Can we agree on what "Homophobia" means?

Great Debates
261

Oh, horseshit. Nothing in this thread can be construed as my supporting the status quo or defending “oppressors.” You made a big deal about the fact that you felt you were being misrepresented by another poster and waved around the “mod” stick and I came into the thread to show that your use of language was sufficiently idiosyncratic as to make your claim a tough one to defend. From one perspective, you are supporting the status quo more than I am since you would rather alienate the people who are passing restrictive legislation rather than working to get them to see your perspective.

I am sure that you are able to imagine that I am supporting the staus quo, but then we are back to your definition of homophobe is anyone who does not agree with you. I had no intention of coming back to this thread to badger you on your odd views of language or your general antipathy to the world, but if you keep coming back at me, you will drag me back into this thread to oppose your distortions and misunderstandings.

(Yes, I forgot to throw in a little " /Moderator " tag, but I did, indeed, consider Scott Plaid to be trolling to insult, since his words were a direct insult that were, additionally, completely false. I tend not to like putting the “Moderator” stamp on posts where I reply directly to personal insults.)

262

What hidden bias? At that point in the discussion, lissener had not made it clear that he was not actually using the dictionary definition (which includes the word irrational), but a more general definition of anyone who harbored any prejudice against homosexuals. His definition can work, but we had not yet reached that understanding since he had not explained that he was not really using the dictionry definition.

In point of fact, a person who grows up hearing a 2,500 year tradition that homosexuality is wrong and a choice, who knows no person who is self-identified as homosexual, personally, and who does not read those publications that would challenge his beliefs, is not behaving irrationally to harbor those prejudices. The prejudices are wrong, (just as prejudices based on race or sex are wrong), but it is not correct to claim that the person is irrational. Since that point was spelled out pretty clearly during that exchange, you either failed reading comprehension, miserably, or you are deliberately mischaracterizing my statements, now.

263

I’ve played around with this, as well. The problem is that racism and sexism have roots that are as categorically broad as possible: sexism does not point to one sex, and racism does not point to one race. Heterosexism on the other hand does has at its root only half of the scope, heterosexuality. A more analogous term wold be “sexual preferencism”, which is just too ugly and cumbersome to be useful. (Or is it that I’ve just never seen it before?}

264

I was responding to something you wrote, a point you were making by way of example. Your atempt to not answer this basic question—which IS parallel—shows ho unwilling you are to explore the issue and to continue down the same narrow path that has brought you this far.

Now PLEASE answer the question.

265

I think this is exactly wrong. The “outcome” is not what deserves the label, it is the “motivation” or “attitude” that a debater may have. Earlier in your post you said:

…and I think that is correct. By applying the label to someone—because of where the discussion may lead—runs counter to your statement and inhibits honest and meaningful debate of those issues.

266

And THE institution you support has nothing to do with the existence of that 2,500 year old tradition?

I am not popping in here with a remark designed solely to get people to yell at me, though I believe you are supporting the wrong side. However, since I do want to understand this issue, I want to here some elaboration on this.

I don’t see how that is not a prime example of irrationality.

Also, I recall your remarking on someone who could rationally object to gay adoption, something that does not affect them in the slightest. I would like to see you elaborate on this.

267

While I am NOT trying to bar the word, there are two problems with it. One is that its meaning is moving away from it’s origin, but the original meaning is still in use, and is likely to appear in the very same discussions as the newer meaniongs. Two: It is overly broad. “He is a hompophobe”, is used to describe people from both ends of the spectrum, which are hardly alike. It is used to mean "He is a bad person, said badness being derived from some disagreement with one (or all) of the things the gay community is fighting for.

The question isn’t if the word’s validity, I’m sure we’d all agree that there are homphobic people in the world, but one of clarity. “He is a gay basher” or “He is anti-gays in the military” are much more helpful statements from a communications standpoint than “He is a homophobe.” The only thing thay lack is the broad brush of demonization. And my problem with that is that sometimes it will be deserved, sometimes it will not be deserved.

268

Maybe some good will come from this thread after all. :smiley:

269

If you had bothered to follow Poly’s suggestion, you would have discovered that I am not in agreement with the church on this topic, but since you did not bother to follow up on that (or even read this thread), you are speaking from (at best) ignorance or (more likely) malice.

