Being against homosexuality is homophobic?

[Zelric Miras]

I open this thread due to an argument I had with my girlfriend. She stated that since my mom is against homosexuality she is homophobic, even if she has no actual aversion/despise towards homosexuals and homosexuality, she just thinks it is not correct due to her beliefs.

I said that she isn't homophobic and she told me to check the definition. I won't tell my girlfriend that I checked the definition, which I knew already, to avoid a conflict. Still the definition gave some base to my arguments so I'll copy a few of them here.

Definitions

Wikipedia has a more extensive definition that I chose not to copy, you can check it here , though.

Merriam Webster

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia?show=0&t=1309307590
Definition of HOMOPHOBIA
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

Merriam Webster's Word Central Student Dictionary

http://www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?book=Student&va=homophobia
: irrational fear or dislike of or prejudice against homosexuality or homosexuals

The Free Dictionary

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/homophobia
ho·mo·pho·bi·a  (hm-fb-)
n.
1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.

Oxford Dictionaries

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/homophobia?region=us
homophobia(ho·mo·pho·bi·a)
an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.

My question is: Being against homosexuality is/should be considered homophobia or not? You know my point of view, I'd like to know yours and your arguments. This is not a discussion about how right or wrong are homophobia and homosexuality, (I'm against the first and I have no issues with the second) I just want to discuss to what extent being against homosexuality is or isn't homophobic.

[Shjade]

The trouble with those definitions as it applies to your question is the word "irrational." It leaves things pretty wide open to interpretation.

For instance, you noted your mother's negative stance on homosexuality is derived from her beliefs. What are her beliefs based upon? Are those foundations rational? If they're religious beliefs, I bet there's an argument to be made that they aren't.

When it comes to discussing what's rational and what isn't, things can get kinda sticky. :|

That aside, no, I wouldn't say that dislike/disapproval of homosexuality is synonymous with homophobia any more than disliking cake means I feel contempt toward or fear of pastries. It just means I don't want any 'cause I don't like it. However, if I were to extend that dislike to the point of refusing to let other people have cake as well? That suggests there's something more to it than just my not wanting to eat cake.

[Nico]

Being against homosexuals doesn't automatically make people homophobic. Just because someone is like "Hey. that's not cool, that's nothing for me." doesn't make them homophobic. In the end, it all boils down to tolerance. You do not have to like something, to be tolerant.

[gaggedLouise]

People in the media sometimes make the reverse kind of leap, they'll argue (completely openly or a bit below the surface) that "If you're denying what I say, or if you say my arguments (or my LGBT buddy's arguments) or my choice of loaded words don't hold water or could be used, in another context, for dubious ends, then you are really homophobic, that's what drives your arguments - why else would you be doing this petty arguing with me/with us?" The arguments that are under fire don't even have to be about LGBT issues as such, all it takes is that one or more of the people delivering the argument is LGBT or wants very badly to come across as pro-LGBT.

That's a gratifying way to bring your case today because argument and presentation of points of view in the media have become so personalized: it's often more important to cut an attractive figure than to present a valid argument, the message is heavily identified with the one who offers a face for it, and of course no one wants to make people think one might be a homophobe (or a misogynist).

It's also a way to make quick black headlines. You don't really have to show that your argument is sound anymore, all you have to do if you have a columnist position, a standing outlet for writing reviews or op-ed pieces or a decently read blog is to  show up how some figure your target audience won't like had trouble with what you said last week and start yelling this person's a homophobe. Or saying "we didn't get this story, or this show, or this take on things, widely noticed which proves the media or the general culture hates gay people". I have real issues with this kind of debating, because I think arguments in the public realm should be based on general principles that can apply to all of us, can be carried by all, and lines of argument that can be shown, tried and tested by anyone who so wishes essentially without bothering if they be straight or gay, male or female, native or immigrant, as long as they are honest. I want that kind of general validity aimed at in public argument, at least as a standard - certainly if it's ultimately about bringing in new legislation, or about how public authorities or public education should be working; that kind of thing shouldn't just be motivated by wanting to please this or that "identity group". But these days identity wooing seems to be the preferred way to drive support to your cause, or to get your stuff read.

Obviously one principle I regard as self-evident is that no one should be discriminated against for their gender or sexual orientation. But to me that doesn't have the corollary that gays are always morally superior or have outstanding valid demands on everything just because of their sexual orientation - that's part of the kind of argument pushing I'm thinking of. For instance, if a guy writes (this is one I saw in a paper here) that "doctors hate gays" because these docs have imposed a longer time of quarantine for blood donorship on self-avowed gays and lesbians who have been sexually active at a given time and want to give blood, that argument is bollocks to me,. the real reason for that kind of quarantine is to minimize the risk to those who would receive the blood from getting infected with STDs, especially HIV. And like it or not, the rates of some STDs, and certainly HIV, are much higher among gays and lesbians, outside of Africa, than among heteros, if other risk factors (substance abuse etc) don't enter the equation. So security overrides any need to take an "extra fair" stance to homosexual blood donors here. The argument "if your kid were in a car crash and they had to get fresh blood really fast, would you want to indulge your homophobia or would you want to see your child live?" isn't valid either. Once the blood has been donated it is not labeled as to what actual person gave it, everyone knows that. But to some people, the point that terms of security in use of the blood must come first seems to count as homophobic, because it hurts somebody's feelings, or somebody's need to feel on top.

[Jude]

I think the question the OP was trying to ask is that, is disagreeing with homosexuality on moral grounds homophobic?  I can't say how the LGBT community actually feels about this, but I from what I've observed the answer is "yes."  The community as a whole seems convinced that you can't really be in opposition to homosexuals without being a homophobe.  I personally disagree.

Having a phobia isn't a matter of being irrationally afraid of or against something.  A phobia is a completely unreasonable, psychological condition that doesn't have a basis that is at all explicable.  A phobia is an intense, serious fear of something -- even the most staunch opponents to gay marriage have reasons (they're just not very good ones, but that's more of a problem of improper logic, not a mental illness).

That isn't to say everyone who is anti-homosexual is not a homophobe, I'm sure some are, but I think the term is way too broadly applied and does a disservice to both the LGBT community and people who are opposed to them.  The LGBT community suffers because it gives those they brand an excuse (a phobia is a mental illness, if people are truly suffering from homophobia they're harder to hold accountable for their beliefs) while painting those who oppose them as mentally handicapped.  If you're opposed to egalitarianism when it comes to homosexuals, we shouldn't label you as insane -- that's not a constructive basis for us to work from to convince you to change your point of view and it's also really insulting to you.

Being wrong isn't a terrible thing, there are countless things we have all been wrong on before, closing your mind to the truth is the problem.  Those who are "fighting the good fight" shouldn't be helping the close-minded put a padlock on the door by saying that there is no door -- they're just hallucinating it.

[Trieste]

If someone rants about how the gays are taking over and they're afraid everyone is trying to turn them gay against their will, that is homophobia.

Being against gays is not homophobia, although if someone is actually agitating against gay rights it makes me wonder why someone cares so much about a sexuality that is not theirs that they would actively work to deny gays civil rights.

It's kind of like how finding spiders relatively unpleasant is not actually arachnophobia, and needing to have all your socks in one drawer isn't actually OCD. I can't speak for other countries, but Americans tend to toss around psychiatric/medical terms ("I'm a total hypochondriac when I'm pregnant!") without really thinking them through. Unfortunately, it tends to marginalize people who are actually laboring under/suffering from the condition itself.

There are actual indexes to measure homophobia, clinically, and they look for criteria like how often you think of gays, what kinds of feelings they elicit in you, and so on. Simply disliking - or even hating - gays doesn't make you a homophobe. It does, however, make you a bigot. :)

[gaggedLouise]

Being LGBT myself (trans) I don't have any general trouble with gay or lesbian orientations. And you can take my word for it that I have a decent number of friends in the tribe and that I'm not engaging in discrimination. But the situation I'm describing is the kind that can happen if certain sets of issues and "thought positions" become near monopolized and imposed by gay/lesbian pundits. Something that probably happens more easily in a small country like Sweden than in the US as a whole; it's a smaller bathtub and it's easier to gain control of a set of issues through editorial boards, career back-scratching, sloganizing and personal contacts and acquaintances. And to impose the feeling that "you gotta honour these ideas, these talking points if you want to make a career in this kind of media".

[Trieste]

I think probably you're speaking to a situation that a lot of Americans are familiar with. For instance, if you want to run as a Republican due to fiscal reasons, you had better be against abortion and you had better support gun rights. If you are not on the party line with these things, you might as well just cover yourself in mud and go jump in a lake somewhere.

It sounds like LGBT folks have done the same in Sweden.

[gaggedLouise]

Yes, although it's less connected to actual political parties, the media climate around these issues has become very polarized, even sloganized and it spills over into education and politics. That's self-defeating in the long run I think, because it feeds a backlash - and it drains the will to carry on cohesive and honest debate in the public realm. When people start arguing, for example, that school policies or issues of tolerance concerning religions and ideas should be based on gender/sexuality revanchist principles, to make up for past injustices, that's guaranteed to inspire venom and it's not solid if you want laws, things, education, politics to be a bit evenhanded.

[RubySlippers]

Wouldn't it depend I have relatives that are fine with me being a lesbian but think we don't need to marry or adopt children but otherwise are entitled to be free of persecution and should be allowed to live our lives. Most agree civil unions would suffice over marriage.

I would say they have an opinion over being homophobic since its a controversial issue in the United States.

[Shjade]

While I more or less agree with your point...

Having a phobia isn't a matter of being irrationally afraid of or against something.  A phobia is a completely unreasonable, psychological condition that doesn't have a basis that is at all explicable.

...it sounds like you just said, "A phobia isn't an irrational fear, it's a fear that's irrational." >.>

[grdell]

My opinion? I don't hate your mother. And I am a gay man.

If someone is against my lifestyle (I will not use the term "lifestyle choice") on religious grounds, that's fine. I'm actually against a lot of lifestyle restrictions placed on people by their respective religions. Do I consider myself to be against those religions? No. Will I try to stop them from doing what they like? Well, providing it's not hurting anybody else, of course not. You can be for or against anything. It's your opinion and your prerogative.

If all she is doing is saying that she does not agree with how I'm living my life, I'm fine with that. When I stop being fine with it is when someone starts trying to take away my rights or becomes violent or abusive towards me. That's the manifestation of homophobia.

So I don't think that just because someone says that they disagree with homosexuality automatically makes them homophobic. I have a paradoxically great respect for the beliefs of others. You can believe whatever you want. Just don't try to change or hurt me, and I'm content to leave well enough alone.

[Oniya]

I think my mother used to be homophobic.  (She definitely was, she just may have gotten over it.)  When I was just out of college, I was hanging out with a guy, and let it slip that we 'had one too many interests in common'.  Namely, we both liked guys.  She told me I should 'stop associating with him.'  I told her 'you can't catch it from a doorknob,' and hung out with him anyways.  (Not sure what she interpreted 'it' as.)  Later on, when I was invited hiking with two gay male friends (who weren't a couple), she said she felt 'uncomfortable' with me being out in the middle of nowhere with two gay men.  I asked her if she'd rather I was out in the middle of nowhere with two straight men, and went hiking anyways.

Mere disapproval doesn't rise to the definition, though.  People disapprove of pre-marital sex, and that isn't classed as 'phobic'.  People disapprove of eating meat, and that's not classed as 'phobic'.  Phobic would be 'Oh my god, I can't walk down the street at Dupont Circle!  A gay person might look at me!'

[HockeyGod]

One can't always utilize the dictionary to determine the meaning of words used in slang or regional vernacular. Words are constantly evolving and utilizing the dictionary as the sole source for the argument might be putting yourself on thin ice ;)

Homophobia and transphobia have taken on definitions akin to racism. There is no "ist" for the LGBT community like there is classist, racist, sexist, etc. What would you call someone that doesn't feel people should be practicing Judaism? Anti-Semitic. Not Jewphobic or Jewist. What would you call someone that doesn't believe homosexuality is acceptable? Homophobic? Gay hater? Prejudiced?

The issue comes into play when someone believes that LGBT is a lifestyle choice (which is now a minority belief in the United States). I wouldn't choose to be hated by people who are seemingly nice. I wouldn't choose to not have the same rights to a relationship with the person I love and have been with over 15 years.

The questions that are often posed to somewhat snickering results are:

Question: Do you think being gay is a choice?
Answer: Yes
Question: When did you choose to be straight?
Answer: ...

For my personal use I believe anyone that is against homosexuality is homophobic. I don't hate your mother, but I would find it difficult to befriend anyone that is against my core being of who I am.

[DudelRok]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of a perceived homosexual or in some cases any non-heterosexual orientation.

That would be my perception of the word.

So I'd say the OP's mother isn't homophobic, but she's not cool either.

