Heard Lady GAGA on the Radio this morning

Tony Marino wrote:

Forgiveness Man wrote:

Well when I visit Italy, I'll call it gravy. We live in AMERICA, so it's SAUCE!

Yeah we live in America but in my family we respect and keep the Italian traditions.

Italian traditions are all well and good! But that doesn't mean we can't call it sauce!

Anyone who's even a quarter Italiano would know that in Italy, "sauce" is referred to as GRAVY. . .

Forgiveness Man wrote:

Tony Marino wrote:

Yeah we live in America but in my family we respect and keep the Italian traditions.

Italian traditions are all well and good! But that doesn't mean we can't call it sauce!

Thats what I mean you were raised more Americanized than I was.

^^^^My Granny calls it gravy!

RobbieFTW wrote: Anyone who's even a quarter Italiano would know that in Italy, "sauce" is referred to as GRAVY. . .

I KNOW what it's referred to!

The word has been twisted in the modern age, but usually by homophobes (so that it means anything but what they are). Nobody wants to be called a homophobe due to the negative connotations of the word. This is especially true for the homophobes which is why they like to think it only represents what they are not. There is no such thing as the "gay agenda". This is a ridiculous, made up, conservative prejudice of anyone or anything that serves to advance gay rights. If it doesn't fall in line with conservative ideals, it's a LABELLED a radical "agenda". So whenever someone uses that word to desrcribe something concerning gay rights, it's going to be from a biased perspective.

Again, I don't think you know what homophobic really means. I think you have a very limited idea of what encompases homophobia, which is why you don't recognize it in yourself (even when you are doing it). Attacking Lada Gaga for standing up for gay rights IS HOMOPHOBIC in itself. Defending Target's right to support a homophobic politician IS HOMOPHOBIC as well. Accusing someone else of being intolorant because they refuse to tolorate homophobia is also HOMOPHOBIC. In one thread you have done all three of these things! Or is it that you don't understand WHY those things would be considered "homophobic". If not, I'll be happy to explain that to you as well.

You didn't have to say that Target was "correct". Its implied in your attack of Lada Gaga who has claimed that they breached her contract with them. The basis of your argument is that Lada Gaga has done something "wrong". That implies that Target is correct. Unless you'd care to revise your position and openly declare that Target is in fact WRONG by financially supporting a homophobic politician. So which one is it? Is Target right or wrong?

How is it immature to stand up for gay rights? How is it intolorant to end your support of an intolorant entity? You keep saying that over and over again, but you failed to explain why she is (according to you) immature and intolorant.

Also, let me ask you this. In your opinion, what is so wrong with being homophobic? How do YOU define homophobia? Do you support equal rights for gays?

If it doesn't fall in line with conservative ideals, it's a LABELLED a radical "agenda".

Yeah! Those darn black folk with their civil rights agenda! Women wanting equal pay? Oh come on now. And don't get me started on those cripples wanting ramps all over the place. Give me a break!

captainbryce wrote:If it doesn't fall in line with conservative ideals, it's a LABELLED a radical "agenda".

Again, I don't think you know what homophobic really means. I think you have a very limited idea of what encompases homophobia, which is why you don't recognize it in yourself (even when you are doing it). Attacking Lada Gaga for standing up for gay rights IS HOMOPHOBIC in itself. Defending Target's right to support a homophobic politician IS HOMOPHOBIC as well. Accusing someone else of being intolorant because they refuse to tolorate homophobia is also HOMOPHOBIC. In one thread you have done all three of these things! Or is it that you don't understand WHY those things would be considered "homophobic". If not, I'll be happy to explain that to you as well.

You didn't have to say that Target was "correct". Its implied in your attack of Lada Gaga who has claimed that they breached her contract with them. The basis of your argument is that Lada Gaga has done something "wrong". That implies that Target is correct. Unless you'd care to revise your position and openly declare that Target is in fact WRONG by financially supporting a homophobic politician. So which one is it? Is Target right or wrong?

How is it immature to stand up for gay rights? How is it intolorant to end your support of an intolorant entity? You keep saying that over and over again, but you failed to explain why she is (according to you) immature and intolorant.

