IMHO:
1st off, homophobia has just been used in place of heterosexism.
Let’s take this one step further (and I can already feel the flames tickling my feet as I type this). I’ll take your original sentence: “Since when does “doesn’t condone/agree with/understand homosexuALITY” = homophobe?” and change a couple things: Since when does "doesn’t condone/agree with/understand African Americans = racist? Maybe I’m just as sensitive aslissener about homophobia/heterosexism, maybe my correlation between homophobia and racism is not applicable. To me it still feels like prejudice sanctioned by an archaic belief system.
ResIpsaLoquitor, lissener did not insult you out of the blue - you yourself brought the issue up, by saying that lissener should change his approach in order to have a chance of winning you over. It was in response to this that lissener said that you wouldn’t change anyway, so it wasn’t worth his while. It’s true that he does not know you “inside and out”, but if he is deciding how to best structure his posts and that becomes a factor, he makes his best judgment and goes with it, right or wrong.
I don’t think this pitting is justified.
(I also think many people - of all ideological types - are not nearly as open-minded as they think they are. But that is perhaps another issue.)
For what it’s worth, I fully acknowledge–and have acknowledged before, so it’s silly to “call me on it”–that I have no intention of wasting any more of my limited time on this planet trying to reason with homophobes. I have moved on; let the next generation of gay people pick up that mantle. Instead, I have very explicitly chosen to regard homophobes, not as someone who holds a different “opinion” from mine (an “opinion” on the goodness or badness of homosexuality is like an “opinion” on the goodness or badness of north, or nitrogen: it’s simply nonsensical), but as someone whose belief system includes a diminishment of my rights and my value as a human being. In other words, I have chosen to view homophobia as an exact parallel to racism, and I promise to be exactly as polite to a homophobe as you would expect a black person to be to a klansmen.
If your “opinion” is that the person that I AM–not the things that I do; there’s room for opinion in that debate–the person that YOUR GOD created me as–is lesser, or wronger, or unnaturaller, than a heterosexual, then I consider you my enemy.
I, like you, only have a limited amount of time on this planet, and I have spent ENOUGH of it trying to change your mind, and will not have my remaining time HIGHJACKED for YOUR education. I’m through educating, and have moved on to ignoring, snapping back, fighting back, and a campaign to drive homophobes into the closets that they’ve created for us.
I agree with the “homosexual fundamentalist” analogy. Lissener seem to want to rigidly enforce an orthodoxy of thought about gay issues. If you don’t agree with him, you’re a homophobe. He needs to drop his obsession with religious fundamentalists and get on with his fucking life (not sure if the pun was intended or not).
On the other hand, I wouldn’t look to the Catholic Church to understand a scientific question (ie, one of biology). Coming from someone who was raised Catholic, but currently has no religious beliefs.
All of the other participants in that thread seemed to have no problem realizing that one can have ‘non-positive’ feelings towards homosexuality, and not be considered a homophobe. Lissener however, seemed to struggle with this concept.
If you think homosexuality is as inherent as race, and want to equivocate people who have negative feelings towards homosexuality with racists, the prove it. Prove that homosexuality is as inherent as race. If you cant do that, I suggest you shut the fuck up about it and learn to accept the fact that you may be wrong.
You want to call people homophobes, Lissener? That’s fine. I’ll just chalk it up to you being a militant.
Ok, so what is the church asking you to do in response to their position on homosexuality? Vote against gay marriage? Oppose gay clergy? Your individual beliefs aren’t as important as actions taken on basis of those beliefs. Look at what these beliefs cause you to do. Try to see if those actions are fair or unfair to your fellow human beings. Then try to remember two things. “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” and “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”
If your beliefs lead you to vote for a candidate who would support civil, non-religious, discrimination against homosexuals, then think about this being Caesar’s area and vote in accordance with the principles the government runs on instead of the principles the church runs on. In all other matters, remember that homosexuals are still human beings and even if you feel God disapproves of their activites, you are not the agent of his judgement. He can handle that on his own. You are charged with living the best life YOU can live for yourself and his glory. His glory shines through you when you show love, not when you show judgement.