I live with a homophobic. Gay men can not look at, touch even in friendly gestures (hand shakes) or talk with him; it's a giant no. A true test if someone is homophobic, I found, is to call them a slur they would normally use themselves for the group. If they react with anger or discomfort, you got yourself someone with an irrational fear.

[Maiz]

One can't always utilize the dictionary to determine the meaning of words used in slang or regional vernacular. Words are constantly evolving and utilizing the dictionary as the sole source for the argument might be putting yourself on thin ice ;)

Homophobia and transphobia have taken on definitions akin to racism. There is no "ist" for the LGBT community like there is classist, racist, sexist, etc. What would you call someone that doesn't feel people should be practicing Judaism? Anti-Semitic. Not Jewphobic or Jewist. What would you call someone that doesn't believe homosexuality is acceptable? Homophobic? Gay hater? Prejudiced?

There's heterosexism and cissexism. I use it and I see it being used more often. I like those terms better because then there isn't the whole -phobia aspect. If you are against gay or lesbian people then you are hetereosexist. You may not be a 'homophobe' as in you have a phobia of them, but you are still prejudiced against them.

Although I do think that saying 'oh I'm not homophobic, i don't have a phobia of gays' is really like. dense. Because it's common usage that homophobia is meant to be 'prejudice against people who like their own sex'. It's really obtuse to say otherwise. Also dictionary entries do not equal real meanings.

[Oniya]

There's heterosexism and cissexism. I use it and I see it being used more often. I like those terms better because then there isn't the whole -phobia aspect. If you are against gay or lesbian people then you are hetereosexist. You may not be a 'homophobe' as in you have a phobia of them, but you are still prejudiced against them.

The linguist in me likes these terms as well.  They feel more accurate than the -phobic terms.

[HockeyGod]

The linguist in me likes these terms as well.  They feel more accurate than the -phobic terms.

I agree...though I would like cisgenderism even more I think ;)

[Syauglan]

Its interesting that values can differ a great deal from habitual conditioning. I've known plenty of heterosexuals who regard homosexuality as a natural and perfectly acceptable sexual orientation but will still react with irrational anxiety if they think someone of their own sex finds them attractive. Hell, that was me when I was sixteen. I've been there. However, from personal experience I also think that social & cultural conditioning will yield to strongly held personal values over time.

In theory I can see that its possible to think homosexuality is wrong in principle while harboring no ill-will towards homosexuals or fear of them. Give it time though. Human nature being what it is if someone believes that homosexuality is somehow wrong they will develop negative feelings towards homosexuals. I've seen it happen to someone I was very close to and it was heartbreaking. Just give it time.  :-(

[DudelRok]

Here is one for ya!

I feel that homosexuality is biologically incorrect (and until humans can naturally reproduce asexually...) however see nothing wrong with it psychologically or sociologically. Am I against homosexuality? No.. I mean, heck if I care what you do on your lawn (just keep it off my lawn). Do I see it as incorrect in some manner? Obviously. Does that fit into some kind of "ism" I am unaware of? The argument against this one is usually "test tube babies" but you still need sperm+egg.. and I'm not a fan of going around biology as that leads to things like... Jurassic Park. (That's is an extremist joke, but I do hope my point is clear.) Though adoption is a valid take... a natural result in an environment to the increase in unwanted children having proper homes etc. So it's still a bit of a gray line, depending on how you look at and present it... but there is that as an attempted example. (I had an argument then dismantled it, myself. :p )

As for being awkward when a guy hits on me... well when a woman I don't want solicitation from hits on me, I'm just as awkward and uncomfortable so..... yeah. "I don't want your advances, this is not okay." It has only the limited issue of the one hitting on me being male in that I'm not attracted to men.

[meowpiepanda]

I think that there is a difference between a logical definition and an umbrella term.  Language is built as much on how words are used as they are on how they are defined, and often we allow ourselves to make general even flippant comments, especially when with someone we really trust.

The word "gay" itself for example:  I honestly couldn't tell you off the top of my head what all of it's official modern meanings are.  Obviously "happy" should still be listed as one of them.  But I've heard it used to exclusively define men who are attracted to men, it's been used as an umbrella term for anything out of the "male with female" idea, and then there are far more flippant (often considered derogatory or intolerant) ways the word is used.

All in all I feel that while her definition might not be valid, her cultural understanding of the word might not be that flawed.  Most people simply see homophobic as being against homosexuality, and that can be very broadly defined.

[vtboy]

I'm not sure how one can rationally be "against" homosexuality or, for that matter, any consensual, adult activity which does not inflict harm on third parties (I realize that the notion of "harm" to third parties is a bit ambiguous, but that is a discussion for another day). It's one thing to eschew personal participation; it's quite another to condemn (or, worse, punish) the behavior in others. As to the latter, I can only assume that those who judge homosexuality immoral or harbor hostility to homosexuals are impelled to do so either by psychological compulsion or religious indoctrination, both of which are antithetical to the exercise reason. And, since unreasoned attitudes are by definition irrational, yes, I would ascribe the label "homophobic", not only to those who are enraged or frightened by homosexuality, but to anyone who condemns it as morally wrong.

[Bayushi]

I am in agreement with vtboy.

What two men do on their own time in private is their own business. If it does not adversely affect me, or anyone else, then it should not be a problem. (Libertarian viewpoint)

However, there are going to be examples of unacceptable behavior from homosexuals in the public eye (which is often very subjective. A lot of people, myself included, can not stand to be around flamboyant gay men. However, I recognize that there is nothing illegal about flaming) if not outright illegal(many Pride parades involve lewd activities that would involve indecency charges for anyone else, which is why I choose to not attend them, even being lesbian myself. I frankly do not desire to see these things).

The only other issue I have is that so many homosexuals and lesbians choose to separate themselves from the rest of society, yet claim to want to become accepted in society. I'm not sure they realize that societies have things like conduct expectations and expectations of public decency.

I'm anything but an authoritarian, but sometimes the intentional rebellion against public decency is overboard (as mentioned above, Pride parades can be excessively lewd) and should not be accepted, whether gay/lesbian or straight.

[elone]

It's one thing to eschew personal participation; it's quite another to condemn (or, worse, punish) the behavior in others. As to the latter, I can only assume that those who judge homosexuality immoral or harbor hostility to homosexuals are impelled to do so either by psychological compulsion or religious indoctrination, both of which are antithetical to the exercise reason. And, since unreasoned attitudes are by definition irrational, yes, I would ascribe the label "homophobic", not only to those who are enraged or frightened by homosexuality, but to anyone who condemns it as morally wrong.

I don't see the homophobic term as being appropriate for those who believe homosexuality is morally wrong. That is more an issue of their personal beliefs and moral values. For instance, if I believe that taking a life is morally wrong, that doesn't make me phobic of killing, it just means I don't believe it to be appropriate behavior. People are entitled to their personal beliefs. This is quite a bit different than fear, which I believe is the definition of phobia. I don't believe that rationality comes into this at all as far as morals are concerned, whether through religious indoctrination or otherwise. It is only when the try to impose their beliefs on others that there is a problem.

However, there are going to be examples of unacceptable behavior from homosexuals in the public eye (which is often very subjective. A lot of people, myself included, can not stand to be around flamboyant gay men. However, I recognize that there is nothing illegal about flaming) if not outright illegal(many Pride parades involve lewd activities that would involve indecency charges for anyone else, which is why I choose to not attend them, even being lesbian myself. I frankly do not desire to see these things).

The only other issue I have is that so many homosexuals and lesbians choose to separate themselves from the rest of society, yet claim to want to become accepted in society. I'm not sure they realize that societies have things like conduct expectations and expectations of public decency.

I'm anything but an authoritarian, but sometimes the intentional rebellion against public decency is overboard (as mentioned above, Pride parades can be excessively lewd) and should not be accepted, whether gay/lesbian or straight.

There is a lot of unacceptable public behavior from heterosexuals as well, I don't think it is reserved for a particular community. I think women baring their breasts would be considered lewd activity in most jurisdictions, but in Mardi Gras it seems to be acceptable. I think the circumstances dictate the seriousness of the offense.

As for gays and lesbians choosing to be separate from the rest of society, I would tend to think that that would be a natural response to the prejudice, bigotry, and hatred they have in the past been accustomed to. Given a choice, I am sure everyone would prefer to be accepted.

I think is unfortunate that any group is singled out for the actions of a few, no matter who the group is.

[Missy]

There is a lot of unacceptable public behavior from heterosexuals as well, I don't think it is reserved for a particular community. I think women baring their breasts would be considered lewd activity in most jurisdictions, but in Mardi Gras it seems to be acceptable. I think the circumstances dictate the seriousness of the offense.

Police offer flashing a single warning at Mardi Gras. Repeat offenders get a night at the town house.

Just a random fact I knew.

I personally don't think it's any more acceptable than any other kind of lewdness, irregardless of the circumstance.

[MasterMischief]

Fear can lead to hate.  I wonder if that is part of the reason the word started to be used the way it has.

[Will]

Maybe having a moral objection is different than having an irrational fear, but I think the two go hand in hand often enough that objecting to the term "homophobia" is pretty much semantics.  That's fine if semantics is your thing, but I don't see how it substantially changes any discussions.  Lots of the attitude towards homosexuality seems to be born from fear of it spreading, destroying traditional values, and even (gasp) turning our loved ones into gays.  That's pretty phobic, regardless of whether the belief comes from a holy book, or one's own mind.

And I have a hard time believing that people can just have their beliefs, and not force them on others.  I'm pretty sure they won't be proselytizing on any street corners or protesting in front of gay clubs, but if nothing else, what about their children?

[MasterMischief]

I love the 'turned him gay' thing.  How insecure in yourself do you have to be to believe someone can just change your sexuality.

I think Will brings up a good point.  We act based on our beliefs.  So where is the line between it is o.k. to believe whatever you want and 'No, sorry.  That is so crazy that you are a danger to society'?

[Avis habilis]

Crazy beliefs are, like you say, only dangerous when people start acting on them. Or as Jonathan Swift put it, "a man may be allowed to keep poisons in his closet, but not to vend them about for cordials."

[Will]

But how often does that actually apply?  Is it even possible?

[MasterMischief]

That is kind of what I was thinking.  Beliefs and actions are not so easily untangled.  How tolerant can you be of something you believe is fundamentally wrong?

[Avis habilis]

I guess I would say "don't mistake your earnest conviction for license to actively make other people's lives worse".

[MasterMischief]

What if your earnest conviction is that you are trying to make other people's lives better?

[Torch]

And I have a hard time believing that people can just have their beliefs, and not force them on others.  I'm pretty sure they won't be proselytizing on any street corners or protesting in front of gay clubs, but if nothing else, what about their children?

Parents impart their beliefs on their children.

Good parents do the same thing, while also allowing the child his/her own views and opinions.

There is nothing wrong with passing on one's beliefs and values to one's children, that's part and parcel of being a parent. It's how you do it that matters.

[Missy]

What if your earnest conviction is that you are trying to make other people's lives better?

I think most people believe what they do because they think it can benefit the world.

The question is do you respect alternative opinions or not?

That's what I think.

[Torch]

What if your earnest conviction is that you are trying to make other people's lives better?

You are free to do that as long as your actions, brought about by your beliefs and convictions, do not impede another citizen's civil rights.

For example, I live not far from a branch of Planned Parenthood. Like clockwork, every Wednesday a group of anti-abortion advocates stands on the sidewalk, holding signs that spell out their belief that abortion is wrong, the equivalent of murder, etc.  These protesters are, from what I have seen, orderly and polite, they don't yell at the clients like you may have seen on TV and in the movies. This group is exercising their belief, which they are entitled to, in a relatively harmless manner.

Now, if one of them decided to take it into his/her head to grab a 12-gauge shotgun and begin shooting the doctors and nurses inside the clinic in order to "save the babies", the right they have to their beliefs is rescinded.

I know it's an extreme example, but it does make the point.

[Torch]

The question is do you respect alternative opinions or not?

Opinions themselves do not need to be respected.

One's right to have an opinion, however, does need to be respected no matter how foul that opinion may be to you. And you are under no obligation whatsoever to support or agree with it.

[Ryven]

What if your earnest conviction is that you are trying to make other people's lives better?

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Missy]

Opinions themselves do not need to be respected.

One's right to have an opinion, however, does need to be respected no matter how foul that opinion may be to you. And you are under no obligation whatsoever to support or agree with it.

This is probably closer to what I was trying to say.

Though I think it might be easier for people to get along if you "respect" the opinion itself. Agree to Disagree and whatnot.

[MasterMischief]

Those same well mamnered protesters vote for politicians who want to close that facility, defund it and ultimately make it illegal.

[Torch]

Those same well mamnered protesters vote for politicians who want to close that facility, defund it and ultimately make it illegal.