How can my example be one of irrationality? The person so described is following an ancient tradition, based not on emotions or the rejection of rationlity (as required by your Wiki definition), but on the acceptance of tradition. That is not irrational. It is not choosing to make decisions based on emotion despite rational analysis. We follow traditions throughout our lives without ever sitting down and analyzing each one to ensure that each individual decision has a logical basis. That is how we use culture and tradition–to be able to get through each day, reserving our energy to employ logic and rationality to address unique situations rather than spending endless hours contemplating every decision we make. Now, the first choice in Judaism may or may not have been rational. (We do not have the evidence to examine that the law’s author had, so we do not know whether it was an irrational decision or a flawed rational decision based on an error of understanding.) Once it was “on the books,” however, people who followed it were not acting irrationally: they were following the cultural tradition, that tradition that kept society moving. Now, the decision was, ultimately wrong, but that does not impart “irrationality” (the rejection of logic) to that decision.

Irrationality does not simply mean “wrong” or “flawed” or even “illogical.” It means rejecting the use of reason (actively or passively) to arrive at a conclusion.

With that realization, it should be obvious, even to you, that a person who makes a rational decision, based on bad information, bad logic, or some other lack of understanding is not behaving irrationally.

A person who smears butter on a burn or drinks milk to ease the pain of a stomach ulcer is not behaving irrationally unless they have read and understood the medical literature that has shown these actions harm more than they help. When butter is smeared on burn, it eases the pain. when an ulcer sufferer drinks milk, it eases the pain. It was only when medical people examined the results of those actions and discovered that they were causing harm did it become illogical to perform those actions. However, for them to be irrational actions, the person must realize that they will cause harm and still choose to perform them.

270

Is there a element present in society insisting that butter burn spreaders are perpetuating a harmful tradition? No, but there are messages spread in modern society that homophobia is unacceptable, partially via such ignorant people being called homophobes. If a person in modern society does have a negative feeling towards homosexuals, then I can only conclude he is doing so after having heard people tell him to reconsider his feelings.

271

I agree with you on this point, I’m sorry if my example was unclear. If someone supports equal rights for homosexuals, then they are not, in my opinion and in my view of the popular meaning of the word, homophobic. If such a person can present an argument that the “orthodox” position on a gay-rights issue does, in fact, contribute to anti-gay discrimination, then it would be wrong to accuse them of homophobia.

However, someone who only supports limited gay rights, who believes (for rational or irrational reasons) that there are some things which homosexuals should not be allowed to do merely because of their orientation, is still homophobic.

Hmm. Only when the discussion in question is on a genuinely debatable point. If someone were to seriously propose a debate “Should the death penalty for sodomy be re-introduced?” I think it would be legitimate to characterize them as “homophobic”, even if they refrained from expressing their opinion on the issue.

272

This isn’t a good analogy for this thread, because there are arguments on both sides of the AA debate that are ultimatly rooted in racial equality. While there are some genuine racists (on both sides), the mainstream position of everyone in the debate is that all races should be treated equally. The disagreement is over how to best achieve this goal. I can’t think of any debates over gay rights where this is paralleled.

273

But if the reason is rational, how can you say that the person is homophobic? That makes no sense. Even if you are using the term to mean “anti-gay” it, you are assuming facts not in evidence. Imagine that htere is a person who you accept as being a NOT homophobic and NOT anti-gay. Isn’t it possible that he might support a policy that might restrict a particular “right” to homosexuals because he believes it benefits society as a whole to do so?

Take the idea of scout leaders. It seems to be a reasonable and prudent course of action to not have say, two heterosuexual males take young girls on an overnight camping trip—esdpecially if they are the only adults. Wouldn;t you agree. The, similarly, it seems to be equally reasonable and prudent to not have two homosexual men take young boys on an overnight camping trip, doesn’t it. Same for two lesbians and a group of young girls.

I draw this pointed example to show that in society there are often competing rights or “goods”. And comiing down against one of them doesn’t automatically put you in a group with others that might arrive at the same conclusion through different motivation.

But all points should be open to debate. What should be evaluated as to whether something is homophobic or anti-gay is the rationale. I agree that most of the rationales seeking to restrict are gay rights are homophobic AND irrational, but that is not necessarily the case. To imply otherwise is to stifle debate through demonization of the opponent.

274

First: we are not talking about negative feelings: the discussion that gave rise to your questions were of politics and policy and rights. One may harbor no ill will toward homosexuals, at all, yet come to the conclusion that marriage is a heterosexual issue or that there may be reasons to exclude homosexuals from other rights. Such conclusions are wrong, but a person could arrive at them rationally based on misinformation or misunderstanding.