“Prove it,” for someone who will never accept the kind of evidence that is available, is the last refuge of the dishonest debater.
The fact that it’s a universal truth that anyone who is gay will tell you that it was not a choice for them–as it was not a choice for you to be homosexual–should be proof enough, but you of course will not accept that proof.
“Anecdotal” does not equal “invalid”; it simply sets a higher standard for such evidence. You can’t get much higher than universal, nearly total consensus. If half the people you asked said “it was a choice” and the other half said “it was not a choice,” then such anecdotal evidence would not meet the standard of proof. Certainly if 90 percent of all people asked said “it was a choice,” and I pointed to a minority anecdote and suggested that this single anecdote constituted proof, you’d be right in disallowing such evidence as anecdotal.
Add to this the fact that, though there has yet to be an unequivocal smoking gun of scientific DNA hardwaring for orientation, every single scientific advance in that arena adds to the mounting pile of evidence supporting the non-choice paradigm, and none of it–none that I have seen, at any rate; I await your cite–accrues to the “other side.”
Anyone who contintues to grunt “prove it” in the face of such overwhelming evidence is a homophobe; there’s no other rational explanation.
What a convenient dialectic you’ve set up for yourself, lissener. Tell me, if I agree with you, but think you’re being such an ass about it that I start to reconsider, does that make me a homophobe too?
“You want to call people homophobes, Lissener? That’s fine. I’ll just chalk it up to you being a militant.”
Sometimes it takes militancy to make things happen, or to make people see things differently. Our nation’s history is founded on it. You say it like it’s a bad thing.
I’m disagreeing with you there lissener, I’d like to keep an open mind as to the causation of homosexuality. Yes, it looks pretty much from the evidence and studies I’ve seen that it’s gene-based. Should we stop looking because that’s a nice answer and what we want to hear and what we think could be true or do we want to be as informed as possible? I’d hate to be called a self-hating homo for espousing that view, but maybe I’m just irrational.
Wow. I had no idea. By “don’t support” do you mean “won’t vote for”? Or just won’t advocate for here on the boards? Because if it’s the former, that’s huge. Can I ask for some clarification, and invite you to share it with me via e-mail, since this is a hijack? Or point me to any explanatry threads?
Thanks
[/hijack]
(No gloating involved anywhere, even internally, I assure you. This is just good news for those of us who never supported him to begin with, and I would like to understand what kinds of things are making those who did turn away.)
“Race” is a social construct.
“Sexuality” is a social construct.
“Race” and “sexuality” are equally inherent under this model.
To make a statement like “I don’t condone homosexuality” is the exact equivalent of “I don’t condone Judaism” or “I don’t condone blackness” (in itself an admittedly absurd statement). Each is an expression of bigotry. That one or more of these expressions may have its root in religious beliefs is immaterial to the fact that they are bigotry. If one refuses to excuse “I don’t condone Judaism” based on, for example, the speaker’s Muslim beliefs then one must refuse to excuse “I don’t condone homosexuality” based on, for example, the speaker’s Catholicism.
Ignoring overwhelming evidence because of personal prejudice is irrational. It is exactly contempt, and it is born of fear. Homophobe is the only word to describe bone’s position.
Universal truth? Do you know what the logical fallacy of ‘Appeal to popularity’ is? I can use the same technique:
‘* The fact that it’s a universal truth that anyone who is Catholic will tell you that God exists, should be proof enough, but you of course will not accept that proof.*’
This is ludicrous, just as ludicrous as your claim that since a certain number of people believe something, it must be true.
You await my cite disproving your claim that you cannot prove? I’m sorry, but I believe you forgot something that is called your sanity. You made the claim, burden is on you. You want to throw around terms like racist and homophobic, then yes I use a higher standard before I draw those types of conclusions. See, I consider being a racist a pretty bad thing, as I do a homophobe, and a liar. These are all things you’ve accused people who have ‘negative feelings towards homosexuality’ or simply not condoning homosexuality of being.
