About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

On Hannity, Andrew McCarthy attempts to explain why homophobia isn't "hatred"

November 12, 2009 10:33 pm ET

From the November 12 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by reanna-mator (November 12, 2009 10:58 pm ET)
      5  
      A pathetic way to dance around the fact that these creeps don't think certain people don't deserve the rights they take for granted.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Frankeee (November 12, 2009 11:05 pm ET)
        1  
        Here here! I just got done reading about Mr. Arbiter saying about Muslim internment camps. Has anyone there actually UNDERSTOOD the constitution? Not just glance at it, but do they understand what it is, what it means, who it applies to, and the principles and the history of the principles behind it? I mean JFC they are xenophobic and hateful. Hate changes people. It is a negative emotion. Irrational and hurtful hate, redundant, is wrong and when it comes to public policy, unconstitutional. What is wrong with gay people? What happened to separation of Church and State in the Establishment clause? What about the right to the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration? My god how they distort legitimate documents for their own gain!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by fairliberal (November 12, 2009 11:05 pm ET)
          14
        Well he is right , fear and hatred are two different things. But how do you explain the fact that Obama and Hillary are against giving gay people the right to marry. Do they fall into your category of creeps? Or do you agree that it is OK for them to be against it for political purposes, in other words they do not have the integrity to stand up for what they believe. I wonder which it is. Are they homophobic or do they just lack integrity? It seems they dance pretty well too, why not comment on them also? Maybe you like to dance also?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ReasonAndResolve (November 12, 2009 11:39 pm ET)
          10  
          Actually, President Obama supports repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.

          http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/08/17/obama_makes_explicit_his_objec.html

          Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State - her position is irrelevant in this case.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by fairliberal (November 13, 2009 12:07 am ET)
              13
            This is what Obama has said.

            "Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman"

            And if Hillary's opinion is meaningless so is McCarthy's or anyone else in a position other than a legislator. So why does MMFA even mention it.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by ReasonAndResolve (November 13, 2009 12:20 am ET)
              6  
              Hilary Clinton is not currently in a position to verbalize her opinions on the matter - the only statements you will find from her are from the campaign. People who are in a position to influence public opinion - and are attempting to do so - are fair game (and thier positions are not irrlevant to the extent that they are attempting to exercise that influence).

              President Obama has made it very clear (even in the quote you supply) that his personal, religious beliefs and his political positions are separate. His public policy position is that the DOMA should be repealed - that is the policy position and it is the relevant issue. There is no inherent homophobia in his personal, religious belief, either, so you really have no argument.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Cheney2012 (November 13, 2009 10:51 am ET)
                  5
                Nice Dodge on Hillary.

                Repeal of DOMA is a half-baked, 'voting present' approach.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by open_mind (November 13, 2009 11:23 am ET)
                  3  
                  Not really. I am actually surprised it has not been challenged in court yet as it is blatantly unconstitutional (it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment exactly like Loving v. Virginia did).

                  If the DOMA is repealed (or finally challenged with the correct result), then homosexuals could get married in a state like Vermont and go back to their home state (Texas) that would - per the Constitution - have to recognize the marriage. It would open the flood-gates to gay marriage.

                  I hope conservatives continue to underestimate such an approach so please pay no attention to what I just wrote.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by SLRTX (November 13, 2009 5:10 am ET)
              4  
              fairliberal --

              So you are FOR civil unions. Right?

