# Can we agree on what "Homophobia" means? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 1, 2005, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-agree-on-what-homophobia-means/333541 "2005-12-01T09:54:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Tevildo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Tevildo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tevildo)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2005, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-agree-on-what-homophobia-means/333541/121 "2005-12-04T10:48:54Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Cite? No one is putting words into your mouth. The words you so object to have been noted NUMEROUS times to have come from **Evil Captor**. We’ve merely pointed out that they describe your sentiments exactly. Which they do. As is evidenced again from something you actually answered: > > Quote: **magellan01** : Are you saying that any bias at all against gays qualifies someone as a homophobe? > Quote: **lissner** : Yes.[ One last attempt. Do you understand the difference between “bias against” and “disagreement with”? **lissener** and I are saying “homophobia is any bias against gays.” You are characterizing our position as “homophobia is any disagreement with gays.” Do you recognize that these are _not_ the same thing? ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2005, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-agree-on-what-homophobia-means/333541/122 "2005-12-04T11:33:59Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Cite? No one is putting words into your mouth. To say that I define homophobia as anyone who disagrees with me is putting words in my mouth. > [@magellan01](#): > > The words you so object to have been noted NUMEROUS times to have come from **Evil Captor**. We’ve merely pointed out that they describe your sentiments exactly. Which they do. Which they do not. I believe no such thing. And merely saying, Yeah, what EC said, is not support of your position that (reading my mind again) I believe that homophobia = disagreeing with me. You need to rethink that phrase because it’s absolutely untrue. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2005, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-agree-on-what-homophobia-means/333541/123 "2005-12-04T12:08:37Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > The problem that I have with your statement, here, is that I can find no genuine difference between what you claim to be saying and what **magellan01** appears to be saying. No difference between “Homophobia is a belief that homosexuals are, or should be, morally and legally distinguished from heterosexuals” and “a homophobe is anyone who disagrees with lissener”? > [@tomndebb](#): > > The Your definition of homophobe appears (based on a broad review of this thread) to be: anyone who has ever said or thought any negative view regarding anyone who happened to be homosexual and anyone who has ever expressed an opinion contrary to what you believe everyone should believe about homosexuals. This is a gross mischaracterization. The fact that I believe it is irrelevant. What I believe about homosexuals is not any part of this discussion. I am stunned and disappointed, tomndebb, that you could read this thread and say such a thing. I have always considered you to be one of the most reliable posters, and have always had a great deal of respect for you. This stuns me. In the first place, I never said any such thing as “anyone who has ever said or thought any negative view regarding anyone who happened to be homosexual.” What the hell? I have negative thoughts about homosexuals from time to time. What is this “who has ever said or thought”? My definition is not unique, it is not customized to fit my “beliefs.” I have spent this entire thread agreeing with and supporting the DICTIONARY definition of the word. The closest I have come to tailoring it to fit my own beliefs is my re-statement of it as “the philosophy/belief/whatever that homosexuals are or should be morally and legally distinguished from heterosexuals.” If you disagree with that, that doesn’t translate to “whoever disagrees with lissener is a homophobe,” and it’s lazy and disingenuous to say that it does. And what _I_ believe everyone _should_ believe about homosexuals? I have never suggested any such thing. I have only said that if you believe that homosexuals are lesser, or whatever, then you should take responsibility for that opinion, and not try to revise the definition of “homophobia” because you’re uncomfortable having that definition include you. I have never dictated what anyone should or should not think. Free speech is a double edged sword. You can’t practice free speech and then expect to escape a freely spoken response. A negative response to homophobic speech is not an attempt to shut down free speech, it’s an attempt to balance it. So my responses are not about what anyone should or should not think or say; they’re only about what _I_ should be saying. > [@tomndebb](#): > > . . . and anyone who has ever expressed an opinion contrary to what you believe everyone should believe about homosexuals." There has still never been a cite for this. This is a meme that has spun out of control, and it’s irresponsible of you, tomndebb, to repeat it, and lend it authority, without supporting it in some way. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Without even asking what the actual beliefs **magellan01** ’s friend in the Castro district held regarding adoption by homosexuals, you decided that regardless how he arrived at his opinion, he was homophobic and threw in the gratuitous implication that he suffered from self-loathing. That’s simply not true. I said “IF”—my point being that I did not know anywhere near enough about the situation to form an opinion. I said IF that situation included [insert hypothetical], then I might think [insert hypothetical]. It was a hypothetical question from the get go, and my response was in that spirit. And I NEVER “decided that regardless of how he arrived at his opinion he was homophobic.” That is an absolute falsity. THIS is what I said: > [@lissener](#): > > **If** your friend has issues of self loathing and is what is known as a “gay homophobe”–like a Jewish anti-semite; it’s not a new concept– **then** he’s a psychologically complex person (like, say, you or me) and his existence does not invalidate the meaning of the word. > [@tomndebb](#): > > **magellan01** is not claiming that “homophobic” means “anyone who disagrees with **lissener** ,” !!! He is explicitly claiming that very thing!!! !!! > [@tomndebb](#): > > he is pointing out–and I would have to agree–that your definition of “homophobic” is so broad as to eliminate any discussion on the topic because anyone who opposes anything about anything in relation to a homosexual issue is “homophobic.” “My” definition is no such thing. Why do you have to create new words for me before you can object to them? Why can’t you object to my actual words? “My” definition is not all that broad: homophobia is a belief that homosexuals are or should be morally or legally distinguished from heterosexuals. Where magellan is confused, is that that’s a _noun._ He wants a single noun that will cover all situations, rather than making use of adjectives, like latent, or severe, or violent, or minimal, or whatever. You don’t need a new word for each degree of homophobia, as magellan seems to want. By that logic, there’s no difference between olive oil and baby oil. Yes, I see a difference between violent homophobia and minimal homophobia. But they’re both still oil. Should we have a multipage thread debating the word “oil”? or should we just use the damn adjectives that god gave us? ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2005, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-agree-on-what-homophobia-means/333541/124 "2005-12-04T12:27:02Z")
These are the questions in post #59: > [@](#): > > How about IF I have research that shows that kids do better raised by the more traditional male/female parent set? This has been addressed, by more than one person. > [@](#): > > If you are so clear on everything and so opposed to the discussion itself, why are you participating in the thread? This seems to be a rhetorical question. If it’s not, if you’re actually accusing me of being “opposed to the discussion itself,” then it’s not worthy of a response. > [@](#): > > Do you still think that the word is clearly understood? Yes, by most people. At least by most people here. > [@](#): > > Not only is there disagreement within this thread, but I included running experts from intelligent posters from another thread, and showed how confusion over this one word snuck up on them and interfered with—and nearly derailed—their discussion. Do you not see that as a problem? Again, rhetorical? You started the thread; it’s obviously more of a problem for you then for me. I see it as a symptom of a problem, but I can’t identify it as a problem in itself. > [@](#): > > Why the hostility? I became hostile because your initial stance of not having a horse in this race was finally revealed as disingenous when you became personally defensive. I became hostile when posters began putting words in my mouth, rather than objecting to things I actually said. > [@](#): > > I don’t think people much care how you define homophobia, just that it be defined to be understood. Maybe it’s just outside the gay community that are confused. If that’s the case, don’t you want to be able to communicate with us? I cannot parse this. Still, it sounds rhetorical. Was this a prank? sending me back to posts #59 and #67, probably the two longest posts in this thread, both dotted with apparently rhetorical questions? Is there a specific point you feel has gone unaddressed? I’m gonna quit digging and guessin for whatever it is you feel I missed. You can let me know if there’s a question you feel should be answered. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2005, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-agree-on-what-homophobia-means/333541/125 "2005-12-04T13:14:59Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > No difference between “Homophobia is a belief that homosexuals are, or should be, morally and legally distinguished from heterosexuals” and “a homophobe is anyone who disagrees with lissener”? Keep in mind that I’m wanting to arrive at a good definition, not wanting to engage in a slapfest with **magellan** or you. The problem with your proposed definition is that it makes Mary Daly a homophobe, as she has suggested that women ought properly be lesbians. There are rare heterophobes out there. A proposed change: “Homophobia is a belief that homosexuals are, or should be, morally and legally inferior to heterosexuals.” Daniel ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2005, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-agree-on-what-homophobia-means/333541/126 "2005-12-04T17:00:28Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > To say that I define homophobia as anyone who disagrees with me is putting words in my mouth. > > Which they do not. I believe no such thing. And merely saying, Yeah, what EC said, is not support of your position that (reading my mind again) I believe that homophobia = disagreeing with me. > > You need to rethink that phrase because it’s absolutely untrue. I asked for a cite that showed who put words in your mouth and when. Simply making the claim—again—does not qualify. Do oyu not know what “cite” means? It this case it means that you go back and point to the actual instance(s) of the charge you claim. And I cited this exchange in response to your request, which you chose to ignore: Quote: Originally Posted by magellan01 Are you saying that any bias at all against gays qualifies someone as a homophobe? Quote: Originally Posted by lissner Yes. > [@lissener](#): > > Where magellan is confused, is that that’s a noun. He wants a single noun that will cover all situations, rather than making use of adjectives, like latent, or severe, or violent, or minimal, or whatever. You don’t need a new word for each degree of homophobia, as magellan seems to want. By that logic, there’s no difference between olive oil and baby oil. Yes, I see a difference between violent homophobia and minimal homophobia. But they’re both still oil. Should we have a multipage thread debating the word “oil”? or should we just use the damn adjectives that god gave us? Thank you for this excellent example, which makes MY point perfectly. Yes, baby oil and olive oil—and sun tan oil and motor oil and neatsfoot oil and vegatable oil and canola oil and peanut oil—are all oils. Without the adjectives that make up the names, there would be grand confusion. So if I ask you to bring some oil home after work, it would serve me well to use the entire phrase. Otherwise, what would you bring home? There are times when the adjective is not necessary, as if we were cooking and there was a bottle of olive oil on the counter (and no other) and I said “Hey, **lissner** , can you pass me the oil?”. But unless it is _already clear_ which strain of oil I am refering to, it falls to me to clarify. If I do not, it is perfectl;y fair of you, and sensible, to ask. Similarly with “homophobia”. Whether you have completely different words to distinguish feelings or attitudes that could be forced over the same denominator yet veary immensely in degree, or you make the distinctions through the construction of adjective-noun words sets is immaterial. The point is that when you are speaking of olive oil people know you are speaking of olive oil and not motor oil. In fact, you could easily make yor meaning even clearer by adding “virgin” or extra-virgin". If you reread the thread you will see that I have simply been trying to have the lanuage used foster communication. You _could_ do it with adjectives, but the word is so loaded that it is hard to have an adjective “lessen” its power. Another part of the proble—I think a big one—is that the word paints everyone not in lock-step with every gay issue as irrational. This is a cheap tactic and, I think, an attempt to shut off all debate. It is also ridiculous, as it posits that anyone who has a policy disagreement with the majority of the gay community is irrational, not to mention those within it who might disagree with on a particular issue. As I pointed out earlier, the word “racism” sufferes from similar problems. If I say Tim is a racist, do I mean (as some would allow) that he opposes affirmative action or that he is a member of the Klan or that he has attacked and beaten gay men? “Homophobia” is even more problematic in that the way it is often used is divorced from it’s literal, much more benign (no action implied), meaning: irrational fear of gays. I think this might conclude our discussion, as I find it both fruitless and frustrating. The half-hearted way that you choose to answer even those questions of mine that you simply don’t dismiss or ignore indicates to me that we have different definitions of the words “debate” and “discussion”. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2005, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-agree-on-what-homophobia-means/333541/127 "2005-12-04T17:07:37Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Another part of the proble—I think a big one—is that the word paints everyone not in lock-step with every gay issue as irrational. This is a cheap tactic You know, it’d be easier to take you seriously on this if you didn’t use words like “lock-step” to describe those who agree with “gay issues”: as you know, “lock-step” paints those who DO agree with “gay issues” as being mindless. This is, as you say, a cheap tactic. For myself, I support equality for gay folks as part of a larger philosophy that supports equality for folks in general. If this means that I come down on most sides of issues surrounding homosexuality the same way that **lissener** does, so be it: it’s offensive and irrational to characterize me as “in lock-step with every gay issue.” Daniel ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2005, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-agree-on-what-homophobia-means/333541/128 "2005-12-04T17:21:29Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > That said, I think that **magellan01** ’s employment of such stupid phrases as “gay agenda” does not carry this discussion further… I understand from some of the comments that it is a term that raises hackles. I was unaware