Also, let me ask you this. In your opinion, what is so wrong with being homophobic? How do YOU define homophobia? Do you support equal rights for gays?

Your first part sounds like it could be said for liberals too. If it doesn't fall in line with Progressive ideals, it's labeled an "agenda." (Or homophobic, or sexist, or bigoted, or whatever slanderous word they can get gullible people to start chanting.)

It is NOT homophobic, and you know it. The word has a meaning and it does NOT fit me. And I am NOT attacking Gaga for standing up for gay rights. I am attacking her for hypocrisy! People who become intolerant in the name of tolerance kind of rub me the wrong way. And YES, one CAN become intolerant in the name of tolerance; it happens all the time. I am not homophobic. That is a FACT! I know what it really MEANS, not what you WANT it to mean. It'd be like calling you Christophobic for supporting ANY position that contradicts a Biblical teaching. It's juvenile mud slinging.

I don't believe Target supported a homophobic politician.(Every politician the left doesn't like is "homophobic" in their eyes. So Target can only support left wingers or they're homophobic? lol) And you say conservatives overuse the word "agenda"? lol) And no, saying that Gaga was wrong doesn't mean that Target was right. I think both of them deserve to be taken to task! Target's wrong; Gaga's wrong!

Standing up for gay rights isn't immature. Refusing to do business with anybody with different political viewpoints than you, IS. And that is exactly what she's doing. Gaga's frankly become the people she claims to be against.

Do I support equal rights for gays? Sure, equal RIGHTS. (Not that it's relevant to this topic. Get me in PM if you're so curious. ) As for what's wrong with being "homophobic," I frankly think people should stop trying to look for excuses to fight with each other.

alan smithee wrote:

If it doesn't fall in line with conservative ideals, it's a LABELLED a radical "agenda".

Yeah! Those darn black folk with their civil rights agenda! Women wanting equal pay? Oh come on now. And don't get me started on those cripples wanting ramps all over the place. Give me a break!

If you are not a white, Christian, hetereosexual, male, conservative, living in the US and you complain about ANY injustice apparently you have some kind of radical AGENDA!

captainbryce wrote:

alan smithee wrote:
Yeah! Those darn black folk with their civil rights agenda! Women wanting equal pay? Oh come on now. And don't get me started on those cripples wanting ramps all over the place. Give me a break!

If you are not a white, Christian, hetereosexual, male, conservative, living in the US and you complain about ANY injustice apparently you have some kind of radical AGENDA!

Cap'n, I just want to be sure your sarcasm detector isn't government issue?

Forgiveness Man wrote:Do I support equal rights for gays? Sure, equal RIGHTS.

So I take it that you are now a proponent of marriage equality for same sex couples then.

Impact wrote:

Forgiveness Man wrote:Do I support equal rights for gays? Sure, equal RIGHTS.

So I take it that you are now a proponent of marriage equality for same sex couples then.

By your skewed definition? Nah, I likely don't meet that skewed definition. Actual definition? Sure.

My "skewed" definition? Just so I can recall, please remind me of what my skewed definition of it is.

^^^^Yes your definition. I know you'll disagree with my assessment of your views, so it's better to not have me go there.

(And it's also offtopic. So touchy. )

Forgiveness Man wrote:^^^^Yes your definition. I know you'll disagree with my assessment of your views, so it's better to not have me go there.

So in other words, you have no answer because that was just an empty implication on your part. I expected as much. You're full of it, as usual.

Impact wrote:

Forgiveness Man wrote:^^^^Yes your definition. I know you'll disagree with my assessment of your views, so it's better to not have me go there.

So in other words, you have no answer because that was just an empty implication on your part. I expected as much. You're full of it, as usual.

Cut the attitude. This topic isn't about me. That's why I didn't answer. I'm not the one here who's full of it.

I will answer your question. But I will not answer any further comments you make because they are off topic and I am tired of engaging in off topic, senseless bickering with people trying to hate on me for not sharing their worldview.

