You asked “does anyone object to the following definition of “homophobia”?” I don’t object, thus the lack of a comment on your post.
Sounds good to me, though [Hair-splitting] (2) and (3) are pretty much subsumed under (1)[/Hair-splitting].
As I said way back at the beginning of the thread, “homophobia” may not be the best word to mean “prejudice against gays.” But it’s the word that’s in common parlance, it’s the word we have, and everyone who is of at least average intelligence, lives in an English speaking country, and hasn’t been living in a cave with eyes shut and fingers jammed in ears knows what it means: Prejudice against gays.
The fact that there are degrees of homophobia does render the word meaningless. We used the word “swiftly” all the time, despite the fact that “swiftly” may mean swiftly compared to a tectonic plate, a Bear, or an accelerated electron. We determine the exact meaning through context.
I disagree. The reason why I put #2 in the definition is so that talk about The Gay Agenda will be included: such talk doesn’t have to refer to homosexuals in order to reflect homophobia. Someone who believes that homosexuality is a mental illness certainly displays prejudice against homosexuality, even if they are perfectly nice to the homosexuals they know.
As for point #3, it’s there avoid the postjudice loophole: folks who say, “I’ve given the issue a great deal of thought, and I’ve concluded that homosexuals ought to be sent to re-education camps” might claim that because they’re judging after having considered the issue, they’re not guilty of prejudice. I don’t want to allow for such a loophole.
NOT! 
Daniel
No.
Do a search for poster=Tomndebb and keyword=Ratziger.
Then look up “assent” in the Catholic usage of the word.
I don’t like it.
How’s this:
Homophobia: a reaction or attitude founded in the presumption that one may judge unfavorably the feelings, emotions, and/or private actions of another based on his or her same-sex sexual attraction.
Oh, for cryin’ out loud!! :smack: :smack:
Can you explain the benefits of this definition, and show how it applies in the real world? I’m having trouble wrapping my brain around it.
Daniel
I think Daniel’s parses better, but I don’t see how the two definitions are functionally different.
Where does it leave Ratzinger, who does not regard Homosexuals as at all inferior in any way, but based on prior intellectual commitment to Church tradition and interpretation of the Bible, concludes that homosexual acts are sinful?
I don’t like Daniel’s because it presumes that people can make moral judgments about a group of other people, and simply condemns (implicitly) their finding this particular group to be morally lacking.
They’re founded in two different views regarding proper interpersonal ethics.
Sounds like he lands under definition number three. Homosexual acts, according to his doctrine, are sinful. Of course, so are heterosexual acts, but the church provides a means through which those acts are acceptable: marriage. He steadfastly refuses to grant this same priviledge to homosexuals, forcing them into either a life of celibacy that few people would find bearable, or into a life of sin. This is, in my view, an unacceptable double-standard. He believes that homosexuals should be treated differently, both legally and morally, than heterosexuals. Under LHoD’s definition, he’s a homophobe. Actually, his opposition to allowing homosexuals to be married under secular law would also land him in this category, regardless of Church doctrine.
All of that is, of course, assuming you are correct in your assertion that he “does not regard Homosexuals as at all inferior.” My read of his actions since assuming the papacy are not half as forgiving.
I agree with all you’ve said her, except for your specific recommendation. The problem is that “homophobia” will never be divorced from its clinical definition. There are a hundred words that end in “phobia” and they all mean “irrational fear of”. As we do need a word to describe “an irrational fear of homosexuals or homosexuality”, “homophobia” seems to be the logical candidate. And if it is going to mean that very specific thing, it would be better that it didn’t mean other things, as well. This is particulalry true because the word is used in debates where distinction between degree is important, as was pointed out in the thread I excerpted on Page 1.
The way I look at it we have this broad cataegory that encompasses “ill feeling about or towards homosexuals”. And one end of the spectrum we have the violent gay-bashers, On the other end you have someone who might disagree with a certain social policy concerning gays (SSM, gays in the military, adoption, etc.). The more we use one word to refer to all of them the less clear the discussion.
To offer what an anology (by no means perfect), take the broad category of “laughter”. If we were in a thread where the topic was attitudes/repsonses toward certain jokes, it would be helpful to be able to distinguish between a snicker, a giggle, a belly-laugh, and a guffaw. To not be able to do so and be stuck responding to every positive response as a “laugh” (while true), would not facilitate the discussion. Every time we used the word “laigh”, we’d have to qualify it and requalify it. That is how the language develops. At some point people felt the need to communicate the concept of “laugh”, but in a way that indicated a particular flavor.
If you’re arguing that the language needs more than one word to describe a person’s physical reaction to humor, I’ll agree. If you’re arguing that the word “laugh” is problematic, I disagree: it does a fine job at encompassing a wide variety of reactions, and people find it useful enough that the word “laugh” gets used far more often than any of its thesaurical allies.
If you want to invent new words to describe mild homophobes versus vicious homophobes, be my guest; however, your successful argument that such words are necessary in no way undermines a broad definition for the word homophobe.
I’m afraid I still don’t follow. Are you saying that it presumes that I can make a moral judgment about the group of people that I consider to be homophobes, or that the group I consider to be homophobes can make moral judgments about homosexuals? If you could give specific cases in which you think your definition is better than mine, it’d help me see the difference.
Daniel
I’m sorry, but you’re mistaken. The suffix “-phobia” is not used only psychiatry. It is also used in other contexts, to mean simple aversion, and not necessarily an psychiatric disorder. The reason the word “homophobia” is so useful is that it covers such a broad spectrum of degrees of aversion to actual fear. “Photophobic,” used outside of a psychiatric context, does not mean a fear of light, it means a sensitivity to light. The suffixes -phobic and -philic are used in chemistry. A protein scum on the surface of a liquid is caused, IIRC, by a protein molecule whose one end is–chemically speaking–hydrophobic, and whose other end is hydrophilic.
So objecting to the suffix “-phobic” because it ONLY means a psychiatric disorder characterized by debilitating fear is a valid objection.
As we do need a word to describe “an irrational fear of homosexuals or homosexuality”, “homophobia” seems to be the logical candidate. And if it is going to mean that very specific thing, it would be better that it didn’t mean other things, as well.
[/quote]
My response above renders this moot. Even if not, the natural evolution of language would do so. As someone who will never give up on lecturing people for the near-universal misuse of the word “epitome,” I sympathize. But the word will mean what it means; you can’t legislate meaning.
Adjectives are your friend. If you feel the word is unclear, you should clarify, with context, to whatever degree possible.
Except, the fact that they are all covered, to one degree or another, is helpful in that it accurately acknowledges that each of these positions is fundamentally prejudicial; that each position makes assumptions about each individual member of a whole group of people based, not on behavior or beliefs or politics or actions, but on accidents of birth. An utterly benign accident of birth, to boot, relevant only to who makes them happy. To want to limit an entire groups rights basic human rights based on who they get highschool crushes on, but not to want to admit to themselves that this is prejudice, is not a compelling reason, IMHO, to campaign to change the definition of a perfectly useful word.
You only say what word you DON’T want to use, while you keep insisting that we should use other words instead. Your examples of “snicker” and “guffaw” render your analogy a bad one; where are the one-word versions of “homophobia”? Leaving aside my utter bewilderment that your argument seems to be driven by the undue burden of having to use adjectives because there aren’t enough single-word nuances of “homophobia,” what words are you proposing?
You see why it seems more like you want to LIMIT communication by insisting on NOT using a word, while you claim to be arguing for MORE communication, without any real suggestions for how to achieve such clarity?
If Fred Phelps is a homophobe, then, in your lexicon, then what is someone who claims his best friends are gay, he just doesn’t want them to get married?
You’ve made it clear that you favor limited civil rights for homosexuals, magellan01, so if we can’t call that “homophobia,” what then should we call it?
(I’m honestly trying to keep this discussion civil, so any “tone” you read into the above, please allow me the benefit of the doubt and re-read it with your tone receptors turned way down.)
“Bigot.”
Wow. Haste lays waste.
!!!
And this response to the above mis-embedded quote from magellan01 might have gotten lost in my tardo coding:
My response above renders this moot. Even if not, the natural evolution of language would do so. As someone who will never give up on lecturing people for the near-universal misuse of the word “epitome,” I sympathize. But the word will mean what it means; you can’t legislate meaning.
Dang. I was gonna do the “NOT!” thing on you, too.
So what do you think of my proposed definitions, lissener? Do they accurately reflect how you use and understand the word? How do you see them as working compared to the dictionary definitions and polycarp’s proposal?
Daniel
Basically, this indicates that you are simply trolling this thread for the purpose of hurling insults at me. Nothing that I have posted in this thread can be said to have taken any negative position regarding homosexuals. My entire discussion has revolved about language issues regarding the best way to bring people who do not support gay rights around to the position of supporting civil rights for all people. Clearly, there has been disagreement on that issue, but your statement is an outright lie.
Which is pretty much what I have come to expect of you.
Thanks. LHoD, concur?
Well, I can see where some might think that way, though I don’t.
But really, ISTM that one has to assume people have good faith in these sorts of discussions; otherwise the whole exercise is pretty pointless. If Ratzinger per se is the problem, insert some other real or imagined person. This guy might be a better fit.
Poly, is Ratzinger homophobic by* your * definition?