Can we agree on what "Homophobia" means?

Great Debates
141

Two points:
First, I was responding to a claim that a DICTIONARY definition (all caps in the original) was the specific definition that should be used. I provided a dictionary definition–and I did not even go cherry picking the definition I wanted; the Merriam-Webster is a pretty standard dictionary with wide support among educators and linguists. It is not the OED. but it is not some knock-off brand with no scholarship behind it. If I had grabbed one of the other two “standard” dictionaries, The American Heritage, we would have come to a definition that would no more have supported lissener’s claim:

Neither of those definitions support a claim that a person who opposed adoption by homosexuals, barring more information about that person’s opinion, was a homophobe “By even the narrowest definition of the word.”

Second, you have, at least, provided a working definition of your own, but it also fails to establish that the mere opinion that a person holds that homosexuals should not adopt marks that person as a homophobe. If the opinion that homosexual couples should not adopt was rooted in a belief based on some error of knowledge and the person did not hold that homosexuals should be inferior in law, then your definition would not apply. (Suppose, for example, that the person was quite happy to support homosexual marrige and total equality in all points of law, but happened to hold a number of odd beliefs regarding child rearing, believing that a child exposed to anyone who drank liquor, anyone who smoked, and anyone who did not engage in sports was a bad influence on children and believed, further, that a child raised in a family with two same-sex adults suffered some variety of disorientation. The person would seem to hold some rather odd and dubious opinions regarding child rearing, but it hardly seems appropriate to hang the label “homophobe” on him when it appears more that he is just odd in his views regarding child rearing, irrespective of his otherwise exemplary views toward civil rights.

Mind you. I suspect that the overwhelming number of people who oppose adoption by homosexuals are prompted by some feeling that any number of posters to this thread would consider homophobic. I suspect that I would also agree with the opinions of those posters. However, laying down absolute rules regarding word usage, (especially, but not limited to the use of dictionary definitions), is a fruitless exercise.

142

We could use the word “homies” but it’s taken. The military discussion revolves around both fear or “they just are not good enough”. Fear of taking a shower with queers, fear of being in the same barracks as queers, fear tney might make a pass at “you”, a feeling of general disgust, the belief that they can’t fight etc.

Just as “gayness” is taken into account. Always for negative purposes. There are no gay quotas or token queers, or gay studies. There is no gay bussing. There is no gay affirmative action.

I’ll bite, what is the rational basis? I’m genuinely curious. We’re not talking about just who you prefer to socialize with, or what gym you go to, that’s trivial and not important. We’re talking about the active bias or prejudice. We’re also not talking about those who use bible to justify their outright hate.

Whenever you judge another human being, you do not define them with your judgement. You define yourself.

143

Here’s my quote:

Care to explain how saying some few gay people have this feeling constitutes a sweeping generalization? Please note that in saying “some few” gay people have this attitude, I am implying that the vast majority do not have it. And for the record, the comment was a direct response to the OP, had nothing to do with you. I’ll let your subsequent posts on the topic speak for themselves.

144

Sure. I’ve been called a homophobe, though not on this board, because I felt the jury was still out on the topic of whether or not gayness is an inheritable trait. That is, whether or not gayness is a result of nature or nurture. I tend to doubt inheritablility because it flies in the face of what I know of natural selection. That’s not homophobia, that’s logic. I personally don’t care if it’s nature or nurture, but I’m gonna look for logic no matter what.

145

I understand that; I was just, in my normal humble way, saying that my definition was superior to the dictionary’s :). Certainly lissener has hung his hat on the dictionary definition. I am proposing that my definition brings homophobia into greater parallelism with sexism, racism, and anti-semitism, which is exactly where I want it to be.

Assuming (and I think this is what you’re saying) our hypothetical person believes that gay couples should legally be allowed to adopt children and morally should be able to do so, but practically ought to consider alternatives, I agree that they’re not covered by my definition of homophobia. I confess, though, that I’ve not yet encountered anyone who would legalize adoptions by gay couples but who personally thinks it’s a bad idea. That person may exist, but I ain’t seen them.

Daniel

146

I have no problem with folks expressing definitions that are superior to that of the dictionary. For the really troublesome words in our language, a (good) definition at the beginning of a discussion that addresses the usage and connotations of the group engaged in discussion should be nearly always beter than a dictionary definition.