I feel your skewed view is that marriage should have absolutely no limits whatsoever. I know you disagree with this assessment. But it's the only one I arrive at in examining you. So NO, I do NOT share THIS view. I believe in equal marriage rights for all people, but I have a different understanding of what that means than you do.

Now, we're DROPPING this issue because it is NOT the topic. And again, cut the attitude. It doesn't look good on you.

Hey Forgiveness Man, to alleviate the confusion, why don't you do us all a favor and give us YOUR definition of homophobia. You know, just so that we are all on the same page here!

Forgiveness Man wrote:
Your first part sounds like it could be said for liberals too. If it doesn't fall in line with Progressive ideals, it's labeled an "agenda." (Or homophobic, or sexist, or bigoted, or whatever slanderous word they can get gullible people to start chanting.)

That is simply not accurate. "Agenda" as it's overly used in this day and age typically follows "gay", "muslim", "black", "women's rights", and things to that effect (although it almost ALWAYS references the imaginary "gay" agenda). I've never heard a liberals using that term the way conservatives do. The closest example to that would be the "evangelical agenda". The difference there is that the evangelicals DO have an admitted agenda! Their whole organization is based on the agenda of "spreading their word". As far as the "bigoted", "sexist", etc labels go, 9 times out of ten whenever those terms are used, they are used appropriately. If the shoe fits....

Forgiveness Man wrote:It is NOT homophobic, and you know it. The word has a meaning and it does NOT fit me. And I am NOT attacking Gaga for standing up for gay rights. I am attacking her for hypocrisy! People who become intolerant in the name of tolerance kind of rub me the wrong way. And YES, one CAN become intolerant in the name of tolerance; it happens all the time. I am not homophobic. That is a FACT! I know what it really MEANS, not what you WANT it to mean. It'd be like calling you Christophobic for supporting ANY position that contradicts a Biblical teaching. It's juvenile mud slinging.

Again, I think you ARE homophobic (based on your comments alone) and I also don't think you are aware of the full definition of the word. Regarding Gaga, you can't attack her for hypocrasy then also claim that you are not attacking her for standing up for gay rights, because that is what she has done. You are calling THOSE VERY ACTIONS hypocritical! So it IS an attack on her standing up for gay rights. There is no difference. And you've done that before. Anytime someone stands up against something that they find intolorant (but that you accept) you call it hypocritical. Without acknowledging that Target supported intolorance towards gays, you accused Gaga of being intolorant of Target. That is so transparent that its indicates a type of homophobia which you can't even see.

Forgiveness Man wrote:I don't believe Target supported a homophobic politician.(Every politician the left doesn't like is "homophobic" in their eyes. So Target can only support left wingers or they're homophobic? lol) And you say conservatives overuse the word "agenda"? lol) And no, saying that Gaga was wrong doesn't mean that Target was right. I think both of them deserve to be taken to task! Target's wrong; Gaga's wrong!

Standing up for gay rights isn't immature. Refusing to do business with anybody with different political viewpoints than you, IS. And that is exactly what she's doing. Gaga's frankly become the people she claims to be against.

Do I support equal rights for gays? Sure, equal RIGHTS. (Not that it's relevant to this topic. Get me in PM if you're so curious. ) As for what's wrong with being "homophobic," I frankly think people should stop trying to look for excuses to fight with each other.

One thing at a time:

1) Target DID support a well known anti-gay politician whether you BELIEVE it or not. FACT: Rep. Tom Emmer, who opposes gay marriage donated money to a "Christian punk-rock band" (a contradiction in terms in my opinion) that supports the practice of Muslim countries executing gays and lesbians. This scumbag is not only homophobic but he is among the worst kind of homophobes! So you saying that "every politician a liberal doesn't like is "homophobic" is false, desperate and has no weight whatsoever. No liberal makes that claim and I can give list of dozens that disliked by liberals for reasons that have nothing to do with homophobia! THIS particular politician has direct evidence supporting the notion that he is homophobic.

