Lindsay Lohan Calls Out Sarah Palin For Homophobia

[airdvr 210]

When the Lindsay Lohan's of the world don't like Sarah we must be doing something right.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[FallloutboyDAoC 0]

is it abnormal for a heavily religous person to be homophobic?

[billvon 3,009]

Well, McCain does enjoy a sexy celebrity. Perhaps he will feature her in another of his ads!

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

is it abnormal for a heavily religous person to be homophobic?

A person can be deeply religious without being homophobic.

Sarah Palin not supporting gay-marriage does not make her homophobic.

Methinks Ms. Lohan and others are distorting the definition of homophobic.

_________________________________________
Chris

[billvon 3,009]

>Sarah Palin not supporting gay-marriage does not make her homophobic.

Hmm. If someone were to oppose interracial marriages, would you call them racist?

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

>Sarah Palin not supporting gay-marriage does not make her homophobic.

Hmm. If someone were to oppose interracial marriages, would you call them racist?

Bill, Do you even know the definition of the word 'homophobic'? The true definition, not the one that has been distorted.

_________________________________________
Chris

[billvon 3,009]

>Bill, Do you even know the definition of the word 'homophobic'? The true definition. . .

Homophobia: Irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

Racism: A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

Anything else?

In literal definitions, homophobia is fear of gays, and racism is a belief that races are different. See above for the dictionary definition. In common usage, homophobia and racism denote discrimination against gays and minorities, respectively.

[Muenkel 0]

Opposing gay marriage has nothing to do with the definition of homophopia.

_________________________________________
Chris

[billvon 3,009]

>Opposing gay marriage has nothing to do with the definition of homophopia.

OK.

Now, if someone were to oppose interracial marriages, would you call them racist?

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

>Opposing gay marriage has nothing to do with the definition of homophopia.

OK.

Now, if someone were to oppose interracial marriages, would you call them racist?

[Andy9o8 2]

You would love to see Lohan and Palin mud-wrestle. Admit it.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

You would love to see Lohan and Palin mud-wrestle. Admit it.

I tried to click on 'love' three times. Fake clicky. Not cool.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

>Opposing gay marriage has nothing to do with the definition of homophopia.

OK.

Now, if someone were to oppose interracial marriages, would you call them racist?

Sorry for the delay. I stepped away for dinner.

Yes, I would consider it racist to oppose interracial marriages. Gay and interracial marriage are not the same thing. Interracial marriage is still between a man and a woman.

The definition of marriage from dictionary.com:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
mar·riage /ˈmærɪdʒ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mar-ij] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.

Notice the number of times it is defined as a union between a man and a woman or a husband and wife. On the 4th definition, it does mention homosexual marriage as a trial marriage.

What is at issue here is changing the definition of 'marriage', not homophobia.

What is wrong with the concept of civil unions?

I live in the first state that legalized gay marriages (against what the majority wanted). I will be honest and admit that since this has happened, nothing catastrophic has happened to our state because of it.

I personally do not support changing the definition of marriage. According to what has been stated in this thread, that would mean I'm a homophobe. According to the true definition of homophobe, I am not. Homosexuals are fellow human beings who are entitled to equal respect, love and rights. According to our constitution, marriage is not a 'right' that we are all entitled to. I support civil unions rather than changing the definition of marriage.

_________________________________________
Chris

[skycop 0]

Now, if someone were to oppose interracial marriages, would you call them racist?
***



Moral relativism at it's finest.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

>Opposing gay marriage has nothing to do with the definition of homophopia.

OK.

Now, if someone were to oppose interracial marriages, would you call them racist?

Why would that make a person racist? More interesting a question, who are they racist against? Do they not like either race? If an asian person says they don't agree with an asian and mexican getting married, does that mean the asian is also racist against asians?

Not saying I have a problem with interracial marriage so don't go there.

I just think racist is an interesting term for not agreeing with interracial marriage.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[headoverheels 333]

Quote

Now, if someone were to oppose interracial marriages, would you call them racist?

Not if they were talking about themselves. I'd call that personal preference, like eye color, body shape, etc.

Not according to the definition you posted either.

[headoverheels 333]

Quote

You would love to see Lohan and Palin mud-wrestle. Admit it.

That might be okay, but I personally would rather see them fight it out with guns.

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

Quote

You would love to see Lohan and Palin mud-wrestle. Admit it.

That might be okay, but I personally would rather see them fight it out with guns.

Palin would win, hands down. I wouldn't mind either.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Yes, I would consider it racist to oppose interracial marriages. Gay and interracial marriage are not the same thing.

Correct. Opposing one indicates racism, while opposing the other indicates homophobia.

Quote

Quote

4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.

On the 4th definition, it does mention homosexual marriage as a trial marriage.

