This is precisely why I prefer the terms ‘pro-abortion’ and ‘anti-abortion.’ The terms are definitely PR-based. (Although I would make a case that ‘pro-choice’ is the more blatant example of PR-based usage, but that’s a topic for another day.)
BTW, I’d hesitate to say that they were chosen to make the other side look bad. I’m not convinced that this was the specific intent, although I do admit that they were picked to make their respective proponents look better than their opponents.
well, I am old eanough to see differances in the youth now, and Myself as a youth, but I am not to old where I do not remember what high school was realy like. While you think I am “flat-out wrong in other areas, and in particular the question of homosexuality” I think you do not remember, or did not see what high school was realy like. There were many people who felt they needed to belong in some groop, any group, it is just human nature to do so. and some of those people were not talented (Theater) and/or not athletic (sports) so they went to the only place that would accept them, the gay strait aliance, which I am able to say was a strong presence at my high school.
While this organization promoted “Individualism” and “Diversity” it only promoted it’s individualism, and it’s diversity. and all the people in it were pressured to become homosexual.
I think that if schools are to promote “Diversity” and “Individualism” they should start promoting more diversity than simply homosexuals. Perhaps differant cultures, I do not think my identity rises and sets in my pants, why should my diversity.
Perhaps they could bring in some speakers who would would tell them about communism, or a Nazi war criminal, would this make our children better people?
So, JThunder, stipulating for a moment that the term homophobic is indeed derogatory, what would you prefer?
Anti-gay?
Anti-homosexual?
Anti-homosexual-agenda?
Anti-marriage?
Anti-equality?
Pro-heterosexual?
Pro-prejudice?
Pro-gaybashing?
Pro-discrimination?
Pro-teen-suicide?
Pro-repression?
Pro-ignorance?
I’ve always considered the use of the term homophobic to be a courtesy. Afer all, it means I’m assuming that the person that I’m speaking of has a prejudice based on fear and ignorance. The alternative, that a person’s opposition to equal rights for all people regardless of sexuality stems from informed hatred or selfish motives, seems to be even more appalling.
So when I say someone’s a homophobe, I’m actually giving them the benefit of the doubt.
‘Pro-abortion’ is inappropriate, however. As best as we can tell, the majority of pro-choice individuals are morally opposed to abortion.
I’m not convinced that the majority of them are, but you do raise a valid point. People who believe that abortion is morally wrong, but who still believe that it should be allowed, would be most accurately described using another term altogether.
Of course, I would ask those people why they consider abortion to be wrong (e.g. is in the taking of an innocent life?), and why they think it should be allowed nonetheless. But that’s another matter altogether…
It seems to me that ‘anti-homosexuality’ would be perfectly adequate. I would even endorse ‘anti-homosexual,’ except that many people would interpret that as an attack on the person, rather than homosexuality itself.
Your intellectual dishonesty is showing. You know full well that the overwhelming majority of homosexuality opponents do not endorse acts such as gaybashing or teen suicide.
Which is precisely why I find it hard to believe you when you say…
Yeah, right. :rolleyes:
Are you sure that the negative portrayal of homosexuals by the anti-homosexuality forces in the U.S. has nothing whatsoever to do with the appalling rates of teen suicide among gay teens, or the prevalence of gaybashing? Are you absolutely certain of that? If not, how can you justify a stance that leads to these actions?
JThunder, I want to extend to you the challenge that’s been issued any number of times on this board, only to remain completely unanswered:
Give me a good reason that homosexuality should be opposed.
Really. A good reason. One that’s not based on the tenets of your religion, as this nation is based on freedom of religion. One that doesn’t boil down to “It’s icky.”
Because if you can’t justify the way homosexuals are treated in this society rationally, then we have only two alternatives left; either the anti-homosexuals are opposing it out of ignorance and fear, or they’re opposing it out of political expediency.
Because I hold that the persecution of a people due to political expediency is beneath contempt, I think that attributing anti-homosexual attitudes to homophobia is pretty charitable.
So, JThunder, lay it on me. Why must homosexuality be opposed? Answer that question, and you can accuse me of intellectual dishonesty without me breaking into guffaws.
Regarding the OP, has anyone found another source for the story put forward? The reason I posted the link I did was because it was the only story I could find in any of the local papers that were even close to what was mentioned in the original link.
Until I see another source for the story I’ll continue to doubt that it happened the way it was originally told.
I did find this story, from the Arcata Eye, on Feb. 19.
http://www.arcataeye.com/top/020219top03.shtml
It said that there was a debate at a school board meeting over a proposed “Spare Change” presentation. Apparently, it’s a student theater troup associated with California Planned Parenthood that puts on presentations about sex education.
Here’s their website.
http://www.ppeureka.com/spare%20change.htm
This group could be what the article was referring to.
MrVisible, nobody’s saying that. However, that does not mean that opponents of homosexuality are “pro-teen-suicide.”
Can you truly not see the differerence?
MrVisible, stop changing the topic. The right and wrong of homosexuality is a vital issue, but it’s irrelevant to the questions at hand – namely (a) should schools teach morality, and (b) is it reasonable to refer to someone as “pro-homosexual” or “anti-homosexual”?
