Please use this thread to debate the meaning, derivation, and usage of the word “homophobia” so you don’t have to highjack other threads to chase this particular red herring.
I’ll start.
“Homophobia” is a perfectly apt word—even with its connotations of irrational fear—to refer to—here, ResIpsaLoquitor nailed it in another thread:[
**
The only way to have negative feelings about homosexuality—as opposed to negative feelings about a particular homosexual individual, like this vicious dyke Carla I know who, trust me, you would hate too—the only way to have negative feelings about homosexuality is to hold on to your own personal prejudices about it in the face of the overwhelming evidence that contradicts those feelings of ick. This tenacity is:[list=A]**[li]Utterly unjustifiable and so irrational**The product of a deep-seated—often not consciously acknowledged—fear: fear of difference, fear of ick, and often fear of self knowledge[/list]If you “disapprove” of homosexuality on religious grounds, then either you don’t get your religion; or you allow your irrational fear (henceforth simply “homophobia”) to override the spirit of your religion while you cling doggedly to its letter in self-justification; or you subscribe to a religion that promulgates irrational fear.[/li]
If you “disapprove” of homosexuality on “scientific” grounds—that it’s “not natural” is the wonted squeak of this group—then you’re either stupid, which is forgivable; or aggressively ignorant (there’s plenty of scientific literature to contradict such idiocy), which is not.
What of the pastors I’ve heard tell that homosexuality is a sin, but they “love” the homosexual.
A contradiction?
I’m not sure, I love my son, but sometimes hate his behavior.
(yes, i know his behavior is not who he is). but my two cents.
Yes, a contradiction based on ignorance. If you hate the “sin” of homosexuality, then no matter how loudly you deny it, you hate homosexuals.
Homosexuality is not a behavior; therefore it is not in the realm of sin. To insist otherwise is to cling to an irrational belief in the face of the contradictory truth.
Such pastors, vanilla, are homophobic, and are very near the root of the problem that often finds fertile ground in secret self loathing and full flower in the blood of YOUR gay brothers and sisters.
thats why when I saw that thread asking what if your child was gay, I wouldn’t want that because I can imagine how well any church I went to would take it or tell him.
Let’s replace the word “homosexual” with in the word “thief” in the above quoted section. Are you suggesting that if you hate the sin of theft, then you hate all thieves?
Disclaimer: I’m not saying all homosexuals are thieves, I’m just trying to make a point.
What kind of ‘negative feelings’? - I find that term a little too vague - a personal preference against having sex with members of your own gender (i.e. I am heterosexual and male and I simply don’t want to engage in sexual relations with other males - because I’m heterosexual - that’s simply what I am) could still be construed as a negative feeling (because it excludes certain choices), but it wouldn’t be homophobia. Or would it?
Your point, while admirably worn and tired, is no more apt today than the first time you tried it. Thievery is a behavior; homosexuality is not. Homosexual thoughts, athelas, are behaviors: homosexuality is not.
Mangetout has a good point… I know a lot of people who get all “icked out” at the idea of oral or anal sex…even if it’s in a heterosexual context. The idea of a husband and wife enjoying a nice session of “69” is as gross to them as the idea of two men or two women doing it.
On the other hand, there are also a large number of people who have no objection to seeing a man and a woman share a nice messy kiss…but when they see the same behavior between two men or two women, freak out in loud disgust. That, I think, is what’s meant by homophobia.
(I once had someone try to compare it to a “fear” of hand grenades. Such a fear, being rational, couldn’t be a “phobia,” could it? I said that if it applies to pictures of hand grenades – or toy plastic ones, etc. – then it stops being rational, and looks a lot like a phobia indeed.)
In the Orthodox Church, inasmuch as I understand the matter, homosexuality is not a sin. Heterosexuality is not a sin, either. However, homosexual acts are sins.
lissener, I think you’re splitting some hairs mighty fine here. What does it mean to be a homosexual if you don’t ever think about homosexual sex – in other words, how can a person be a homosexual without having “homosexual thoughts”? By extension, doesn’t homosexuality as a condition necessarily entail having homosexual thoughts?
The two seem inseparable to me. Inasmuch as they are, a person who hates “homosexuality” may well be hating the having of homosexual thoughts.
I’m with you on the idea that homophobia is often dangerous and is never constructive, and I’m with you on the idea that homophobia should never be allowed to dictate law. But I’m not with you when you suggest that hating homosexuality necessarily entails hating homosexuals.
Also, “homosexuality” is not analogous to race, height, or eye color: these are all traits defined by physical characteristics. Unless and until doctors develop a blood test for homosexuality, you’re making inapt comparisons. Currently, homosexuality is defined by behavior, desires, preferences, etc., not by physical characteristics.
The split hairs are all yours, Daniel. Though I agree with most of what you say, that’s outside the scope of this discussion. This discussion is simply about what homophobia is; not about all the many things that it is not.
In other words, of course it’s true that homosexuals are likely to have homosexual thoughts. Nonetheless, the distinction between being and doing—or thinking—is irrefutable. That a certain state of being often goes hand in hand with a certain mode of thought doesn’t change the fact that they are two separate things. Being tall goes hand in hand with easy access to top shelves; nonetheless they are two different things.
To consider homosexual thoughts a sin but not to apply the same judgment to heterosexual thoughts is homophobic. The only distinction between the two is homosexuality, not thinking.
To think all sex or sexual ideation to be sinful is consistent at least, even if it’s its own kind of irrationality.
And the blood test is your own red herring. The reason I included such parallels as creative talent was to acknowledge that there’s more mystery to sexual orientation that can be completely accounted for by DNA.
Boy, have you taken me out of context. My exact quote was:
Emphasis added. Let’s clarify: that’s your definition of homophobia, not mine. I don’t appreciate the misquote.
I also have to take issue with:
I’m Catholic. The Church’s opposition to homosexuality is barely based on the old Levitical passage; rather, it’s a subset of a deep and very thick belief on the meaning of maleness and femaleness in the human structure. In other words, the Church has an incredibly complex view on what maleness, femaleness, and sexuality are–particularly in relation to whom Jesus Christ is–and homosexuality is, in short, viewed as a distortion of human sexuality.
Now, either Catholicism doesn’t “get” Catholicism, or you need to rework what you’ve said.
Ooh! I can answer that one without splitting hairs.
If one is predisposed towards a certain sin or type of sin, desire for that sin can come unbidden. This is blameless. It is actively entertaining these desires that would be considered spiritually dangerous.
Jesus said that any time you’re having lustful thoughts about a person to whom your not married, you’re committing a sin. It doesn’t matter what gender the person is.
So, heterosexual thought is a sin, unless you’re thinking about your husband/wife.
So, if you’re tautologically against gay marriage, thereby creating the sin by, like, entrapment or something, by defining marriage to fit your ick, then you’re a homophobe.