex attraction"Also, brains don't have wires.
Tom Foss
June 6, 2011 at 4:10 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
You're about to feel like the complete fool you areYou'd be the undisputed expert..You just proved my point dumb ass and the disease avoidance behavior has proven to be useful today.That makes perfect sense because gay men are in fact the undisputed champs of std's.Citation please. Gay men top the list for HIV, followed by blacks, bur there are lots of other STIs. Please show that gay men both lead the pack in all STIs and have done so for the entire history of anti-gay bigotry.Not that it matters. The study you cited showed that not all disgust comes from disease-avoidance, merely that both moral and physical disgust provoke the same response. The wild conclusions you are drawing from this study are wholly unsupported.FDA won't even allow them to donate blood so the disease avoidance behavior even in the present correlates with scientific studies to this day. A regulation is not a study, Charlie. Please stop citing it as if it were.Also, the FDA forbids blood donations from people who have traveled overseas or done IV drugs. By your logic, world-travelers should elicit the exact same response as gay men.More than that, gay men who haven't had sex since 1977 should provoke no disgust, since they're free to give blood. And straight-identified guys who just give head now and then are probably safe too, since oral is a low risk for transmitting HIV.Interestingly, the "disgust" seems to correlate well with social norms and taboos, far more than with any scientific finding. Odd, that.Don't forget about visual disgust. Irrelevant. What's relevant is the moral disgust, which clearly had no disease-causing component.You're WRONG…The moral part of our brains evolved and guided us on our do's and dont's to avoid toxics and diseases.If I'm wrong, then the authors of the study are wrong, because I'm repeating what they sain, you numbskull. Being treated fairly (the subject of the last test) has nothing to do with avoiding toxins or diseases. In fact, the test showed that people experience disgust reactions to things that cannot cause disease (flavors and smells of harmless products, photographs) and to things that have no disease-avoidance component (unfair treatment), showing that even if the disgust reaction were always in response to disease agents, it can have false positives. GET A CLUELEARN TO READ.One more thing: your 1 in 5 statistic is a lie, omitting the key qualifier: in certain major cities. And while you're very quick to dismiss and deny the equally-well-supported link between blacks and HIV, you ignore the confounding factors that inflate this statistic. To sum up: you have made unsupported claims, you have misinterpreted the research, you have made generalizations and drawn overly broad conclusions that even the researchers say are unsupported, you have criticized other research for the same flaws that your studies show, and you have commuted a smorgasbord of fallacies. Please feel free to come back when you are mature and literate.
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 4:13 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"According to this site (http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm), 42.6% of people with AIDS are black. Therefore, our "evolved disgust" of blacks is justified. It's good for us and protects our health"Are you ready to feel stupid again???First of all,STudy shows proverty is linked to hiv, not race. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/19/health/main6691867.shtmlSTudy shows black GAY men are fueling the hiv rates among blacks..So it's still a gay problemhttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aEoOje23AiHc&refer=home DEBUNKEDNOT ONE study shows racism is rooted in disgust. NOT ONE study shows blacks elicit digust
John K.
June 6, 2011 at 4:15 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
So, you want to take the part of the study that relates to your disgust of homosexuals as justification, but ignore the parallels it draws with racism?This is called cherry picking.According to the CDC, HIV infections are highest in black/African Americans in the United States. Would disgust based discrimination against this group be justified? If not, you are engaging in special pleading.http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/slides/race-ethnicity/slides/race-ethnicity_2.pdf“Also gay people's brains are wired and structured differently and it obviously ruined their natural disgust of same sex attraction”So your disgust is justified but theirs is due to a ruined brain, special pleading again.
gd44
June 6, 2011 at 4:24 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Should we find it interesting that a whopping majority of HIV/AIDS infected people are black? If your anti-homosexual stance is justifiable, then anyone can justify, say… policies of segregation or apartheid, or just good old-fashioned, Southern American black hatred – because the AIDS/HIV statistics could justify it. Enough of that sarcasm because you probably won't recognize it. Sir, it seems you're just a typical hater, with no good reason to hate.
