Can we agree on what "Homophobia" means?

[lissener]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

. . . Someone who prefers to watch straight erotica instead of gay erotica is not a homophobe. . . .

Another strawman. Show me where any rational person says this.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@SteveG1

Just what is this agenda?

As near as I can tell, spectrum’s agenda was to silence the speech of homophobes, and to silence the speech of those would oppose his attempts to silence their speech. I can’t say for sure, though.

As for your agenda, it seems to be entirely different from spectrum’s was. I do hope you understand why I wrote, “I’m not an idiot,” above.

Daniel

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@lissener

Another strawman. Show me where any rational person says this.

Lissener, just hush for a minute, will you? I didn’t claim anyone was making this claim. I was giving examples of behavior that would and would not qualify as homophobia, according to my own yardstick. I don’t think I’m disagreeing with you. If you’d chill, that’d probably be clear.

Daniel

[lissener]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

. . . he was using the charge of homophobia to silence his opposition.

More bullshit. He was using the charge of homophobia to COMMENT ON his opposition.

If you’re going to take a homophobic position publicly, you open yourself up to a reaction. Condemning what someone says is not the same thing as refusing their right to say it. It’s exercising your own right to balance it in the public forum with MORE speech.

[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?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@lissener

More bullshit. He was using the charge of homophobia to COMMENT ON his opposition.

If you’re going to take a homophobic position publicly, you open yourself up to a reaction.

Just so I’m clear here, are you using the personal or impersonal “you” in the above quote?

Daniel

[lissener]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Lissener, just hush for a minute, will you? I didn’t claim anyone was making this claim. I was giving examples of behavior that would and would not qualify as homophobia, according to my own yardstick. I don’t think I’m disagreeing with you. If you’d chill, that’d probably be clear.

Daniel

I can see where you weren’t claiming that yourself, so I apologize. But that claim is made frequently enough that to whip it out as a support for your argument is to invite a reaction.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@lissener

I can see where you weren’t claiming that yourself, so I apologize. But that claim is made frequently enough that to whip it out as a support for your argument is to invite a reaction.

It’s to invite a reaction from the reactionary, those who don’t bother to read a post before knee-jerking. I’d appreciate it if you would show me the respect to read my position before responding to it. You’ve got interesting things to say, but when you go off half-cocked like that, it makes me much likelier to deal with your posts using the pagedown key.

Daniel

[Guinastasia]

@Tevildo

As I see it, most of the complaints in this thread are coming from people who, by their statements, show themselves to be prejudiced against homosexuals (should I name names? Perhaps not at this stage), but still don’t want to be labelled “homophobic”. What I say to them is - “Tough. You are homophobic. If you don’t like that, perhaps you should change your opinions, or at least stop expressing them.”

Why? This would imply there’s a point where “mild” homophobia becomes acceptable; I would strongly disagree with that. Is someone who says “I’ll serve a nggr at my store, but I wouldn’t let my daughter marry one” still a racist? I think so.

Exactly. Which is why I find it so amusing that magellan decided to pull up the following quotes of mine:

I’ve seen this problem before-people who want it both ways. On one hand, they want to be able to make bigotted remarks and discriminate against people they don’t like (in this case, homosexuals), but at the same time, they don’t want to be labelled a bigot or a homophobe. Guess what? It can’t be done. You want to discriminate? Fine, but be prepared to accept that you are a bigot/homophobe/racist/sexist/whatever. Don’t want to be called a bigot? Then don’t make bigoted remarks, or discriminate against people for stupid stuff.

…

If people are going to discriminate on the basis that someone’s being homosexual may be a “distraction”, that’s being a homophobe. It doesn’t matter if that’s negative, or they don’t like it, or find it insulting. That’s just too damned bad. They need to own up to the fact that yes, they are homophobes. Or stop trying to discriminate against gays. Again, you can’t have it both ways.

…

I’m simply pointing out that you can’t act like a homophobe and then expect not to be called on it.

I see this all the time. I think I once Pitted someone for it. People will make statements like, “Well, allowing two men to marry each other is an insult to the special union my parents had!” and then act astonished when people call them a homophobe.

It’s like people who go around making racists remarks about say, black people, then when called on it say, “But some of my best friends are black!” They want to have their cake and eat it too.

Well, we all want things in life we can’t have. Being able to make homophobic statements while avoiding being called a homophobe is one of them you’ll just have to deal with.

[Tevildo]

@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?