of this. I was using it as a purely descriptive term meaning: a list of those issues that the gay community are important in their quest of acceptance and equality. Some of the comments lead me to believe that the term is used to imply some nefarious plan. I do not see that to be the case, but will try to avoid it in the future as the phrase seems to be an obstacle. But it is a nice handy way to refer to “a list of those issues that the gay community are important in their quest of acceptance and equality”. Any suggestions on a replacement? > [@tomndebb](#): > > …and his attempt to come up with some narrowly defined meaning for the word when, as has been noted earlier, it can have a range of meanings and no one on the board is going to be able to dictate a single, narrow definition for it, seems rather pointless. First I’d say it is the opposite of pointless, as the use of the term often leads to confusion. Now if you mean it in the “futile” sense, based on how the thread has gone, I’d have to agree. > [@tomndebb](#): > > I do not think it amounts to trolling… By the way, could you please tell me exactly what 'trolling" is. I’ve seen it used quite a few times and am still unclear. Thanks. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Beyond that, a claim that we have some need to come up with some single definition seems just a bit disingenuous. We have broad definitions of racism, patriotism, faith, sexism, and a host of other words and phrases. The appropriate approach to a word that seems jarring in a post is to ask what the author meant, (or, more likely, around here, to leap to a conclusion, post a tart response, then have a merry donnybrook until the fifth page where everyone discovers they were actually agreeing, all along, with just a minor semantic confusion). It is anything but disengenuous. As futile as my efforts have been, it was an attempt to avoid precisely what you describe at the end of the paragraph. Regarding the words you offer as as example to show why “homophobia” is fine as it is, the only one that carries similar baggage is “racism”, which I addressed in my last response to **lissner**. Sexist is almost a useless word (as is, to a degree, racism), except when we want to demonize a person or a policy. Is wanting my office to have different bathrooms for men and women sexist? Sure. Is a woman’s asking a man to put a new five-gallon bottle on the water cooler sexist. Yeah, so what? You get the idea. > [@tomndebb](#): > > **lissener** and **magellan01** , you are both investing too much energy picking at the poster or the expression. I don’t think either of you are posting in bad faith, but I think both of you are making each post more personal than it needs to be to carry out a discussion. > No more comments on the other’s posting style or comments. Address the issues, not the poster, or this thread dies. Yikes!. A mercy killing. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2005, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-agree-on-what-homophobia-means/333541/129 "2005-12-04T17:29:03Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > You know, it’d be easier to take you seriously on this if you didn’t use words like “lock-step” to describe those who agree with “gay issues”: as you know, “lock-step” paints those who DO agree with “gay issues” as being mindless. This is, as you say, a cheap tactic. I was using it to mean “in COMPLETE agreement with any and all positions”. But you are correct, the word does carry baggage both unnecessary and unhelpful. I will try to be more careful with my language. My apologies for any insult you, or others, may have felt, as indirect and unintentional as it may have been. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2005, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-agree-on-what-homophobia-means/333541/130 "2005-12-04T18:21:02Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I was using it to mean “in COMPLETE agreement with any and all positions”. But you are correct, the word does carry baggage both unnecessary and unhelpful. I will try to be more careful with my language. My apologies for any insult you, or others, may have felt, as indirect and unintentional as it may have been. Fair enough. I still think I disagree with you (although I admit that the pagedown key got worn out during many of your and **lissener’s** exchanges), but I’m glad to see that you, at least, know how to apologize without following up with (paraphrased) “…but it’s really all your fault!” Daniel ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2005, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-agree-on-what-homophobia-means/333541/131 "2005-12-04T18:51:22Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Hmmm. I encountered a rather interesting person last week on another board. Understood clearly the unchosen nature of same-sex attraction, the equivalence of romantic/sexual feelings between gay and straight couples, supported civil gay marriage. And was nonetheless convinced that the Scriptural references (you know them, I’m sure) condemned homosexual acts, owing to his understanding of Biblical inspiration. > > Would support you in a heartbeat, but would feel that your sex life was sinful. Wouldn’t condemn you; he accepts he’s a sinner himself. But nonetheless would explain his beliefs if asked (which is how this all came out). > > How would you class him, homophobia-wise? Personally, I would give him or her a pass, personal opinions are allowed - even biased ones, and actions count (that’s why I underlined). However attempting to enforce that opinion on others would be unacceptable. If that same person however used the bible to push for discrimination, marginalization or criminalization, then we’d have “issues”. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2005, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-agree-on-what-homophobia-means/333541/132 "2005-12-04T18:51:58Z")