              And just why do you fear homosexuals?
              Report Abuse
        • Author by kbralwill (November 13, 2009 12:19 am ET)
          1  
          Fairliberal, your response is absurd as it relates to reanna-mator's comment. If you want to go ahead and play this game that McCarthy is playing that the literal translation of homophobia would not be hatred of gays, fine. But this completely misses what reanna-mator is arguing: "these creeps don't think certain people...deserve the rights they take for granted." Now if you believe that Clinton and Obama fall into this camp based on their stances on gay marriage, then argue away. If on the other hand you think that Clinton and Obama are against gay marriage for political purposes and that because of this they lack integrity, then argue this point. But you are making an absolutely ridiculous and unsupported inference about reanna-mator's opinion here and your demands that he/she should comment about Clinton and Obama as well to satisfy you just seem a bit whiny.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by kromecom48 (November 13, 2009 12:41 am ET)
          8 1
          This is my first time suggesting a troll ban. But "it's" pathetic. IT! You are neither "fair" or "liberal." From this point on, I strongly encourage posters here to avoid, at all costs, responding to this idiotic troll.

          The debate on this site is already fairly robust. I've fallen prey to faux librul's assininity, which isn't bright on my part. This is a troll that we all need to simply ignore until "it's" capable of at least basic reasoning. I really hope "it's" paid well.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (November 13, 2009 9:58 am ET)
            4  
            I, personally, don't believe in troll bans.

            FL is simply not a very intellectually curious individual who is apparently a 24/7 Fox viewer. She, most usually, just posts the drivel she hears on Fox. She doesn't seem to have the intellect and/or the desire to make the distinction between fact and fiction, she just posts whatever her crush, Bill, says or the other talking heads on Fox say. She does not research any of these talking points, she just posts them and defends them as fact.

            While most Foxbots like FL will NEVER change their minds . . . there's always a chance. Gotta keep trying to speak truth to Fox.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by open_mind (November 13, 2009 11:34 am ET)
              2  
              I agree. Don't ban the trolls for posting ignorance. Either do not engage with them or swat them away with words.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by reanna-mator (November 13, 2009 7:59 am ET)
          1  
          So why, if fear only enters into it, do these people insist on denying them the same rights they enjoy? What are they so afraid of?

          No. It's a shallow excuse. Saying you're afraid absolves you of the guilt, as well as the responsibility that any human being with the integrity that you talk about ought to have.

          I disagree with Obama's view on marriage, but as has been pointed out, he still believes in repealing legislation that allows for most kinds of discrimination against homosexuals. Don't mistake me for a liberal who agrees with any statement just because Obama said it.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (November 12, 2009 11:18 pm ET)
      7  
      So is this guy saying that homophobia is just an irrational fear of gay people? So...discrimination against gay people is alright then because it's not motivated by hatred?

      Then I think I have rightwingaphobia...but the rational kind.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by thundavolt (November 13, 2009 1:16 am ET)
      2  
      They just want to make it very clear, without any doubt, that they are not afraid of homosexuals but they actually hate them. The word homophobia might be misinterpreted.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by k1dork (November 13, 2009 1:18 am ET)
        7
      I don't think it's "hatred" simply for thinking that an institution that is the same across cultures should be changed on the whim of a fringe group.

      Do you think polygamy should be legal? Should bisexuals be able to have two spouses?

      You don't?! How dare you, you hate filled bigot!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by John Paradox (November 13, 2009 3:31 am ET)
        3  
        Polygamy is basically a legal problem IMHO, in that which spouse has priority in things like 'next of kin', hospital visitation rights, and other things that are simple when there's only one person involved (excluding children... but they can be excluded by a spouse if that spouse is so 'evil').
        'Morals' differ depending on the culture, and 'traditional' marriage, as I posted some time back, was originally used as a means of 'joining families', often creating a stronger bond between the Aristocracy of two nations, regardless of the wishes of the spouses involved (see: Tristan and Isolde - Joseph Campbell in The Power of Myth)
        Report Abuse
      • Author by globalRower (November 13, 2009 5:58 am ET)
           
        Fringe groups tend to hold far-out opinions and beliefs, often not based on facts. Here's a comparison that may help: the "conservative" wing of the media and the republican party is a fringe group, while LGBA people are a minority.
        You are correct that cultural institutions (such as equal rights) should not be changed on the whim of a fringe group (as with the defense of marriage act and California's proposition 8). How are you working to reverse that fringe influence?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by soze169880 (November 13, 2009 7:30 am ET)
        1  
        I don't think

        We know.
        an institution that is the same across cultures

        Really? Divorce is still illegal and wives are still property? Jeez, Mr. Santorum, I understand you don't have a lot to do since you got voted out of the Senate, but can't you go somewhere else?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by reanna-mator (November 13, 2009 8:01 am ET)
        2  
        Your "two spouses for bisexuals" comment confirms that you have no idea what you're talking about.