They are certainly rare. The analogy regarding race would have been my Dad and sister and interracial marriage. Dad knew a few interracial couples, including one of his parent’s sibs, and never once thought there was any problem with any of them having married. However, he also saw how they were treated by the rest of society, (this was the 1950s and 1960s) and he really did not want my sister to ever suffer that sort of harrassment. (My sister figures in this discussion only because Dad would, when promoting civil rights among his co-workers, often be hit with the dumb “But would you want your daughter to marry one?” His standard response was something along the line of “Not while she is liable to run into you with your current attitudes.”)

147

It’s rare that you see a GD question answered this definitively.

In this case, the answer is clearly “No.”

148

I always consider this kind of a dodge. It’s a weak acquiescence to prevailing prejudice instead of taking a moral stance. Whether the question is “do you want your daughter to marry one?” or “what would you do if your son loves another man?”, the answer should be a principled “I love my child and want them to be happy no matter who they love.” I usually suspect the real answer when that dodge is given is more along the lines of “well, no, I don’t want her to marry one of them; but it would betray my professed beliefs to say so.”

149

Well, in this case you would be wrong. Later, when my sister dated a couple of black guys, he never expressed any objection.

150

I agree.

Interesting point. So a person might suggest that gay couples shouldn’t adopt children because those children will suffer from consequent homophobia from outsiders, I suppose. I’d find such an argument to be crazymaking, but I guess theoretically a person could hold that viewpoint without being homophobic.

Daniel

151

tomndebb, it’s unfortunate that my posting history has made it necessary that I no longer receive the benefit of any doubt from you; where there are gaps in my communications, you presume the worst rather than assume the best. No doubt I deserve such “deficit” of the doubt, but it’s obvious that I must from here on out speak in a kind of legalese, proactively addressing all imaginable misconstructions before anyone has a chance to enter them irretrievably “into evidence.” Much of your response to me “assumes such facts not in evidence,” based on a cynical rather than a charitable reading of my previous posts. Needless to say, I blame myself; my history here is not without its shadows. IRL, my friends know me well enough to inquire further when my communications leave gray spots, rather than work it out for themselves in such a way that I find myself in a hole I despair at ever digging out of.

One item at a time I guess.

**The Castro-dwelling gay friend of magellan01: **The problem with hypotheticals is that they invite speculation. In fact, they explicitly demand it. Magellan’s extreme example was (as I noted in my initial response) so far outside the “norm” for such a situation that I could barely imagine a situation in which it was relevant. I speculated ONE such hypothetical situation–a gay person with issues of self loathing, not at all uncommon among “oppressed” groups (Spielberg, Justice Thomas), and responded to magellan01’s hypothetical with that single speculative example. Needless to say, there are many speculative scenarios that might fit his hypothetical. THat’s one of the problems with hypotheticals: they offer the illusion of applying specificity to a generalization, when in fact they do no such thing. Magellan01’s agenda, from post #1, has been to re-frame a general “rule” to tailor his specificity. Many of the instances of dissonance in this thread, if you go back over it, are when the general (the defintion, e.g.) butts up against the specific (magellan01’s particular prejudices, e.g.).

I still maintain that it’s possible that a gay man living in the Castro MIGHT be homophobic, depending on certain individual hypothetical specifics (e.g., self loathing). To call that a red herring that muddies the waters is, more properly, to target magellan01 for trading in hypotheticals; not me, for playing his thought experiment in good faith.

**Regarding your highlight of the word “irrational,” ** as a way to suggest that my portrayal of a straight man objecting to gay adiption as homophobic, “by the narrowest definition of the word,” was kneejerk and prejudicial. No such thing. It is my contention, after a great deal of consideration, that there can not possibly be a “rational” reason for objecting to such prejudicial treatment of gays. I contend that any such legal distinction offered–that heterosexuals can adopt, but homosexuals should not–is irrational on its face, and is based wholly on irrational prejudices, and is therefore homophobic. I simply cannot speculate a rational reason for such an objection, so I stand by my statement. And it’s not a sweeping, prejudicial generalization, as you characterize it: it’s a carefully examined consideration of what possible objections there might be to allowing gay parents to adopt–specifically–and an utter failure to come up with anything remotely “rational.” (Alternatively, if the counter argument is simply “Who knows? there might be a rational reason; anything is possible,” then this renders hypotheticals utterly useless in this discussion.)

If you can suggest a rational objection, rather than a purely emotional and unsupported reason, for such an objection, I will immediately alter my statement and offer my apologies. You cannot point to my statement that any such objection defines one as homophobic as a support of the meme “homophobia equals anyone who disagrees with lissener about anything” without offering any elucidation or support; to do so is simply to restate the meme, unsupported, and to continue the muddying of these muddy, muddy waters.

