Wait, have I misunderstood you incorrectly all this time? Are you saying that if you believe homosexuality, as an orientation, is not a sin, but homosexual acts are a sin, then you’re not homophobic?
I’m not accusing you of contradicting yourself; I may have misunderstood you all this time. Let me get this clear. I believe that the sex you are attracted to is not in your control and therefore, being homosexual itself is not a sin.
But, I beleive that homosexual sex (just like much heterosexual sex) is a sin. Am I a homophobe or not?
You also say
If you’re talking about hating the “sin” of homosexual orientation, then I think it might be possible to hate the idea in the abstract without hating homosexuals. If you’re talking about hating the sin of homosexual sex itself (the act), then I think it’s not only possible, but common to hate the act without hating the person.
In any case, I don’t think you can be any better at telling someone who they hate than they can be at telling you who you love.
Based on our earlier debates, I’ve thought I was a homophobe (to your definition) but now I’m not so sure.
lissener, I’ve found that calling people’s entire belief structures, and denouncing them as a lie tends to be quite the ineffective way of creating positive change.
In fact, by attacking their moral foundations, I’d be willing to bet that you will find yourself instead fanning the flames.
From a moral standpoint, one could very well look at homosexuality as something in line with polygamy, and even claim biological reasons for both. If you are looking to split hairs, it really can go both ways. The main issue with homosexuality, and why it constitutes such a problem, is because the people who are going to be the most vocal against it, are going to be the people who have the least experience being around it.
Showing open hostility, and vilifying people you perceive as homophobic is only going to engender negative reactions from them, and not really accomplish anything.
To hijack your hijack thread, lissener, I’ve noted a divergence in word use, which I keep bitching about to no avail. As used by GBLT people, “homosexuality” means the orientation to having sexual/romantic/pair-bond feelings towards another person of the same sex. You are therefore gay not only when picking up someone at a gay bar, but when sitting back and watching the football game with your SO.
To the anti-gay contingent, however, it focuses on the behavioral complex characterizing the stereotype gay person: at the risk of being thought myself homophobic, I would have to define the stereotype (as opposed to actual gay people) as promiscuous, hedonistic and pleasure-seeking, afraid of commitment, tending to camp, uninterested in sports (except perhaps tennis), “brittle” of personality, easily offended and touchy in a bitchy sort of way (as opposed to masculine anger), uninterested in religion (but prepared to subvert God’s “obvious” plan and will for America, a contradiction never resolved).
The point is that their definition of “homosexuality” is a behavior, or more accurately a system of behaviors defining a lifestyle. People who believe homosexual acts a sin and the homosexual orientation to be a mental problem generally buy into this definition, though people of this definition who like Svt4Him have taken the trouble to get to know gay people realize otherwise. (I honestly think you folks are misjudging him thanks to his partial buying into the standards of homophobic thought; he seems to be more willing to treat people as individuals no better nor worse than him than the typical witnessing homophobe.)
I do not believe that it is possible to hold the position that being homosexual is immoral in and of itself without thereby being subject to the appelation of “homophobe”. Such position betrays prejudice of homosexuals.
The position that being homosexual is itself not immoral, but engaging in homosexual acts is, is also in my opinion homophobic. Such position is also prejudicial of homosexuals. (In many cases, this is ‘homophobic by proxy’, in that the believer has internalized someone else’s homophobia. No matter: you are responsible for what you choose to believe.)
The position that some homosexual acts are immoral is not homophobic, as long as one holds that the analogous acts are also immoral when performed by heterosexuals. The key is whether or not the position exposes a prejudice of homosexuals.
Yes, this means that, in my opinion, a lot of people are homophobes. Don’t like it? Tough. They’re your beliefs, you can change them if you don’t like the label.
Bravo. I’ve had extreme reluctance to open any lissener thread due to the extreme hostility he’s been showing people who disagree with him. If I’d followed that urge, there’s definitely no way I’d ever come around to his viewpoint.
IMO, all this quibbling about semantics is of secondary importance, if any at all. I myself am certainly a homophobe according to many of these definitions that are being tossed around, but you know what? I could care less. I believe what I believe, and whether these beliefs happen to fit the definition of homophobia is of absolutely no consequence, as far as I’m concerned. If I think something is true I believe it and if I think it’s not true I don’t believe it, and the idea - suggested in a previous post - that someone would modify their beliefs in order to avoid a certain label is pathetic, if a bit humorous.
But what I do object to is if the labels are used to misrepresent my views. IOW, you want to say that since I believe homosexual sex is a sin then I am a homophobe, that’s fine, as long as we are clear that this is what you mean when you say homophobe. But if you turn around and use the term try to suggest that I am a gay basher or whatnot then you are being dishonest.
