Do you really think that using the term “racist” isn’t going to convey exactly the same idea? I don’t see where you’re getting this dichotomy between “racism” and “homophobia” from. Use of either term is almost always going to be perceived as an insult. How is calling something homophobic is any greater barrier to gaining gay rights, than calling something racist is a barrier to gaining civil rights?
Maybe you’re using a different definition of racial prejudice than I; from what I’ve seen, racial prejudice is based on hate and fear.
You must have a narrower circle of acquaintances than I do. I know a lot of people who have no fear of blacks or Indians, and certainly do not hate them, yet are quite certain that neither group “has what it takes” to build a civilization or run a country or a corporation. They simply believe that certain groups are naturally inferior to other groups and that we white folk are at the top of the heap.
In fact, that is one generally accepted definition of racism–that one believes that there are actual groups of people in the world who are intellectually or morally or physically superior and inferior. The hatred and fear generally arises among those people who see any effort to grant equal access to the rest of society as a threat (either to their own lower station in the world or to the general “superiority” of the group to which they belong). People who do not perceive a threat are rarely fearful or hateful.
Certainly, there are people whom we would all agree are homophobic: those who have some odd idea that gays are going to run amok, molesting children, destroying the sanctity of marriage, etc. However, I see no hatred or fear among people who would grant “civil unions,” but feel that several thousands of years of tradition have set the word marriage into a specific meaning. I do not see hatred or fear among people who are concerned that having two same-sex parents will lead to identity crises or other problems for children. I think their arguments are wrong (and are often silly), but they are acting out of beliefs that were simply understood to be true for many, many years and they are more puzzled than fearful regarding requests to change those long-held traditions.
If I call a person a racist or a homophobe I am going to be equally insulting in each case. That is true.
However, if I discuss racism, as a general concept of racial superiority or inferiority, I can point out the lack of reality in biological races; I can point out flawed premises regarding the supposed superiority or inferiority. There is not yet any similar construct regarding prejudice against homosexuals–particularly in regards to the words homophobia and homophobe. Even if I say that “society is homophobic” I am saying society hates or fears homosexuals, not that some aspects of society mistakenly elevate or denigrate people based on a perceived value. The only values associated with homosexuality are fear and hatred.
“discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals” can easily stem from an error in understanding.
Merriam-Webster:
Discrimination
3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>
Prejudice
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
Thus “homophobia” can be an outlook, action, or treatment, based on an adverse opinion formed before sufficient knowledge, against homosexuality or homosexuals.
I think that the problem we are running into here is that “homophobia” now has different meanings. One of those meanings is meant to be insulting, the other is meant to be descriptive/.
I disagree. I think there’s a very real element of fear there. There is a fear that allowing gays to call their unions “marriage” will in somew way cheapen or negate their own marriages. That fear is prejudicial, ignorant and baseless. None of the reasons set forth explain (logically) how gay marriage could nullify heterosexual marriage.
Hence the OP.
But even when used in the “descriptive” sense what it intends to describe runs the gamut, from some of the more innocent examples tomndebb gave to a gay-bashing crowd of skinheads.
This is precisely the problem I noted earlier. It didn’t sink in then, I doubt it will sink in now.
Yep. And I know what it means. It means that since I have not suggested that anyone beg or plead for acceptance, including that statement in an apparent rebuttal of my remarks is knocking down an argument I have not made.
Look. magellan01 is your audience. Several tens of millions of similar thinking individuals have gone to the polls over the last five years and passed gay-bashing laws and amendments to their constitutions. If you think that every one of them desperately fears and loathes homosexuals, then you should probably be packing your bags to flee the country, right now. If, on the other hand, they were making their choices based on the perpetuation of ignorance, then it behooves you to fight that ignorance. You are going to be a lot less likely to gwet the attention of someone who may be open to education if the first thing you do is accuse them of being an irrational hater who is simpy afraid of catching gay cooties.