I don’t really think it’s possible to judge someone without reading their opinions, rather than a report of them. That being said, if his opinion is something like “I would like to support homosexuals, but my church prevents me from doing so”, then he’s not homophobic - he should just find a new church. If, on the other hand, he’s just using the Bible to support his prejudices, then, yes, homophobic is the word for him. The Bible can be used to support virtually every position imaginable on every possible subject; I’d be interested to hear his opinion on 1 Sam 20:41-42 or Luke 17:34.

[Magiver]

@Tevildo

This is what it comes down to. You want to have your particular set of prejudices excluded from the definition of “homophobia” so you can say “I’m not homophobic, but…”

There is no such thing as a minor, or acceptable, or irrelevant degree of prejudice. One is either prejudiced, or one isn’t.

That depends on what constitutes a prejudiced thought. Opinion on social behavior (sexual or otherwise) is not an easily debated concept.

So far the best definition of homophobia that I’ve seen that explains lissener’s POV is Evil Captor’s:

Quote:
Mostly, homophobia means “Irrational fear and/or hatred of gays and gayness.” But for some few gay people a homophobe is “Someone who doesn’t agree with me about everything.”

This thread is a long way from achieving a definition that everyone would agree on.

[Tevildo]

@Magiver

That depends on what constitutes a prejudiced thought. Opinion on social behavior (sexual or otherwise) is not an easily debated concept.

This is a valid point, although I would still say that forming an opinion about someone because they’re a member of a particular group, rather than because of what they say and do individually, is still prejudice.

Of course, some groups can be characterized in this way - I think it’s legitimate to say, for example, “All members of the KKK are racist” or “All members of NABMLA are paedophiles”, because the groups in question exist to promote those - “values”, for want of a better word, and their members all choose to join. But saying “All gays are…” is as bad, IMO, as saying “All Jews are…”, whatever the ellipsis covers.

This thread is a long way from achieving a definition that everyone would agree on.

I think one definition that everyone here would accept, even if it would still lead to disagreement, is:

Homophobic = “More prejudiced against gays than I am.”

[Tevildo]

“NABMLA”? You know who I mean, anyway.

[magellan01]

@lissener

You and EC continue to say that the word “demonizes everyone who doesn’t agree with you 100%.” This is not true. It is a lie. It is lazy and childish debating. Every time you find this point or that point on which there is disagreement, you go, “See? You’re calling me a homophobe for disagreeing with you about anything at all!”

No. You’re being called a homophobe for being wrong about this particular point, or that particular point.

Now in the first paragraph above, your foaming at the mouth aside, you are making a clear, albeit ridiculous, argument. But then you treat us to the very next sentence, which completely contradicts it. Brilliant!
[/QUOTE]

@lissener

This “anyone who disagrees with them” is pure godwinization. It’s a clear indication that you are not willing to engage about particular points, but can only participate in an argument if you get to use the broadest possible brush. It is godwinization because it is dishonest, and it indicates that you are willing to be dishonest in a debate, which pretty much signals the pointlessness of debating with you. It is an attempt to preemptively disregard any input from people who disagree with you. You seek to innoculate yourself against any disagreement by preemptively equating disagreement with baseless attack; you suggest that anyone who disagrees with you will be attacking you merely because they disagree with you. This is dishonest. It’s chickenshit. It’s cowardly.

This is 24-carat irony. It is you who are guilty of everythig you mention above. You’ve admitted as much above. If you think somoeone is wrong about a gay issue, “HE"S A HOMOPHOBE! HOMOPHOBE! HOMOPHOBE!” And you’re right: it is godwinization, it is dishonest, chickenshit, and cowardly. And I’d add unfair. (You do know what irony is, don’t you.)

@lissener

People mostly let it stand because it’s so outrageously obvious that it’s a childish “tactic” and is not worthy of response. But every time someone doesn’t respond to it, you interpret that as a point scored. But it’s not. It’s just an indication that to play the “anyone who disagrees with them” card is to reveal yourself as not worthy of respectful engagement.

Now I understand. You know what other people think. And you know what I think. You should either see a therapist about your anger and flights of fantasy or seek a circus in need of a side show. But why not practice by opening a word document and typing your comments, my replies, and everyone elses. At least then when you’re so far off base you won’t look foolish.

@lissener

Again, your surprise should indicate to you that your paradigm needs adjusting. That surprise should be a wakeup call.

Be sure to share this with the therapist. Everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, homophobic, and needs a wake-up call.

@lissener

You’ve made that very clear. You would have been far more honest if your OP had been titled, “Can we change the definition of homophobia to exclude the little nugget of prejudice that I can’t let go of, to preserve my complacency?”

