Not stating a position, just wondering. I’ve noticed that there only seems to be two camps in this regard: those who support the homosexual cause and “homophobes.”
Well, before I can figure out to which camp I belong, I guess I’m gonna have to ask what exactly the “homosexual cause” is.
I think “homophobe” is currently defined as anyone who doesn’t kiss the ass of the gay lobby.
The great thing about hanging out in the gay lobby is the tasteful decoration. Except for that marble ass they want you to kiss. Still, if you want in, just tell Jean-Pierre that GMRyujin sent you.
Don’t they specifically outline those on page 93 of the Gay Agenda?
According to one school of thought, everybody in the other school of thought is a homophobe. According to the other school of thought, homophobes are the really really intolerant people, more intolerant than us even, e.g., they don’t exist.
At first I was going to jump on the bandwagon plastering the OP for using the phrase “homosexual cause.” But it may have just been an unfortunate choice of words.
Starving Artist, it’s not a “black or white” issue. I think the more important question is whether or not someone is a bigot. There might be people who aren’t 100% comfortable around gays who aren’t necessarily homophobes.
Neuroman, the term ‘homophobe’ is defined as ‘fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.’ I’m not saying that homophobes are all the same, but that ‘fear’ might be either a slight discomfort with gays or outright hatred- and for the purposes of this question it doesn’t matter A homophobe is anyone who does not like gays, end of story.
I’d say neuroman pretty much nailed it, if you’ll pardon the expression. A homophobe is pretty much just a particular flavor of bigot.
I’ve long felt troubled by the popularity of this term, because it allows bigots the opportunity to duck out of being called to account for their bigotry; all they have to do is start with the word games, and slip out the side door while the more easily distracted are hashing out the differences between common usage and etymological purity.
No, Starving Artist, “homophobia” is not in the DSM-IV, and therefore doesn’t require a phobic personality to be accurately diagnosed. Maybe it would be better if it did appear; then, the opponents of bigotry might adopt a term that was less useful as a smokescreen for the bigots.
“…it’s not a ‘black or white’ issue. I think the more important question is whether or not someone is a bigot. There might be people who aren’t 100% comfortable around gays who aren’t necessarily homophobes.”
My point exactly! It’s not one extreme or the other! However, one would never know this based on what one hears or reads in the media or coming out of Hollywood. You’re either “for” gays or you’re a homophobe!
Btw, I have nothing against gay people at all. I just resent these attempts to verbally bully people into a more acceptable point of view (in the minds of the media and most in Hollywood) by aluding to people as “phobic” when all they really are is uncomfortable or disapproving.
P.S.: I stand by the “cause” remark. It refers to the very obvious effort by the gay community and its supporters to acheive acceptance by society in general. I don’t see how any reasonable person could say such a cause doesn’t exist. Once again, and I want to be very clear about this: I have no problem with gay people at all. I do have a problem with deliberate misrepresentation of people’s motives in order to acheive a social goal.
Interesting. You’re complaining about one side lumping everyone together as homphobes, while simultaenously lumping everyone on another side together as “The Gay Cause.”
Not everyone, GMRyujin, just those who label people phobic who aren’t. It’s the deliberate dishonest manipulation I oppose.
You see, folks, this is why the term is useless. Homophobia is actually giving the bigots the benefit of the doubt; it’s removing the responsibility for their actions by attributing them to a phobia.
Straight Supremacist works much better.
Not only does it nail the bigotry that’s involved in working actively against gay people enjoying the same rights as everyone else, it gives the appropriate credit to the people who, while not comfortable around gay people, support gay rights anyway.
I respect those people enormously; it’s an impressive display of integrity, overcoming a prejudice to join in a fight for justice. So I guess you could say that there are some homophobes out there, on our side even, who I like and respect a lot.
Straight supremacists, however… them I don’t like.
No, just an asshole.
What do you mean by “bullied into acceptance?” What is it in your life that you are being asked to change? Gay people don’t much give a fuck what you “accept” they just don’t want to be denied their civil rights. What you think privately couldn’t be of less interest as long as you don’t try to restrict the rights of others.
“Homophobe” is basically equivalent to “racist” in it’s meaning and intent. There’s nothing “dishonest” about it. You remind of some people I’ve known who object to being called “racist” just because they don’t “believe in” interracial marriage. They insist that they have nothing against black people as long as they “keep to themselves.”
What is it exactly that you think you’re being forced to accept? Are gay activists implanting chips into your brain to make you think pro-gay thoughts?
You see, this is where the term ‘straight supremacist’ comes in handy. If you disapprove of my relationship with my boyfriend, no matter how much we love and support each other, just because we’re the same gender, then you’re a straight supremacist.
If you think straight relationships are inherently better than gay ones… bingo! You’re a straight supremacist. You may be motivated by homophobia, or by narrowness of mind or bitterness of spirit, but it’s rather irrelevant.