> [@](#): > > I understand from some of the comments that it is a term that raises hackles. I was unaware of this. I was using it as a purely descriptive term meaning: a list of those issues that the gay community are important in their quest of acceptance and equality. Some of the comments lead me to believe that the term is used to imply some nefarious plan. I do not see that to be the case, but will try to avoid it in the future as the phrase seems to be an obstacle. But it is a nice handy way to refer to “a list of those issues that the gay community are important in their quest of acceptance and equality”. Any suggestions on a replacement? The phrase “gay agenda” was coined by some member or members of the loose coalition of extreme right wing Christians to label every effort to guarantee any civil rights to homosexuals as part of some great conspiracy to destory “American” and “Christian” values and to seek recruits among young people to “become” homosexual. The phrases “homosexual agenda” and “gay agenda” were tossed around by people like Dobson and Falwell and Robertson throughout the 1980s until around 1987 a satirical piece sending up the whole idiotic notion was published. Originally titled something else (that I forget) it was frequently republished with the title “The Homosexual Agenda.” Then the idiots on the far right began pointing to that obvious bit of satire as proof that there really was such an agenda. (And the idiots continue, today: [HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA ESCALATES IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS](http://www.newswithviews.com/public_schools/public_schools1.htm), [**The Homosexual Agenda** : Exposing The Principal Threat To Religious Freedom Today](http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3520.html), and [Fighting the Gay Agenda in Schools Articles](http://www.missionamerica.com/agenda.php).) In 1992, amid the first wave of reactionary hate legislation and ballot initiatives that popped up around the country, a pamphlet titled “The Gay Agenda” was published and distributed among all the various factions supporting the legislation. In 2004, Ronnie Floyd published a book, [The Gay Agenda: It’s Dividing the Family, the Church and a Nation](http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&hl=en&id=Gn4HfTtAH7AC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=gay+agenda&prev=http://books.google.com/books%3Fq%3Dgay%2Bagenda%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff&sig=rQm5dg1nY9MtCcQcMUBWJr2AhSc). Given that the phrase has been in the public currency–both as used by the Religious Right and as mocked by the various people who oppose that group–since before the first Reagan election, you will have to forgive most posters, here, for not realizing that you were unaware of the actual meaning of a widely disseminated 25-year-old phrase. ---
**Author:** ![Tevildo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Tevildo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tevildo)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2005, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-agree-on-what-homophobia-means/333541/133 "2005-12-04T18:53:58Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But it is a nice handy way to refer to “a list of those issues that the gay community are important in their quest of acceptance and equality”. Any suggestions on a replacement? How about just “gay rights” or “gay issues”? > [@](#): > > By the way, could you please tell me exactly what 'trolling" is. I’ve seen it used quite a few times and am still unclear. Thanks. Many years ago, “trolling” had a specific meaning - “Posting inaccurate answers to questions on message boards in order to (a) deceive the naive questioner, and (b) provoke angry rebuttals from the rest of the community.” Nowadays, it just seems to mean “inciting arguments for the sake of it.” ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2005, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-agree-on-what-homophobia-means/333541/134 "2005-12-04T19:43:57Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I understand from some of the comments that it is a term that raises hackles. I was unaware of this. I was using it as a purely descriptive term meaning: a list of those issues that the gay community are important in their quest of acceptance and equality. Some of the comments lead me to believe that the term is used to imply some nefarious plan. I do not see that to be the case, but will try to avoid it in the future as the phrase seems to be an obstacle. But it is a nice handy way to refer to “a list of those issues that the gay community are important in their quest of acceptance and equality”. Any suggestions on a replacement? That’s so curious, since in the past you’ve used the term to describe “lock-step” thinking and even belittled it. > [@magellan01](#): > > I find this thread surprising and educational. I’ve learned that the privacy of the bedroom is not as principled a stance as I thought it was. It seems to apply only to some but not to others. Also—and this I find particularly curious—that while being homosexual may not be a choice but something determined genetically, those who are thus born are mandated to adhere to a certain philosophy and are unable to choose what they think. So a gay person should not consider social policy as it effects gays, just automatically adhere to the broader gay agenda. I guess I’m going to have to be one of those posters you’ll have to forgive for not believing you. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2005, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-agree-on-what-homophobia-means/333541/135 "2005-12-04T19:46:49Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Given that the phrase has been in the public currency–both as used by the Religious Right and as mocked by the various people who oppose that group–since before the first Reagan election, you will have to forgive most posters, here, for not realizing that you were unaware of the actual meaning of a widely disseminated 25-year-old phrase. I’m surprised and embarrassed to say that I was. But thanks for the info. Given the amount of baggage it brings, I wiil avoid the phrase in the future. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2005, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-agree-on-what-homophobia-means/333541/136 "2005-12-04T19:49:48Z")
> [@Tevildo](#): > > How about just “gay rights” or “gay issues”? Yeah, but I was trying to point to an all-encompassing nature. I’m sure there will always be a way to work around it, even it’s less efficient. > [@Tevildo](#): > > Many years ago, “trolling” had a specific meaning - “Posting inaccurate answers to questions on message boards in order to (a) deceive the naive questioner, and (b) provoke angry rebuttals from the rest of the community.” Nowadays, it just seems to mean “inciting arguments for the sake of it.” Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2005, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-agree-on-what-homophobia-means/333541/137 "2005-12-04T19:52:07Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > There has still never been a cite for this. This is a meme that has spun out of control, and it’s irresponsible of you, tomndebb, to repeat it, and lend it authority, without supporting it in some way. It is not a meme and you simply ignore the references. There is more than one way for you to continue to portray that apparent belief. A good example is the exchange regarding **magellan01** ’s gay friend opposing adoptions by gays: **magellan01** presented a hypothetical, using all the appropriate “if” constructions and subjunctives. You responded using all the appropriate “if” constructions and subjunctives, **but you did not answer his question directly; instead you dragged in the red herring of self-loathing** , and now you want to hide behind all those "if"s and subjunctives to claim that you have been misrepresented. Sorry, I don’t buy it. **You** introduced the topic of self-loathing as part of a response to a specific question in a way that allowed you to avoid answering the question directly. This conveys to me (who really has no dog in this fight) that you are trying to shape the discussion in a way that **results** in any disagreement with your positions being declared homophobic. You first claimed that any straight person who opposed adoptions by gays for any reason was homophobic, then segued right into your “hypothetical” discussion about the other guy’s self-loathing. > [@lissener](#): > > My definition is not unique, it is not customized to fit my “beliefs.” I have spent this entire thread agreeing with and supporting the DICTIONARY definition of the word. The closest I have come to tailoring it to fit my own beliefs is my re-statement of it as “the philosophy/belief/whatever that homosexuals are or should be morally and legally distinguished from heterosexuals.” If you disagree with that, that doesn’t translate to “whoever disagrees with lissener is a homophobe,” and it’s lazy and disingenuous to say that it does. No. What you actually did was spend the first two thirds of this thread making nasty comments and telling people to “look it up” and posting just-inside-the-lines insults until you finally got to post #100 where you actually posted that definition–but in a context that made it look like just one more heated slam at **magellan01**. While I consider **magellan01** ’s quest to nail down some absolute definition of the term in a debate format to be misguided, as if the topic would not come up immediately in the next discussion with new players, you should be well aware that a “dictionary” definition is almost never a fruitful meaning in such contexts, since it fails to convey the whole spectrum of denotation, connotation, and visceral reaction to such words. Heck, newbies are frequently mocked on this board for trying to use a dictionary to settle larger disputes of greater meanings in society. > [@lissener](#): > > And what _I_ believe everyone should believe about homosexuals? I have never suggested any such thing. I have only said that if you believe that homosexuals are lesser, or whatever, then you should take responsibility for that opinion, and not try to revise the definition of “homophobia” because you’re uncomfortable having that definition include you. I don’t buy this, either. Let’s look at the (complete) adoption quotation, again: > [@](#): > > Yes, if you as a straight male think gays should not be allowed to adopt children, then you are a homophobe. By even the