Um.....yes. I'm sure they do.

And they have every right to do so.

Mind you, I don't agree with them. But I firmly believe they have the right to their opinions, beliefs, and the right to peaceful protest, just like any other group.  And I'll be voting for the politicians who will stand firm on the right of a woman to choose what she does with her own body.

[Torch]

Though I think it might be easier for people to get along if you "respect" the opinion itself. Agree to Disagree and whatnot.

Yeah, that sounds nice, all kumbaya, can't we all get along, and what-not...

But you would be asking a person of color to respect the opinion of a Ku Klux Klansman.

Or asking a person of Jewish faith to respect the opinion of a White Supremacist.

Or asking a Christian to respect the opinion of Osama Bin Laden.

See what I mean?

I don't have to respect any opinion that goes against my beliefs. All I have to do is respect one's right to have that opinion.  There is a famous quote (usually misattributed to Voltaire) which reads:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

[Missy]

I think the attitude of the person your disagreeing with counts as well.

I mean for example:

My mum would just say Homosexuality is "gross" (because of her religious beliefs)

Whereas as my friend "Philipe" (actually just Phil) would take more of an agree to disagree attitude. Much more respectful despite being of the same religious creed as my mum.

So of course you would take a stronger attitude towards a Nazi, a KKK, or Amerocentric. But so long as they take an attitude of respect toward you there's really no reason why you can't just agree to disagree and be friends. Irregardless of your differences.

So I guess as long as they're respectful to you, then it's nothing to worry about.

[meikle]

Not all opinions deserve to be respected, really.

I see no reason to respect someone who has internalized hatred as part of their personal paradigm.

[Missy]

Not all opinions deserve to be respected, really.

I see no reason to respect someone who has internalized hatred as part of their personal paradigm.

I don't respect my mothers point of view.

I'm saying there's no need to be aggressive if they're merely agreeing to disagree.

[Envious]

My question is: Being against homosexuality is/should be considered homophobia or not?

I have personally never encountered a person against homosexuality who wasn't homophobic. Because of my experiences, I think those who are against homosexuality should be considered homophobic. I do find that most of the homophobic people I personally know are polite and civil towards homosexuals, but quickly exit their presence without making much of a scene. I am uncertain if homophobia is the right term for it, as it's not the extreme GOD HATES FAGS stuff I see in the media.

[Missy]

I have personally never encountered a person against homosexuality who wasn't homophobic. Because of my experiences, I think those who are against homosexuality should be considered homophobic. I do find that most of the homophobic people I personally know are polite and civil towards homosexuals, but quickly exit their presence without making much of a scene. I am uncertain if homophobia is the right term for it, as it's not the extreme GOD HATES FAGS stuff I see in the media.

I can't imagine Phil refusing to converse with a homosexual. It's just not his style, he'd be respectful too.

[errantwandering]

I come from a deeply Catholic family, but decided to reject that faith and forge my own path, eventually becoming pagan.  My entire family (and for practicing Catholics that think birth control is morally wrong, that's a lot of people) felt that I was wrong in doing so, told me so, and tried to convince me to change my mind.  When I didn't, they eventually dropped it, accepted who I am, and went on with all our lives.  They don't talk religion with me any longer, but are still always happy to see me, and are sure to pour on lots of guilt if I don't come home for Christmas.  Likewise, one of my cousins is a lesbian.  All of them objected on moral grounds, tried to talk her out of it, etc etc, and once it became clear that she wasn't budging, it was who she was, they dropped it.  They do not discuss relationships with her, but are still always happy to see her, and even anyone she happens to be with at the time.  They still care about her, even if they disagree with what she is doing.

You can object on moral or religious grounds without hating the person whose behavior you object to.

[Kaoru]

It is pointless bringing out the definitions of the word. When somebody says you are homophobic for not being accepting of homosexuality, they may or may not actually mean that you are irrationally terrified of homosexuals.

Most people do not think before they speak. Even less actually say what they mean. By homophobic, they could mean ignorant, they could me irrationally terrified, they could mean stupid... the point is basically the same.

[Caehlim]

I just want to discuss to what extent being against homosexuality is or isn't homophobic.

I'm sorry, but as yet they haven't published any clinical diagnostic criteria for homophobia. Since it's pretty much a made-up word, feel free to make up your own mind as to whether or not it applies under any given situation.

Are we seriously just arguing semantics here?

[MasterMischief]

Are we seriously just arguing semantics here?

This is the internet.   ;D

Sorry.  Couldn't resist.

[Caehlim]

This is the internet.   ;D

:D Well said good sir, well said.

[TheVillain]

An interesting question, actually. If a phobia is an  extreme negative emotional reaction to a stimuli that is irrational then it doesn't sound like it, but only because she's not having an extreme negative emotional reaction. She is having a negative emotional reaction that is irrational, but it's not extreme.

So no, but only by a matter of degree. She's definitely behaving along those lines, she just doesn't take them far enough for that label.

And really, the only rational reasons to be against homosexuality are things in which heterosexuality is just as guilty. The spread of disease for example.

[Zelric Miras]

I appreciate all the answers I've received so far and I thank you all for your input. My own opinion is pretty much summarized by MCsc's phrase: "Agree to disagree." While my mother doesn't support of homosexuality, I do not think she is homophobic; which is what most of the the replies have agreed to in one way or another.

No Caehlim, we are not discussing semantics, we are discusing whether it is homophobic or not to be against homosexuality. I agree, the word itself is very wide in its definition, but the discussion has been oriented towards if not agreeing to homosexuality is or isn't a way of showing 'hate' -again in a wide sense of the word- against homosexuals.

The definitions were placed since I could have used them to support my argument against my girlfriend, but diplomacy told me it was better to not bring them up.

Envious does make a point, while I do know people that are against homosexuality that have little to no issues with being with homosexuals, it is true that many do behave in that way, civil and respectful, but would rather move away. Again quoting MCsc: "as long as they're respectful to you, then it's nothing to worry about." I have, currently, an homosexual classmate and two or three more sharing my major. I've seen both behaviours regards them and I think that both are respectful in their own way, even if it might be a bit tactless to leave when a person arrives.

I also agree with errantwandering that you can object on someones customs or beliefs and that doesn't mean you hate them.

Kaoru, the object of bringing definitions was to give a base, since the semantics is usually brought up in discussions like this one.

And I know there are repeated ideas in this post, I was reviewing the entire thread on separate days. ^^;

If we keep religious based beliefs(believes? sp) and some people that bring anatomy up... I think as TheVillain in that most reasons that are brought up to be against it are present on both homosexual and heterosexual relationships. The only reason that homosexuals are blamed for them is because of lack of knowledge or misleading or biased "facts" that have been spread over the years in anti-homosexual campaigns.

Again, I thank you all for your thoughts and input, I think my doubt has pretty much been answered.

[Caehlim]

Envious does make a point, while I do know people that are against homosexuality that have little to no issues with being with homosexuals, it is true that many do behave in that way, civil and respectful, but would rather move away. Again quoting MCsc: "as long as they're respectful to you, then it's nothing to worry about." I have, currently, an homosexual classmate and two or three more sharing my major. I've seen both behaviours regards them and I think that both are respectful in their own way, even if it might be a bit tactless to leave when a person arrives.

Wait. A person's mere physical presence, based solely upon their sexual orientation, makes a person uncomfortable to the degree where they need to leave? That strikes me as odd.

[Zelric Miras]

As I said, it might be tactless, but some people would rather leave to avoid confrontation at any level.

[Caehlim]

Well, I agree it could be considered tactless. If a person realizes that you're consciously avoiding them it's going to offend them. At the same time though, I think that you have the right to avoid a situation that makes you uncomfortable, even if it could offend someone else.

But that wasn't my point. I just don't understand why those people would be uncomfortable just because a gay person is around. What confrontation are they trying to avoid by leaving?

[Nico]

One has to keep in mind that sexual orientation isn't written on a persons forehead. ;)

[Trieste]

No, but the person doesn't have to be really gay, either. All that matters is if this confrontation-aversive person perceives them as gay. Maybe they're wearing a fedora. Maybe they're a girl with a buzz cut. Maybe they're a guy who lisps.

You don't have to be gay for some people to think you're gay. Conversely, I ping on very few gaydars personally, despite being a flaming bisexual.  ;D

[Envious]

I just don't understand why those people would be uncomfortable just because a gay person is around. What confrontation are they trying to avoid by leaving?

The avoided confrontation details could be anything from "if he touches me, I'll get infected with the gay and no longer want to touch boobies," to "God said he's a bad man, and if I hang around him I'll go to hell!"

Some people are uncomfortable around gay people because they're gay. They lump them into their pre-conceived concept of how a person should/should not behave and for some people, that means that a man should only be humping a woman and those who go against that idea are bad people. It's not unlike the "dark road" scenario where a young white woman is walking down the sidewalk. A black man is walking towards her, so she cuts to the other side of the street or darts into a building. She doesn't know a damn thing about him other than he's black, but she's got this pre-conceived concept of how he's going to act, and decides her actions accordingly.

Stereotyping is not a bad thing, but there's the whole personal saftey side of things, then there's the misinformed fear.

[MercyfulFate]

Political Correctness often swings hard in the other direction as a defense. People who believe in strict bible interpretations (which many biblical scholars will say is flat out wrong, that it wasn't an abomination morally, it one was to the society of the time. They needed more people, and even stated sex without wanting to impregnate was an abomination) aren't always homophobic.

Homophobic - "Gay people disgust me, they spread disease and infect others with homosexuality!

Thinking it's wrong for backwards reasons doesn't always mean homophobic.

[Sophronius]

Homophobia does not mean a phobia of homosexuals.  If you want to get into semantics, it means "Fear of the Same" or (if one is combining Latin and Greek roots, which is done in some poorly created neologisms) "Fear of Humans" (I'll assume the former is correct).  Thus a homophobe would be a man who is afraid of men, a human who is afraid of humans, a Latvian who is afraid of Latvians, a blonde who is afraid of blondes, a 1.7m tall person who is afraid of other people who are 1.7m tall, or whatever quality of sameness you choose.  However, to believe that is the primary meaning of the word is absurdity.  In almost all useages of the word, it means one who is prejudiced against homosexuals.  To play these games about a homophobe needing to be one who has a phobia of homosexuals would be the equivalent of someone saying that since Arabs are technically a semitic peoples (they speak a semitic language), that one who hates Arabs is an Anti-Semite.  Or that an Anti-Semite is one who hates the Phoenicians (who were also a Semitic people).  Linguistically, you are right.  But every use of the term "Anti-Semite" and "Anti-Semitism" refers to a hatred of the Jewish people, not against Semitic people at large.

Also, I feel that harboring anti-homosexual feelings is homophobia, even if it does not emerge as outward aggression.  If I were to say I think African-American culture is bad or wrong, I would be a racist.  If I were to say that Judaism is wrong, I would be an anti-semite.  If I were to say all poor people are scum who just need to stop being lazy, I would be classist.  If I were to say that women are inferior to men, I would be a sexist.  I do not need to join a lynch mob, the KKK, or protest integrated schools to be a racist, I don't need to join a Nazi party, organize a pogrom, or publish a book about how the Jews use the blood of Christian infants in their rituals to be an anti-semite, I don't need to want to harm the poor economically or create a legal class system to be a classist, and I don't need to be a "men's rights" advocate or physical oppressor of women to be a sexist.  The simple expression of these views, even if I could tolerate the presence of such people, would make me those things.  I do not see how homosexuality and homophobia is any different.  And the reason why is that the expressions of these views do two things: 1) they encourage those more radical into believing that their extremist views are secretly harbored by the majority; and 2) they contribute to institutionalized racism, classism, homophobia, anti-semitism, and sexism.

[Chris Brady]

So apparently, I'm homophobic.  Interesting.  I disagree with homosexuality on a biological level, but I accept that emotions and feelings are not so cut and dry.  That said, I have no issues with anyone who is.  I personally believe in letting people live their lives as they see fit, hopefully without overtly hurting others.  Which most of us, no matter what the orientation, is just trying to do.  Live our lives.

I have a hell enough of a time living my own messed up existence, I don't feel the need to live someone else's.

[Sophronius]

So apparently, I'm homophobic.  Interesting.  I disagree with homosexuality on a biological level, but I accept that emotions and feelings are not so cut and dry.  That said, I have no issues with anyone who is.  I personally believe in letting people live their lives as they see fit, hopefully without overtly hurting others.  Which most of us, no matter what the orientation, is just trying to do.  Live our lives.

I have a hell enough of a time living my own messed up existence, I don't feel the need to live someone else's.

