Talk:Joseph C. Phillips/Archives/2013

edit

I edited the page because the description of Phillips stance on gay marriage was unfair and inaccurate. There is a difference between opposing gay marriage and being anti-gay. There is nothing on Phillips web page to indicate that he has any anti gay feelings. He does write extensively about traditional marriage, but that does not make him anti-gay or a spokesman for anti gay groups. In fact after reading his website he has written in support of unfair treatment of gays. Hanging Judge 20:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. If people continue to insist on vandalizing this page, a lock will be in order. Trilemma 23:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You need educating. On a National Public Radio interview Phillips says that homosexuality is "wrong," and "a violation of nature, in the same way slavery violates man's natural right to life and liberty." That is a direct quote. What is that sentiment if not anti-gay? Each time that quote and others have been included, user name Trilemma and others take it down. There has been no vandalism whatsoever on Phillip's page by those writing about Philip's gay opposition; everything written has been a direct quote of Phillip's either spoken by him or written by him in various media. Stop making the messenger the victim. The truth is, those trying to erase those quotes are guilty of a form of vandalism. The vandalism of truth. If Phillips is willing to speak out against gays in the media what is there to hide on Wikipedia? I love these people who say that there is a difference between opposing gay marriage and being anti-gay. Sorry, Mr. Phillips, when it comes to voicing your anti-gay sentiment in public either shut up or put up---with those of us who take notice.

"Anti-gay" is NPOV, it's meant to slur him and his viewpoint. This is not your soap box. Trilemma 12:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice try but lame, Trilemma. Look up the Wikipedia definition of "anti-gay" (It is a disambiguation page found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gay). The definition clearly says for all to read, "Anti-gay can refer to activities which fall into any (or a combination) of these categories...In a political sense: An opposition to the broad, perceived gay agenda, which can include same-sex marriage, gay rights and related topics." That is Wikipedia's definition, not mine. The fact that you believe the phrase "anti-gay" is meant to slur him and his viewpoint, as you wrote above, is your point of view - and far from a neutral one. It's an issue that you need to deal with. As you aptly said, "This is not your soap box" and it's not yours either, Trilemma.

Note: 5 mins. after I finished my last entry above, I went and looked at the article in question. I found that Trilemma had once again edited out direct quotes and substituted his whitewashed logic that Phillips is merely a conservative activist. I know a few conservatives and they don't all go around saying that homosexuality is a "violation of nature" on National Public Radio. I put everything all back in the article but it will be gone by the morning and I've decided that this will be my last posting. I don't want to turn this into a pissing match. You win, Trilemma. You don't win fair, but you win. Now considering that - as I see it (and this is NOT a neutral point of view) you've been hiding behind anti-reason ("I'm just trying to correct NPOV's!") and narrow-minded bigotry while you edit out everything that rubs you the wrong way, where exactly are you going to put the "Helpful Bigot of the Month Award" bestowed on you for winning this rivalry? Stop the intolerance already!

Mr. Phillips' views about homosexuality do not make him "anti-gay". It is perfectly fine to include well sourced statements made by Mr. Phillips. Accusing someone of bigotry because you disagree with their viewpoint is a flagrant BLP violation.Mk5384 (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

intolerance

It is clear that at least one person on this page has an agenda. Why the need to paint Phillips as a bigot? Any why do it anonymously? The evidence of Phillips being anti gay is one essay to which you constantly refer. However, you do not quote it in full nor do you quote it in context. Phillips was responding to the reasoning of the New Jersey Supreme court and what he describes as an expanding morality. (my words not his) He is addressing moral equivalence. The essay can be found here: [1] It is clear from your plea to "end the intolerance" that you want to suggest that anti gay means bigot. Without question Phillips opinion is not universal, but it hardly qualifies as biggoted. And given that there is no consensus among homosexuals for gay marriage, being opposed to same sex marriage is hardly an accurate measure of being anti gay. I would also suggest that in what appears to be 5 years or more of radio and television commentary and weekly columns he has addressed homosexuality exactly 3 times -- once to defend a gay friend that was outed by gay rights advocates. This at least calls into question being "anti- gay" As I pointed out earlier beign anti homosexual agenda is not the same as being anti gay. And if Wikpedia defines it as the same thing Wikpedia needs to change its' definition. Hanging Judge 19:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)