Kazim
June 6, 2011 at 4:24 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Charlie: I'm wondering what your purpose is in continuing to argue this point. If you're hoping to convince people, I think it's clear from this thread alone that the more you discuss the subject, the more people are turning against you.I googled you, you know, to find out more about who we're talking to. Now that I know, when I Google "Charlie Check'm" I get the following results: 1. Your Myspace page.2. "Why Wanna-Be Rapper Charlie Check’m Will Never Represent the Atheist Community"3. An article discussing your getting kicked off of Atheist Nexus. Approvingly.4. A post by Friendly Atheist promoting your video. In the middle of the comments, he finds out that you're a homophobe and is embarrassed. He decides against deleting the post, but it's a struggle.5. A page calling you "retarded."6. A page at the Atheist Nexus noting that you were banned.7. The Rational Response Squad calling you out for your homophobia.8. A post on Yahoo Answers calling you a troll.9. ANOTHER post calling attention to your Atheist Nexus ban.10. A music web page.If I were just speaking as your PR agent, I would call this an epic fail. Among the top ten search results, eight are from sources other than you, and they are universally negative.You seem to be aggressively committed to alienating the very people who ought to be your core musical audience (assuming you have one). I don't entirely understand why. I suppose you could say you are defending your principles, but you have done it remarkably badly. I can't find a trace of any person, either on this thread or on any site I located through Google, who appears to have been persuaded towards your side. And meanwhile, you seem to be killing what appeared to be a promising niche music career a couple of years ago.I'm just wondering what you think you're getting out of it?
Thomas F. Bourque
June 6, 2011 at 4:27 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
May I ask any and all of the people here to please tell me what on earth we are doing and/or accomplishing here?
gd44
June 6, 2011 at 4:27 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
It's no secret that a lot of men who employ anti-gay tactics and behaviors are actually gay themselves. Charlie: it's better to come out of the closet. You are gay. Just go with it, finally. You are gay! You are gayer than 8 guys screwing 9 guys. You are gayer than pink balloons shooting out of a unicorn's ass. Come to terms with it and begin enjoying life for a change.
k7leetha
June 6, 2011 at 4:28 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@atheistdeceitbusterYou said, "REAL MEN WITH whole male brains don't do shit like that," referring to anal sex.1) What's the difference between male #1 who likes anal-play and male #2 who likes anal-play?Notice: One of those males is heterosexual, one is homosexual. I haven't said which one is which, so you won't be able to tell either. See if you can answer correctly.2) What's the difference between a male who likes anal-play and a female who likes anal-play?Point being, many straight people, male and female, enjoy anal sex.
Jeremiah
June 6, 2011 at 4:29 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I apologize if some of this was covered in the previous 360+ message, I couldn't slog thru them all. For one, it is important to differentiate the disgust felt toward a homosexual act and disgust at the person themselves. I might find eating dead animals disgusting but that doesn't mean I support stripping away the rights of carnivores or treating people that eat meat as sub-human. Whether or not you personally don't find homosexuality appealing is rather besides the point.Secondly it is highly doubtful that your disgust is evolved. For one STDS can be received thru heterosexual sex just as easily so obviously it is not a strong selection pressure or we would find that disgusting as well. It appears you are trying to take a small evolutionary principle and extrapolate it out in order to justify your own feelings toward gays.Yes, blood donors are screened for sexuality. As a regular donor I can attest to that but so are people that visited certain nations at certain times. It is an attempt to screen out people that have been subject to disease outbreaks. That fact that homosexual men have suffered from an outbreak of disease does not mean that it is inherent in the act. We don't have an evolved 'disgust' of people that ate meat (mad cow disease) in Europe in 1985 just because it shows up on donor screening questionnaires so it is rather pointless to keep bringing that up.
Tom Foss
June 6, 2011 at 4:31 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
STudy shows proverty is linked to hiv, not race.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/19/health/main6691867.shtmlPoverty is also linked to race, genius. Black people are more likely to be in poverty. So are gays, in many places. But somehow I doubt you'll dismiss the confounding factors that complicate the connection between gays and HIV. STudy shows black GAY men are fueling the hiv rates among blacks..So it's still a gay problemhttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aEoOje23AiHc&refer=homeThat's for the U.S. Please cite studies to demonstrate that this is true in Africa, where 68% of HIV-infected individuals are.
