Rhum Runner, it would depend on why they feel that way. I should think that would be obvious, and I grow tired of deflating arguments (the sort of which you have offered several in this thread) that are based on categorical applications of inappropriate proxies for a decisional rule I’ve offered, instead of the actual rule itself. I believe that constitutes arguing down a strawman, but I think you’d know whether that’s what you are doing, or not.
Bone, I categorically disagree with you. If you hold categorically negative emotions toward homosexuality, you are a homophobe.
I’m sorry, Kelly, I’ve read many or your posts in this regard. But it is not often that you seem to contradict yourself in the same post. I don’t mean any disrespect, but I would like to understand. Do negative emotions toward homosexuality make you a homophobe, or does it depend on why you feel that way? If it is both, can you explain how both of these things can be true at the same time and in the same sense?
pervert, can you not distinguish between “negative emotions toward homosexuality” and “negative emotions toward something commonly thought to be associated with homosexuality”?
If you want your child not to be gay because you want your child not to suffer the pain of dealing with homophobes in their lives, then that’s not homophobia because you are actually reacting to negative emotions toward homophobes. If you want your child not to be gay because you want to have grandchildren and you suspect that a gay child is less likely to yield issue, that too is not homophobia because you’re reacting to the potential hope for progeny.
Look at the root cause, not the superficial statement.
Yes. This makes much more sense. Thank you. I’m sorry if you worded it this way and I missed it. This and the other couple threads have become difficult to follow.
I’m not as concerned about this one. I tend to think of progeny in more intellectual or knowledge terms rather than purely biological or genetic terms. That is, I think it is more important that my children pass on what they have learned. As opposed to passing on their genes. This can readily be achieved by adoption.
What I was trying to do was understand your position a little more clearly in order to determine whether I have a ‘side’ in this debate; I’m rather disappointed that you chose to respond in this manner.
It is possible for a person (perhaps lactose intolerant) to be repulsed by the very idea of drinking milk, yet still think that drinking milk is not immoral or even icky for the general population.
Can the same be said for people’s views of homosexuality? And if so, does that make the person a homophobe?
I don’t think I was asserting it, but since you asked-yes, I can’t see how it’s a choice.
Yes, sheep and humans are different and they weren’t attempting to explain human sexuality-how does this get around the fact that there are homosexual sheep? I fail to see your point here: My point is, if it was a ‘choice’, why would their be homosexual animals?
He has a point about homosexuality not being a choice and equating sexuality with ‘hair color’ or ‘skin color’.
Perhaps not ‘homophobic’, but discriminatory/bigoted might be a more apt term.
Perhaps I should clarify: I’m not repulsed by homosexuals, nor for that matter heterosexuals- although thinking about certain groups of either mating isn’t exactly appealing.
Calling people who didn’t like Jackson’s latest album a racist is like calling people who didn’t like “Ellen” a homophobe. Michael Jackson is a nutcase, and using his seriously confused worldviews to support your argument is not exactly a fruitful effort.
The only problem I see with this mentality, is that ridding everyone of every last bit of intolerance is at best improbable, and at worst impossible. There is always going to be that certain ick factor when you are dealing with a group of people who’s sexual activities most people will find distasteful.
For instance, if I see a straight couple making out in public, I am going to be made uncomfortable, and think that they should go get a room or something because I don’t want to see it.
Doesn’t make me heterophobic, just makes me not want to see into other people’s bedrooms.
People automatically have negative reactions to that which they think gross. You can’t change that. No amount of homophobe witch hunting is going to keep the average straight person from suddering at the thought of two men giving each other a rim job.
My problem with your definition of homophobia, is that I believe the brush you are painting with is far too wide. Some of my closest straight friends for instance, wouldn’t want to see me having sex with another guy. By the same token, I wouldn’t want to see them having sex with their partners either.
My classification of homophobia has always been a little more moderate, taking into consideration that, to the average person, gay sex is nasty. No getting around that, people tend to find what they don’t participate in themselves gross, it isn’t just limited to gay sex.
I’ve always classified homophobe as:
someone who treats me dfferent, just based on my sexuality.
someone who will attempt to restrict my rights as a human, based on who I sleep with.
and someone who will actively try to convert me.
Where I differ in my definition, is the whole “thought police” aspect. You may not like it, but people like to make a big deal about the sexual exploits of others. Look at Bill Clinton, he get’s a blowjob, from a woman no less, and it is front page news for months.
If the only reaction that a person has when thinking about me having sex with another guy is “Eww, gross. Next topic.” then hey, I’m a happy camper.
Fighting intolerance with intolerance is, IMO, just a really good way of creating even more extreme responses on both sides.
The goal is admirable, but the methods are, in my opinion, a bit misguided.
UnoMondo said, "What makes you so certain? Who are you to decide the religious doctrine of others? "
Who’s deciding doctrine? All I’m doing is saying the doctrine that many people believe in is hateful. It is your perogative to believe whatever doctrine you choose to. But that doesn’t change the fact that it is promoting hate. And it doesn’t change the fact that you will be associated with that hate.
I for one never understood why straight men disapprove of gay men, but tend to tolerate (not to mention watch porn involving) lesbians.
As a straight man myself, living in a big and relatively gay-positive city, I have always blessed the fact that so many otherwise good-looking, intelligent men are gay.
Naturally, they are interested in each other and not in women - how many women have said to me, “all the best ones turn out to be gay?” (of course, they always add “present company excepted!” ) .
All the less competition for me.
So I have never understood the rationality behind (male) homophobia. As far as I am concerned, homosexuality is a positive good that ought to be encouraged. At least, among men. It can only benefit us.