narrowest definition of the word. If your friend has issues of self loathing and is what is known as a “gay homophobe”–like a Jewish anti-semite; it’s not a new concept–then he’s a psychologically complex person (like, say, you or me) and his existence does not invalidate the meaning of the word. You have imposed a meaning on “homophobe” here that is NOT supported by the “narrowest definition of the word.” You have made a blanket statement that regardless of context or intent a person who comes to a particular conclusion is homophobic. There is nothing in **magellan01** ’s example that suggests that the (hypothetical?) man in question “believe[s] that homosexuals are lesser.” Dragging out your “dictionary” definition we find (my bolding) > [@Merriam-Webster](#): > > **irrational** fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals . Yet, if a person exhibits no aversion to or fear of homosexuals and bases an attempt at discrimination on a rational belief based on a misunderstanding, then you cannot claim that that person is exhibiting homophobia, because it is not irrational. Yet you declared, with no irony and no qualifications, that such a person would be a homophobe by even the “narrowest definition of the word” and then slid into your “hypothetical” condemnation of a homosexual person as suffering self-loathing. In short, whatever you would like to claim about individual sentences you have posted, you general behavior and your overall demeanor convey exactly the impression that anyone who disagrees with you (on the topic of homosexuality, at least), is a homophobe. Again, I do not think that either you or **magellan01** are trolling or deliberately being disingenuous, but I think both of you are bringing so much personal baggage to this discussion that it is rather pointless. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2005, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-agree-on-what-homophobia-means/333541/138 "2005-12-04T19:58:52Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > That’s so curious, since in the past you’ve used the term to describe “lock-step” thinking and even belittled it.I guess I’m going to have to be one of those posters you’ll have to forgive for not believing you. You may believe anything you wish. And you may consider yourself forgiven. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2005, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-agree-on-what-homophobia-means/333541/139 "2005-12-04T22:49:24Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Dragging out your “dictionary” definition we find (my bolding). Yet, if a person exhibits no aversion to or fear of homosexuals and bases an attempt at discrimination on a rational belief based on a misunderstanding, then you cannot claim that that person is exhibiting homophobia, because it is not irrational. Yet you declared, with no irony and no qualifications, that such a person would be a homophobe by even the “narrowest definition of the word” and then slid into your “hypothetical” condemnation of a homosexual person as suffering self-loathing. The definition that I offered above would apply homophobia to someone who believes that gays, but not straights, should be barred from adopting children. That definition was: “Homophobia is a belief that homosexuals are, or should be, morally and legally inferior to heterosexuals.” Note that this definition doesn’t include the word “rational”, as I don’t know that that should be a part of it. I’d rather allow for the idea of rational homophobia (similar to the repugnant but extant concept of rational racism–didn’t D’Souza coin that?). Daniel ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2005, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-agree-on-what-homophobia-means/333541/140 "2005-12-04T23:32:45Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > “Homophobia is a belief that homosexuals are, or should be, morally and legally inferior to heterosexuals.” **LHoD** , sorry I didn’t respond to this before. I meant to. I think the problem is that the word"homophobia is always a negative word. I think it is a good word to use for those who have or exhibit fear or hatred toward homosexuals, but it doesn’t allow for, for instance, a discussion on gays in the military without judging the person _before_ his, or her, reasoning is offered. Although the word has been hijacked to be used as a club to bludgeon opponents, “racist” is not always technically bad. It simply means that one is taking race into account. The issue can be affirmative action, which there are two sides to, or medical studies, which are now leading to more effective drugs for African-Americans. > [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Note that this definition doesn’t include the word “rational”, as I don’t know that that should be a part of it. I’d rather allow for the idea of rational homophobia (similar to the repugnant but extant concept of rational racism–didn’t D’Souza coin that?). I don’t see how his concept is repugnant, but that is for another thread. But the problem with making room for what you call “rational homophobia” (which effort I applaud) is problematic because it turns into an oxymoron: "Rational “irrational fear”. I’ve got to run now, but thanks for the offering. I will try to add something when I return. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-agree-on-what-homophobia-means/333541.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-we-agree-on-what-homophobia-means/333541.md?page=8)