There are such persons everywhere in the world. So stop trolling.

No not everywhere, especially not creationists Mr.Troll...

Trolls exist to generate reaction, Miro, so you're actually doing a *good* thing by refusing to rise to their bait

You are a troll...

Homophobia has fuck all to do with being right wing.

Though it does have something to do with traditional conservatism, oui?

For better or worse Ghostmaker, nearly every prominent single fiscally conservative party in the western world is also somewhat more socially conservative in outlook than it's main leftist opposition. Perhaps there is no ideological link, but on a practical basis, unfortunately yes.

Conservatism isn't particularly right wing however. It is generally centre-right at most. Conservatives have no concern about central banks, regulation or taxation, they support the state provision of education, healthcare, some welfare benefit, public safety services etc.

Furthermore, homophobia can be found as a minority view in most schools of thought in the West. Generally, the only regimes that are homophobic are the extreme authoritarian- communist or fascist.

btw, regarding ideology, being principled right-wing means that you have to reject any government involvement in the non-issue of homosexuality. (You can privately think it is immoral, however)

@ TGM I do see your point, and there is something to be said for principled right-wingness. It's not a position I agree with, but at least it's something to move forward with. Unfortunately the reality of the situation is that in practical politics, the people who actually make the decisions are rarely principled, on both the left and the right. And so, to say that anti-gay religious propaganda has nothing to do with right wing propaganda is kinda misleading. It may be technically true using the strictest and most literal definitions of the terms in question, but, by and large, is kinda useless for understanding reality.

Hitler was very left with all his social programs and shit. Hitler was homophobic. Tell me again how the right wing is where all the homophobes are?

Didn't we just have a long discussion about how some people now try to argue that Hitler was "left" for their own personal reasons? Complete propoganda.

Mussolini’s fascism was a state socialism that was explicitly anti-Marx and aggressively nationalistic. Hitler’s National Socialism was state socialism at its worse. It not only shared the socialism of fascism, but was explicitly racist and homophobic. In this it differs from the state socialism of Burma today, and that of some African and Arab dictatorships.

Homophobia right wing? Depend on your definition of right wing. TGM assumes an economic libertarian notion. Personally I tend to associate the concept with conservatism, especially social conservatism. From this perspective sexual conservatism especially with regards to homosexuality (I would put anti-abortion in this category too), is right wing.

Spyman +1

The first line of the wikipedia entry on the topic, right-wing, describes it like this:
"In politics, right-wing, rightist and the Right are generally used to describe support for social stratification with the preservation of traditional social orders and values."

Thus, the trend towards acceptance of homosexuality is seen by many to undermine "traditional social orders and values".

Thus while TGM, who identifies himself as "right-wing" may not want to be lumped in with the homophobes, there would also be libertarians (with similar views as TGM) who would reject being described as right-wing. You could just as easily say that economic libertarianism has "fuck all to do with being right wing".
The truth is politics is not as simple as left and right wing. There are far more dimensions. But I would say in common parlance, the OP notion of right wing would be more common than TGMs.

Stupid thread. Miro is a troll. I think creationists are raving lunatics but they can post their views and attempt to defend their idiocy as Miro can defend his his conspiracy theories

spyman +0.435

Draugnar loses, via Godwin's Law TKO.

Here we go, misusing the word, "homophobe" again. It does NOT mean anti-gay.

Get a clue, you knee-jerk, pejorative slinging simpletons.

As to creationist and right wing bravo sierra choking the bandwidth, well, it's the internet. It attracts a fair amount of cranks. And that's probably a good thing, what with the illuminating of folly and all.

Wait, doesn't homophobe mean two words that sound the same but are spelled differently?

That's homophone, Bob.

What does it mean them Mapleleaf? Please enlighten the simpletons.

Typo... What does it mean *then

@spyman - Gladly.

homophobia - the IRRATIONAL FEAR of homosexuality, such as a fear of contagion.
- the IRRATIONAL FEAR of a heterosexual male that OTHERS might
think that he is gay.