You can ask “Why should homosexuality be opposed?” but it’s irrelevant to the issue at hand, so stop changing the topic.
Please note that NOBODY in this thread has said that homosexuality must be opposed. NOBODY. Why? Because that question is irrelevant to the matters being discussed. Even if homosexuality is not to be opposed, that by no means justifies referring to anti-homosexuality proponents as “pro-gaybashing” or “pro-teen-suicide.”
Of course, it’s much easier to pretend that homosexuality opponents DO want teens to kill themselves. After all, why should intellectual honesty prevail, when it’s much easier to erect a strawman?
I see. So I suppose that simply saying “anti-homosexuality” wouldn’t be sufficient, eh? It’s not enough to simply state that they’re against homosexuality. Rather, one must either call them “homophobic” or declare that they want teens to commit suicide.
Please read up on the fallacy of the excluded middle.
On question (a), it seems to me if you take away the “right” and “wrong” of homosexuality, this is no longer a moral issue at all. Under those circumstances, Planned Parenthood is simply teaching students to accept one another, even if they have differences of opinion of who’s the hottie.
I take it this means we agree since you no longer feel it’s a moral issue, correct?
As for question (b), I thought we had gone over this one, but if you wish to be referred to as anti-homosexual, I’ll gladly oblige. For me, I still don’t feel that I’m pro-homosexual, so the label doesn’t fit. I’m not a homosexual, I don’t have any immediate friends who are, and I don’t send money to various homosexual groups. I do fully support their right to be treated just like the rest of us, so maybe you’d like to call me pro-equality, if you feel you must apply some label.
Originally posted by Jubilation T Cornpone
Yeah, you’re right. Right and wrong should never enter into discussions about morality.
This is, after all, what this issue boils down to. It is the heart, the crux, the sticking point: What possible rational reason can anybody have for discriminating against people, just because they love other consenting adults? Why must it be opposed? What justification can there be for fostering a national climate that creates the horrible tragedies that are faced by way too many gay citizens?
Why in the world should it bother anyone that a school performance, however inept, is trying to teach tolerance towards a group that’s subject to enormous discrimination? Why would you want to even go near the word “anti-homosexuality”, knowing all the crap that gay people put up with in the U.S. today? Why hate people who are just trying to love people, and do so without fearing for their jobs, their futures, their physical wellbeing, or their lives?
If you think this question is irrelevant, then you don’t understand the scope of what you’re discussing. If you want to start a new thread in which to discuss it, feel free. Please start it off with a justification for “anti-homosexuality” that makes any amount of rational sense.
Oh, and…
As I said, to me it seems most charitable to assume that “anti-homosexuality” stems from fear, rather than ignorance and hatred. If you can explain it in any other way, please, I urge you to. This is a very important question to me; why do people who’ve never even met me oppose me being treated as an equal?
If you don’t think “anti-homosexual” attitudes cause teen suicide, you’re sadly mistaken. If you don’t think that you’re contributing to the problem if you oppose equality for gay people, then you’re deluding yourself.
I eagerly await any rational explanation for “anti-homosexuality”.
(And I sincerely regret coining that term.)
Notice how MrVisible continues to present strawman arguments. NOBODY denies that homosexual teens can be driven to suicide by anti-homosexual attitudes, but that hardly means that people who oppose homosexuality want them to die. Suicide is not an automatic consequence of disproving of homosexuality. And even if it were, at best, this would merely mean that people are wrong to oppose homosexuality. It would not mean that these opponents actually desire the suicides to occur.
These distinctions should be obvious to any careful individual… but of course, it’s much easier to attack a strawman instead.
Similarly, it would apparently be too difficult to defend the propriety of such terms as “homophobic.” It’s far easier to change the topic, demanding non-religious arguments against homosexuality – even though that has no bearing on defending the accuracy of said terms.
An honest debater knows how to address the issue under discussion, rather than demanding a change of topic. He also knows better than to blatantly misrepresent his opponents’ views, or to present false dilemmas (e.g. “Since you won’t agree to being callled pro-teen-suicide, then youshould agree to being called homophobic instead.”)
If you want to talk about defending homosexuality, then by all means, do so – but don’t pretend that it’s endemic to the current thread. Clearly, it is not.
You’re the one who brought it up, not me.
If you complain that a term is inaccurate, you are clearly implying one or both of the following: there are more accurate terms, or we should not talk about the issue at all. If you are claiming the former, then it is absolutely relevant that other terms aren’t accurate.
You said that “anti-choice” is not an accurate term because it doesn’t apply to other contexts. Pointing out that the context is obvious therefore does address whether it’s accurate, because that’s the basis on which you were saying that it is inaccurate. You are the one conflating these two issues, not me.
How so?
I agree with you on “homophobia”; it’s dishonest to suggest that people are acting out of fear, and even worse to say that they (the ones suggesting that people are acting out of fear) are doing so out of generous motives. Simply because there is no rational reason to oppose homosexuality, that does not mean that everyone who opposes homosexuality is irrational. But you still haven’t explained how it is inaccurate to describe someone who opposes choice as “anti-choice”.
