Um, that’s why I created this thread, because the secondary quibbling keeps taking over other threads.
And thus I have never said so.
But you don’t get off scottfree: religious intolerance of homosexuals is the bedrock from which the more extreme, active forms of homophobia draw their support.
Like it or not–deny it or not–you’ve give the bashers your blessing.
Correct, and a reason why the defiinition of the OP is a mistake.
It pretty much says that anyone who isn’t gay or bisexual, is a homophobe.
I realize that lissener has already mentioned that he didn’t want to accomplish anything, but I think he is doing so nonetheless. Whether it is anything of value or not, I don’t know.
To broaden the term “homophobe” to include anyone who isn’t attracted to the idea of gay sex either robs it of any meaning, or at least of any negative connotation. It is sort of like a straight man defining as a “lesbian” any woman who won’t go home with him.
Oh well. Sticks and stones, and all that.
Regards,
Shodan
I see this as a form of homophobia – just as the guy who “likes black people just fine but wouldn’t want his daughter to marry one” is a racist.
I don’t see how that follows. I’m simply making it as clear as I can what I mean when I use the word. I don’t use it lightly; I use it to refer to a very specific kind of prejudice and hypocrisy. I will “hurl” it at people who exhibit these prejudices or hypocrisies, and not at anyone else.
Asked and answered. Please read the thread before posting.
Lissener,
Here is where I have a problem with your position. Much of your contention relies on your definition of what homosexuality is. Others in this thread have attempted to relay what they believe homosexuality to be. I cannot see why your interpretation trumps theirs.
You state:
Your implication in the first section of the quote is that homosexuality is something that is outside the control of the individual, similar to race, height, intelligence, talent, and eye color. The things that you consider to be poor parallels all relate to choices an individual can make.
It is simple to say that homophobia is analogous to racism, but that presupposes that homosexuality is not a matter of choice, at all. Period. Judging from your writing, I think that your belief of this is a fair conclusion to draw. Would you agree?
Asked and answered. Please read the thread.
Please note, also, that you’re objecting to a secondary interpretation of my OP, because my OP says no such thing.
This is, what, the fourth or fifth time I’ve addressed this ludicrous herring in this thread alone. Might be time for another thread to bleed of highjacks of this one.
I dunno Kelly, it seems to be a REALLY mild form of homophobia. Taking it from the parental view, a parent might disapprove of a child engaging in premarital sex, but that needn’t go any further than a disapproval.
The label homophobe includes a lot of very unsavory people, how does one distinguish, if you include mild disapproval?
I wouldn’t go so far as to call it “blessing”. But I will grant that the attitudes of people like myself likely embolden a lot of gay bashers.
But I think this would be true of any viewpoint. The existence of any position on anything will provide a bedrock of support for the more extreme and violent forms of this position. Environmental support provides a bedrock of support for environmental terrorists. Opposition to abortion provides bedrock of support for abortion clinic bombers. Criticism of Israel provides a bedrock of support for anti-Semitic attacks. And so on. I don’t think you can blame any viewpoint for providing a bedrock of support for extremists out there. I’m as willing to condemn gay-bashing as the next guy, but I don’t see that I need to change my position or be held responsible for it, bedrock of support notwithstanding.
Bone, homosexuality was not a matter of choice for me. I have never met a homosexual–and believe me, I’ve met a lot of homosexuals–for whom their sexuality was a matter of choice. For that matter, I have never met a heterosexual for whom their sexuality was a matter of choice. Despite this universal truth, homophobes continue to rationalize their own prejudices by dishonestly insisting that it is.
Now, I’ve met some sexual adventurers for whom this sex act or that sex act was a matter of choice, but their self identification as to their “orientation”–even if that orientation is “bisexual”–was not a matter of choice.
Cheesesteak, it is a relatively mild form of homophobia. That doesn’t make it right, and it doesn’t exempt it from disapproval.
How does one distinguish between the racism of Matt Hale and the racism of Archie Bunker? They’re both racists. Do we need different words to describe them? No, we don’t; we use modifying terms to qualify or describe their racism. Do you seriously believe that we can’t do the same for homophobia?
Why do you want me to carve an exception for certain, relatively mild forms of homophobia? I don’t see a need or a reason to do so.
Lord Ashtar said, “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?”
Again, we’re talking about a behavior as opposed to an unchangeable trait. A thief can become an honest citizen. A homosexual will always be gay.
Lissener
Here is your [others’ problem with your] problem that I see. You are using your personal anecdotal evidence to conclude that homosexuality is not a choice. You go so far as to claim that this is a ‘universal truth’ and that people who do not believe similarly are dishonest.
Personally, I dont know if it’s a choice or not. Frankly, I dont care one bit. But unless you can demonstrate how it is not a choice, it is you who are being dishonest claiming that homosexuality being genetic [for lack of a better term here] is a ‘universal truth’.
If it is choice, then comparisons as you have made between homophobia and racism would not be valid , and comparisons that you have denied between homophobia and thievery would be.
Kelly, it just feels like a dilution of the term. A term that should mean something is broadened to include so many people that it loses its steam. Terms like racism have undergone this change too. It used to mean a person who thought blacks were lesser human beings, really ugly thoughts. Now, if a black football player doesn’t get to play because he screwed up (see Maurice Clarett) you hear charges of racism.
Like the boy who cried wolf, if you call every other person you meet a homophobe, who is going to care?
Trinopus said, “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.”
There’s a difference in the “Ick Factor” as well. I don’t mind seeing gay people expressing affection, but if I project myself into the situation, it’s all wrong. As it should be. I’m not gay. The question isn’t whether or not I want to engage in gay sex. The question is whether it’s OK for gay people to engage in gay sex.
Kelly, it just feels like a dilution of the term. A term that should mean something is broadened to include so many people that it loses its steam. Terms like racism have undergone this change too. It used to mean a person who thought blacks were lesser human beings, really ugly thoughts. Now, if a black football player doesn’t get to play because he screwed up (see Maurice Clarett) you hear charges of racism.
Like the boy who cried wolf, if you call every other person you meet a homophobe, who is going to care?
I haven’t asked anything. And I have read the thread.
I (and others) are analyzing your OP, and posing objections. You haven’t (to date) addressed the objections in any coherent way.
No, you are incorrect. Your OP says pretty much exactly that.
You approvingly quoted ResIpsaLoquitor’s definition of “homophobia” as being “. . . anyone who has any sort of negative feeling about homosexuality. . . .”. You then went on to state that homophobia consisted of “hanging on to feelings of ick” regarding homosex.
Which led to my (and DaisyCutter’s) objection that most straight people do not engage in gay sex, because they have “feelings of ick” that make the idea distasteful to them. Which leads almost inevitably to the conclusion that anyone who doesn’t care to engage in gay sex is a homophobe.
Yes, it sounds silly. It is a silly conclusion. And you have attempted to dismiss the point without dealing with it, and with only the implied threat that you will go off and start another thread, and abandon this one.
Let’s see, lissener - someone who starts inflammatory threads, admits that he does not really want to achieve anything by doing so, and who threatens to go off and hide if the other posters refuse to jump into his rhetorical traps - what would you call that sort of thing?
Regards,
Shodan
Cheesesteak, I don’t feel that it’s a dilution at all. Intolerance is intolerance, and I will not excuse “mildly intolerant behavior” by refraining from calling it intolerant.
It’s kinda like lead in the drinking water: you want to get rid of all of it, or at least as much as you can, and you go after small polluters just the same as big ones, when it’s cost-effective to do so. Besides, a lot of the “small polluters” in this situation are people who will stop once they realize that they’re hurting someone, and sometimes the label is enough to shock some sense into them.
I won’t call everyone I meet a homophobe. I will call everyone I meet who exhibits bigotry on the basis of sexual preference one, though, regardless as to the “severity” of that bigotry. This will make some people uncomfortable. This is the point.
"You approvingly quoted ResIpsaLoquitor’s definition of “homophobia” as being “. . . anyone who has any sort of negative feeling about homosexuality. . . .”. You then went on to state that homophobia consisted of “hanging on to feelings of ick” regarding homosex. "
Per my post above, I have to agree with Shodan here. It’s not the accepting people who don’t want to engage in gay sex that we’re talking about here. It’s people who think gay sex is wrong for gay people that I’m worried about. I understand where you’re coming from, Lissener…I just think your term is too broad and lets the bad guys off the hook just a bit.
I wasn’t being very clear there. If you read further down, you see that Dogface made the point I was trying to, and I gave him credit for doing so.