Is this statement homophobic?

[kanicbird]

The statement in the OP is a attempt to influence people to your opinion.

When you start the statement by saying you don’t care what people do in their bedrooms, you have the appearance of one that is neutral, and many people can go along with it.

Then you add the zinger, that is it disgusting, but you framed it in that other tone.

It is IMHO deceptively homophobic in a evil sense because you linked the 2.

[Guinastasia]

Not even going to bother addressing the inanity that is Bosstrain’s post, but I will point out to him that the word is spelled “genitals”. With an “i”.

[MrDibble]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

Which “law” are you referring to?

Moral law. It’s a paraphrase of Thelema’s One Law (“Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”) which was a reaction to Wicca’s “If it harm none, do as you will” Law. I’m not into magick, but I like the formulation.

Or, in other words, it’s not really a pertinent question. Unless I’m under subconscious compulsion, I always and only do as I will. Everyone does. So it’s pointless to ask “What gives you the right?” I do. Always and only, we are responsible and the source of, our own actions. Inasmuch as they line up with consensus or societal norms, that’s great. But that’s not “rights”. “Rights” are an illusion.

I’m not certain that is true. While I’m a contextual ethicist – i.e., I believe that no action has a moral value outside its context – I don’t believe that the end always justifies the means. Gay rights is a laudable goal, but I’m not comfortable with the notion of policing people’s thoughts: only their actions.

And so am I. Making homophobic utterances is an action, one with social impact.

Forgive me if I have misunderstood your actions, but you seem to be saying that a person known to be homophobic (or to harbor other prejudices), but who does not act on such beliefs in any way that affects gays (or other minorities) still deserves mockery as a form of social engineering. Am I misunderstanding you?

Yes. A person* known for making homophobic utterances* would be mocked. A person who was homophobic but shut up about it, well, how would we know?

That would depend on what you were fighting against. If someone were acting to deny you a genuine right, that is one thing. But everyone has the right to their own thoughts: even the stupid, bigoted, and/or evil ones.

They have the right to their thoughts, I agree. They do not have a right to freedom from ridicule over those thoughts, or the right to be accepted in polite society even when their thoughts are abhorrent.

[Johanna]

@MrDibble

Moral law. It’s a paraphrase of Thelema’s One Law (“Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”) which was a reaction to Wicca’s “If it harm none, do as you will” Law. I’m not into magick, but I like the formulation.

That goes: “An it harm none, do what thou wilt.” (The word an there is a shortened variant of and. The logical operator and means that the two things are necessarily taken together). I’m a Witch and I happen to think the part about not harming others really needs to be in integral part of the “formulation.” Especially when the word moral is the theme. Morality minus consideration of the impact of one’s actions on others is no morality.

Or, in other words, it’s not really a pertinent question. Unless I’m under subconscious compulsion, I always and only do as I will. Everyone does. So it’s pointless to ask “What gives you the right?” I do.

That’s fine in isolation, if you’re an island. In the real world where other people exist, your unilateral assertion of rights cannot avoid having to negotiate with other people’s ideas of rights.

Always and only, we are responsible and the source of, our own actions. Inasmuch as they line up with consensus or societal norms, that’s great.

I agree with this part.

But that’s not “rights”. “Rights” are an illusion.

I don’t know what you mean by this. Rights are an important part of being human in the real world.

And so am I.

Whatever. :rolleyes: You can get metaphysical all you want, but there still is such a thing as the real world with real people who matter.

Making homophobic utterances is an action, one with social impact.Yes. A person* known for making homophobic utterances* would be mocked. A person who was homophobic but shut up about it, well, how would we know?They have the right to their thoughts, I agree. They do not have a right to freedom from ridicule over those thoughts, or the right to be accepted in polite society even when their thoughts are abhorrent.

I agree with this part.

[MrDibble]

@Johanna

That goes: “An it harm none, do what thou wilt.” (The word an there is a shortened variant of and.

No, it isn’t. “An” is an archaic version of “if”. There’s nothing wrong with my translation.

The logical operator and means that the two things are necessarily taken together).

…but there’s no “and” in there. “If” is a conditional. Same result though.

I’m a Witch and I happen to think the part about not harming others really needs to be in integral part of the “formulation.”

I wasn’t advocating the Rede, though, was I?

And nothing you do in this world harms no-one, so it’s an empty add-on. Crowley got that right, at least, even if he was otherwise an abhorrent man.

Of note is that the rest of his formulation, after “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law…”, goes “Love is the Law. Love under Will” so even then he’s putting his own restrictions on things.

Especially when the word moral is the theme. Morality minus consideration of the impact of one’s actions on others is no morality.

Oh, granted. But again, it’s my own consideration of impact that affects my actions. Back to me as final arbiter.

That’s fine in isolation, if you’re an island. In the real world where other people exist, your unilateral assertion of rights cannot avoid having to negotiate with other people’s ideas of rights.

Of course. That’s as it should be. Never said otherwise. But* I* must still choose how to respond to others’ ideas, mustn’t I?

I don’t know what you mean by this. Rights are an important part of being human in the real world.

“Rights” are a convenient consensus that we all participate in, not a real mental process for determining personal action.

I’m not saying rights don’t exist. They exist. But actual human action is not subject to them, only societal laws and the like. That’s why it makes no sense to ask me what gives me the right to ostracise a homophobe. I can do it, that’s what gives me the right. I’m not violating any of his agreed-upon societal rights by doing so - liberty, life, etc. There’s no law that says I have to be friends with someone. So asking me “what gives you the right” is a non-starter. My societal-given right of free association gives me the right, you *could *say, but that’s just a cover. My *desire *to not associate with troglodytes is what gives me the right, actually.

Whatever. :rolleyes: You can get metaphysical all you want, but there still is such a thing as the real world with real people who matter.

That wasn’t metaphysical in the slightest. **Skald **said he wasn’t comfortable with policing peoples’ thoughts, and I said that wasn’t what I was proposing - I was proposing social ostracism for people who make homophobic utterances. And strictly personal ostracism at that, I wasn’t even hinting at creating any societal rules. I was laying out how I would treat any (former) friend who made such an utterance to me.