On the other hand, uncomfortable is understandable. I don’t insist that everyone be comfortable around me; the budget for bean bag chairs would be appalling. But I do insist that I should have the same rights as every other citizen in my country.
Tsk, tsk, Diogenes…an asshole? The tag line to your post by George Carlin, as well as your comments, reminds me of something I read once to the effect that one of the strongest human motivations is to try to find a perch from where to look down on most everyone else.
"Racist is not dishonest because it does not label a person as something they aren’t. Homophobe not only infers, it outright states that the person is phobic about homosexuals. Insofar as a phobia is an uncontrollable irrational fear and regarded as a mental disorder, the implication is clear: people who don’t approve of homosexuals or the homosexual lifestyle must be in the grip of a mental disorder or they wouldn’t feel that way. People have every right to disapprove of whatever they like, or to support it to whatever degree they like. Some people disapprove of living together without marriage, some disapprove of getting married young, some disapprove of buying cars new, some people disapprove of rock and roll, etc., etc. The fact that a person disapproves of something does not mean they have a mental disorder, as we all well know, yourself included. One can argue the merits of their beliefs, and one can work to change their beliefs if one wants to try to acheive greater social benefit by doing so, but it should not be done through the use of derogatory terms meant to make the people with whom one does not agree appear to have some sort of mental disorder (but of course they do, otherwise they would agree with you…right?). This is what I mean by bullying.
You have also miscontrued my comments to imply that I personally have been “forced” to “accept” some point of view by the innocent people who so casually bandy about the term homophobe. Such is not the case. I also don’t go through life thinking that gays “give a fuck” about whatever I think. It always amazes me that some of the most intolerant and vitriolic behavior comes from the segment of society that is always preaching tolerance and open-mindedness to everyone else. I first noticed this during the hippie era when everyone was wearing long hair and dressing outrageously, and imploring adult society to accept them for who they were and not how they looked. Get someone their own age around them in a cardigan sweater and slacks and they demonstrated the same type of judgementalism, scorn and ridicule toward him that they were excoriating in everyone else when it was directed at them. And while this only demonstrated to me that everyone is alike in their behavior, only at opposite ends of the scale, I still find myself constantly amazed at the hippocrital behavior of the fairness and tolerance crowd when the subject is something with which they disagree.
Ditto my last post in regard to straight supremecist. Once again, an “agree with me or you are a bigot” label. People can hold a different point of view without being bad people. These kinds of labels only serve to make those whose minds you would like to see change hold even more firmly to their beliefs and become angry with those on the other side.
I would agree with the term if it were directed toward people who were not only straight but felt themselves superior to gays. I’m sure some of this exists, but once again I don’t think it’s fair or productive to paint all of those reticent about gays or the gay lifestyle with the same brush. One can certainly have doubts about a certain type of person or lifestyle or even disapprove of it without feeling superior to those who embrace it. There are many things I see people do on a daily basis that I don’t approve of, but I don’t go around with a feeling of being superior to them.
Not if that point of view leads them to deny other people basic civil rights they can’t. You’re being pretty cagey about this point, so how about a straight (pardon the pun) answer: Do you support full and equal civil rights for gays or not?
I’d like to propose a Gaydwin’s Law. This Law states that as a thread about gays churns on, the probability of someone tossing out the “Homosexual Lifestyle” canard approaches 1. As with Godwin’s Law, I’d like the tradition to be that this person automatically loses.
Can I get a vote on this?
I suppose that to one who is not in agreement, logic can appear as caginess. You seem to be a reasonable person Ferrous, so let me state flat out that I am not being cagey in this regard, nor do I consider myself to be superior to you in any way. Even our disagreement is rather minor. I stated in my previous post that I thought the term “Straight Supremacist” would be justified in the case of those who felt themselves superior to gays. I do not think it’s justified as a label with which to paint all of those who disapprove of (here it comes again) the “homosexual lifestyle.”
And while we’re on the subject (this segment is aimed at the poster after you. I don’t have access to his name at the moment), do you deny the existence of a “homosexual lifestyle?” I’m amazed at some of the things I’m hearing tonight. No homosexual lifestyle? No homosexual cause? Wtf…has everyone passed through some sort warp in logic? There is a homosexual lifestyle, a straight lifestyle, a single lifestyle, a socially ambitious lifestyle, a beach bum lifestyle, and in my case an artist’s lifestyle. These things clearly exist. Once again, I’m seeing “agree with me or I’m going to take offense at any reference you make to what I support” thinking.
In my OP Ferrous, I said I wasn’t taking a position. I didn’t anticipate at the time that this thread would consume so much of my time, or words. 
However, I originally wanted the discussion to focus on the use of the term “homophobe,” not my personal beliefs. I would think that my position would be fairly clear to those who have bothered to read my posts in their entirety. I would still prefer that my personal beliefs on homosexual rights not become part of this thread and that the discussion will continue to focus on the use of this word. But if you will agree to honor my intent in starting this thread and not post my response, I would be happy to email you my answer to your question.