I have a great deal to answer for in my apparently still unbreakable habit of burning bridges when my buttons are pushed. But I would hope, tomndebb, as someone I consider to be among the most rational and levelheaded posters here, that you would make an effort to see beyond that, and to consider my contributions to this thread on their own merit, rather than to allow your lack of respect for me, as a person, to cloud your judgment of what I am saying, on its own merits. It saddens me that I have lost that respect, as is well evidenced by this thread, but I understand that I have no one to blame but myself. Suffice to say that your cynical readings of my posts here have made that abundantly clear to me, and I have a newly clarified (if discouraging) sense of just how deep a hole I have to dig myself out of to return to the respect I enjoyed nearer the beginning of my Dope career.

152

I think you are characterizing your own posts, not mine. I am responding to what is written. For example:

In other words, because you cannot imagine a scenario in which the described situation could happen, you invented a separate scenario and responded to it.

So, having declared that you were basing your definition of the word on the “dictionary” definition (and declining to post any definition of your own through the first 99 posts in the thread), and further declaring that the situation described met the “narrowest” sense, you now state that you simply could not imagine that such a situation could be “rational” and decided to truncate that definition (or ignore it completely, unless, of course, you had no actual dictionary definition in mind). (And note that the other dictionary definition I found would have left you even less room to defend that position.)

If you could not imagine a scenario, then perhaps you should note that you can think of no such plausible scenario and ask for an example. If you fire off a response rooted in your own inability to imagine a situation–particularly if you introduce elements “not in evidence” in the post to which you are responding, then those of us who are reading what has been posted are going to draw our own conclusions based on your words.

I am not the one acting on “facts not in evidence.”

Your explanation contradicts your assertion. A failure on your part to imagine an event does not give you free rein to simply assert that the situation cannot be true. It only establishes that you are either unable or unwilling to consider the possibility because your experience does not include similar situations. Contrary to your general statement on hypotheticals, a hypothetical that lies outside experience is exactly how they are used: to explore other (perhaps, even, only imaginary) possibilities.
It may, in fact, be true that no person has ever opposed adoption by homosexuals and never will hold such opposition without suffering some form of homophobia. However, if confronted with an “impossible” hypothetical situation, the correct response is to seek the conditions under which the proponent claims it would be possible, not to simply interject a separate hypothetical that ignores the first. If each proposed condition can be shown to be either impossible or based on homophobia, then you will have led your opponent (or, at least, the audience at home) to their own discovery that the hypothetical is unreal. Merely changing the rules on the hypothetical only demonstrates that you have a fixed view and that you are willing to bend reality (even if only a hypothetical reality) to include all events within that view.

153

This is absurd. This is not a new discussion. If no rational reason has ever been proposed; how long must we hold out making the inductive conclusion that no reason exists? Must we continue to ignore the positions of essentially all advocacy groups, our own experience and rationality in the unlikely and small doubt that some rational reason may exists that nobody has yet thought up? How many times must each condition be rebutted before it can be put to final rest?

154

tomndebb, you have abstracted the argument to the point of absurdity. You have painted yourself into a corner in which NO conclusions are possible because ANY conclusions are possible.

Prejudice based on skin color is irrational. Prejudice based on sexual orientation is irrational. That’s the concrete subject under discussion here. If you have to attenuate your argument out the outer extremes of (yeah, but what if…)[sup]to the power of infinity[/sup], then your argument itself approaches irrationality.

155

Sorry, Homebrew, didn’t see that you had it covered.

156

tomndebb, you take me to task for not offering my own definition of homophobia for the first 99 posts. That was because my definition of the word is not relevant to the OP. For the first 99 posts, I was defending the established dictionary definition. The only reason I finally offered my own was because other posters’ disinguous characterizations of my definition–words in my mouth–were going unchallenged. In any case, what I offered was not so much a definition (I still rely on the dictionary for that), but an explanation of the criteria that I, personally, will employ before I will use such a word in discussion. Probly a hijack overall, but I was not, at that point, defending the dictionary; I was defending *myself *against the dishonesty of Evil Captor and magellan01.

