Well, yes, but my point was that Diogenes was attacking the issue based on a “fact” that the other side totally denies, which means that he won’t get anywhere without attacking that basic difference.
And the hijack gets even deeper.
There are also people who think the earth is flat, and that we never landed on the moon, and the evolution is “just a theory.” We marginalize them, too.
Are NOI believers not really racist if the honestly believe that white people are descended from the devil? Does that one belief make their other beliefs more rational?
NOI?
And yes, they are racist and irrational. But I wouldn’t try to argue with them by showing statistics involving IQ tests and employment. I’d attack the basic, underlying belief that keeps them apart from the civilized: that white people are descended from the devil.
NOI = Nation Of Islam
It’s theoretically possible that someone could hold the belief that homosexuality is sinful (ie, “wrong”) but believes in hating -the-sin-loving-the-sinner. That person could then be described as “believing that homosexuality is wrong”, but not necessarily “homophobic”.
But I have no idea if Mandisa falls into that category or not.
Except that’s a misconception, because the “sinner” cannot be distinguished from the “sin.” Homosexuality is not a behavior, but a state of being. So, ultimately, whether you have a religious justification for your bigotry is irrelevant; it’s still bigotry; it’s still homophobia.
The word “homophobia” doesn’t address the reasons for the aversion; it merely denotes the aversion, without comment. It’s denotative, not connotative.
And again, since those who are homophobic generally think that homosexuality IS a behavior, it’s dangerous to argue with that already in assumption. Which is all I was saying before.
(God, I hope I’m making sense - my head is muddled to begin with. OTOH, should I be concerned with that, considering the huge hijack going on that I’m aiding and abetting? :))
“Believing that homosexuality is wrong” ***IS ***homophobia. That’s the definition. Have you been reading this thread at all?
LIke, racists generally think that black people ARE genetically inferior, so it’s dangerous to argue with them, what, unless you allow that as a given? I’m not parsing.
OK, anyone know anything about the OP? I kind of like Mandisa’s singing and would hate to have a mental asterisk next to her name when I hear her.
There’s no need for that tone. I was drawing a fine distinction (one that I don’t personally agree with, btw) between aversion to the behavior, and aversion to the people. But I agree with **lissener ** that the two are indistinguishable.
I don’t know why I keep coming to Mandisa’s defense – I didn’t like her, and I don’t agree with her viewpoint…but:
She doesn’t sound quite so homophobic in the Advocate interview; slightly more averse than not wanting to be Grand Marshall of a Gay Freedom Day Parade (I exaggerate somewhat).
Well, I must say she doesn’t come off as a bigot at all in that article. To Quote:
Maybe not the most enlightened woman in the world, but certainly not the screaming bigot implied by the MSNBC article, and certainly not something I would “boo her offstage” for, IMHO.
She seems a little evasive in the Advocate interview, but her expressed admiration for Beth Moore, along with her active association with Moore’s ministry say a lot in and of themselves. Moore is a pretty vile individual.
There are worse bigots out there, no question. BUt to say you wouldn’t perform at a gay event, would be like me saying I wouldn’t perform at a black event. It’s still bigotry.
Certainly she’s as much of a ragin’ homophobe as Phelps; but she’s closer to him than she is to Larry Kramer. I’ll temporarily let her slide when she claims she didn’t know about Beth Moore’s support of Exodus. We’ll see when her “Mandisa Ministries” website returns whether she still links to Moore’s, which then goes on to Exodus.
Sure. Lets come up with a new word for homophobia so homophobes can deny that they’re either.
“Disagreeing” with homosexuality betrays the bigotry and ignorance of the person who “disagrees.” It is a self-centered, pathological notion that the mere existence of people different from you can and should be objected to.