The reason I would say you are homophobic is that if one were to say "I believe that caucasians are superior to other races on a biological level.  That said, I have no issues with people of other races and I think everyone should have equal rights to live their lives as they want," that person would be a racist.  If someone said "I believe that men are biologically superior to women.  But I agree with social and political equality and have no issues with women," that person would be a sexist.  I do not understand why homophobia should be any different than with these prejudices.  If you could explain why it is different, I would be happy to hear it and understand how it is different.  Or, if you could please explain how the two above positions I proposed are not racist and sexist, I would be happy to hear it.

As it is, though, I don't understand how you can say that homosexuality is against nature (what you are saying in kinder terms with the phrase "disagree on a biological level") and not consider that an oppressive view.

[Tamhansen]

Ehm, I'm not really sure i should point out here that homophobia when translated means fear of people, not fear of gays :P coming from the greek Homus (human) and phobos (fear)

But back to the point disagreeing with someone, or finding them inferior in any way does not make a phobia.

racists are not always xenophobic, and sexists aren't by definition eurotophobic.

I mean i disagree with the dogma of the  Catholic church, does that make me deiphobic?

[Trieste]

Ehm, I'm not really sure i should point out here that homophobia when translated means fear of people, not fear of gays :P coming from the greek Homus (human) and phobos (fear)

Not entirely certain this is true, since 'homo' and 'hetero' simply mean 'same' and 'different'. Another example of the use of these words would be in things like homogenize, heterogeneous, homology, and so forth. I am no expert and I haven't looked this up, but I would venture that it's more likely that the homo in homology and the homo in homo sapien just come from the same word, although I'm not entirely certain how "same" and "man" would be derived from the same root word.

[Sophronius]

You are incorrect, Katataban.  the "homo" in homophobia comes from the Greek ὁμο- (homo) meaning the same.  There is no word "homus" that means "human" in Greek (or any other language, I believe).  Perhaps you are thinking of homo, the Latin word meaning human (which is the "homo" in homo sapien, Trieste).  Most (if not all) scientific names for living things is done in Latin (or neo-Latin) and most phobias use Greek words (since phobia is Greek).

Also, etymologies are all fun and good, but they do not tell us the meaning of words, only how words historically formed.  What matters is how words are used and in usage, the term "homophobia" means "one who is prejudiced against homosexuals (and other LGBTQ people).  Take, as another example, the word "oriental."  The word oriental comes from the Latin verb "orior", meaning "to rise".  That does not mean that "oriental people" are rising people nor that "oriental lands" are lands that rise up.  It is all due to metaphoric uses evolving into the standard use of the word.  This is how it is that homophobia means a hatred of homosexuals, not a fear of them.  And indeed, your use of ther term xenophobic is a good example of this as well, since it usually refers to the hatred of foreigners, rather than simply an overwhelming fear of them.  (Also, racists aren't always xenophobic because another race can be a native (or long term) inhabitant of the same nation, meaning that the hatred is not directed at immigrants, but internal others.

[Oniya]

Not entirely certain this is true, since 'homo' and 'hetero' simply mean 'same' and 'different'. Another example of the use of these words would be in things like homogenize, heterogeneous, homology, and so forth. I am no expert and I haven't looked this up, but I would venture that it's more likely that the homo in homology and the homo in homo sapien just come from the same word, although I'm not entirely certain how "same" and "man" would be derived from the same root word.

Not too hard:  man (in the generic 'human' sense) = beings that are the same as us.

[Sophronius]

Not at all, Oniya.  Like I said, homo meaning the same derives from Greek while homo meaning man derives from Latin.  They might be etymologically linked through some Indo-European root, but those two words are not closely related.

[Chris Brady]

You guys are missing the other half of the word.  Phobia.  Meaning fear.

Homophobia means fear of the same (Or in this case, fear of homosexuals.)

[Trieste]

It wasn't so much a miss of that fact as it was that "phobos" does mean "fear". The root of homus (sic) as translated to people/man as the root word for the first part was incorrect.

Homophobia equaling phobia of homosexuals is, in fact, an example of the meandering way that etymologies are not always literally correct. Literally translated from roots, homophobia would be fear of the same, i.e. a heterosexual being afraid of other heterosexuals. The fact that it's called homophobia as a sort of amalgamation of homosexual phobia is another interesting example of Sophronius's point.

What's also fun, Chris, is that you didn't address the questions he gave you. :)

[Autumn Sativus]

The reason I would say you are homophobic is that if one were to say "I believe that caucasians are superior to other races on a biological level.  That said, I have no issues with people of other races and I think everyone should have equal rights to live their lives as they want," that person would be a racist.  If someone said "I believe that men are biologically superior to women.  But I agree with social and political equality and have no issues with women," that person would be a sexist.  I do not understand why homophobia should be any different than with these prejudices.  If you could explain why it is different, I would be happy to hear it and understand how it is different.  Or, if you could please explain how the two above positions I proposed are not racist and sexist, I would be happy to hear it.

As it is, though, I don't understand how you can say that homosexuality is against nature (what you are saying in kinder terms with the phrase "disagree on a biological level") and not consider that an oppressive view.

Would that not then simply qualify him as something along the lines of a "Sexuality-ist"?

For someone to feel that whites are superior to blacks does not make them aficanamericanphobic.
For someone to feel men are superior to women does not make them womenophobic.

There is a great difference in what you have pointed out here and "phobia".

[Sophronius]

This is the Oxford English Dictionary's first definition of homophobia, "Etymology:  < Latin homō man + -phobia comb. form.  rare.  Fear of men, or aversion towards the male sex; also, fear of mankind, anthropophobia."  I bolded and underlined the more important part of that definition.  Here is the OED's second definition of homophobia, "Etymology:  < homo- (in homosexual adj. and n.) + -phobia comb. form.  Fear or hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality."  I bolded and underlined the most important (for my purposes) part of that definition.  The OED (the closest thing the English language has as an authority) defines homphobia (as it is most commonly used) as a fear or hatred, not simply as a phobia of homosexuals or homosexuality.  Similarly, here is the definition of xenophobia, "Pronunciation:  /zɛnəˈfəʊbɪə/ Forms:  Also ˈxenophoby, zenophobia (both rare).  Etymology:  < xeno- comb. form + Greek ϕόβ-ος fear + -ia suffix1, -y suffix3.  A deep antipathy to foreigners."  Note that it means an antipathy to foreigners, not a fear of them.  And, to contrast, here is the definition of arachnophobia, "Pronunciation:  /əˌræknəʊˈfəʊbɪə/ Etymology:  < Greek ἀράχνη spider + -o- connective + -phobia comb. form.  Irrational fear of spiders."  See, nothing about hatred of spiders.  [note: I would provide links to the OED online, but it requires an account to look at]

It should also be noted that true phobias are medical disorders (anxiety disorders) and are properly defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.  "Phobias" that revolve around hate (xenophobia or homophobia, for instance) are not true phobias, they are not anxiety disorders.  As such, they cannot be held up to the same standard as agoraphobia, arachnophobia, or other phobias.

The reason so many people here are having so much trouble is that they seem to think etymology is the end all be all to a word when it is not.  How a word is used is more important than how it was formed.  The Wikipedia article (even just the first paragraph) on homophobia is actually incredibly useful.

[Haloriel]

For my two cents - so long as a person does not outright feel that homosexuals, lesbians, and transgender people should be denied rights, and be treated as less than people - then they are not homophobic.  Considering that the questionnaire for Elliquiy makes the attempt to weed out such people, I do not feel that it is very polite to call any member here homophobic.  One may indeed disagree with they way they feel, but there are many environmental and societal factors that create the preferences of each individual person - and to simply categorise a person in this fashion just because they do not like one's lifestyle is - rather unfair.  It did not seem to me as though anyone that has posted here displayed any sort of irrational fear - more - that a specific lifestyle was not to their preference - which they do have a right to feel that way.

To me, it is like saying: 'I' want vanilla cake - but if 'you' (proverbial) do not like the fact that I want it - then 'you' are not nice.  Instead of saying - I respect the fact that you prefer a different life style than 'me' so long as 'we' both agree 'we' are all people and deserve equal treatment under the law.

It's almost like pointing at someone - in my humble opinion - and saying if they dislike apples, then they've a fear of them, and are homophobic.  I personally disagree with the idea that everything has to be cut and dry in such a fashion - as a lot of things are so much more complicated than that.  What about people, for example, that are homosexual - and have misgivings about their own lifestyle due to societal pressure?

I simply feel there is a huge stretch to say someone that does not like the idea of homosexuality can be called a knee jerk term with the very sharp connotation that the term homophobic has - regardless of its origins, which are much less the point and scope of this thread. 

Now, for my two cents?  I firmly identify as bisexual, and am married to a man that is not in the least troubled by my proclivities.  However, unless you've a country that is firmly a religious state that outlaws various things - which they indeed have the right to do - to a point in my opinion - then every single person should have equal rights, and I don't care what they look like, or if they are disabled, or who they are having sex or cuddling up to at night.  That I very much feel is not the governments business ... and I likewise find it appalling that still on the books in at least five states that it is illegal to have sex with the lights on ... or further more have oral sex.  I wonder at times what precisely they were thinking to actually put things like this in the legal code, but that is another topic for another thread. :D 

Somewhat off topic, one can consider as well the relative ridiculousness of illegal prostitution in a country that is by definition a representative republic ...  I simply fail to see precisely what it is that is going to make the world - 'not safe' if there are men that enjoy penis wandering around.  In either case, a very interesting rhetoric.  I enjoyed reading the various responses and opinions here, as I generally do.  :-)

[Oniya]

Okay - there is a real difference between 'fear and hatred' and mere 'disapproval'.

[Chris Brady]

For my two cents - so long as a person does not outright feel that homosexuals, lesbians, and transgender people should be denied rights, and be treated as less than people.

This is my stance.  I may not agree with it, but at no time are they anything less than a human being to me.  They still bleed red, they still breath, they still have a right to live their lives as they see fit, hopefully without overtly harming others (You won't go through life without harming someone, but as long as you minimize it, it's all good, ne?)  They just happen (For whatever reason, physiologically, mentally, emotionally, or whatever) prefer their side of the fence.  So to speak.

What really get me are bisexuals.  Seriously, talk about GREEDY!  Not only do they want what's on their side of the fence, they want to have the other side too!  Yeesh!  ;D

[Sophronius]

To me, it is like saying: 'I' want vanilla cake - but if 'you' (proverbial) do not like the fact that I want it - then 'you' are not nice.  Instead of saying - I respect the fact that you prefer a different life style than 'me' so long as 'we' both agree 'we' are all people and deserve equal treatment under the law.

It's almost like pointing at someone - in my humble opinion - and saying if they dislike apples, then they've a fear of them, and are homophobic.  I personally disagree with the idea that everything has to be cut and dry in such a fashion - as a lot of things are so much more complicated than that.  What about people, for example, that are homosexual - and have misgivings about their own lifestyle due to societal pressure?

This, however, is not a perfect comparison.  There is a fundamental difference between one saying "I dislike apples" and one saying "Apples are biologically wrong" or "Apples are wrong, but I'll tolerate them being around."  Furthermore, there is a difference between saying "I dislike apples" and "I dislike an entire group of human beings based on a trait that person has no control over."

But what really confuses me, not about what Haloriel said but what a lot of people are saying, is what agreeing or disagreeing with homosexuality is.  Homosexuality is not a thesis or an argument, it is not a position.  Do you all mean that you think it is fundamentally wrong?  Do you all mean that you yourselves are not homosexuals?  These are the only two things that make sense to me.  But it is not really clear how one can agree or disagree with homosexuality.  It seems as absurd a thing to say as "I disagree with being French" or "I agree with being two meters tall."

Okay - there is a real difference between 'fear and hatred' and mere 'disapproval'.

I agree to an extent.  There is a difference between disapproving of an idea and of fearing and hating it.  But I feel that when you are dealing with entire categories of human beings, the difference is blurred.  Is it alright if one were to say, "I disapprove of being Hispanic"?  Is that a racist comment?  If it is, can you please explain how that is different from saying "I disapprove of homosexuality"?  If not, can you explain why it is not?

Now, I am asking you to explain why they are not racist and homophobic comments respectively, so let me explain why I believe both to be.  Both comments instantly place an entire category of human beings on an inferior level to onesself.  They do this by implicitly saying "These people are doing something wrong.  They are not correctly living a human life."  Not only that, but the comments place categories of human beings on an inferior level based on something that is of no choice to the target.  I feel that comments, such as "I disagree with Marxists" or "I disagree with Catholocism", are fundamentally different because they show disapproval of a philosophy or theology and not necessarily of the people who hold that view.  With "Hispanic" or "homosexuality" the comment targets a part of the person that cannot be separated from their physical being, it is an essential part of them, while the Marxist or Catholicism statements target merely views held by a person.  I feel that even if one were to say, "I think all capitalists are terrible people," it is not as bad as saying "I disapprove of homosexuality" because the speaker is targeting a group not based on some essential, unchanging part of their person (a part of that person which does not, necessarily, influence their behavior or actions), but on their views, morality, and philosophical affiliation, that is to say based on their behavior.  Now, it could be said that the person who says, "I disapprove of homosexuality" is targeting a group based on behavior as well, but that is simply not true because the speaker is also targeting celebite homosexuals or homosexuals who only have heterosexual sex - the speaker is targeting them for their psychology and physiology.