Whether homosexuality is caused by nurture or nature is still up in the air. Most research that “proves” that homosexuality is determined by genetics (hormonal, twins studies, hypothalamus, etc.) has been challenged by other reputable scientists. They do suggest that genetics play at least a small part in what determines sexuality. I’m not convinced either way, and am open to both. Likely I believe it to be a combination of both genetics and environment. Who is to say that homosexuality is not imprinted prenatally or during earliest childhood? It might not be anything that you did but it could have been caused by choices made by your parents or family or friends.
A big argument against the genetic foundation of homosexuality is that there should be a decreasing percentage of homosexuals in each generation. As a true homosexual will not reproduce, the genetic makeup that causes homosexuality should have eventually been phased out of the human species. Societal pressure could explain why it hasn’t happened entirely yet, but there should be an obvious decrease over time.
You are talking about rationalism? I didn’t know that wanting conclusive evidence before labeling someone a racist or homophobe is irrational. Give me a fucking break.
StPauler said, “Yes, it looks pretty much from the evidence and studies I’ve seen that it’s gene-based. Should we stop looking because that’s a nice answer and what we want to hear and what we think could be true or do we want to be as informed as possible?”
I still don’t get what difference it could possibly make whether it’s a chosen or in-born behavior. There’s lots of stuff I choose that another would think is perfectly wrong for them. Big deal. If they finally determine that homosexuality is NOT genetic (which I highly doubt…but humor me here), is it really anyone’s business? We’re dealing with a victimless behavior in that case.
Interestingly, while lissener is arguing that sexual preference is genetic, Otto is arguing that it’s a social construct. Are these views compatible?
Near as I can tell, sexuality isn’t wholly genetic nor is it much of a choice. In some ways, homosexuality is like left-handedness; in other ways, it’s like religiosity. It’s not like being a Red Sox fan, or like being a Republican – these last two are choices, whereas the first two are not.
A person doesn’t normally choose to believe in god; nonetheless, such a belief isn’t necessarily genetically determined. Similarly, I don’t think that the inability to choose one’s sexuality is sufficient proof that sexuality is genetically predetermined.
On the subject of the OP, I think lissener is being way overshrill. It’s one thing to identify actual homophobes and not to bother to talk with them any more; lately, I’ve felt unwelcome in his threads if I disagreed with him on the least details of human sexuality, even if I’m in complete agreement with him on major issues. When “homophobe” is used as a hammer on anyone who disagrees with you, lissener, it loses its efficacy as a condemning label. I’d advise you to be more careful how you use the word.
This is bullshit and you know it. If 100% of the gods you ask tell you that they exist, that’s valid proof. If 100% of a third party tells you that gods exist, that is not valild proof.
If 100%–or nearly–of the people whose choice you are debating tell you that it is not a choice–each speaking strictly for themselves–then, unless 100% of them are lying (which is possible only in the sense that "anything is possible) that is valid proof.
When the consensus on such an issue is nearly unanimous, the burden is on you to prove otherwise. And it’s not proving a negative: you don’t have to prove that it’s not genetic, only that it is a choice.
For what it’s worth, Daniel et al., I’m not claiming that it’s entirely genetic, so that won’t work either. I’m perfectly comfortable with the current state of knowledge on the subject, that it’s a complex interaction of genes and environment, with a little mystery thrown in. THat still doesn’t change the fact that it’s not anything that I have ever chosen.
To claim that anyone saying it’s not a choice is claiming that it is therefore 100% DNA is bullshit.
Maybe I should put it this way: you’re being so damn aggressive and ugly in recent threads on the subject that you seem to be trying to shout people down, instead of having reasonable conversations with them. It’s pissing me off, and making me unwilling to engage you in reasonable discussion.
I suspect I’m not the only person who wishes you’d be a little bit politer to people that essentially agree with you, and even to people that disagree with you respectfully.