There you go with the mind reading thing again. I’d say the circus, definitely the circus, except that yo’re so bad at it.

@lissener

The fact that the consensus (which is that your little nugget of prejudice is irrational and homophobic) makes you uncomfortable is a comment on your prejudice, not on the consensus. The fact that you are in the vast minority on your understanding of the word homophobia should suggest to you that it is your own understanding that needs revision, not the word.

This is pure beauty. I’m sorry you can’t see it, but it is exquisite: An appeal to the masses from someone who is an advocate of gay rights! I LOVE IT. Do you know what genius that is?!!! Do you? You know, now I’m starting to like you. You have entertainment value.

Please, go on…

[magellan01]

@Magiver

That depends on what constitutes a prejudiced thought. Opinion on social behavior (sexual or otherwise) is not an easily debated concept.

So far the best definition of homophobia that I’ve seen that explains lissener’s POV is Evil Captor’s:

Quote:
Mostly, homophobia means “Irrational fear and/or hatred of gays and gayness.” But for some few gay people a homophobe is “Someone who doesn’t agree with me about everything.”

This thread is a long way from achieving a definition that everyone would agree on.

Yes, I guess it was a waste of time. So we can all look forward to confusion popping up again and again. What was I thinking.:smack: But just becasue the thread didn’t achieve what I had hoped, it has been revealing.

** Evil Captor**, I salute you. Watching lissner prove you right as she froths and spittles about how wrong you are is priceless.

Let me hit “Submit” so I can catch her latest convulsion…

[Guinastasia]

Psst! lissener is a male.

[Magiver]

@Tevildo

This is a valid point, although I would still say that forming an opinion about someone because they’re a member of a particular group, rather than because of what they say and do individually, is still prejudice.

Of course, some groups can be characterized in this way - I think it’s legitimate to say, for example, “All members of the KKK are racist” or “All members of NABMLA are paedophiles”, because the groups in question exist to promote those - “values”, for want of a better word, and their members all choose to join. But saying “All gays are…” is as bad, IMO, as saying “All Jews are…”, whatever the ellipsis covers.

I think one definition that everyone here would accept, even if it would still lead to disagreement, is:

Homophobic = “More prejudiced against gays than I am.”

Your first paragraph is a different argument than what lissener is proposing. You are stipulating that prejudice is a willful dislike of a demographic group (for who they are), therefore, anti-gay and homophobic.

Lissener is saying that anyone who objects to a gay point of view regarding issues relating to gays is homophobic, allowing for a sliding scale of denigration (which tends to follow your definition).

[lissener]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

It’s to invite a reaction from the reactionary, those who don’t bother to read a post before knee-jerking. I’d appreciate it if you would show me the respect to read my position before responding to it. You’ve got interesting things to say, but when you go off half-cocked like that, it makes me much likelier to deal with your posts using the pagedown key.

Daniel

Are you done with the scolding? It was a poorly chosen example and it made your post extremely unclear and in need of a great deal of deconstruction and parsing before I could understand your point of view. And that only after you clarified with a followup. You posted unclearly; I reacted according to my understanding; you clarified; I apologized; and still you follow up with an additional scolding? What’s up with that?

[lissener]

@Magiver

TSo far the best definition of homophobia that I’ve seen that explains lissener’s POV is Evil Captor’s

Are you reading this at all?

I will consider you a homophobe if you hold exactly ***ONE ***basic opinion. ONE. And yes, I happen to disagree with that one particular opinion. EC’s sweeping generalization is self serving and dishonest and is nowhere near characterizing my position.

[lissener]

@magellan01

Everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, homophobic, and needs a wake-up call.

I’m done with this if you keep repeating this over and over. It’s not true, and you refuse to process my detailed response to it. If you can’t discuss this in good faith, and you insist on repeating such slanderous mischaracterizations of my positions just to have a straw man to hide behind, then I’m through trying to reach an understanding with you.

I only disagree with you on one thing, and you’re not a homophobe becaus I disagree with you. YOu’re a homophobe because you believe that homosexuals are (or should be) morally and legally distinguishable from heterosexuals. Period. That is the single “opinion” that I define as homophobic. Insofar as you hold that opinion, then I will consider you a homophobe. Whether I personally agree or disagree with it is not the issue. And to continue repeating that my personal disagreement with that position is the defining issue is slanderous and dishonest.

The issue has been raised, it’s been responded to, and if you’re discussing this in good faith you’ll move on. Simply repeating it over and over again is NOT good faith, and will elicit no further response from me.