Good semantic point. Personally, I find the thought of me having sex with another man repugnant. I’d find such utterly unpleasant. And I’d expect a lesbian to find the idea of having sex with a man unpleasant. However, politically I generally support gay rights. Am I a homophobe even though I would support making discrimination based on sexual preference illegal in hiring, housing, etc.?
I can’t see how believing that homosexuality is immoral (or sinful, or ethically dubious, or perverse, or deviant, or wrong or any other such term) is inherently an unethical or immoral thing in and of itself. There are a number of people who view homosexual behavior as (oh let’s just use “wrong” for the sake of convenience) wrong for reasons that are sane and logical to them. Either it is against the dictates of their religion, or they have arrived at their realization through careful thought. One of these people is my best friend. They deplore the behavior itself.
There is a vast difference between one who views the behavior as wrong and one who treats a person engaging in the behavior badly. Treating someone who is homosexual badly because you believe homosexuality is wrong is , in fact, inherently a wrong action (at least to me). Note the difference. It’s a hate the sin love the sinner sort of situation.
Believing homosexuality is wrong is no more unethical or immoral than believing eating meat is wrong, provided the standpoint is arrived at in a rational, thoughtful and informed basis.
On the other hand, if they just think homosexuality is wrong because that’s what they’ve been told, that’s ignorance and someone should hand me my sword and shield - it’s time to join the fray.
But his definition — which he has staunchly defended — was “…aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals”. The “or” means that aversion to homosexuality AND NOT homosexuals (DeMorgan’s Law) qualifies in his preferred usage. Doubtless, you’ll call me a nitpicker, but nevertheless, that’s what “or” means.
If you are merely indifferent about kissing a man’s mouth or tasting a man’s sexual organs rather than repulsed, that’s your business, but I don’t know why you assume that you are the standard or the norm. It seems quite normal to me that each orientation would be icked-out by the preferences of the other. That’s the whole point of there being an orientation. One is compelled by attraction.
Not in any usage I’ve ever heard. Everyone has sexual tastes. Homophobia (or heterophobia, or biphobia, or monophobia) happens when we insist that others must share ours.
Lib, could you please let a minor infelicity in phrasing, which bore no relation to the argument being advanced, go, please?
What matt_mcl said.
Seriously, i was hoping that no-one would be quite so disingenuous as to suggest that not wanting to engage in homosexual behavior is the functional equivalent of condemning people who engage in homosexual behavior. You know perfectly well the way that i was using the term, and the was it is used in modern discourse, and what it means to about 99% of the people who use it.
No, it’s not a good semantic point, it’s a stupid one that either genuinely or wilfully trivializes the issue.
And your legalism also glosses over important distinctions.
Let me state clearly and unequivocally, for people who appear to have their hearts set on overdetermining this issue, that i don’t believe that a person who has an aversion to engaging in homosexual behavior is a homophobe. I have an aversion to engaging inhomosexual behavior. I’m sure that having sex with a guy would gross me out, although i have been know to kiss some of my gay friends as a greeting, and have never found that particularly problematic.
The way in which i use the term homophobia is the way that i believe it is commonly used in the culture today, and that is to describe a person who has a fear or hatred of, or aversion to, homosexuality in general and homosexual people. And i don’t mean simply an aversion to partaking in homosexual behavior; i mean an aversion to the general concept and to others engaging in it.
As to whether you’rte a homophobe even if you “would support making discrimination based on sexual preference illegal in hiring, housing, etc.”, well, only you can really decidce that. But if, despite your call for legal protections, you still thought that homosexuality and homosexuals were immoral or depraved or deservinbg of scorn, then yes, i would still call you a homophobe. Similarly, it’s quite possible to support civil rights legislation and still be a racist; the two positions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. All it takes is a narrow, legalistic view of the world that pretends that, as long as we all have the same laws, everything is else is fine.
Why would you ever get that idea?
What do statistic have to do with anythying? I was sking about the real world results.
People do not exist in a vacum, unable to influence each other. My answer to both is that people who claim to see nothing wrong with homosexual, but believe that homosexual act are simply wrong, often reject their children. For a recent examples that has entered into the media, see the case of the Cheney family, Keyes family, etc.