Second: Your conclusion is without basis in reality. There are still as lot of people who have never been told to reconsider their “feelings” except as vague pronouncements on NPR or emanating from groups that they would consider suspect based on their prior understanding.

Third: A person who has seen information indicating that homosexuals should be treated equally in all areas under the law may not actually believe the arguments presented if they are not presented in a way that clearly demonstrates (to him) the errors of the tradition he is following.

The fact that you can see something does not make your vision reality and does not make your vision (even if real) something that overwhelms all other information on a topic.

Given your loud and persistent antagonism to religion, it is funny to watch you argue in exactly the same manner as a rigid Fundamentalist:

Does God send everyone who does not believe in him to hell?
Is any one who does not embrace total equality for homosexuals irrational?

Yes, because God loves everyone and if they disobey his command to love Him, they deserve hell.
Yes, because it is obvious that there is no basis for opposition to equal rights for all people, so they are irrational.

What if the arguments for God do not make sense based on their prior education and experience?
What if the arguments for equal treatment under the Law do not make sense based on their prior education and experience?

God has to send them to hell.
They are clearly irrational haters.

Note that I am not defending their beliefs in any way. I am pointing out that you are trying to impose a belief on these people that they may not hold, simply because you lack sufficient imaginastion to see other possibilites.
I am pointing out that you are mischaracterizing the beliefs and the sources of those beliefs for many people. While it does not harm anyone if you mistakenly believe that some people hold some beliefs, it will probably hurt your chances of persuading people of the correctness of your position if you challenge them, in error, on things they do not actually believe.
When the occasional naive evangelical atheist wanders through here demanding that I acknowledge that there are contradictions in the bible, I just laugh at them. I know that better than they do. If they demand that I give up a belief in God because they misunderstand the bible, thinking that I am a literalist who will be shocked to discover that there are contradictions, I will not be persuaded.
If you are going to approach everyone who opposes same sex marriage (for example) as though they were irrational or they were fearful of or hated homosexuals, you are going to fail to persuade them every time you meet a person who cannot be shoehorned into your preconceptions.

So what? That is not the point of our exchange. You are attempting to impose the word “irrational” on people who may not actually be irrational, and you have falsely accused me of supporting people who oppose equal rights for all people simply because I have pointed out that you do not understand the difference between irrationality and other forms of error or misunderstanding.

275

I still don’t think you are right, and that is how things will stand, till the end of time. Homophobia as a catchall term would insult those hypothetical who hold harmful views, perhaps shocking them, rather then let them remain complacent, but no, it is better not to offend, and to go with what you think the dictionary says. :rolleyes:

No, I am not. I fully believe you are opposed to the Church’s stance on homosexuality, based on your remarks in this thread. However, I am arguing against you almost as if you were in support of the Church, because the result of your views are the same.

Let’s compare two children. One is raised in a household where the parents have made it clear to the kids that homosexuals are just like everyone else. The kid grows up, sees other kids using “gay” as a pejorative, stereotypes of gay people in old movies, etc.

However, due to his family having told him the reality of the situation, he does not grow up to think that homosexuals are nancy boys. If he (or she) should turn out to be gay, then there is no problem.

Now, let’s take the same kid, and raise him in a household where tom’s hypothetical parent has come to minor homophobia due to misinformation or misunderstanding. The parent almost never discusses homosexuality, since they think it is something unfortunate. When it is discussed, the parent does not exhibit huge amounts of disgust. No, they demonstrate minor uncomfortableness, and perhaps a few stereotypes. The kid grows up, sees other kids using “gay” as a pejorative, stereotypes of gay people in old movies, etc.

However, due to his family having not told him the reality of the situation, he grows up to think that homosexuals are nancy boys. If he (or she) should turn out to be gay, then he might feel disgust. In all likelihood, he “knows” his parents will be disguised with him, and does not discuss the issue with him.

276

What this line of questioning, in fact, shows, is that you are still willing to directly address the specific issues in this debate. You keep swirling the murk with hypotheticals and analogies and avoiding the actual specifics. Hypotheticals and analogies can help provide clarification, of course. But if you retreat into them to avoid direct contact with the actual subject, they have the opposite effect; a smoke screen.

None of the prejudices against homosexuals being put forth as criteria for homophobia have a parallel in affirmative action. The human rights issues that homophobia is relevant to involve actively denying rights to individuals. Affirmative Action is about actively providing extra privileges to certain individuals. To cease a negative action is not the same thing as to engage in a positive action. The first can bring you to zero sum; the second does not. That you see a parallel at all does not mean that there is one; it means that you don’t understand the issue fully.

(Here’s me, not participating in this hijack. :rolleyes: <==directed at me, not you)

If you want to ask if I would consider any objection to affirmative action for homosexuals to be irrefutable evidence of homophobia, that would be more relevant to this discussion. But still a hijack.

277

OK, I see you’re using “irrational” as a get-out. It was perfectly rational for the proprietor of a restaurant in Alabama in 1950 to exclude blacks from his establishment, because the rest of his clients would object, and he would lose business as a result. It was still racist for him to do so.

I’ve said before that “homophobia” wasn’t a well-chosen word. However, it’s the word we have. Would you argue that the aforementioned restaurant owner could have legitimately said “I’m not being racist, because my decision is rational? It benefits society as a whole; my customers are happy, and the blacks are happy in their restaurants - the food is cheaper there, too, and they don’t have to face any prejudice as long as they stay with their own kind.”?

  • sighs *

No, I would not agree. By that argument, no heterosexual male teacher should ever be allowed to supervise female pupils, because he might take advantage of them. No Jew should ever be allowed to lend money, because he might want to extract a pound of flesh if the debt wasn’t paid.

Can you not see how this perpetuation of the stereotype is homophobic? Or, if you don’t like the word, how about “bigoted” or “prejudiced”? Whatever we call it, it’s the same thing.

278

I disagree. It is entirely an emotional decision. It is a decision based on your emotional attachment to your relgious tradition, and a choice NOT to examine the issue rationally, but instead to really on that emotional attachment.

In any case, as has been said before, a rational person working from wrong information can arrive at an irrational conclusion. To continue focusing on this one baroquely esoteric “exception to the rule,” tomndebb, is to betray the overwhelming (irrational?) degree to which your agenda is driving your participation in this discussion.

I feel like, to some degree, you’ve spent most of this thread constructing an elaborate dissertation whose thesis the revelatious, epiphanic mind boggler of a eureka that “there’s an exception to every rule.” Personally, I include that on my list of godwins, since it’s a given that any intelligent adult brings into a debate. There’s no value in derailing a debate just to root out the most exceptional anomolies, because an intelligent adult understands that such anomolies do not serve to *disprove *the rule.

So fine, there’s enough wiggle room in the word “irrational” and in the individual and idiosyncratic thought processes through which a particular individual might arrive, with faulty information, at an irrational conclusion, though he does so through a rational thought process. Fine. You’ve created a carefully delimited and constructed hypothetical in response to which I will throw up my hands and say, “Yes, it’s possible for an individual, given certain conditions of carefully maintained ignorance and isolation, to rationally arrive at a prejudice against homosexuals and not be a homophobe.”

But you know, No; I take that back. If you are prejudiced against homosexuals, you are a homophobe. Simple as simple. You may have reached that prejudice rationally, based on ignorance; your fear that homosexuals may want to steal all the white women may be based on bad information. But it’s still a fear, and it’s still a prejudice. In your limited universe it may not qualify as irrational, but it’s still a prejudice. It’s still homophobia. Call it “institutional homophobia” or something, if you want to; “ecclesiastical homophobia.” Whatever. It’s still homophobia.

279

No. It is not a “good” to teach children that they should presume future behavior of an individual based on irrelevant criteria. It is not a “good” for society, to teach children that it’s OK to discriminate; that it’s a given that certain groups of people are to be presumed incapable of behaving like grownups. It’s certainly not a “good” to perpetuate the myth that homosexuality = pedophilia.

The Boy Scouts do their members a disservice by teaching them that it’s OK to limit the rights of others in favor of maintaining the comfort of their own ignorance. The competing “goods” here are the discomfort of the prejudiced versus the civil rights of certain human beings. A pretty clear cut case, if you ask me.

(That said, I agree with the SCOTUS decision that the Boy Scouts are allowed to discriminate. It’s a private organization. I would not want the Supreme Court to force MY private organization to accept members who do not share its interests, so I would not have the Boy Scouts forced to accept members it does not want. I choose not to support them, and I will exercise my right to say their practices are antithetical to a healthy society, but I would not limit their rights as a private organization.)

280

NOT!

Sheesh.