I thought you might find previous discussions interesting, and I’m aware - ahving been a guest myself - that you cannot make use of the search function. Still, if it’s only WRS’s views you’re interested in, then you probably won’t be interested.
Um, nice try, Sampiro, but rather immature, if I may say.
The question was: “Do you think that people who believe homosexuality is wrong are immoral?”
You answered your own perversion of the question: “Do you think that people who wrongly believe homosexuality is wrong are immoral?”
No place for that sort of thing in GD, as you should know.
It is made perfectly clear by using the term “homophobia” in the sense in which it is used by about 99% of the population, rather than worrying about your pedantic insistence that we stick with some strict clinical or Latin definition.
Also, if you insist on using a strict interpretation of the Latin roots, then homophobia should actually mean “fear of man/men”, not “fear of homosexuals.”
Sorry, but i’ll take:
a) reputable dictionaries that give the commonly understood definitions
and
b) common usage
over your pedantic insistence on using the term only in its clinical sense.
The fact is that, as generally used in the culture, homophobia has a meaning much closer to the definitions given above than to your own narrow definition. Hell, even your own link gives “Prejudice against homosexuals or LGBT people in general” as its first definition.
The problem with the term homophobic being all encompassing is that it makes a free will decision sound like a medical disorder. It is insulting and dishonest to use it as anything but fear of homosexuals.
Why would anybody choose to be homophobic and face constant derision by the more-enlightened? It is obviously genetic.
Isn’t that “Homo” related to homogeneous = equal vs “hetero” = different ?
This is what I was thinking mhendo. “Homophobia” is a poor term if it is all encompassing. How can a free will decision be a “phobia”? Someone who is claustrophobic doesn’t freely choose to be afraid of being in narrow or enclosed spaces. If someone thinks that homosexuals are sick and perverted because of their religious beliefs, does this mean they suffer from a phobia?
I answered that I don’t think being right or wrong on a social issue has a moral value, either positive or negative. (For starters, you’d have to prove the existence of moral value.) To me it’s the same as saying “which is more moral- the color orange or the sound of ocean waves?” What exactly is immature or unclear or deliberately obfuscatory about this in your opinion I don’t really know (an ignorance offset by apathy because I also don’t care- personally, I suspect some widdle Doper is just in a pissy mood because he hasn’t had his fix of hardcore-anal dolphin porn today [not that there’s anything {morally} wrong with that]).
No it’s not.
The fact is that, in common everyday usage, the term is used by a vast majority of people to refer to fear of, aversion to, and discrimination against gays. Whether or not you think it sounds like a medical disorder, the fact is that, in the ways it’s used by about 99% of the population, the term does, in fact, refer to a “free will decision.” So, whether this common usage concurs with the origical definition of the suffix “-phobic” is less important than how it is actually understood by the vast majority of people who use it.
You are correct, of course. The “homo” in homosexual comes originally from the Greek -homo, meaning same, not the Latin homo meaning man. But even then, the literalism of rfgdxm wouldn’t work, because homophobia would simply mean “fear of same[ness?]”.
To be quite honest, if we were cutting a new word from whole cloth to describe a “fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuals,” i would agree that we could probably think up a much better word than “homophobia.” But the fact is that words gain meanings from the use to which they are put every day, and outside of the clinical definition employed by psychologists, most of the population uses the term to refer to an attitude that goes well beyond fear and encompasses emotions like contempt, hatred, aversion, etc.
I believe that a lot of people who nitpick about the term and insist on using only its clinical definition in common usage are actually looking to divert the discussion from the actual issue and turn it into a game of semantics rather than actually examining the pressing problem of homophobia in our society.
Could we please get back to the OP?
I believe that people are responsible for the content of their minds. If someone believes in a particular idea, it really doesn’t matter to me whether they got that idea from their religion, their upbringing, their experience, their reading, their peers, the media, or anyplace else ideas are born. I also believe in free will, and that if we are capable of freely choosing a particular idea, we are also free to change that belief when new evidence comes to light.
Nobody is born homophobic or antisemetic or racist or sexist, etc. These are all ideas which the individual has chosen to believe. In fact, these are all ideas which our society, as a whole, used to believe fairly consistently. It was a rare person, not that long ago, who wasn’t homophobic, antisemetic, racist and sexist. But societies can and do change, and individual can and do, as well.
My relatives also were fairly homophobic. I kept my mouth shut during all the fag jokes, and even pretended to laugh along with them. I never had any intention of coming out to these people, and assumed that this state of affairs would be permanent.
Some years ago, due to several different factors, the closet door pretty much collapsed under its own weight, and I realized that being closeted was simply my own internalized homophobia. There was no earth-shaking announcement, no notice in the paper or appearance on the 6:00 news. Rather, I simply started being seen with my partner, and introducing him to the family. Of course, the news spread like wildfire, but there was no drama on anyone’s part. And over time I discovered that my family turned out to be remarkably supportive. My Guy is accepted as a member of the family, just the same as anyone else’s spouse. It turns out that most of them had never really known an “out” gay person, so the two of us helped to open up their hearts and minds.
Now please understand that I’m not telling you to come out to your family. That’s a decision only you can make, and it’s obviously not something you’re ready to do any time soon anyway. And it’s certainly not your obligation to “cure” their homophobia; that’s their choice and responsibility. But if these people are really “wonderful, caring, forgiving, selfless people,” please don’t automatically assume that their homophobia is necessarily something permanent. Just keep reminding yourself that good people (including yourself, as well as your family) are always open to positive change.
You’ve given a whole new meaning to the word “merely.”
If someone is simply afraid of my sexuality, why the hell should I care? It would have no more significance to me than someone who’s claustrophobic or acrophobic.
It’s the “sinful and perverse” judgment that has the power to literally destroy people.
The problem there is it means “fear of, aversion to, and discrimination against gays.” What if someone is personally fearful of gays, but vigorously oppose discrimination against them in hiring, housing, etc.? Consider libertarians. They may feel personally that homosexuality is disgusting, but it is none of their damn business what other people do in bed. Libertarians suport the right of people to do lots of things that they don’t approve of.
It already exists: anti-gay. And it is clear that someone who is anti-gay rights doesn’t necessarily fear them.
Not everyone who thinks homosexuality is sinful wants to destroy them. Do all Christians who think homosexuality is sinful engage in gay bashings?
Tell me, what is likely to be the result of the children of these people turning out to be gay?
Mhendo
What’s wrong with heterosexuals having an aversion (“fixed, intense dislike; repugnance… avoidance of a thing, situation, or behavior because it has been associated with an unpleasant or painful stimulus” — American Heritage) to homosexuality? I mean, isn’t that normal? I would expect homosexuals to have an aversion to heterosexuality; otherwise, they would be heterosexual (or at least bi-sexual). You’ve made homophobic mean, basically, heterosexual.
I dunno. Anyone have any stats on this?
It would certainly be unreasonable. Believing homosexual sex to be sinful does not justify hatred toward anyone. It quite possible, and common, for people to have religious or moral objections to homosexual sex but to treat homosexuals with respect and dignity. Believing it to be wrong does not equal hating homosexuals.
No, it isn’t.
You would be wrong. I have no aversion, in theory to the idea of eating borsch. That does not mean, however, that I will go and eat some. It simply doesn’t interest me. Same story with your above example of homos having an “avertion” to hetero sex.
It’s the difference between being averse to having homosexual sex themselves, versus being averse to homosexuals, or to homosexual sex among others.
Fallacy of excluded middle is what’s wrong with it.
My expectation of what’s normal is not being so invested in such things as to consider them “unpleasant or painful”. Just uninteresting.