The reason I bring this up is because I suspect that this is what lies at the heart of what is otherwise a pointless and silly semantic debate. There have been all sorts of very unpleasant connotations attached to terms like homophobe, and these are primarily based on associations with gay bashing, “God Hates Fags” and the like. So the game that I think is going on is to use an expansive definition of the term to include many of one’s ideological opponents, and then turn around and make use of the uglier connotations to malign and intimidate them.
But as long as everyone is honest and above-board we are OK, so I guess we won’t have a problem.
Agreed. I don’t know if I’m “homophobic” or not, but I’m definitely homophobic-phobic: Fear of finding oneself in yet another thread about homophobia.
Suppose we get a working definition of “homphobic”. What are you going to do it with it-- hurl it anyone you disagree with on the subject of homosexuality? That’ll be about as useful as saying someone is racist. Good luck in preventing future thread hijacks, though. It’s a noble goal, I guess.
Man, some of you are taking all my ideas, even the Catholics and Orthodox don’t let me catch a break.
LET ME SAY SOMETHING!
With lissener’s definition of homophobia there is no escape… I AM A HOMOPHOBE.
Let’s see, I’ll try my hand at it:* Anyone who doesn’t believe that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ is a Catholicphobe*, no better than the worst racist; I don’t care about your moral or religious beliefs or your being in denial, you can’t escape it.
What about paedophiles? If I feel atracted to eight-year-old girls, then I AM a paedophile and your ick doesn’t matter to me. Are you a bunch of paedophilophobics? Why are you imposing you religious views on me? You’re not getting your religion right! It is who I am, paedophilia defines me, I have paedophillic thoughts all the time, ehy do you hate me? Why am I wrong?
Of course, in Catholicism (and Orthodoxy if I’m getting it right) what is asked of Heterosexuals is the same that is asked of people with Homosexual preferences, faithfulness to God’s plan.
The only “officially” condemned behaviors for homosexuals are actual homosexual acts. You can be the president of the Judy Garland Fan Club, own every album Barbra Streisand ever made, and swish your way from here to Christopher Street, and, as long as you don’t actually engage in homosex, you are A-OK. In the same way, you can play center for the Steelers, vote Republican, volunteer your spare time for Jimmy Swaggert Ministries, and only have sex with one person in your whole life, and, if that person is male, you are officially a sinner.
Which is why Bob Dole was pressured to return the campaign contributions he got in 1996 from the Log Cabin Republicans. The deal-breaker in the “gay agenda” is gay sex - nothing else. It is not butch vs. nelly or the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy vs. the godless Commies, it’s gay sex vs. straight sex, and gay sex is officially a no-no.
It is not the orientation; it is the behavior. And being gay does not compel you to act immorally. It means that you are going to be tempted to sin in a certain way, and not in others. Straight men are tempted to adultery with women, which is officially condemned (although common). Gay men are tempted to gay sex, which is also condemned (although common).
I’m not entirely sure of your point, Poly. I’ll certainly agree that those who believe homosexuality is a complex of behaviors don’t understand the issue clearly. I agree that homophobes tend to misuse the word.
I don’t think your bitching about this will ever change it.
I’m not showing hostility to people for disagreeing with me. I’m showing hostility to people whose choices of belief system are hostile to my existance.
And Res, I’ve had enough experience–here and elsewhere–to know that you will never come around to my viewpoint. If you need to use me as the excuse for that, be my guest, but we both know that’s bullshit.
"anybody who has any negative feeling towards homosexuality"…
Well, if one is going to use that phrase alone to define a homophobe or not, then I am a homophobe.
I think gays should not be discriminated against and they should obviously have the same rights as anybody else. Though I must say, it is a natural instinct for me, as a heterosexual male to be replused by the mere thought of 2 gay men going at it. Uck…:rolleyes:
I would be equally replused by bestiality or some other act which I find foreign and unthinkable to me.
Like most heterosexual males, I am more inclined to accept lesbians more, because that is the opposite sex.
So, based on lisseners definition, I’d say there’s billions of homophobes in the world.
I’m curious about your response to IzzyR’s post. Is it your intent to define the group using the broadest definition possible, then attack by comparing them to the most vile members of the group?
Someone might think that homosexual acts are a sin on par with pre-marital sex. That person does not necessarily subscribe to God Hates Fags, nor does that person wish for homosexuals to get lynched or for any other bad things to happen to them. To place everyone in the same bag as Phelps doesn’t make them all equivalent.