However, one might say "I disapprove of homosexual sex."  That too I feel is different from saying, "I think all capitalists [or Marxists] are terrible people."  The difference lies in the fact that there are reasons to disapprove of the capitalist or the Marxist, reasons that are not unreasonable.  There is no reason to disapprove of homosexual sex (unless one is arguing against sex in general, at which point the speaker is being homophobic by applying arguments to homosexual sex only) that is reasonable.

Of course, if what people mean by saying "I disagree with homosexuality" or "I disagree with homosexuality on a biological level" is "I don't want to have homosexual sex" (which I doubt), then my arguments are moot and do not apply.  But if what they mean is "Homosexuality is wrong" then I feel my statements are accurate.  If you think I am wrong, please tell me so.

[Haloriel]

Then I shall enjoy my greedy side of the fence.   XD 

In all seriousness however, I've seen various arguments - and I would personally say everyone that has posted has a valid opinion from what it seems to me. :D  My comparison to apples was simplistic, but some people really do think that way - though I imagine there is not anyone that feels so in this forum. 

I'm suspecting that most people that have posted mean - 'homosexuality is not their specific cup of tea'.  Just a guess anyway.  I could be entirely wrong!  :-)

[Bayushi]

Of course, if what people mean by saying "I disagree with homosexuality" or "I disagree with homosexuality on a biological level" is "I don't want to have homosexual sex" (which I doubt), then my arguments are moot and do not apply.  But if what they mean is "Homosexuality is wrong" then I feel my statements are accurate.  If you think I am wrong, please tell me so.

The entire argument regarding whether someone is homophobic or not is quite hypocritical, to me.

There has been a quest, of sorts, to try and keep people from labeling homosexuals with anything they do not like. In so doing, they themselves are labeling others with negative labels like "homophobe".

I obviously have no issue with people being homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or even asexual. The one thing I take issue with is the entire "gay culture". Must a gay man or lesbian woman be into this gay culture to actually BE gay? This is something I have been pressed on in the past, as a lesbian. I have difficulty tolerating much of what I see from the gay culture, as a lot of it is overtly lewd and 'in-your-face'. Most of the anger and resentment from heterosexuals dealing with this is that it's almost only this that angers them.

When it comes down to it, most people I've known who are "against" homosexuality are simply against having it shoved in their faces all the time. Not every gay/lesbian/trans is like this, I know. However, there are the militant few who get all the attention, and ruin it for the rest of us. Simply put, gays lesbians and trans need to reign in the more militant types, or we will never get anywhere with society. Or when we do, it won't necessarily be a change for the better.

[Sophronius]

I'm suspecting that most people that have posted mean - 'homosexuality is not their specific cup of tea'.  Just a guess anyway.  I could be entirely wrong!  :-)

Then I wish they would simply say that (or something to that effect).

The entire argument regarding whether someone is homophobic or not is quite hypocritical, to me.

There has been a quest, of sorts, to try and keep people from labeling homosexuals with anything they do not like. In so doing, they themselves are labeling others with negative labels like "homophobe".

I obviously have no issue with people being homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or even asexual. The one thing I take issue with is the entire "gay culture". Must a gay man or lesbian woman be into this gay culture to actually BE gay? This is something I have been pressed on in the past, as a lesbian. I have difficulty tolerating much of what I see from the gay culture, as a lot of it is overtly lewd and 'in-your-face'. Most of the anger and resentment from heterosexuals dealing with this is that it's almost only this that angers them.

When it comes down to it, most people I've known who are "against" homosexuality are simply against having it shoved in their faces all the time. Not every gay/lesbian/trans is like this, I know. However, there are the militant few who get all the attention, and ruin it for the rest of us. Simply put, gays lesbians and trans need to reign in the more militant types, or we will never get anywhere with society. Or when we do, it won't necessarily be a change for the better.

The problem that I see with any kind of prejudice is not that negative labels are in and of themselves bad things, but that negative labels based on things outside of their control and based on things that have no real impact how they behave (other than who their romantic/sexual partners are) are bad.  For example, to label someone a communist (in a negative tone/manner) based on their revolutionary activity and sedition against the government does not seem a heinous thing, but to label someone a communist (in the same way) based on who one of their friends are, their ethnicity, or the sort of job they have is.  I believe the problem stems from the rationality behind the label and the act of delivering the label.  Negatively labelling someone a communist, to continue with the example, makes sense, since both the communist and the capitalist view him/her as a destructive force against society (though whether that force is for the better or worse might be debated).  And negatively labelling someone a homophobe (or racist, sexist, anti-semite, or classist) makes sense, since the prejudiced person is, either openly, secretly, or implicitly, denying personhood to someone else.  But to negatively label someone a homosexual (something that ought to be descriptive on the same level as he has brown hair or she is 1.6 meters tall) has no reason behind it.  I feel that the problem with prejudice is not that it labels someone, but that it does it for arbitrary reasons.

But I largely agree with what you say about the problems with "gay culture" and that it would be better to tone it down on the lewdness in pride parades (for example).  But my understanding was that the evolution of gay culture was due to the fact that without it, people were able to ignore homosexuals and their fight for rights and that gay culture aided in thrusting the issue of homosexual rights into the public attention.  And it is not as though there was not violence and discrimination against homosexuals before the evolution of gay culture, so it should not be the only reason why such attitudes persist.  Of course, one could say that attitudes are different now from the '70s and that such extreme behavior has outlived its usefulness.  I just feel that if people are using something like gay culture as a reason to gay-bash or deny rights, they probably aren't the most tolerant people to begin with.

[MasterMischief]

When it comes down to it, most people I've known who are "against" homosexuality are simply against having it shoved in their faces all the time.

Is it not possible many homosexuals are equally offended by militant heterosexuals who are always so up in their face?  Can you turn on the t.v., go to a movie or even read a book where heterosexual romance is not a major theme?

[TheGlyphstone]

Is it not possible many homosexuals are equally offended by militant heterosexuals who are always so up in their face?  Can you turn on the t.v., go to a movie or even read a book where heterosexual romance is not a major theme?

Read a non-romantic book or watch a non-romantic movie? Sure, heterosexual romance is going to be a lot more prevalent even as minor themes, but lacking homosexual romance isn't the same being up in someone's face about it.

[MasterMischief]

Read a non-romantic book or watch a non-romantic movie? Sure, heterosexual romance is going to be a lot more prevalent even as minor themes, but lacking homosexual romance isn't the same being up in someone's face about it.

Would you please rephrase.  I am not sure I understand you.

[TheGlyphstone]

Would you please rephrase.  I am not sure I understand you.

Maybe I misunderstood you. I interpreted your post as saying it was impossible to watch a movie, read a book, or watch T.V. without having heterosexual romance shoved in one's face as a major theme, and was pointing out that there is no lack of entertainment material where that is not the case.

[MasterMischief]

Oh, sure, it can be found.  I will concede that.  I just think the argument that homosexuals are trying to cram it down our throat is a hypocrisy.

[TheGlyphstone]

Oh, sure, it can be found.  I will concede that.  I just think the argument that homosexuals are trying to cram it down our throat is a hypocrisy.

I don't think that was really his argument (at least, in the universal tense you seem to be taking it as), but I won't put words in his mouth erroneously.

[MasterMischief]

No, not all homosexuals.  Just those damn uppity ones.   ::)

[TheGlyphstone]

No, not all homosexuals.  Just those damn uppity ones.   ::)

See, I can kinda empathize with him there though - one of the people in my social circle is pretty well known for being, shall we say, excessively enthusiastic (sounds better than militant) about gay rights. Even holding a conversation within earshot of him that so much as brushes up against the issue will find him interjecting himself into the discussion and derail it through sheer single-minded argumentativeness (one example, if two people are talking about science fiction and happen to offhandedly mention the Turing Test standard for A.I., that's a giant invitation to have him break in talking about Alan Turing's mistreatment). Most of the time, he's a decent enough person to be around, but he definitely does his best to 'shove the issue in people's faces', and it's not a positive trait.

[MasterMischief]

Allow me to come at this from a different direction.  Do you feel there are important issues that should be 'shoved in someone's face'?

[TheGlyphstone]

Allow me to come at this from a different direction.  Do you feel there are important issues that should be 'shoved in someone's face'?

I don't think anything should be shoved in anyone's face, because to me, that act by definition is knowingly and deliberately seeking to press your agenda despite your victim's dislike, discomfort, or indifference to the topic. Vegans/organic food advocates harassing meat-eaters, obnoxious burger-lovers in reverse, door-to-door religious proselytizers, militant feminists, gay rights crusaders, etc. There are important issues that should be advocated, but no matter what issue is involved, there's a line of zeal and personal boundaries that can be crossed to the point where said advocate is actually doing more harm than good to their cause simply by virtue of their aggressive approach.

[MasterMischief]

So nineteenth century abolitionists should have stayed home and wrote strongly worded protest to their Senators?  Please understand I am not trying to compare slavery to banning same sex marriage.  I just want to verify your position that no issue warrants such zealous advocacy. 

If that is the case, I have to agree to disagree.  I believe some issues do warrant zealous advocacy.


If that is not the case, and you do agree that some issues do warrant zealous advocacy, then we are arguing over which issues.  I understand that homosexuality is not one such issue for you.  Can you at least empathize with your friend that for him, it is?

[TheGlyphstone]

So nineteenth century abolitionists should have stayed home and wrote strongly worded protest to their Senators?  Please understand I am not trying to compare slavery to banning same sex marriage.  I just want to verify your position that no issue warrants such zealous advocacy. 

If that is the case, I have to agree to disagree.  I believe some issues do warrant zealous advocacy.


If that is not the case, and you do agree that some issues do warrant zealous advocacy, then we are arguing over which issues.  I understand that homosexuality is not one such issue for you.  Can you at least empathize with your friend that for him, it is?

Abolition isn't a fair comparison because you're fusing all anti-slavery advocates into one homogenous group. Public, loud advocacy of abolition was a good thing. The massacre conducted by John Brown's militia squad, or the slaughter during Nat Turner's rebellion, were not - that was certainly zealous, but I don't believe you think slavery should have been solved by hunting down all pro-slavery individuals, breaking into their houses, and hacking them to death with swords.

Polarizing positions only leads to strawmanning, though, and isn't really going to help the argument though. I do support homosexual rights and consider it worth of advocacy, but the manner and degree of advocacy that friend I mentioned takes it to only ends up hurting him and his cause; he's rather unpopular among the rest of the community in question primarily because of that inability to let any issue not be made into a gay rights debate whether or not it was the original topic or even if he was involved in the conversation.

[Cel]

I apologize if I bring up an already-said point:

I think there are two "homophobias" here. One is the colloquial usage of the word, which, as many psychological disorders that are used colloquially—is incorrect. Many people say others are "schizophrenic", "bipolar", "psychotic", "OCD" etc. Sure, these terms are commonly used, and someone can make the argument that "language is always evolving"... but... they're wrong. Just because the term "bipolar" is always used does not mean that when it's used it's right because it's always used. That logic doesn't work.

Similarly, because the term "homophobic" is commonly used to refer to someone who [negative action toward] homosexuals does not mean that the person is homophobic.

My Extreme Animal Phobia: Tough guy afraid of a puppy
Spider Phobia
Cat Phobia

These are phobic reactions. If someone has this type of reaction to homosexuals, then they're homophobic.

[MasterMischief]

Abolition isn't a fair comparison because you're fusing all anti-slavery advocates into one homogenous group

I came right out and said I was not comparing the two.  I wanted to make sure I understood your position.

Public, loud advocacy of abolition was a good thing. The massacre conducted by John Brown's militia squad, or the slaughter during Nat Turner's rebellion, were not...

Agreed.

I do support homosexual rights and consider it worth of advocacy, but the manner and degree of advocacy that friend I mentioned takes it to only ends up hurting him and his cause...

Your friend obviously feels it is worthy of such advocacy.  I am somewhat torn.  I do understand your position, however, the only reason this is even part of the national conversation now is because someone made someone else uncomfortable.  Change does not happen when everyone is comfortable.

Yes, I realize those against same sex marriage are only going to become entrenched.  I am not sure there is anything that can ever be done to win them over.  And yes, some that were only leaning against it might be pushed to be more firmly against it.  However, if nothing is done then there will never be change.  It may not affect you, so it may not be a big deal.  For your friend, this is a large part of his life.  This is about who he is.