I have no idea whether magellan01, himself, could be persuaded to support same sex marriage or other pieces of civil rights legislation. However, on this left-tilted board, he is clearly a voice closer to the people who slammed the door on your rights in the last few elections. It is probable that there are other like-minded people who read these threads, but who fear to post. If your attitude is one that declares that they are scum, then they are less likely to listen to your quite valid arguments aginst such gay-bashing legislation.
I do not suggest that anyone plead for their rights. I am suggesting that if your presentation is one that deliberately insults the actual people who voted for that gay-bashing legislation, (who are a whole lot more numerous than the people who opposed such laws), then you are doing yourself no favor.
Looking for clarification:
My reading of “Hence the OP” suggests that you want to get everyone to agree to one definition. Is that a fair assesment?
Do you feel that my extension through dictionary definitions has given an accurate definition of “homophobe” when used in the descriptive sense?
Is it your argument that using a term with two meanings, one of which is perjorative and one of which is descriptive, will never convey the descriptive meaning?
“It didn’t sink in then, I doubt it will sink in now.”
If this is aimed at me, I will remind you that my first post in this thread is less than 17 hours old.
It was my hope that we could agree what the word means, so when it is used everyone would know if it was intended in the literal (clinical) sense, if it was being used to describe virulent gay-bashing, or it was intended to to encompass someone who doesn’t fear or hate homosexuals but might have legitimate (not necessarily corrrect or over-riding) ancillary concerns with some of the the “rights” most gays are fighting for.
If you read the thread, particularly the beginning, you’ll see that I was not trying to define the term myself. I was simply, and honestly, seeing if we could agree on ANY definition, as to foster communication. At the end of page 1 I shared the thread that sparked the OP, one in which I didn’t contribute to the actual debate. But that thread is a perfect example of how intelligent, reasonable people were talking past each other because they each assumed the word to mean different things. After the problem was identified, it derailed the debate, though not totally.
I’ve gotten lost. Could you please point to the definition and the extension?
In part. As I pointed out earlier, and as tomndebb pointed out as well, it allows the person who hurls the word to impune the receiver, but when called on it, claim they were using it in a broader, more benign sense. Yet the damage is done. It’s like you punching me in the face and then claiming it was just a love tap. Either way, I still have a black eye.
I also think that when the word, like any word, starts to mean too many things, it becomes less useful as a word. If homophobia simply means “irrational fear of homosexuals”, much the way claustraphobia means “irrational fear of closed or small spaces”, the word is very useful. By that I mean that everytime it is used the meaning is well understood. Clearly the word has moved away from that. But when the definition of the word expands to the point of including both me an my outwardly gay friend who question if gay rights should have any limit at all AND some gay haters who lurk around gay bars in Manhattan looking to kick the shit out of a gay person, its utility diminishes drastically.
And tomndebb makes a valid point. I have no hate toward gay people. I do not fear or dislike gay people. And I resnt being cast into the same heap as those who do. Yet, this thread has definitely pushed me into the camp of “Fuck it. I’m not going to talk about it or bring it up again, because it’s just not worth it.” If you read the thread and look at lissner’s attitude, starting from Post #2 and readin onward, you’ll get a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Which is why I agreed/agree so vehemently with Evil Captor’s post on Page 1.
I thought it was clear, but evidently not: it was intended for lissner. My apologies.
K. Just checking. btw, I didn’t think that you were pushing your own definition.
Sorry, I forgot that I had given two. When I posted the question to you (in post 188), I was thinking of the long definition I had given in my more recent post (post # 184).
erm… I don’t think that analogy is fair at all. (Although, to be fair, I can’t come up with a great one of the top of my head, either.) I don’t think that “love taps” can be confused with “punching [someone] in the face” by either the giver or the receiver.
Fair enough, but how many is too many? From what I have seen
Let’ me reiterate my “Christian” analogy. …No, let’s broaden to “religious.”
Could refer to someone who is reverent to all humans, kindly, etc, or it could mean some schmuck who feels that prosletyzing with a gun is a good idea. If I were to call either one religious, of course they would agree with me; to them the word has only good connotations. However, they would not like to be lumped in with the other, I would suppose. The term however, does have its use. It describes a characteristic they both have.
And I would resent being cast into the same group as Stalin. But we are/were both Atheists. When a fundie calls me an Atheist, they may (or may not) be comparing me unfavorably to Stalin in their mind. But, unless they somehow allude to the comparison, I can’t take offense purely at the label.
I certainly do agree that “homophobe” can be used too lightly, and it could be used as a perjorative. Since it can be taken either way, it is up to the user to distinguish between the meanings. OTOH, I also think that, however hard a user tries to use the word in a clinical sense, define the word and its connotations currently being used, or explain how the term is appropriate, some people will get rankled if they are called that, even if the term is used correctly. However, that, I think, touches on another topic entirely: will using such a term “make converts.” That is, is it wise to use the term “homophobic” when discussing the matter with someone who may be making a decision against gays based on an adverse opinion formed before sufficient knowledge? That is an entirely different debate.
ok. It didn’t really make sense that you aimed it at me, but I didn’t see anything else in the post to redirect. No problem.
:smack: Doh.
From what I have seen, we are only talking about two. The perjorative and the descriptive. There are many words with far more definitions than that.
There may be something to this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901938.html
From the article:
This guy was homophobic in any sense of the word, beginning with “fear.” I’m not sure that the typical middle aged person who may not even have met any acknowledged homosexuals (there being enough social hostility to keep a lot of folks from revealing their sexual orientation) who simpy rely on longstanding views that homosexuality is a perversion or a sickness quite meets the description of someone who spends their entire life in fear that homosexuals might be doing something bad (or good) somewhere.
Well, that’s interesting, but I think this discussion has been derailed many times by focusing on the extreme, exceptional situations.
I still maintain that even the most “innocuous,” minor prejudice–whether homophobia or racism or whatever–is based, ultimately, on fear. Not a debilitating, overwhelming fear, as in the quoted article, necessarily. But, at base, a fear. Which is why I still think that “homophobia” is a perfectly valid and accurate word to describe any prejudice against gays. I think there are many kinds of prejudice covered by that umbrella term, like severe homophobia, debilitating homophobia, rationalized homophobia, delusional homophobia, cultural homophobia, religious homophobia, *ad *literally nauseum.
But they’re all still a prejudice against homosexuals, based ultimately in fear. Even if the fear is a political one, or a social one, or even an economic one. It’s still a fear, and thus it’s still homophobia.
As for the argument, elsewhere above, that the word should not be used because it might hurt someone’s feelings: please. I’d love to see the shitstorm if anyone here showed racism the same kind of “tolerance.” It’s just not a very compelling argument. If you’re a homophobe–even an ignorant one–I, for one, am not gonna bend over backwards to consider your “feelings.” What a load of hypocritical crap. How hurtful to MY feelings is homophobia? I don’t care WHO you blame for your homophobia, it’s still not acceptable. If your first step on the road to recovery is the slap-in-the-face realization that your complacent “opinion” about gays is hurtful to real human beings, then please let me be first in line to administer that slap. I’m glad that there are more polite people out there to continue your education, but if it takes a slap to shift your paradigm around to the initial epiphany that such “opinions” are not immutable, and are not universally condoned, then I’m all for it. If “homophobia” was a word that was NOT a bit of a slap in the face to a complacent homophobe, then I guess we’d have to come up with another that was.
Education is necessary, and I’ve spent some decades doing my share of it. But I’m tired to the bone of patronizing attitudes like tomndebb’s that are all about being nice and asking permission and begging a seat at the table. The seat at the table is mine, and the burden is on the homophobes to take it away from me; not on me to politely request it, and politely educate them on why I have a right to it, while they pat me on the head and remain unthreatened. Again: please. We’re beyond that. “Homophobe” is impolite? Well, duh. So is homophobia.
Get over it, or climb your OWN ass into the closet. You built it for me, but I’m not playing along and waiting politely inside until you gradually become comfortable with my leaving it. Your comfort is no longer my concern. It’s your own. Don’t like being called a homophobe? Don’t be a homophobe. Railing against the meaning of the word is just as delusional as the extreme case of homophobia mentioned above.
THe above was not addressed to anyone specifically, but to the universal “you” complacent homophobes everywhere.
What a beautiful summation of your position.
No one has asked that anyone plead for anything.
No one has said don’t use the word because it might hurt somone’s feelings.
No one is suggesting tolerance for the attitudes that you (now) characterize as homophobia.
The single point is that the word conveys a meaning that is not in your best interests, (despite your emotional knee-jerk desperation to use it, with a subtext that you simply want to lash out and hurt everyone whom you see as hurting you). The suggestion is simply that you not go out of your way to alienate people who might have been receptive to your actual arguments simply for the satisfaction of being smug in your supposed righteousness.
You have a perfectly valid emotional response to the situation in the U.S, today.
And nearly everything you post on the topic is entirely counterproductive.
There have been a number of people posting on this board who have changed their minds regarding topics such as same sex marriage. I tend to doubt that your posts had much (if anything) to do with persuading them to change their minds. If it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling to perceive everyone who opposes your political objectives as fearing you or being morally or mentally deficient, enjoy your feelings. However, those feelings, like pissing yourself while wearing a navy blue suit, it makes you feel warm for little while, but no one else notices, and eventually it does you (and the suit) no good at all.
Your definition (correct me if I’m wrong):
Yes, it seems sensible to say that it can mean that. But the word “can” is problematic, as the word “homophobia” CAN mean so many things. I was hoping for “homophobia is”. That aside, I think a simpler way to state what you do in your definition is that homophobia is a preconceived bias against homosexuals. Is that a fair restatement?
Assuming you think so, I see problems still. One is that it is very hard to divorce the word from it’s literal meaning: people understand “-phobias” to be irrational fears. Your definition makes the necessary condition one of “unfounded assumption” rather than one of “irrational fear”. I think this would be fine if the word didn’t already necessarily connote the latter.
I think you example is insrtuctive in that it shows that since homophobia cannot be divorced from its literal (clinical) meaning that we would be best served to let the word mean precisely that and come up with other words to comunicate other anti-gay mindsets.
“Gay-basher” is a good term for those that demonstrate violence against gays. By consistently using the term to describe that behavior—and not using homophobe by itself to refer to those people, the meaning and power of both phrases is protected. Thus, speaking of the killers of Mathew Shephard, I do not know if they were or were not homophobes (very likely), but I do know that they hated gay people and were williing to express their hatred in the most vile, violent manner.
On the other end of the spectrum you probably have a variety of types. I’d say there are: traditionalists; pious religious types, with varying degrees opf zealotry; and some social philosophers or sociologists.
Members of any of these groups might very well be “irrationally fearful” of gay people. Thay also might not be. In fact, they might not be fearful at all. Their thinking also may or may not be biased from the outset. It is completely possible that someone might arrive at a particular conclusion regarding say, SSM, gay scout leaders, gays in the military, or gay adoption, and not have started out with a preconceived bias against homosexuals or homosexuality. Again, my gay friend has been “out” for over 30 years and is a proud to be part of the gay community, yet he is of the opinion that, barring extreme circumstances, that gay couples should not adopt children. He believes that a heterosexual household is a better place for the child. Now I don’t know how much of his position is based on his personal experience, or how easily he might be swayed by the latest empirical evidence, but the point remains that he holds a position that most gays do not, and it wold be ridiculous to call him a homophobe. So what do we call him? Or the social scientist who believes that SSM might not be good for society? Or the child advocates who are opposed to gay Boy Scout masters for the same reason they oppose male troop leaders in the Girl Scouts? Many of these people are very reasonable—even if they are incorrect. To ascribe “irrational fear” to them is simply inaccurate and, not to mention, unfair.
The answer I don’t know. But I think it points to the problem with my OP. Because there aren’t words to describe subsets more specifically, people use the best word they have. That doesn’t make it a good choice, but it may be the best choice.
As I tried to point out, I think you are constructing false sets here. Even when the use is perjorative, it is descriptive. There are not simply two neat little categories, there is a broad spectrum of behavior and mindset that the word homophobia is used to describe. It has almost beciome meaningless. As was illustrated in the long post I excerpted on page 1, in any real discussion it is bound to cause confusion.
Like the explanation I wrote about your atheist example (below), “religious” by itself is rather benign. Sure it can be used by a group to be an insult—or praise—to someone, but without strong preconceptions, more information is needed for an observer to determiine in which direction you are pushing the definition. With 'homophobia", it is simply a matter of degree.
But “homophobe”, aside from it’s pure clinical use, is always offensive. “Atheist”, by itself, is benign. It is not necessarily good or bad. Now if it were uttered about you at a meeting of fundemantalists it would probably be assumed to be used in the perjorative. Barring that, I have to bring up Stalin, explain that he, too, was an atheist, and hope that fallacious gaming of the language and logic flies by my audience.
Homophobia has no benign use. At it’s most innocent, it attributes not only “fear of”, but “irrational fear of” homosexuals to its target. But outside a purely clinical use it also is intended to ascribe hate, which it does well.
Just as some people who are liars, or jerks, or assholes, or cheapskates might be rankled. Too bad. If they demonstrate a certain behavior, they should have to live with the label. But at least the charge is direct and in can be rubutted. That would be the case with “homophobia” if its use, for instance, was always intended to mean those that don’t want to be around or touch gay people. Of course, this gets us right back to “well, what does the term mean?”.
The closest analogy we have I think is “racist”. If someone opposes affirmative action, are they racist? Do the hate minorities? Is that a necessary condition of anyone who might oppose affirmative action? If you answer yes, aren’t you effectively saying there is nothing to debate? Is there—or can there exist—no valid argument against it that is intellectual and fair minded?
It is. I do think it will be successful in bullying some people. But not everyone has the same reaction to bullying. Some of us view bullies as the enemy, regardless of the topic. If I feel that someone is atempting to bully me into a position I have one of two reactions: 1) discount every “argument” they’ve presented, because they are not interested in winniing for the right reasons, just winning. If theey are willing to win by any means, why should I trust anything they’ve said? And the more important the issue the more pathetic and sad I find the tactic. 2) acknowledge that this person is, in fact, my enemy. A wall goes up that I only want to breach by pouring molten lead over it.
This may be my last post here. I just previewed and saw even more lead-headed bullying. Thank you, JustAnotherGeek for the tenor of your debate, but this bullshit has become both tiresome and annoying.
Well, maybe I’ll manage one more post…
lissener,
I understand you like having your ass packed and all, but you might want to try doing it with something other than your head.
You homophobe-ophobe, you!
Not in GD, magellan01.
Yeesh! Direct insults of this nature are rather difficult to overlook. I’m issuing a direct Warning to avoid this behavior in the future.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
This is what you fail to understand. It is, actually, demanding that I plead.
I’m asking you seriously to consider that your powers of empathy may not be infallible here. I understand that you don’t THINK you’re demanding we plead, but you’re mistaken.
You’re asking us to prioritize your complacency over our dignity.
Please take a moment to consider that. From this side of the closet door, it absolutely *is *pleading.
The vastness of the gulf between your assumptions, understanding, empathy, whatever–and my reality–is what I’m addressing here. Just because you say “No one has asked that anyone plead” does not mean that no on has asked that anyone plead; it means that you don’t understand what the demands feel like from my perspective.