So I’m on this other board, trying to discuss homophobia and issues with regard to gay marriage, and the moderator begins trying to stifle discussion, and finally, after discussion continues for a while, just says, “enough with ‘homophobia’! we’ve had enough discussion about that!” and he proceeds to begin closing all these threads in which we’ve been discussing it. :eek:
And I have to confess, I’m getting worn out, fighting this fight.
how do people keep it up/stay motivated? It’s so easy to just either keep your mouth shut or sleep with the “enemy” (trying to be prosaic there, not literal, heteros).
what is it about even the mere discussion of the topic of homophobia which makes people so anxious? After all, people discuss all sorts of things over and over and over, in every different permutation, like racism or sexism, without censure.
Are there better ways to promote equal rights that I’m not doing?
Threads about tits, ass and snatch all seem to be kosher, but discussion about hate and prejudice are out of bounds.
Take a look at GD. You could just about throw a dart and hit any one of 42 threads about homosexuality if you want to discuss homophobia. Inevitably (call it Gaywin’s law) the chances of any thread regarding this topic degenerating into a homphobia rant/discussion approach 1. Maybe the mods are trying to save the hamsters?
IANAHomophobe, but I used to be one. I would wager that talking about this specific type of bigotry makes homophobes uncomfortable because they (generally) like to think of themselves as good, God fearing people. Pointing out their bigotry makes them squirm.
Which is why you should never go to any other board.
Seriously, that is pathetic behavior, and I am glad that the mods here allow for a free range of discussion. If anything, I wish they were stricter than they are.
Putting it in terms of “homophobia” is usually unnecessary, often inaccurate and always speculative. What you’re doing is telling someone that not only do you know what they think, you know why they think it. In short, you are assigning motives to someone you don’t know.
That there are homophobes is undeniable. But to call everyone who is opposed to gay rights on this or that issue “phobic” is imbecilic as saying all homosexuals loiter in public restrooms looking for an anonymous quickie.
If you want to discuss gay marriage (for instance), discuss the merits of gay marriage as best you can. Don’t complicate it by trying to play psychiatrist. Assume your opponents are reasonable people who mean well and are psychologically well adjusted. If they are truly homophobic, pointing it out won’t help. If they are a person of genuine good will, you’ve just insulted them. In short, endeavor to befreind them. The quickest way to overcome prejudice is to introduce cognitive dissonance (I like Bob, and Bob is gay … and I hate gays. Hmmm. Something’s wrong here).
If they’re idiots screaming insults at you, or buffoons, of course, you can ignore, leave or flame as you choose. But if they seem open to rational discussion and candidates for persuasion, and you start diagnosing them as “phobic,” it’s you starting the downward spiral of invective, not them.
Well, ‘homophobe’ is a derisive term, so once the namecalling starts, it’s hard for an intelligent debate to continue. It’s usually downhill from there. You can have an meaningful discussion about gay rights, but once the H-bomb is tossed, the rational discourse is doomed.
Things are simplified if you refine your use of terminology. ‘Homophobia’, as furt pointed out, has psychological connotations which allow people to use such excuses as “I’m not phobic, I just don’t like gay people.” It’s a confusing term.
Simplify your life. Refer to them as straight supremacists instead.
I am extremely careful never to label ANYONE, first, because it’s a violation of the board’s rules, and second, because it serves no good purpose.
When I speak of homophobia, which is a real phenomenon, it is in the impersonal or about homophobic ideas.
Second, “homophobia” is not a pejorative word - it’s a word which really describes something, unlike, say, “hatemonger” or “pig”.
The feeling I get is that just the very discussion of such a controversial issue is something the moderator wants to avoid, which I feel is overstepping his authority (unless he has some sort of unspoken agreement with the board’s proprietors).
Ok I’m going to get into this GD right now…but I will say one thing: My thread about Gay Marriage really threw me for a loop about how many people truly are homophobic…I’m a Psychologist, I teach psychology at a small private college in CT. I’ve taught many psych 101 classes and one point I continuously love to bring up and sometimes on occasion muse about is this.
Research has found that with the majority of homophobic men there seems to be one overlying trait. That their homophobia is based in AROUSAL!!!
I have an objection to the term - it’s saying that someone has a phobia of homosexuals, and I don’t know anyone like that. It’s an inane term that should have died as soon as it was coined.
It may really describe something, but that doesn’t mean that it’s always used properly. I’ve seen people that didn’t like The Laramie Project get labeled as homophobes. It’s a term that’s been abused recently, because some people use it far too readily to describe “anyone that disagrees with me”.
There’s also a lot of good old-fashioned ignorance. I got into a discussion recently about gay marriages, and someone was wondering what the couple would wear. “Which one wears the dress and veil?” she asked. It was a perfectly innocent question – although perhaps a bit inane… I suggested that both partners could wear tuxedos – because nearly everyone looks good in a tux. My friend had simply gotten stuck behind a tradition, and needed a gentle nudge in the right direction.
If you’re saying that “idea X is homophobic,” it amounts to the same thing. You’re still assigning motives instead of just addressing the issue.
“Racism” is a real thing, but you are abusing the term and stifling dissent if you start calling all opposition to affirmative action “racist.” Hell, “Slant-eyed” and refers to a real thing. “Spic” is simply short for “Hispanic” and “Commie” for “communist.” does this mean they aren’t pejoratives?
The argument that anyone is a homophobe for opposing gay marriage is silly. It would be a radical new step in the world. Only formally, not in reality. The goverments of the world have been ignoring the doctrine of “Common Law” marriage with regards to gay couples for a long time. If a man and a woman lived together long enough, the state would assume that they were married.
Yet, if gay people get a piece of paper that allows someone to marry them legally – the moral or legal foudation of the US or world will crumble. Um, as they say, I call BS.
It will allow gay partners to have basic legal rights like wills, and, everything else basically. The “slippery slope” won’t be hard to avoid. The laws against homosexual conduct have been largely unenforced. There once were criminal statutes punishing adultery. Those went unenforced, then they went away.
Homosexuality is recorded throughout human history. I’m not saying it should be mandatory, just allowed. The reality of two people living together being recognized in the law is just common sense.
Notarys conduct marriages, along with sea captains, and Joey on Friends. The churches will never have to change their conduct. That’s a fundamental principle of American law – you cannot compel someone to do something. One might jail someone for failing to perform an affirmative duty (child support). That, of course, has nothing to do with marriage. Well, the act of forming one anyway.
There is a simple line to be drawn between various sorts of conduct, it is done all the time. “Well, no, the courts never have turned a blind eye to pig intercourse in this country, or in the common law.”
Much better than that crappy OP I attempted. MODs could you close that one. I swear, I’ll try not to post any centennial duplicate threads any more.