Frankly, I think it’s inconsistent of you not to take magellan01 for failing to reveal his own agenda until deep into the thread. As eventually became clear, magellan01 was, well let’s say “fishing”, for a generalization that would exclude his specific prejudices. A lot of the muddiness that has bogged this thread down, IMO, is because that hidden agenda was driving this discussion for so long. Magellan’s lack of candor, and his insistance on speaking in code rather than concrete specifics, spun this thread out into absurdities of generalities and hypotheticals–
(*I pictured a scene out of some bizarro world Law & Order episode:

**magellan01: **[to the witness] Isn’t it possible that monkeys flew in the window and put the poison in the victim’s drink?
**witness: **Monkeys can’t fly.
**magellan01: ** But say they could. THEN wouldn’t it have been possible?
**witness: **But the window doesn’t open.
**magellan01: **Say the monkeys had all the proper tools–chisels, etc.; say the monkeys worked on the side as window installers–THEN wouldn’t it be possible?
**witness: **OK, if monkeys could fly, and if these flying monkeys also worked as window installers, then, yes, it’s possible.
**magellan01: **[smugly] And that, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is what they call “reasonable doubt.”*)

–that still, if you ask me, drive this discussion. This discussion is no longer about the definition of homophobia. It’s about my failure to decode magellan01’s hidden agenda in such a way that my responses made sense in relation to both the explicit subject of the OP (the real world definition of the word “homophobe”) and that hidden agenda (magellan01’s resentment of being included in that definition).

157

You STILL don’t get it. Amazing…

And my “agenda”, hidden or smack right in front of you is NOT and was NOT the topic of this thread. I know you want it to be. But it is NOT. Go back and read the OP. And then read it again, and again, and again. The read the rest of the thread and see how you wanted to cut off the discussion rather than engage in it. And still do!

But please, keep posting. And in each and every one of them continue to demonstrate that the charges against you were perfectly well founded.

And if you would be so kind, please refrain from attributing quotes to me (never mind constructiing asinine make-believe discussions that are not on point) that I never said. There are plenty of actual quotes from me in this thread to choose from. Please restrict yourself to them.

158

I’m sorry if framing it within a “bizarro world* Law & Order*” episode did not make it sufficiently clear that I was describing a fictional dialog that took place entirely in my imagination. I explicitly framed it that way to make this as clear as possible. If anyone reading this thread actually thinks I was quoting the real world magellan01, and not the bizarro world magellan01 (as I explicitly stated), I apologize for the confusion.
*
To reiterate: *the above bizarro world *Law & Order *script is not a direct quote from the real world magellan01.

159

That’s pretty much what this entire thread boils down to. Thank you for your lucidity, Tom.

160

Which you rejected as soon as it was inconvenient. This is exactly while several of us think that your protests are hollow and that your actual definition is “whatever lissener needs it to be at any point in the discussion,” which has the effect of "anyone who disagrees with lissener on the topic of homophobia.

Your position is a strawman on two levels.

  1. The whole point of a hypothetical is to explore that which is not already established. Your attempt to dismiss my discussion with lissener on the point of a hypothetical cannot be supported by a spurious claim that we have already explored every possibility.

  2. The issue is not whether there are valid reasons to oppose adoption by homosexuals. The issue is whether every person who has or may oppose such adoptions would be guilty of (or even a victim of) homophobia. It appears to be lissener’s contention (that you are now joining) that any opposition to adoptions by homosexuals must be rooted in homophobia. You exclude, in this manner, simple error or any other manner of thought that make form an opinion.

I agree that there is no valid reason to prevent homosexuals from adopting.

However, the issue is not my belief or your belief, but whether it is fruitful to demonize every other person who has come to a separate conclusion, possibly based on homophobia or possibly based on an error or lack or knowledge or an error of logic.

A person who had read the literature claiming that children do better in two-parent homes with parents of the opposite sex may be relying on bad information, but that does not explain why they need to be characterized as homophobic.

A person who fears that a child raised in a same-sex parent home will be subjected to taunting, harrassment, and other forms of mental violence and who believes that adopted children have enough problems without adding one more burden to their lot may have no opinion that homosexuals are lesser or that they should be treated differently under the law, yet simply by holding that opinion, lissener has judged that the person is a homophobe.

With a bit of effort, I can probably come up with some other scenarios, as well.
The issue, however, is not whether that person’s opinions can or should stand up to objective scrutiny and be used in shaping law.
(I would hold that those objections should have no bearing on adoption law. For that matter, the hypothetical person under discussion may believe that their opinion should not be enforced under law. However, it is lissener’s opinion that we should condemn that person for their opinion. The argument is strangely close to that of various Christian groups who hold that anyone who does not “accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior” should be damned to hell, regardless why that person did not make that particular act of faith.)