2) You don't think Target is wrong for supporting a homophobe because you don't recognize homophobia (as I've already pointed out before in yourself, and now again with Rep. Tom Emmer). So the reason you think Target is wrong is a reason that has nothing to do with them supporting intolorance. You saying that Target is wrong (just to say it) is irrelevant! You are in fact supporting and defending Target because you don't see anything wrong with what they did regarding Rep. Tom Emmer.

3) Refusing to do business with people of different political views is what EVERY politician does on a regular basis (including and especially most conservative Republicans in the 2011 fiscal budget fiasco is any indication). Regardless, it would be even MORE immature for Lada Gaga to continue to do business with an entity that supports something that she claims to stand against. THAT would make her a hypocrite and a sellout (in which case I would have lost all respect that I had for her, not to mention most of her fans).

^^^^Well, if the shoe fits for the leftist's terms, then the shoe fits for the ways the RIGHT uses "agenda."

You think I am homophobic? Well I KNOW you are wrong.

I'd read the rest but you know how much I hate long, drawn out, off-topic posts.

captainbryce wrote:Hey Forgiveness Man, to alleviate the confusion, why don't you do us all a favor and give us YOUR definition of homophobia. You know, just so that we are all on the same page here!

Cause it's off topic?

But okay, for you Homophobia is: intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality


In regards to me: Hatred? Nope. Fear? Nope. Intense? Give me a break. You guys need serious "whatever" lessons. No wonder people are so high strung these days.

Forgiveness Man wrote:You think I am homophobic? Well I KNOW you are wrong.

Okay, so your first sentence here suggests to me that you think there is a GAY AGENDA. Your second sentence is saying that you are NOT homophobic. Now, both of these can't be true at the same time because belief in the "gay agenda" is in fact a paranoia revolving around homosexuality (ie: HOMOPHOBIC).

Forgiveness Man wrote:But okay, for you Homophobia is: intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality


In regards to me: Hatred? Nope. Fear? Nope. Intense? Give me a break. You guys need serious "whatever" lessons. No wonder people are so high strung these days.

As predictable as ever you only got PART of the definition correct. It also refers to an 'aversion to', 'antipathy of', or 'range of negative attitudes towards' homosexuality. If you think that there is a "gay agenda" then you have a fear of homosexuality! If you think that this "gay agenda" is "wrong", then you have an aversion to homosexuals. Either way, you are homophobic! You don't necessarily have to HATE or FEAR a specific homosexual to be a homophobe! By the way, I'm not sure what dictionary you used to get the word "intense" out of, but most don't use that terminology because its irrelevant. A "mild" aversion to homosexuals (regarding their agenda ) is still HOMOPHOBIA!

Can we PLEASE stop pretending that GaGa's motives are good? She flat out exploited Target for what it was. Target's policies are not anything knew. With that, she chose to release her "gay anthem" with the company, only so that she could cause a big stink about it. And why? BECAUSE SHE NEEDS ATTENTION. CONSTANT ATTENTION.

GaGa has no interest in bettering the lives of gay people in this country-- she only has internet is bank account.

Fuck GaGa

Love, a practicing homosexual.

Sorry to break it you ya dude, but believing that gays have an ANGENDA is also a type of homophobia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c-IQ8L38-Y

captainbryce wrote:

Forgiveness Man wrote:You think I am homophobic? Well I KNOW you are wrong.

Okay, so your first sentence here suggests to me that you think there is a GAY AGENDA. Your second sentence is saying that you are NOT homophobic. Now, both of these can't be true at the same time because belief in the "gay agenda" is in fact a paranoia revolving around homosexuality (ie: HOMOPHOBIC).

Forgiveness Man wrote:But okay, for you Homophobia is: intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality


In regards to me: Hatred? Nope. Fear? Nope. Intense? Give me a break. You guys need serious "whatever" lessons. No wonder people are so high strung these days.