[TheGlyphstone]

Actually, I know him well enough that his bigger priority varies between being the center of attention and making other people uncomfortable, but that's not really the issue at hand. The thing is that he's far from the only gay guy around - I live in a city with a fairly notable LGBT population, so there are plenty of LGBT people to contrast with. He even annoys other LGBT people because of his...monomania, I guess is the only word to describe it, and it's a shame because he's a rather magnetic person who can easily get people to listen to him on the rare occasions he chooses to talk about something else.

Going back to the original quote that you were disputing, the idea that an anti-gay attitude could result from having the issue 'shoved down one's throat'. Living in a diverse environment where he's just one voice among many more rational ones, I don't have that issue, but personally knowing such an individual who IMO takes the issue several degrees too far, it's easy for me to picture someone exposed to him as their primary example of a gay rights advocate developing an aversion to supporting said freedoms out of a Pavlovian association with his behavior. It's not reasonable or rational, but it's very believable.

[Petronius]

I may not agree with it

What, exactly, don't you agree with?

[Hurricane]

The issue comes into play when someone believes that LGBT is a lifestyle choice (which is now a minority belief in the United States). I wouldn't choose to be hated by people who are seemingly nice. I wouldn't choose to not have the same rights to a relationship with the person I love and have been with over 15 years.

The questions that are often posed to somewhat snickering results are:

Question: Do you think being gay is a choice?
Answer: Yes
Question: When did you choose to be straight?
Answer: ...

For my personal use I believe anyone that is against homosexuality is homophobic. I don't hate your mother, but I would find it difficult to befriend anyone that is against my core being of who I am.

This is precisely the kind of mindset that amuses me the most.

Choosing to indulge one's homosexual impulses is not the same as the biological urge to reproduce. There are a lot of species on Earth that will engage in homosexual relations if the circumstances for the creatures in question don't allow for other outlets of sexual energies. However there are NO species on Earth other than a tiny minority of Humans who continually choose to indulge their home-erotic impulses to the exclusion of biological male/female reproduction.

In other words, get two young bull steers together when they are in rut and one might mount the other to relive their sexual urges. Get them in proximity to a female and they will stop seeking homoerotic couplings in favor of reproduction.

People like the OP take a stance that their orientation is somehow just as valid as that of traditional male/female pairings. Sorry, but it simply isn't. It's a biological aberration. It might be fun. You might be 'wired' so you're not compelled to seek out male/female pairings but the fact of the matter is that in terms of simple natural selection, given time and without the ability to sexually reproduce your particular bloodline traits would disappear.

And before anyone jumps that that conclusion: No I'm not saying that if we could just outlaw homosexuality that all gays would disappear in a few generations. The behavioral abnormality would remain as a small percentage of the population as a whole, and the impulse to engage in homosexual behavior would always exist in Humans just like it does in those other species.

But that brings me to the issue of "gay marriage". I don't CARE if people choose to indulge their homoerotic impulses. But if the issue becomes whether or not those behaviors should be formally accepted or instituted into the fabric of society as 'rights' I say absolutely not. You only have to look at the declining birthrates of progressive countries around the world to realize that western civilization needs to protect and nurture the normal biological impulse to sexually reproduce.

Sleep with whoever you like. Just don't ask me to accept your choice as equally valid to real biology and the long term needs of society.

[Trieste]

Normally, when humans do something that animals generally don't (like, say, building computers), it's taken as evidence of how advanced we are. ::)

The things is that 'real' biology and biological imperative is not a valid justification for any behavior, or for rejecting other behavior. Ruminating on life after death is not geared toward survival, reproduction, or any of the things that Hurricane appears to deem "real biology". However, religion is an important part of humanity. It provides a basis for ethics and gives people structure by which to live their lives. Biological imperative would also drive one not to adopt, but to go to any lengths possible to carry on your own genes. Yet we see people who choose to be childless, though they are fertile, in favor of adopting those who need adopting.

"Well and good, Trie, but that still protects the interests of the species," you might be thinking. What about people who go to severe lengths to raise sterile or impaired children? What about parents that spend their entire lives looking after one child that has little-to-no possibility of reproduction? No real possibility of contributing anything to their fellow man? What about the parents who actively make the decision not to have further children because those children would be overshadowed by their impaired older sibling? Biologically, it would make a whole lot more sense to focus energies on children who are more likely to be evolutionarily successful.

There are many things we do that go against biological imperative. It doesn't govern everything we do. Furthermore, it costs a heterosexual person nothing to recognize the rights of homosexual couples. It doesn't take away from hetero relationships, and it isn't as if there are only a certain number of marriages that are allowed in this country and we don't want the queers taking all the slots.

No.

Refusing to recognize someone else's right to live their lives the way they see fit is petty and, I daresay, amoral. It's saying to others, "I have it. It won't cost me anything to share it with you. But I'm not going to let you have some." If one kid did that to another on a playground, we would call them spiteful and mean, possibly a bully. How is it any more acceptable for grown-ups? The answer is: it's not.

[Hurricane]

There are many things we do that go against biological imperative. It doesn't govern everything we do. Furthermore, it costs a heterosexual person nothing to recognize the rights of homosexual couples. It doesn't take away from hetero relationships, and it isn't as if there are only a certain number of marriages that are allowed in this country and we don't want the queers taking all the slots.

Unfortunately, I just don't think that's true. Again - look at the declining birthrates in western civilization. Of course it's not all attributable to the rise of 'gay culture', but progressive social mores are most certainly a contributing factor.

For me it's a simple question - would I want the most successful expression of Human culture to disappear from the Earth simply because of emotional factors? To use your term:

No.

Refusing to recognize someone else's right to live their lives the way they see fit is petty and, I daresay, amoral. It's saying to others, "I have it. It won't cost me anything to share it with you. But I'm not going to let you have some." If one kid did that to another on a playground, we would call them spiteful and mean, possibly a bully. How is it any more acceptable for grown-ups? The answer is: it's not.

It does cost to share it. I believe that there is always a cost to society to embrace whatever values they choose to express. And often those costs are not clear until their unintended consequences are expressed years, decades or even centuries later.

This is a pretty simple equation isn't it? Do you choose to embrace a set of behaviors that DOES NOT reinforce your long-term viability as a civilization? Besides the heartstrings appeals that you're making, how could that possibly make sense?

[Trieste]

Just a clarification, which part is "the most successful expression of Human (sic) culture"?

[Avis habilis]

It does cost to share it.

What does it cost?

[Hurricane]

I would argue that western civilization is the most peaceful, most technologically advanced and most prosperous expression of human culture that the Earth has ever seen. Western Europe and the United States have more freedom, more sexuality equality, better political representation, more food, better tech, more opportunities... than any other period in history.

And to be frank better than other civilizations that are currently prominent in the world today. I have two daughters, and I would fight to the death to protect them from having to live under a repressive political or religious Middle Eastern regime or under the thumb of the totalitarian policies of Communist China.

But I believe that there is a very real danger of aspects of that civilization declining or disappearing if we outpace our progressive sensibilities outpace our ability to reproduce.

Put simply, you might love French culture. But unless France can correct it's current birthrate issues, within 50 years there may no longer be a 'France' to love.

[Iniquitous]

I like how Trieste said it best. No one - not you, not me, not Joe Blow down the street or Sanctimonious Santorum has the right to tell someone they cannot love and be with whomever they want.

If you don't like homosexuals, don't be homosexual.
If you don't like gay marriage, then don't get gay married.

You do not  have the right to be in anyone else's bedroom, so stop trying.

[Avis habilis]

But I believe that there is a very real danger of aspects of that civilization declining or disappearing if we outpace our progressive sensibilities outpace our ability to reproduce.

I'm tolerably sure people in countries where gay marriage has been legalized have continued to have hetero sex & produce children.

[Trieste]

I would argue that western civilization is the most peaceful, most technologically advanced and most prosperous expression of human culture that the Earth has ever seen. Western Europe and the United States have more freedom, more sexuality equality, better political representation, more food, better tech, more opportunities... than any other period in history.

And to be frank better than other civilizations that are currently prominent in the world today. I have two daughters, and I would fight to the death to protect them from having to live under a repressive political or religious Middle Eastern regime or under the thumb of the totalitarian policies of Communist China.

But I believe that there is a very real danger of aspects of that civilization declining or disappearing if we outpace our progressive sensibilities outpace our ability to reproduce.

Put simply, you might love French culture. But unless France can correct it's current birthrate issues, within 50 years there may no longer be a 'France' to love.

I see. Thanks for clarifying. :)

[vtboy]

I would argue that western civilization is the most peaceful, most technologically advanced and most prosperous expression of human culture that the Earth has ever seen. Western Europe and the United States have more freedom, more sexuality equality, better political representation, more food, better tech, more opportunities... than any other period in history.

And to be frank better than other civilizations that are currently prominent in the world today. I have two daughters, and I would fight to the death to protect them from having to live under a repressive political or religious Middle Eastern regime or under the thumb of the totalitarian policies of Communist China.

But I believe that there is a very real danger of aspects of that civilization declining or disappearing if we outpace our progressive sensibilities outpace our ability to reproduce.

Put simply, you might love French culture. But unless France can correct it's current birthrate issues, within 50 years there may no longer be a 'France' to love.

Let's not forget that Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, the Soviet Union, ethnic cleansing, Jim Crow, the KKK, mandatory pre-abortion transvaginal ultrasonic probes, and the Real Housewives of New York are all fruits of western civilization.

That said, like you, I can't think of anywhere else I could live. Do you think those residing in "France" 50 years from now will still be able to bake a decent croissant?

[Will]

I have a difficult time understanding how legal gay marriage leads directly to a lower birthrate.  It's not as if perfectly straight people are going to suddenly say, "hey, gay marriage is legal!  I think I'll just be gay now, and stop all this reproducing."  And conversely, just because gay marriage is not legal doesn't mean gay people are giving in and fornicating to pregnancy.

I'm also a little confused at how anyone can point to socially repressive regimes like those in the Middle East as an example of why we should be, uh... more socially repressive?  I thought the idea was to use them as a cautionary tale, not a role model.

[vtboy]

I have a difficult time understanding how legal gay marriage leads directly to a lower birthrate.  It's not as if perfectly straight people are going to suddenly say, "hey, gay marriage is legal!  I think I'll just be gay now, and stop all this reproducing."  And conversely, just because gay marriage is not legal doesn't mean gay people are giving in and fornicating to pregnancy.

Amen.

As I noted in another post somewhere, it is not laws against bestiality which keep me out of my dog's rear end.

[Sabre]

A declining birthrate has little to do with a culture and people surviving.  For most of history, said populations were rising and falling but most often remained stagnant.  In fact, for most periods where there is a noticeable spike in population, a lot of economic and social turmoil followed.  But the culture survived, as did the people.

No, what the fear of a stagnant or declining birthrate is all about is survivability of the welfare state and many of its institutions.  It's about having enough sons and grandsons to fund the current and last generation into their retirement and advanced elderly life.  The culture can survive whether or not they are looked after, as in the art of the croissant will not be lost.  However, the next few generations will be forced to shoulder a lot more weight financially to support this aging population (forced, because the laws already made and being made are for the benefit of the aging generation).  The consequences of this is hard to see, but it may not be pretty judging from the youth reactions in France and all across Europe.

So what is gay marriage to all of this?  Certainly, there is a moral police behind much of its opposition.  But these, as always, are simply the mobilized voters to call upon for someone else's gain.  And not everyone is as morally guided as Santorum (claims himself to be).  So what if gay marriage is recognized tomorrow on the federal level and state level?  That's, what, 600,000 households now wanting access to the big pot that marriage had normally provided - Social Security, tax breaks, and the recent trend that has tried to eliminate what marriage tax penalties were put into place in the 70's by the baby boomers looking to secure their safety nets.  So unless the model homosexual family included a half-dozen adopted children, as a statistic they are a threat.  A minor threat, maybe even financially negligible, but a very useful one.  Hence the televangelists reminding you to get angry about gay marriage and not get angry about the $712 billion spent on Social Security.

The more you look this way to see them protect the family, the less you'll look that way to seem them protect something else entirely.

[Rinzler]

...However there are NO species on Earth other than a tiny minority of Humans who continually choose to indulge their home-erotic impulses to the exclusion of biological male/female reproduction...