You'd better read that definition again. It lists homosexual marriage after trial marriage, not as trial marriage.

Quote

What is at issue here is changing the definition of 'marriage', not homophobia.

Marriage will still mean exactly the same thing if same sex marriages are recognized. The only thing that changes is that homosexuals are no longer discriminated against w/r/t to their ability to have their marriages recognized by the law.

Quote

What is wrong with the concept of civil unions?

What's wrong with "separate but equal" racially segregated schools?

Quote

I live in the first state that legalized gay marriages (against what the majority wanted). I will be honest and admit that since this has happened, nothing catastrophic has happened to our state because of it.

So, why the irrational fear of same sex marriage? The logical excuse would be homophobia, perhaps religiously indoctrinated homophobia.

Quote

I personally do not support changing the definition of marriage. According to what has been stated in this thread, that would mean I'm a homophobe. According to the true definition of homophobe, I am not. Homosexuals are fellow human beings who are entitled to equal respect, love and rights. According to our constitution, marriage is not a 'right' that we are all entitled to. I support civil unions rather than changing the definition of marriage.

So you are saying you think gays should be discriminated against w/r/t the privilege of marriage. Got it.

Personally, I think religion should have zero influence on the legal institute of marriage. If it's a religious institution, then the government should not recognize any marriage. If it's a legal institution, then there should be no discrimination against anyone due to their sexual orientation (or race, etc.).

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,009]

>Yes, I would consider it racist to oppose interracial marriages.

Fair enough.

Now - why?

>Interracial marriage is still between a man and a woman.

And no one who opposes interracial marriages is saying that men and women can't get married! Not at all. They are just saying that a black man and a white woman (or vice versa) can't get married. They don't oppose some sort of civil union for these sorts, mind you. They just don't want to tarnish the institution of marriage, which traditionally (at least for most of America's history) has been between members of the same race.

>What is at issue here is changing the definition of 'marriage', not
>homophobia.

Agreed. It changed when women first got property rights and the right to vote, it changed when interracial marriage was first legalized, and has changed again. Most people would not want to turn it backwards.

>What is wrong with the concept of civil unions?

As long as you are willing to support the same restriction on interracial marriages - then there's no inconsistency in your position. I would disagree with that approach, though.

A simpler solution is to get the government out of the business of marriage. Allow churches to marry people; government's only role should be to set up the civil union that goes along with marriage. Simpler for all involved, and your church can then define marriage however you see fit.

>I personally do not support changing the definition of marriage.

Fair enough, but I don't think you really meant that! If you did, then I will agree to go with the definition above above, and will oppose anyone who tries to tear legal marriages apart because of their religious beliefs.

>According to our constitution, marriage is not a 'right' that we are
>all entitled to.

Actually, it is. US Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[quade 4]

Quote

When the Lindsay Lohan's of the world don't like Sarah we must be doing something right.

You -do- realize that Lohan might have a certain perspective on this topic that, as far as we know, Palin can't have; no?

It's NOT just because Lohan is a celebrity, but she's about to marry Samantha Ronson. Further, Ronson is probably the thing that's going to keep Lohan from killing herself with drugs and alcohol. Ronson has stated she's determined to keep Lohan sober and it actually seems to be working. See; http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=5475432

Who is Sarah Palin and people like her to judge and decide who somebody else can or can not find some piece of happiness with in this miserable, fucked up world?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I live in the first state that legalized gay marriages (against what the majority wanted).

So much for representation.
Government by the people, for the people.
Yep...you guessed it...bullshit.

"Thanks for voting me in. Now I'll do just what the hell I want to do and oh, BTW, screw YOU."

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[quade 4]

Quote

So much for representation.
Government by the people, for the people.
Yep...you guessed it...bullshit.

"Thanks for voting me in. Now I'll do just what the hell I want to do and oh, BTW, screw YOU."

There -are- some issues that transcend what is simply "popular." Most civil rights issues fall into that category. If not, I think you'd find we'd still have slavery in some of the remaining parts of our once divided nation.

A civilization isn't judged by how it treats the majority, but rather how it treats those with little representation.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Who is Sarah Palin and people like her to judge and decide who somebody else can or can not find some piece of happiness with in this miserable, fucked up world?

I fail to see just what this has to do with "marriage".

Maybe somebody thinks that they need that acknowledgement from the state to be happy?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Who is Sarah Palin and people like her to judge and decide who somebody else can or can not find some piece of happiness with in this miserable, fucked up world?

I fail to see just what this has to do with "marriage".

Maybe somebody thinks that they need that acknowledgement from the state to be happy?

No . . . just to be admitted into emergency rooms when a loved one is about to die.

Why do I get the feeling you're not entirely up on the issue here? You really ought to read up on it. It's fascinating what you CAN'T do unless you're married. Laws being worded the way they are and such.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver