Suppose: If a person is born with a predisposition to enjoy sex with animals, and I condem sex with animals but not sex with people of the opposite sex, am I then being “beastiphobic” becuase I am applying one standard to heterosexuals and another standard to beastsexuals? I’m just trying to get a handle on where the disparate treatment has to be, and then trying to understand if there is any behavior which I am allowed to disaprove of.
I think, Kelly that this is not always true. Not every decision which involves race makes someone racist. A parent might very well not want their child to marry outside of their own race for a number of reasons unrelated to the esteem with which they hold other races. Just because a Jewish mother might want her daughter to marry a Jewish man doens’t mean that she hates non-jews. So it might also be that a hispanic mother might not want her daughter to marry a white man, it doens’t necessarily mean the hispanic mother is a racist.
Personally, I don’t give a rat’s ass if it’s a choice or inborn. I tend to THINK it’s inborn, only because I can’t fathom someone choosing a lifestyle that will get them beat up, ridiculed, shunned, and the like. But guess what! So fucking what if someone chooses to have sex with people of the same sex. It’s not hurting anything, regardless of what some people may like to think. A person’s sex life shouldn’t be anyone’s business but his or her partner’s.
I have a rule I live by: don’t tell me what to do in the sack and I won’t tell YOU what to do in the sack. Imagine if our parents knew every little detail of our sex lives. They’d probably want to rinse their brains with iodine.
And if homophobes could get it through their heads that being gay encompasses more than sex, they might be more empathetic toward those they feel are ruining the world. I mean, do they really think it’s just sex, sex, sex…24/7?
Kalhoun - nice rant. Also, nicely off topic. As far as I can tell, this “debate” proports to be about the meaning of a word, not the validity of a lifestyle.
Rhum Runner, your quibble about racism is a quibble; let’s not distract the issue. You know what I meant.
You’re allowed to disapprove of behaviors that are demonstrably wrong. Having sex with animals is wrong because the animal is incapable of expressing consent, and nonconsensual sex is abusive. It’s not “compassionate stewardship”, or whatever your favorite phrase is. There are also issues with animal abuse acting as a gateway to human sexual abuse.
Consensual, responsible homosexual sex (I add “responsible” to deflate the invariable claim that homosexual sex spreads disease) doesn’t harm anyone. The reasons given by most people opposed to the legitimacy of homosexual sex are grounded in either nonrational religious belief (“God said so”) or personal esthetic values (“gay sex is icky”). Neither of these is a valid reason to banish an activity that is objectively harmless.
Of course, people who hold strong, harmful, nonrational religious beliefs will not be swayed by an argument from rationality. In some cases, the argument from compassion will work (most religions tend to hold compassion to be a virtue); for these people we show them how their beliefs hurt people and hope that they will at least stop expressing them out of compassion. In those cases where it does not, vilification of those who hold those beliefs remains the final, regrettable option for dealing with what amounts to a social cancer. This social illness will not be cured until the majority of humanity recognizes these vile beliefs for what they are, and voluntarily refuses to accept them. This is, in many ways, a propaganda war, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to give up a weapon in fighting it, to spare the feelings of those I’m fighting against. If you’re a homophobe, I want to hurt your feelings. I want you to feel bad about being a homophobe. Maybe you’ll stop being one in order to avoid feeling bad about it. At least maybe you won’t teach your children to be homophobes, if only so they won’t have to feel bad about it.
This is a large part of how we’re come so far in defeating racism, and it’s how we’ll defeat homophobia, over time.
I don’t have a magical lense that allows me to view someone’s soul. So how can I tell whether someone is a good person or a bad person? I can only base my decision on their words and their deeds. For example if I find out someone I know is a liar and a thief I’m probably not going to like them very much. I can seperate a person from his actions. If you think homosexuality is wrong then how can you not think less of the homosexual?
As for the word homophobe I gotta admit I don’t like it. We don’t refer to other bigots as phobes. According to some of y’all I fit the definition of a homophobe. I admit that I’m not entirely comfortable with homosexuality but I don’t that get in the way of treating others like human beings. Why should my discomfort get in the way of others?
Or maybe I will decide that you are over-applying the term in situations in which we simply disagree, and the sting of your attempts at insult will disappear. To be replaced with simple contempt for someone so transparently hysteric.
An insult is an opinion. For it to affect my beliefs or behavior, you either have to have some way to enforce your opinion on me, or I have to value your opinion for its own sake. And I can’t see how either of these apply.
To listen to you and lissener, I have to be attracted to men, or you will call me names.
Boo hoo.
Tell me, KellyM - would you change your opinions if I called you a drama queen? Why would you think it would work on anyone else?
There are animals which reproduce with members outside their species. Many male mammals maintain a “harem” of females for their personal use; and there are many, many animals that do not even take care of their young beyond fertilization. Nature is a decidedly poor place for the right to turn to for a defenses, since nature has no arbitrary moral codes.
It isn’t a quibble at all, it speaks directly to the heart of the matter; namely that not all disaprovals of homosexuals and homosexuality are homophobic (at least if the word is to have any useful meaning) in the same way that not all decisions that consider race are evidence of racism.
I am ever so grateful for your permission.
I agree having sex with animals is wrong, but not only because the animal is incapable of consent. Suppose the animal is dead, so consent is no longer an issue. May I no longer object to the behavior?
So what? We aren’t talking about banishing anything here, so far as I can tell. The issue is what does it mean to be a “homophobe.” You and Lissener seem to think that any negative view of homosexuality is homophobia. I don’t think that is always the case, and I think your definition of the word renders it meaningless.
What makes you so certain? Who are you to decide the religious doctrine of others? These people have different beliefs than you do, and are based upon their own perception of theology. Geez, so much for “tolerance”. Now, you might say what the believe is wrong or immoral to you, but still…
Rhum Runner, I am able to distinguish between disapproval of one particular homosexual and disapproval of homosexuals generally. It’s the latter that I have a problem with.
I do think that any negative view of homosexuality is homophobia; I do not agree with you that such a definition renders it meaningless. I have to question your motives in making that declaration; it seems to me that your objection to my definition is that it covers people you’d rather it not cover, rather than that it lacks clarity.
It appear to me that you are trying to defend your perceived right to have and to hold negative opinions about homosexuality without fear of animus, by defining certain “less objectionable” homophobic opinions to be outside the scope for which the animus can rightfully be applied.
Kelly - Suppose a person held the view that, were they to have kids someday, they would hope that the kids would not turn out to be gay. I think that falls under what you would consider a negative view of homosexuality, but I don’t think that a person holding such a view is homophobic.
Are you asserting that it’s not a choice, Meatros, as Lissener is?
Your link even says that, “The differences are similar to those seen in some homosexual humans, but probably only go a small way to explaining the causes of different sexual preferences” and “We are not trying to explain human sexuality by this study”. I fail to see how you or Lissener can draw the ‘It’s not a choice conclusion’.
I too have a problem with the wide brush that is being used to paint people who may have a negative view of homosexuality. Some of them may be homophobic, but some may not. The amount of negative connotation that is associated with that term is such that it shouldn’t be used so indisciminantly. The criteria that is being offered in this thread is so weak as to render the term meaningless.
Lissener is calling anyone who does not agree with him, that homosexuality is not a choice, dishonest (a strong claim) He is saying that the comparison to other behaviors that may be considered undesirable is not valid, because such behaviors are choices, and homosexuality is not. I’m calling him on this point. Care to back that up?
You can have negative emotions towards homosexuality, treat homosexual relationships different than heterosexual ones (in the sense of whom you desire your children to marry), and still not be a homophobe. At least by my definition.
Er, if you’re claiming that people should be tolerant of differing points of view, yes you do. IMO, best to stick to what people do and let them feel and think whatever they want.