Mike Haynes.
June 6, 2011 at 4:36 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Please don't let this "Charlie" past the call screeners anymore. He's been booted off Atheist Nexus at least twice that I know of and he never lets up on this nonsense. He's really not worth the waste of time.
Madge
June 6, 2011 at 4:37 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
You're such a hypocrite, Charlie. You pretend you simply care about the "identity" of words. The original meaning of the word "gay" had absolutely nothing to do with homosexuals, but you don't seem to have any problem using the word to refer to them. I don't see you insisting that "gay" is a misnomer and that we have to stop using "gay" to refer to homosexuals in order to preserve the identity of the word. Why is it only with gay marriage and when people label you a homophobe that suddenly you give a shit about what words are "supposed" to mean.
Ibis
June 6, 2011 at 4:42 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Martin: Anyway, I'm disgusted by brussels sprouts. But I'm pretty sure they won't give me a disease.Charlie: Not one study shows any type of vegetables elicit disgust. You FAILED AGAIN.Dr. Kelly: Certain types of perfectly edible (i.e. non-poisonous) food disgust some people as well. Common offenders in this category include cuisine like Brussels sprouts…Charlie: "certain" doesn't mean ALL.Dumbass.Charlie: Study shows homophobia is rooted in disgust but not one study shows racism is rooted disgust.Drs. Harris & Fiske: Analyses revealed medial prefrontal cortex activation to all social groups except extreme (low-low) out-groups, who especially activated insula and amygdala, a pattern consistent with disgust.Charlie: [crickets]Double dumbass.Charlie: Disgust is good for us. We should listen to it.Dr. Kelly: The social norms that recruit disgust appear to require, most basically, some kind of avoidance and aversion motivation. In co-opting disgust in particular, the activities proscribed by those norms, as well as those actors who transgress them, are not simply avoided and found aversive. Rather, they are also subliminally infused with a very specific kind of offensiveness, are often considered tainted and contaminating, so much so that they can induce a desire to cleanse or purify oneself. […]The vividness and visceral power of the emotion could lead people to remain doggedly committed to other attitudes and norms that involve disgust, even if those attitudes and norms can be shown to be unjustified or rationally unfounded.Charlie: Wahh. What about the FDA?Unjustified and rationally unfounded.
John K.
June 6, 2011 at 4:46 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
And while I am at it, in the U.S. of all the HIV cases due to Male to male sexual contact, blacks/African Americans rate highest at 42% with white second highest at 35.7%.http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/slides/msm/images/slide5.gifSo, is disgust for say, Asian gay men at 1.2% no longer justified? Why only generalize about the sexual practices of gay people and not by race as well? There was certainly a time when there was revulsion at idea of drinking from the same water fountain or swimming in the same pool as black people, is this attitude now acceptable in light of disease statistics?Why stop there, why not use statistics by state or country to justify disgust?The real factors are promiscuity, anal intercourse, and lack of protected sex, not things you can tell about a person based upon a level of disgust you have for them, or even their gender preference.
Petr Kudláček
June 6, 2011 at 5:10 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I am still waiting for this idiot to answer my many times repeated question why shouldn't gays have the same rights as straights. Tick tock.
Muz
June 6, 2011 at 5:17 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Wow, nice party gang. Like it.After all this the purpose of Charlie's disgust argument is starting to elude me. I haven't watched the show yet, but he's vaguely setting up some weak saw that the gay rights movement invented or at least championed the term homophobia to misdirect the public from the NATURAL origin of dislike of gays and turn it into an "irrational fear" isn't he? Thus undermining it with all that postmodernism stuff they use that can do anything! Even turn Man against his very Nature!Interestingly, if he is saying that, he's admitting that ideas have rather a lot of currency in how peoples feel about certain things isn't he. Hmmm.Anyway, the disgust syllogism is obviously absurd, as many have pointed out. No Psych worth their diploma is going to say that there is anything absolute about disgust except disgust itself. What actually disgusts us varies wildly. Take your average westerner to a Cambodian market with all its deep fried spiders and cockroaches for sale as snacks and see what face they make. Hell watch some video of the old ladies in South American countries making that drink that's fermented by spitting in it. Put some cooked pork in front of an orthodox Jew. Let a dog into your house when you have fairly strict Muslims from some places as guests. Show the soles of your feet to some people, go back in time the medieval Rennaisance England and throw your shit out in the street like everyone else (or parts of Calcutta today). Then maybe collect it and sell it to a tannery for a living. etc etc.A quick glance at the world pretty thoroughly ruins any usefulness for that explanation (not that any has been really suggested except "it matches other disease identifying methods in nonspecific ways" Yeah great).So when it comes to 'homophobia is disgust->disgust is a disease avoidance behaviour' let's not pretend there's anything but a vast chasm between those two things, bridged only by addressing a whole lot of human variability (and no widespread cultural homophobia doesn't cut it. It's disgust itself as any truly specific metric of human nature that is failing here).