I don't agree. It is not really a phobia. It's a perjorative way of describing attitudes which are not accepting of homosexuality. Admitedly it is a loaded term.

Dictionary.com

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

You're both right, its a floor wax and a dessert topping.

Fair enough. We agree that it is a politically correct pejorative. I loathe political correctness. In fact, I attach phobia status to political correctness.

Political Correctness - The irrational fear of making anybody feel bad about themselves.

“Didn't we just have a long discussion about how some people now try to argue that Hitler was "left" for their own personal reasons? Complete propoganda.”

Actually, I raised the point made by Hayek, that National Socialism was socialist. Btw, it’s only propaganda when you become anti-intellectual about it and say that, “therefore, socialists are all anti-Semitic”.

“Homophobia right wing? Depend on your definition of right wing. TGM assumes an economic libertarian notion. Personally I tend to associate the concept with conservatism, especially social conservatism. From this perspective sexual conservatism especially with regards to homosexuality (I would put anti-abortion in this category too), is right wing.”

Right-wing and small government I use interchangeably. Small government clearly implies that homosexuality etc. should be no concern of the state. People identify me very quickly as right wing, and then the inevitable questions of “are you homophobic?” etc. begin to flow. The base assumption, that supporting a free market, implies an ideological preference for authoritarianism is bogus. Similarly, the assumption in Europe at least that the left are permissive and liberal is equally bogus.

If I am identified as right-wing, and conservatives are too, then it necessarily the case that the part of the ideology shared between the two (being to varying degrees pro-free market) is what defines being right wing.

Under this understanding, homophobia is not a part of being right wing.

(Note: as I’ve often mentioned, Bastiat, who would today be called right-wing, was considered left-wing in his own time)

Homosexual sex is a choice. Therefore engaging in homosexual sex is a moral issue.

@Steevo - by whose standard of morals? I may not be gay, but what happens between two consenting adults in the privacy of one of their homes (if they don't co-habitate) is no one's business but theirs. And no one said having sex wasn't a choice. the issue is if homosexuality (the desire and urge for a same sex relationship) is a choice and I believe it is part of the makeup of that person. Is it nature or nurture? I can't say. But no gay man in their right mind would *choose* the ostracism that used to come with being gay (and still does to a lesser degree).

Engaging in homosexual sex is not necessarily a moral issue. It only is if you choose to believe there's something wrong with it.

Not all moral issues are the business of the state, however. I am very much of the view that, with the exception of protecting those under the age of consent, it is none of the state's business who I have sex with.

Jamiet + .5 - I agree in principal, but it is the states business if the person you are having sex with doesn't consent, be it rape, bestiality, or molestation of a corpse.

Notwithstanding my comments, I just realised Steevokun's statement is a HUGE logical fail:

"Homosexual sex is a choice. Therefore engaging in homosexual sex is a moral issue."

The one does not logically follow from the other. Let's replace 'homosexual sex' with a variable 'X' to illustrate this:

"X is a choice. Therefore engaging in X is a moral issue"

Thus:

"Deciding whether to wear shoes or go barefoot is a choice. Therefore the wearing of shoes is a moral issue"

/fail.

LOL! Ok, Jamie, you get the other half point for pointing that out!

" Draugnar: Yes, that's fair enough. I should modify my statement to the following:

Presuming my sexual partner(s) are in a position to give legitimate consent, and have done so, it is none of the state's business who I have sex with.

Agreed 100%, Jamie.

@ Miro Klose --

First of all, in case you haven't noticed, this Forum is more liberal than Jane Fonda. Second, I'm sure you could have posted on my thread on this one. Third, I do not use religious arguments on this issue (unless we're talking about homosexuality in the Church) Fourth, my thread DOES NOT reflect my views. I was merely asking what the Forum thought about an editorial I read. (I confirmed that this Forum is as liberal as Jane Fonda)

@ everyone --

I don't think we need three threads to discuss this issue. I will be happy to continue this debate on the thread "PROP 8 OVERTURNED"