Let’s get you found. It’s a discussion about the term “homophobia.”
Prelude: Some discussion about being homophobic vs. believing homosexuality is wrong, with the response that believing homosexuality is wrong is homophobic.
Reloy3: “…I don’t equate believing that something is wrong equals having a phobia about it.” [Having a phobia means having an irrational degree of fear, and often being “whateverphobic” means having such fear of “whatever.”]
lissener: "…the suffix -phobia refers to aversion, not just fear. And the word ‘homophobia,’ as defined by most dictionaries, means discrimination against homosexuals, not necessarily fear. [In respect to my comment just above, often - but not always.]
“Keep in mind that a protein molecule can be hydrophobic or hydrophilic, and no one gets their undies bundled over it.” [Meaning no one thinks that protein molecules literally fear or love water, as an illustration that the suffix “-phobia” has a range of meanings, unlike the stand-alone word “phobia.”]
You: “This is a crazy argument. Protein molecules aren’t free to be other than what they are, so they can’t be held responsible for what they are…People exhibit moral autonomy; mere things do not.” [Apparently thinking that lissener’s comment was about the concept of homophobia, rather than about the linguistics of the suffix.]
lissener: “Um, no; it merely demonstrates that the suffix “-phobia” has more than one meaning.” [Briefly explaining his line of thought, but apparently not clarifying the situation.]
So you and lissener were not talking about the same thing, even though you were talking about the same sentence.
I didn’t mean this to sound accusatory. I’m just curious why everyone keeps equating the two. I know we started on ‘gay pride’, so that might be it, but obviously, there are non-political gay events. A gay music festival wouldn’t be a political event, for one.
Well, since he specifically mentioned a disinclination to participate in political events per se, but not gay events per se, I don’t see how the distinction needs to be made, for the purposes of the discussion.
Someone with stpauler’s stated position might be only too happy to accept a gig performing at a birthday party held in a gay bar. But I guess I’ll let him speak for himself.
I’m so confused, I don’t know what I believe any more.
Seriously though. I think the need to be sexually exclusionary anymore (i.e. gay pride) has long passed its prime. It’s right up there being racially/nationally proud. For instance, when I was getting ready for college, my mom applied for a polish-american scholarship in my name. I got it and it was for $500.00 a year. I declined it based on the reason that being polish, or any ancestry, really isn’t something to be proud of and is rather divisive. I’m a stubborn coot and sometimes, when I’m giving money to Sallie Mae, I kick myself too.
So, it’s not the political part I’m rallying against. It’s the pride in innate qualities like race, color, or sexuality that I think are rather silly.
Of course, that’s just my opinion and others are more than welcome to theirs. I just don’t choose to support their cause with my time.
Do you see any gathering of gay people qua gay people as falling under your prohibition? Do you believe there are other reasons for gay people (or black people, or Polish people) to gather aside from ‘pride in tribe’?
So everything that banding together could accomplish has been accomplished? We have completely equal rights in the U.S. and throughout the world? We can get married in any state and it’s recognized in all the others. It’s even honored in other nations and we can emigrate or immigrate together? There are laws protecting gay people from discrimination in housing and hiring everywhere? We’re fully accepted in the military and it’s rare to be vilified on television by politicians and preachers?
Gosh. You’re right. Maybe the concept of rejecting the shame and distain that’s been pounded into our heads by our churches, our parents and our society is outdated now that nobody does that to us anymore.
:rolleyes:
Pride events are about standing up and being counted. They’re about rejecting second-class citizenship. They’re about refusing to be shamed by religion and outdated cultural mores. They’re about being proud of who you are, regardless of your sexuality, and being confident enough to look others in the eye and say, “yes, I’m gay and I’m not ashamed of it.”
Furthermore, they aren’t exclusionary. They’re also for our allies who want to stand with us. They’re for the mayors of our cities who march with our parades to show they believe we are valuable citizens. They’re for our siblings and parents to walk with us and show that we’re loved by our families. They’re for everyone who believes in equality before the law.
Until there are no more Matthew Shepards; until people like Rick Santorium lose their influence; until DOMA is cast into the wastebin of history; until the military recruits at Pride; until these and perhaps hundreds more indignities, both large and small, are overcome then the time for Pride is not past.
Good points made about why many folks see Mandisa as unappealing and unenlightened. However, are we saying there isn’t space for people to disagree, be uncomfortable, or question other perspectives? I’m Black, I’m a Democrat, I’m an educator. I understand there are aspects of each of those identities that some people are challenged by. As long as they don’t infere with the way I live my life, my individual liberties, and personal safety, I think that’s okay.
I belong to organizations that encourage and support my racial and ethnic identity. I realize that other people think that’s exclusionary or xenophobic, and my response is similar to what Homebrew stated in the previous post. I actually thought Mandisa (I’m no fan, trust me) acquitted herself well in the interview and expressed an opinion, that while unpopular, and one I disagree with, has validity for her. If she had refused to talk to The Advocate because it was a magazine supportive of the LGBTQ community, I would think that was fucked up and homophobic - but I don’t feel this makes her “homophobic.” Unless we have an analysis that states that we are all, to some degree, homophobic - which I don’t think I’d disagree with.
Okay, I guess I misread you, stpauler. But it strikes me that you attach a narrow meaning to the word “pride” that misses the point in pretty much the same way that some people do when they attach a narrow meaning to the suffix “-phobia.”