This isn't quite correct. It's been known for a while that about 8% of the male sheep population will only partake of exclusively same-sex activity:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1582336-1,00.html

Roughly 25% of male black swans will form exclusively same-sex monogamous relationships, though it has been known that they will occasionally use a female surrogate to obtain eggs; they will then drive the female away afterwards in order to raise the resultant cygnets themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Swan (see section: nesting and reproduction)

In any case, I am wary of applying anthropomorphic human terms such as 'homosexual' (or 'any'-sexual, come to that) to animal behavior, in that there exist vast and wildly differing attributes associated with the sexual behavoirs of so many differing species. In sort, you cannot really say that a dog that likes to hump his master's leg is exhibiting zoophile behavior; neither can you say that an Ichneumon wasp (which injects its eggs into a living host, usually the caterpillar larvae of another species) is a zoophile rapist; the definitions, in their respective contexts, are absurd. But by the same token, this also means that what one would generalise as 'natural' behaviour in the animal kingdom cannot be applied to humans - in that we are again using a human definition of 'natural' to anthropomorphise various non-human animals.

In short: anyone who defines human homosexuality as natural or unnatural (in the sense, even, of being a 'biological aberration') based on a comparison with examples from the animal kingdom is mistaken; it's basically a value judgement.

[Hurricane]

I have a difficult time understanding how legal gay marriage leads directly to a lower birthrate.  It's not as if perfectly straight people are going to suddenly say, "hey, gay marriage is legal!  I think I'll just be gay now, and stop all this reproducing."  And conversely, just because gay marriage is not legal doesn't mean gay people are giving in and fornicating to pregnancy.

There are a number of excellent articles on the web describing the "perfect storm" of social forces that are contributing to declining birthrates in progressive western cultures.

As in so many "perfect storm" situations, you can look at a lot of different elements that are contributors to the meta-trend and interpret the levels of impact differently. In the case of the declining birthrate there are lots of socio-economic factors that may also be having an effect on people's choice to have kids or not, and I don't deny any of those. But there's no mistake: overall the reproductive rate in western countries has dropped to drastically low levels and the simplified explanation is essentially that progressive culture puts a high emphasis on individuals tailoring their lives to suit their taste.

Consider 'DINK' couples - 'double income, no kids'. Two working professionals have chosen to use their earning power to raise their standard of living rather than use their earning power to rear kids. Seems reasonable, right? After all, it's their choice; more power to them. Live life to the fullest. Use your income to build the retirement scenario of your dreams and all that. In today's progressive cultural climate that lifestyle choice is perfectly acceptable.

But of course if you have massive numbers of young working professionals all making that same choice then you are compromising your long-term viability as a society. And that is precisely what's happening in a shocking number of progressive western European countries. Like I said: part of the perfect storm, but not the whole picture. I'm sure we could all name quite a few more socially progressive stances that would also be contributors to that same scenario.

Which brings us back to my original point: homosexual relations are a choice and not a biological imperative and they do not (generally) produce offspring. A culture that chooses to 'formally acknowledge' those relationships as equal to male/female relationships that can provide offspring is contributing yet another 'vector' into to that same perfect storm that is driving down the populations.

My stance on this is not about love, or bigotry or whatever else people claim. It's about the simple logic.

[Hurricane]

In short: anyone who defines human homosexuality as natural or unnatural (in the sense, even, of being a 'biological aberration') based on a comparison with examples from the animal kingdom is mistaken; it's basically a value judgement.

I would certainly agree that a one-to-one comparison with all the weird expressions of the natural world is impossible.

I'm not trying to make a value judgement, but maybe on some level I am. I will take that under advisement ;)

[Oniya]

Okay - I'm just going to throw this out there.  If I'm not attracted to someone in some fashion, I'm not going to have sex with them (unless forced).  If I don't have sex with them, I'm not going to have children with them.  It doesn't matter if I'm homosexual or heterosexual - if I'm not going to have sex with a person, I cannot conceivably have children with them willingly.  If the set of people that I'm not attracted to includes all members of one biological sex, I'm not going to have sex with members of that biological sex.  As it happens, I'm not attracted to women, therefore, I'm not going to willingly have sex with women.  If a man is not attracted to women, he's not going to willingly have sex with them.  Marriage is beside the point.  Whether you accept gay marriage or not, it's not going to make a scintilla of difference in changing the birthrate.

[Hurricane]

Okay - I'm just going to throw this out there.  If I'm not attracted to someone in some fashion, I'm not going to have sex with them (unless forced).  If I don't have sex with them, I'm not going to have children with them.  It doesn't matter if I'm homosexual or heterosexual - if I'm not going to have sex with a person, I cannot conceivably have children with them willingly.  If the set of people that I'm not attracted to includes all members of one biological sex, I'm not going to have sex with members of that biological sex.  As it happens, I'm not attracted to women, therefore, I'm not going to willingly have sex with women.  If a man is not attracted to women, he's not going to willingly have sex with them.  Marriage is beside the point.  Whether you accept gay marriage or not, it's not going to make a scintilla of difference in changing the birthrate.

Really? You don't think that there are a lot of people out there that skirt the line between engaging in homosexual and/or heterosexual behavior? I think there are a lot.

And that's the point - the more the social climate is permissive of that kind of behavior, the more people will engage in it. Consider your particular case: if (just pretend with me here) you were somewhat curious about same-sex pairings but you knew (for extreme example) that the society you lived in would stone you to death, I'd bet that you'd keep it in your pants and stay 'straight'.

My own mother-in-law is an example of that exact scenario. She was married twice and raised three kids. But as social mores changed she decided that she was gay, divorced and ran off with an ex-con bull dike.

And I'm not even making this up...

[Oniya]

Really? You don't think that there are a lot of people out there that skirt the line between homosexual and heterosexual behavior? I think there are a lot.

And that's the point - the more the social climate is permissive of that kind of behavior, the more people will engage in it. Consider your particular case: if (just pretend with me here) you were somewhat curious about same-sex pairings but you knew (for extreme example) that the society you lived in would stone you to death, I'd bet that you'd keep it in your pants and stay 'straight'.

I might 'keep it in my pants and stay straight', but that doesn't mean that I'd find someone and 'whip it out' to have kids with them.

[Samael]

Consider 'DINK' couples - 'double income, no kids'. Two working professionals have chosen to use their earning power to raise their standard of living rather than use their earning power to rear kids. Seems reasonable, right? After all, it's their choice; more power to them. Live life to the fullest. Use your income to build the retirement scenario of your dreams and all that. In today's progressive cultural climate that lifestyle choice is perfectly acceptable.

But of course if you have massive numbers of young working professionals all making that same choice then you are compromising your long-term viability as a society. And that is precisely what's happening in a shocking number of progressive western European countries. Like I said: part of the perfect storm, but not the whole picture. I'm sure we could all name quite a few more socially progressive stances that would also be contributors to that same scenario.

I would argue that this is far better countered via organized immigration and integration, to fill the holes that are left behind by the personal -choices- of random people. And, make no mistake, those -are- *their* choices to make, regardless of what anyone thinks they should do instead.
In fact, I would say that any culture/society that actually can afford to have most of its individuals having a good job is actually quite desirable a place to live, because it means that it is economically in a good spot.
Also, let us not forget the cases in which two partners in a relationship both -have- to work, so they can make ends meet, and there are more than a few places within the Western Civilization where such is necessary, which means they cannot afford to have kids in the first place.

More than gay/straight couples, I'd consider our economy and politics influencing child birth in western countries.

Which brings us back to my original point: homosexual relations are a choice and not a biological imperative and they do not (generally) produce offspring. A culture that chooses to 'formally acknowledge' those relationships as equal to male/female relationships that can provide offspring is contributing yet another 'vector' into to that same perfect storm that is driving down the populations.

My stance on this is not about love, or bigotry or whatever else people claim. It's about the simple logic.

I'd consider homosexual relations as a commodity actually, since, while they may not have offspring on their own, even just a small percentage being ready to adopt children would make a great, positive impact in our society, and let's be honest here, there are a lot of kids who'd rather have two Dads/two Moms than having to grow up on their own.

That said, keeping a gay/lesbian couple from marrying will not magically make them fall in love with a woman/man instead of their own gender, and want to suddenly reproduce.

[Samael]

Really? You don't think that there are a lot of people out there that skirt the line between engaging in homosexual and/or heterosexual behavior? I think there are a lot.

And that's the point - the more the social climate is permissive of that kind of behavior, the more people will engage in it. Consider your particular case: if (just pretend with me here) you were somewhat curious about same-sex pairings but you knew (for extreme example) that the society you lived in would stone you to death, I'd bet that you'd keep it in your pants and stay 'straight'.

Ok, first, wow...
Did I really read what I read there just now?
Of course people would try to keep their true orientation secret if it meant being killed for it.
Of course it would also mean they'd try to pretend to be straight, and maybe father kids, but they'd be miserable, and feel horrible all of their lives.
Are you really alright with the idea of people spending their lives in that way, as long as they keep on making children?

Also, between the gays and the straights, there are also the bisexuals.
I know we tend to be forgotten easily, but we are here.
We are the people who can find attraction to either gender, and are fine with it.

My own mother-in-law is an example of that exact scenario. She was married twice and raised three kids. But as social mores changed she decided that she was gay, divorced and ran off with an ex-con bull dike.

And I'm not even making this up...

...I see.
I think there's little to say to that anymore.

[Hurricane]

Ok, first, wow...
Did I really read what I read there just now?
Of course people would try to keep their true orientation secret if it meant being killed for it.
Of course it would also mean they'd try to pretend to be straight, and maybe father kids, but they'd be miserable, and feel horrible all of their lives.
Are you really alright with the idea of people spending their lives in that way, as long as they keep on making children?

I did say "pretend", right? As in, "let's create a hypothetical situation and see if we can extrapolate from it."

It's interesting that you extrapolated precisely the same results that I do. Case closed, no?

[Trieste]

I believe there was also a question in there for you, which you quoted but didn't answer. :)

[Hurricane]

I believe there was also a question in there for you, which you quoted but didn't answer. :)

:) I am busted.

Honestly, on this topic - I don't know. Talking this out makes me realize how angry and hurt I am by my mother-in-laws decision and how much it may color my views on this topic.

Would it have been better for our family (for me) for her to 'stay straight'? Absolutely yes.

Would it have been better for her to actually have started out comfortable in being gay in the first place? Possibly.

Is she really gay now, or is she just a self-absorbed asshole who swings from one relationship to the next in search of status and comfort? Time will tell. If her past history is any predictor, she'll dump her girlfriend in favor of a newer model just like she did her previous relationships.

[Samael]

:) I am busted.

Honestly, on this topic - I don't know. Talking this out makes me realize how angry and hurt I am by my mother-in-laws decision and how much it may color my views on this topic.

Would it have been better for our family (for me) for her to 'stay straight'? Absolutely yes.

Would it have been better for her to actually have started out comfortable in being gay in the first place? Possibly.

Is she really gay now, or is she just a self-absorbed asshole who swings from one relationship to the next in search of status and comfort? Time will tell. If her past history is any predictor, she'll dump her girlfriend in favor of a newer model just like she did her previous relationships.

Did you ever consider the possibility that it just may not be as black/white for her as you see it now?
That it was possible that she always was attracted to both genders, but due to societal pressure never actually acted on it?
-IF- she is actually gay, would you prefer for her to remain in a heterosexual relationship just so you could be more happy with her, even if she was miserable?

Also, the bold part.
So she's just like a guy in a midlife crisis who constantly needs younger models?
That would make her just someone to feel sorry for, and it has little to do with her sexual orientation.

Could it be that -this- is what you really are upset about?

[Trieste]

:) I am busted.

I hope you didn't feel picked on. I was just honestly curious as to the answer. Thanks for that.

[Hurricane]

Did you ever consider the possibility that it just may not be as black/white for her as you see it now?
That it was possible that she always was attracted to both genders, but due to societal pressure never actually acted on it?
-IF- she is actually gay, would you prefer for her to remain in a heterosexual relationship just so you could be more happy with her, even if she was miserable?

Yes, of course I realize that societal pressure might have been what was holding her back from her impulses.

Yes, I would prefer that she not do what she has done to our family which is essentially tear it apart.

No, the fact that she might have been somewhat unhappy struggling against her own impulses does not undo the massive damage that she has caused. There's no relationship with her grandkids. With her children. With her parents.

We'll have to wait and see on the other stuff. She went through two husbands and their extended families before deciding that she was gay. If she sticks with this, then maybe the hetero marriages couldn't have worked out because of her orientation. But (as I mentioned) she's a self-absorbed jerk, so that might have more to do with it.

Time will tell.

[Hurricane]

I hope you didn't feel picked on. I was just honestly curious as to the answer. Thanks for that.

Oh hell no. I'm deeply appreciative of the fact that you guys are talking to me about this stuff. It's something that's been roiling around in my brain as these issues have been in the public eye lately, and I haven't been able to reconcile it so this is very therapeutic.

Thank you.

- H

[Oniya]

Self-absorbed jerks tend to cause massive damage regardless of any other factor.  ;)  We've had to deal with a couple out this way.  Sorry that you had to, also.