Mak
June 6, 2011 at 5:32 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"There's a difference between social bonding and a male bending over like a bitch to get fucked like a bitch. REAL MEN WITH whole male brains don't do shit like that."Proof that Charlie's problem with gay people is not out of disease avoidance, but out of his idea that gay men act like women.In other words, he's a raging homophobe because he's a raging misogynist.This also explains why his "disease avoidance" excuse falls flat when it comes to lesbians and heterosexual women, but he still chooses to mock gay women by saying that they "play the man".
atheistdeceitbuster
June 6, 2011 at 5:40 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
John K,gay men 44 times more likely to contract hiv than heterosexual men (including black heterosexual men)Source CDCSo are you saying CDC is LYING???Why has FDA deemed gay men a health risk to society???? Why can't gay men donate blood? So they're just fucking with gay men for nothing or is it something to this???Why weren't blacks or any other group deemed as a health risk by FDA???Gay men are CLEARLY a disease threat model because unlike vegetables, gay men elicit UNIVERSAL DISGUST in every culture and society. That's how we know the disgust is not socially driven.
Thomas F. Bourque
June 6, 2011 at 5:43 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Charlie,Why are you still here?
Ing
June 6, 2011 at 5:46 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"May I ask any and all of the people here to please tell me what on earth we are doing and/or accomplishing here? "Because its worth letting people like Charlie talk because their facade breaks down and they expose themselves as idiotic bile spewing bigots like he did before with his cute little bout of slur slinging. The point is to get Charlie to make a fool of himself"Gay men are CLEARLY a disease threat model because unlike vegetables, gay men elicit UNIVERSAL DISGUST in every culture and society. That's how we know the disgust is not socially driven. "Repeated Charlie, it's not universal.
Petr Kudláček
June 6, 2011 at 5:47 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
@atheistdeceitbuster: We have already been through examples like ancient greece. By the way do you realise that most gay men and women are equally as disgusted by straight sex as well?for the fourth time: Why shouldn't gays have the same rights as straights.
Aridawn
June 6, 2011 at 5:53 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I just want to know why we should even give two craps about how Charlie feels about gay people. I don't hate gay people; I'm not afraid of them; and they certainly do not disgust me. Does he have any political power? Is he going to act violently towards gay people? He certainly doesn't have the charisma to influence people like him to become anti-gay activists. It seems to me, Charlie, you just want to feel special. You want to be the odd man out in a room full of atheists. But you've got us wrong. This community doesn't fight against theists because we want to feel superior or because we just don't like that they believe something we don't. Maybe that's why you are against them, considering you insist that we conform to your ideas. We are fighting against theists/religionists because most of the time, they are encouraging and spreading ignorance, hate, violence, disgust, and fear. I really couldn't care less WHY or HOW you hate gays. I don't care if a drag queen wearing a rainbow boa and a tiara killed your entire family while you watched, you are still a prejudiced and small-minded individual. In the end, I just plain disagree with you. I don't think you have any power in the world around you and certainly no power to change my mind or world view. Mostly, you have an impotent position that is inevitably going to be crushed by the onward momentum of society.
Mak
June 6, 2011 at 6:00 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
"Gay men are CLEARLY a disease threat model because unlike vegetables, gay men elicit UNIVERSAL DISGUST in every culture and society."So Italy and Spain aren't real?You realize gay people can freely give blood in Italy and Spain, right?