        Bisexuals don't want a man AND a woman. It means that they could comfortably form a partnership with either. It makes as much sense as stating that a heterosexual male, because he likes women so much, must want more than one.

        And actually, while polygamy has its legal issues, I see nothing wrong with polygamy and polyandry, on a basic level.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Ruby (November 13, 2009 11:37 am ET)
        1  
        Was it hatred when people supported a ban on interracial marriage? After all, it was a small minority of people that wanted to marry someone of a different race.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Midnight Kevin (November 13, 2009 1:38 am ET)
      5  
      "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."
      -Yoda
      -----------------------------------------
      The Midnight Review
      Mum Is The Word
      Report Abuse
    • Author by tman418 (November 13, 2009 2:46 am ET)
      3  
      If homophobia isn't hatred, I don't know what is.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by SLRTX (November 13, 2009 5:17 am ET)
        2  
        Let's say for the moment that fear and hatred are separate things.

        So what does Andrew McCarthy and conversations have to fear? THAT'S the correct question.

        Here, just take this quiz to find out if you are homophobic:

        http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/etc/quiz.html

        More info:
        http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/roots/
        http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/sexual_prejudice.html
        Report Abuse
        • Author by SLRTX (November 13, 2009 5:18 am ET)
          1  
          Not sure how this post be came a "reply".

          I did not mean this to be a reply to "tman418".

          Sorry for the confusion...
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Boxer1979 (November 13, 2009 8:03 am ET)
      3  
      On Hannity, Andrew McCarthy attempts to explain why homophobia isn't "hatred"

      If homophobia is not hatred, then why deny homosexuals the right to marry? Why raise a hastle when it became a hate crime to beat up people who were gay, lesbian, or transgendered? Hmm?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Cheney2012 (November 13, 2009 10:53 am ET)
        1 9
        Homosexuals have the right to marry. Like everyone else they must marry someone of the opposite sex.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by shaggles (November 13, 2009 11:01 am ET)
            2
          I support gay marriage but that was funny.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by open_mind (November 13, 2009 11:31 am ET)
          1  
          That's interesting. Why do heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they love, but homosexuals do not?

          Here is a question that no rightwinger to my knowledge has ever answered reasonably:

          Is there a reasonable basis for the state to say homosexuals cannot enter into a marriage contract with the person they love, but heterosexuals can? Because I would love to read it.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Ruby (November 13, 2009 11:39 am ET)
          1  
          Kind of like how, when there was a ban on interracial marriage, everybody had the same right to marry within their own race. It wasn't racism, because white people and black people (and any other race) all had the same rights.

          Correct?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Boxer1979 (November 13, 2009 12:18 pm ET)
          1  
          Like everyone else they must marry someone of the opposite sex.

          Who made you the judge and the jury?

          FAIL!
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Cheney2012 (November 13, 2009 10:56 am ET)
        3
      McCarthy is 100 percent correct and they had the blonde prof. squirming in her chair to defend Obama and Hillary.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Ruby (November 13, 2009 11:42 am ET)
        1  
        Just because the word "phobia" is inside the word "homophobia", doesn't mean the definition is limited to fear.

        Here's the definition from merriam-webster: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Joe Cool (November 13, 2009 11:47 am ET)
        1  
        She is nonplussed because Hannity uses the standard wing-nut defense of "I know you are, but what am I?" non-answer to a challenge. We'll call it the "PeeWee Gambit", which should really chap the Republican hide considering the good Mr. Herman's sexual proclivities.
        Report Abuse