P.S. Liberal, do you recall the thread entitled Wine Whining?Sauron asked if non-drinkers were upset by the fact that people drink. I suspect that should you ask a simular question of homosexuals, the vast majority would respond they find nothing disguishing about inserting a penis into a vagina. They would have no interest in the act, but they would not qualify as heterophobes.
Oh, bullshit. I could understand discarding and ignoring words on boards where people with third-grade intellects speek Leet to each other. But dammit, if you say something here, then mean what you say or admit your error. Sheesh. If you say that X is A or B, IT MEANS THAT X IS A OR B. These crap “nitpicking” accusations are utterly weasley in their conception. If you don’t mean homosexuality OR homosexuals, then don’t say it. Especially — especially — when you’ve touted the dictionary definition as the be-all and end-all of meaning. Damn. Just plain damn.
What I said to him.
Nonsense. You said it. Own it. Or change it to something else. But don’t dump your mistake onto me.
And you wilfully went beyond the substance of my argument. Something you seem increasingly prone to do lately. I’m not sure what compels you to act so self-righteously superior all the time, but i’m rather tired of your disingenuousness. I’m done with you in this thread.
knock knock
Excuse me, I am looking for the Homophobes debate it seems as though I got turned around and ended up here in the OED definition debate board. Perhaps someone can point me in the right direction.
** tries**, no wonder you are all turned around, you need new glasses. You can’t read the sign on the door clearly. This isn’t the “OED defintion thread”, this is the "Liberal is using twisted logic to extend his word view to everyone, and being called on it thread. I think the thread you want is the one whereI claim that homophobes stand in the way of the united states being a great country. Of course, that isn’t a GD thread, but a pitting.
“World view”, not “word view”. :smack:
Why are some gays against gay marriage. By “against”, I assume you mean against it for all gays…not just for themselves. Can you throw some light on why that would be?
Since this is a great debate:
Do you think that people who believe homosexuality is wrong are immoral? And I don’t mean homophobes.
Why is everyone supposed to say “Not that there’s anything wrong with that.”
[/QUOTE]
Is anyone asking you to partake in homosexual relationships against your will? Why should you possibly care what goes on in another person’s personal relationship? What possible stake can you have in that relationship, one way or the other?
Why is everyone supposed to say “Not that there’s anything wrong with that.” Tell me …what’s wrong with it? No one’s forcing you into a homosexual relationship, right? What’s wrong with it?
Different reasons. Some see it as imposing values of a culture that has excluded them onto a minority, others favor a traditional interpretation of marriage as intrinsic to child rearing, etc… (These are not my arguments- I’m pro gay-marriage [or at least civil unions with full benefits thereof].) Google “gays against gay marriage” and you’ll find several essays and blogs and other entries espousing numerous viewpoints.
Thanks. Interesting. I don’t think I agree, but…
[ul][]Treat people in the same manner you wish to be treated - The easiest way to avoid being judged is judging others[]Focus on living your life to the fullest and attaining the goals you’ve set - You’ll earn people’s respect automatically[]Agree to disagree - Starting your own personal crusade in an attempt to convert others to your worldview is probably a big waste of time & you’ll be setting yourself up for disappointment[]Act like an individual - Refuse to allow others to balkanize you into this group or that & they will all but be forced to treat you accordingly[/ul]
Are you being deliberately dense?
I said: “It’s the “sinful and perverse” judgment that has the power to literally destroy people.”
Where did I imply that everybody who believes homosexuality is sinful and perverse is a gay basher? I said that it **has the power to **destroy people (and not just physically), not that it directly leads to violence in all cases. Merely having the power to do something does not imply a person actively using that power.
But I strongly believe that everybody who preaches anti-gay propaganda is **indirectly **morally responsible for gay-bashing.
And I won’t be surprised if you twist that statement around as well.
I thank you all for your responses! 
They have been very helpful. I also appreciate very much the input of gay Dopers.
I have found the different perspectives to be quite refreshing.
WRS