As predictable as ever you only got PART of the definition correct. It also refers to an 'aversion to', 'antipathy of', or 'range of negative attitudes towards' homosexuality. If you think that there is a "gay agenda" then you have a fear of homosexuality! If you think that this "gay agenda" is "wrong", then you have an aversion to homosexuals. Either way, you are homophobic! You don't necessarily have to HATE or FEAR a specific homosexual to be a homophobe! By the way, I'm not sure what dictionary you used to get the word "intense" out of, but most don't use that terminology because its irrelevant. A "mild" aversion to homosexuals (regarding their agenda ) is still HOMOPHOBIA!

Your definition of homophobia is skewed! BUT, I didn't say that there was a gay "agenda." (Although believing that there is a gay agenda is not homophobic either.) I merely am showing your logic is like that of the people you claim to BE homophobic. You're not different. You are just like the people you claim to be homophobic. You operate the exact same way. You sir, are human! Welcome to earth.

I used an actual definition. But let's go with yours. Aversion to? Nope. Antipathy of? You wish. Range of negative attitudes towards? Nope. So still, not a homophobe. I don't even have a MILD aversion to them. You need to get it through your skull that I am NOT a homophobe. Give it a rest already! You've spent all this time trying to prove that I am a homophobe, and you say that I'M the one with the aversion?

BUT, by your definition, you are Christophobic! So now everytime you call me homophobic, I will try to remember to call you Christophobic! You Christophobe you! That means you have a Christophobic bias towards all issues that I will use to not give your opinion any validity, same as you do to me. You Christophobe you!

Forgiveness Man wrote:(Although believing that there is a gay agenda is not homophobic either.)

Yes it is. VERY homophobic!

wesley wrote:

Forgiveness Man wrote:(Although believing that there is a gay agenda is not homophobic either.)

Yes it is. VERY homophobic!

No it ain't. If people ever learn that, maybe they'll see how counterproductive this wolf crying about the term is. It's getting to the point where the entire term is just one big joke. That's what happens when you abuse it, and boy has it been abused.

Forgiveness Man wrote:
I used an actual definition. But let's go with yours. Aversion to? Nope. Antipathy of? You wish. Range of negative attitudes towards? Nope. So still, not a homophobe. I don't even have a MILD aversion to them. You need to get it through your skull that I am NOT a homophobe. Give it a rest already! You've spent all this time trying to prove that I am a homophobe, and you say that I'M the one with the aversion?

How is MY definition of the word skewed when I also used an actual definition. I don't know where your definition came from, but mine comes straight out of the dictionary! Here are the three most common here:

(Merriam-Webster)
-irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

(Dictionary.com)
-unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality

(Wikipedia)
-Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, and in some cases transgender and intersex people. Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear.[1][2][3]

My definition is "skewed" because it's not a definition that you like. Regardless of that fact, it is what it is! And pretending that it ONLY means what YOU think it means is dishonest.

You didn't say that there was a gay agenda, but I'm sure you believe there is. (I challenge you to say otherwise right now!) If you believe there is no gay agenda, then declare it here and now and I'll never bring it up again! Again, it's not always what you SAY. Sometimes its what you DON'T SAY that give away your true feelings. Hiding behind what you DON'T SAY only reveals foundational weaknesses in you arguments.

How exactly am I like the homophobes?

I haven't spent any time trying to prove that you are a homophobe. Ironically, you keep doing that yourself everytime you try to prove that you are not. You are the only one here who attacked Lada Gaga, defended Target and denied that the homophobic politician is homophobic. You have no evidence mind you, NONE, but that was the immediate stance you took regardless of what the facts showed. So you can sit here all day long and say that you are not homophobic but until you actually say something of substance that demonstrates it, NOBODY is going to buy it (least of all me). If you believe in a gay agenda and you are against that agenda it makes you homophobic! You have no defense against this other than to say that you don't believe there is a gay agenda (which you have every oppertunity to say). But you won't because it's not really what you believe is it?

Forgiveness Man wrote:
BUT, by your definition, you are Christophobic! So now everytime you call me homophobic, I will try to remember to call you Christophobic! You Christophobe you! That means you have a Christophobic bias towards all issues that I will use to not give your opinion any validity, same as you do to me. You Christophobe you!

How do you figure I am "Christophobic" whatever that's supposed to mean? Where is your evidence of this?