Sorry, it’s not self-evident. Care to explain what it is?
Even in that context, it is inaccurate, because I am not in favor of death. I don’t protest outside of adoption centers, telling people to have abortions instead of giving their children up for adoption. Supporting people’s right to choose abortion is not the same as supporting abortion.
furt
No, they are different situations. The first case was totally within the context of abortion. In the second case, you had to reach outside of that context to find a way that it might be misinterpreted.
Mr. Visible
I don’t think that’s fair. Simply because he holds views similar to those held by people that contribute to teen suicide, that does not mean that he is contributing to teen suicide. That’s like saying that there are homosexuals that rape children, you’re a homosexual, therefore you rape children.
So…if one knows that anti-homosexual attitudes and propaganda contribute to gay teen suicide, and then continues to support anti-homosexual attitudes and propaganda, how is it that the general public is not supposed to observe such a situation and not assume that those supporting such attitudes and propaganda desire such an outcome?
If I observed that running over a squirrel with my car generally leads to the death of the squirrel, then subsequently continue to run over squirrels with my car, is it not accurate to assume that I desire for squirrels to die?
Conservatives can’t have it both ways. If you know that your attitudes and actions contribute to the self-inflicted deaths of a class of human beings, and continue to propagate those attitudes and actions, you are responsible for the deaths of those human beings, in part, and it must be assumed that, because you did not stop doing what led to those deaths, you desire for those deaths to occur.
And I do think that MrVisible’s question is quite appropriate for the way that the discussion has turned. Why is the desire to oppose homosexuality stronger than the desire to prevent these suicides? What reasons do you have besides your religious (and therefore legally irrelevant) beliefs?
jayjay
I tend to agree with JayJay and others here – in what sense is behavior and speech tending to condemn or marginalize persons who identify as homosexual appropriate behavior for persons who choose to exercise them? (Nobody doubts such persons’ freedom to do so, just as they have the freedom to join the Communist Party or the KKK, but the assumption I’ve seen implied in the context is that they are acting within a mainstream moral framework, not choosing to marginalize themselves.) I am less interested in the terminology used than in the rationale behind the concepts, beliefs, and attitudes underlying the stance taken.
With regard to the terminology, however, I have some points worth making: What if one’s stance is that (a) abortion is generally an immoral choice, in that it does remove the potential of becoming a human baby from an entity that would otherwise grow into one, but (b) it is likewise immoral to force the choice to refrain from abortion on a pregnant woman by law, since it must be her moral choice whether to carry that child to term or have it? The proper terminology for that stance, held by myself and by a large number of those with whom I’ve dealt, would be “anti-abortion” but “pro-choice.”
Similarly, though the usage is insupportable on the basis of derivation, the term “homophobe” (-ic, -ia) to describe persons opposed to homosexuality or the rights of homosexuals has gained popular usage. While the derivation would suggest so, it does not in fact imply fear of homosexuals but rather revulsion at their orientation and/or behavior. As such, it has undergone the same migration of meaning as several words used in political discourse, which Gladstone or Chester Arthur would have understood in quite different terms than their present use.
I happen to believe in taking responsibility for the forseeable consequences of my actions. For instance, if I knew that driving my truck through a crowded mall might result in some people dying, I would avoid driving my truck through the mall. I’m sure that it would be a great consolation to the bereaved to know that I didn’t intend to kill their friends or relatives, but whatever my intentions, the forseeable results of my actions would be my responsibility.
Actually, I have been defending my use of the term “homophobic”. As I’ve said, I believe it’s charitable to assume the best about people; the best excuse for the behavior of the “anti-homosexual” contingent that I’m aware of would be simple fear. If there’s a better reason, if the hatred and intolerance that I and so many other gay people in this country have experienced has a better rationale, then I want to know about it. Why, if not out of fear, be “anti-homosexual”? To what other motives should I attribute these attitudes?
Intelligent debate, to me, has always involved a process of getting to the root of a problem, understanding various aspects of the issue under discussion, and analyzing arguments. And if you want to see a sterling example of a misrepresented argument, check the parenthetical portion of the quote above this.
So, what’s the etymology and usage of the word homophobic got to do, directly and un-tangentially, with the OP?
Debates evolve, change, and grow; new questions arise out of them, and new issues get involved. I believe that I’ve made myself quite clear in explaining why the question I have is relative to the debate at hand, but I’ll spell it out step by step for you…
You object to the word “homophobic” and claim that the basis of “anti-homosexuality” should not be attributed to fear.
I ask for any other rational explanation for anti-homophobic behavior.
Pretty simple, actually.
Now, I look forward to an answer to my question, or at least some entertaining nitpicking and obfuscation.
Or, as I should have said at the end of that last post…
I ask for any other rational explanation for anti-homosexual behavior.
Sorry 'bout that.
I thought you said they claimed to be gay in order to fit in. Now you’re saying they just joined the gay/straight alliance?
If joining that group were the same as claiming to be gay, it would just be called the gay alliance.