[Trieste]

Sexuality itself is a complex issue that will continue to evolve over and over. To me, allowing same-sex marriage is not as complicated. It doesn't affect my marriage if Sue and Joan down the street get hitched. I think that making same-sex marriage laws about sexuality as a whole is spreading the issue and overcomplicating it.

However, I also feel that population growth itself is not important. In fact, I have made the personal decision not to reproduce; I would rather, if I ever do decide to have children, adopt or foster. While not passing judgement on those who do choose to have children, I would feel socially irresponsible adding more to our already-huge population.

I am not alone. I'm too lazy to grab the sources, but it's been shown that the more educated women are, the fewer children they decide to have, and that holds true for women in Africa, in Afghanistan, in the US, across all sorts of cultures. You can probably Google the source if you want more info.

On the other hand, some of the most stable family units I've known have been led by same-sex parents. I grew up with a girl who had two moms. She was the biological daughter of one mother (who got a gay male friend to donate sperm) and the adopted daughter of the other mother. She's one of the most well-adjusted people I know. On the other hand, it was unusual in my schools - all of them, and I went to several - for children of hetero couples to have both parents still at home. Divorces and separations are pretty common. So I think that the focus on one man, one woman, the focus on a mom and a dad to be the center of the family unit, has become somewhat outdated.

Those are my views, from my personal experience.

[Samael]

Yes, of course I realize that societal pressure might have been what was holding her back from her impulses.

Yes, I would prefer that she not do what she has done to our family which is essentially tear it apart.

But (as I mentioned) she's a self-absorbed jerk, so that might have more to do with it.

As someone who comes out of a family where my father was constantly replacing the last model with a new version, I can empathize.
I can also say that being a Jerk, like Oni mentions, has really nothing to do with sexual orientation, and just shows these people being inconsiderate idiots, no matter anything else.

That said, sorry that you had to deal with this stuff.
It's never fun to see your family being wrecked by a single person's behaviour.
I'm wishing you and your family the best.

[Hurricane]

As someone who comes out of a family where my father was constantly replacing the last model with a new version, I can empathize.
I can also say that being a Jerk, like Oni mentions, has really nothing to do with sexual orientation, and just shows these people being inconsiderate idiots, no matter anything else.

That said, sorry that you had to deal with this stuff.
It's never fun to see your family being wrecked by a single person's behaviour.
I'm wishing you and your family the best.

You are very kind, and I appreciate that a lot. :)

[Serephino]

My boyfriend's mom did the same thing.  She had 3 husbands and 3 kids before she brought home a woman.  It didn't really cause the trouble you describe...  And then shortly after I met him, 'Connie' traded 'Joy' in for a newer female model.  Although, I doubt the behavior has anything to do with sexuality.  Connie is just flat out a narcissist, and gets bored every few years.  We're waiting for 'Melissa' to get dumped because last time we went for a visit we could tell the interest was starting to fade.

There are definitely many factors in the decline of the birthrate.  One of them is modern medicine.  Couples had lots of kids to enure at least a few of them would survive to adulthood because of a high infant mortality rate.  It isn't necessary anymore.  The economy plays a huge roll too.  Why have a kid you can't afford to support?  I could go find a surrogate if I really wanted to, but we're barely scratching by as is. 

[Shjade]

It's already been said before, but I thought I'd boil this down to the core concept trying to be conveyed.

And that's the point - the more the social climate is permissive of that kind of behavior, the more people will engage in it.

This may be true. However, if the social climate is more restrictive of "that kind of behavior," that in no way impacts the likelihood of people engaging in its opposite.

Being less permissive of homosexual relationships may quash those relationships, but it will not cause people who are not attracted to the opposite sex to become attracted to the opposite sex. Reproductive efforts of a coital nature are unlikely to be affected by such policies either way.

In other words, while your point may be true, it is irrelevant to your argument.

[MasterMischief]

I do not think we are in danger of the human race dying out.  At least not from a declining birth rate.  In fact, with the pace we are using up resources, maybe we could use a declinging birth rate.  Aha!  Our survival depends on more childless marriages.  Gay marriages for everyone!

[Serephino]

The llama has a point...

[Bayushi]

Couples had lots of kids to enure at least a few of them would survive to adulthood because of a high infant mortality rate.  It isn't necessary anymore.  The economy plays a huge roll too.  Why have a kid you can't afford to support?  I could go find a surrogate if I really wanted to, but we're barely scratching by as is.

Couples largely had large numbers of children due to needing them to work and help support the family. Particularly in farming communities.

This is not nearly so necessary nowadays, with so much automation available to handle matters like harvesting crops.

I've thought on the topic a fair bit, and think I've come to a bit of a conclusion, personally: I don't hate or fear homosexuality, just many of it's practitioners. Especially the militant activist types.

Live and let live. People don't have to agree with you to have enough value to deserve at least common courtesy. Society has fallen far since the 1950s with the lack of civility and willingness to talk or debate (on either side). If your side is so correct, then you should be able to debate it, right? In no way is any debate settled, ever. Not in politics, not in the matter of homosexuality, not in Anthropogenic Climate Change, nothing. Science is not finite, and people are not either. Expect that there are always going to be people who disagree. Don't like it? Tough shit, we live in America (most of us here, anyway). It isn't illegal to have one's own opinion, yet.

[Shjade]

I do not think we are in danger of the human race dying out.  At least not from a declining birth rate.  In fact, with the pace we are using up resources, maybe we could use a declinging birth rate.  Aha!  Our survival depends on more childless marriages.  Gay marriages for everyone!

Can I just stay single and sexually inactive? Not really interested in a marriage of any flavor. :|

[MasterMischief]

Can I just stay single and sexually inactive? Not really interested in a marriage of any flavor. :|

Nope.  Sorry.  It is what is best for society or bust.  At least it seems that sort of morality is the new pink.

Honestly, I feel it is just grasping at straws.  Any excuse to maintain the status quo because change is scarey.

[ThinGirl00]

Well, I disagree with your girlfriend. I am against homosexuality but I am in no way homophobic. Over the years, I have had several gay friends. As the bible says, "hate the sin, love the sinner." While I might not agree with their choice of lifestyle, I am not going to condemn them for it either.

[Will]

What exactly does it mean to be "against" homosexuality?

[Bayushi]

What exactly does it mean to be "against" homosexuality?

The answer to that largely depends on who you are asking.

Fundamentalist Christians may be against homosexuality based on religious dogma (both Testaments).

For example:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

However, most who rely on this passage either stop reading (doubtful), or choose to ignore anything else. The next verse says:
1 Corinthians 6:11 - "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."


Then you have your straight up bigots. They hate homosexuality because they need a group or organization to blame everything on, instead of learning to take responsibility for one's own failings.

Of course, there are some bigoted people who have somewhat legitimate reasons to hate homosexuality and homosexuals base on past experience. Unfortunately, they are unable to distinguish between an individual and a group. Often times, gay rights activists inspire this hatred with their over-the-top methods and rhetoric.


Finally, there are those who just plain disagree with the practice of homosexuality, but tend to keep it to themselves. I've known a number of Libertarians like this: They don't like the thought of a dude buggering another dude, but they're not going to try and stop someone else from doing whatever they want (provided it's legal).


I'm sure there are other reasons why people may be against homosexuality, but these are the ones that come to mind.

[Will]

I know a lot of reasons why someone might be against homosexuality, but I'm more interested in what it actually means to be against it.  In practice.

Being "against homosexuality" has a negative effect regardless of whether you're out and in-your-face about it or not.  Even if you keep it to yourself and think you're being civil, that's one less person being vocal about equality.  That's one more person to justify every bigot who wants to maintain the status quo, who wants to make bad gay jokes and belittle others, who wants to discriminate against someone behind their back.

Is that homophobic?  I guess not, if you want to go by the roots of the word itself.  But playing semantics doesn't make silence any less harmful.  Whatever reason someone might have for being against homosexuality, it has an impact.  No matter how accommodating you might be, you are enabling those who want to deprive others of basic human equality.

[Samael]

Well, I disagree with your girlfriend. I am against homosexuality but I am in no way homophobic. Over the years, I have had several gay friends. As the bible says, "hate the sin, love the sinner." While I might not agree with their choice of lifestyle, I am not going to condemn them for it either.

Everytime someone says that, it grates on me.
There isn't any choice in that matter. And just because we have bi-sexuals that can go either way, doesn't mean that suddenly all gay people are having a choice in it as well. They have as little a choice as straight people do.
People don't suddenly decide "Hey, instead of this girl with big tits I've been into for the last few years, whose curves made me masturbate furiously, I'll now instead go for Greg McBeardude. Fuck yeah."

[vtboy]

I'm sure there are other reasons why people may be against homosexuality, but these are the ones that come to mind.

Gertrude Stein put her finger on another rason. She told Hemingway that there would always be more tolerance for female homosexuals than for male homosexuals because the sexual practices of the latter were more aesthetically unappealing.

Well, Gertie may have had her own biases on the subject.

[Torch]

Gertrude Stein put her finger on another rason. She told Hemingway that there would always be more tolerance for female homosexuals than for male homosexuals because the sexual practices of the latter were more aesthetically unappealing.

No offense to Gertrude Stein, but I'd much rather watch the two hot guys in my avatar get it on than watch her and Alice Toklas knock boots.  ::)

[vtboy]

No offense to Gertrude Stein, but I'd much rather watch the two hot guys in my avatar get it on than watch her and Alice Toklas knock boots.  ::)

Wel, I'm sure Gertie would accept the adage about exceptions proving the rule. How would you feel about watching former Senator Larry Craig and Representative Barney Frank?

[Torch]

Wel, I'm sure Gertie would accept the adage about exceptions proving the rule. How would you feel about watching former Senator Larry Craig and Representative Barney Frank?

That would be equally aesthetically unappealing. I did say two hot guys. :P

In theory though, she's correct. Just look at the adult film industry. Even though their target audience is straight men (or couples), almost every mainstream adult film, without exception, has a lesbian or F/F scene.

Just try and find an M/M scene in the same type of film. Answer: You can't. Gay or M/M scenes are only found in gay porn, or films that cater to a niche market.

In many folks' minds, lesbian sex is hot....gay sex is not.

[RedEve]

My question is: Being against homosexuality is/should be considered homophobia or not? You know my point of view, I'd like to know yours and your arguments. This is not a discussion about how right or wrong are homophobia and homosexuality, (I'm against the first and I have no issues with the second) I just want to discuss to what extent being against homosexuality is or isn't homophobic.

Being against homosexuality is by definition irrational. It has always existed, as long as humanity has been around.
You might as well be against the sun rising in the East. So to me the origin of that aversion (religious in nature or not) does not factor into it.

[Trieste]

People don't suddenly decide "Hey, instead of this girl with big tits I've been into for the last few years, whose curves made me masturbate furiously, I'll now instead go for Greg McBeardude. Fuck yeah."

AGH water up the nose! Samael! *dies*

[RedEve]

People don't suddenly decide "Hey, instead of this girl with big tits I've been into for the last few years, whose curves made me masturbate furiously, I'll now instead go for Greg McBeardude. Fuck yeah."

You laugh, but I have known people who found out they were gay through porn. :P
In that, after months (or even years) of watching girl-on-boy porn, they had to admit to themselves that it was actually the guy that got them off.

[Samael]

AGH water up the nose! Samael! *dies*

Isn't that the most burrrning sensation ever? ;)
I hate when that happens *grins*

You laugh, but I have known people who found out they were gay through porn. :P
In that, after months (or even years) of watching girl-on-boy porn, they had to admit to themselves that it was actually the guy that got them off.

I think it's simply because people don't start being 100% sure "yep, I am X." Or "Yep, I am Y." Often it's a rocky road to actually accept facets about yourself, especially when it comes to sexuality, because no one wants to be "different from the norm", due to the stigmata associated with it.
But, I think it really comes down that it's just not a clear cut thing.
Took me ages to accept my bi-sexuality.

[Shjade]

Took me ages to accept my bi-sexuality.

If you think that was hard, wait until you find out you're actually tri-sexual in about four years.

I don't envy you the acclimation period on that one!

[Samael]

If you think that was hard, wait until you find out you're actually tri-sexual in about four years.

I don't envy you the acclimation period on that one!

Trisexual \ˈtrī-sek-sh(ə-)wəl \ A person who has absolutely no sexual preference and readily partakes in all forms of sexual perversion. The "tri" of course is the fact that a trisexual's attraction (although gender blind) ranges from human, animal, or inanimate object. Live, dead, or grotesquely disfigured/unattractive --it doesn't matter in the eyes of a trisexual. They have an "If it feels good --do it" philosophy when it comes to fulfilling their sexual needs.

Well, damn.

[TheGlyphstone]

I thought that was called Harknessexual... :D

[Sabre]

In theory though, she's correct. Just look at the adult film industry. Even though their target audience is straight men (or couples), almost every mainstream adult film, without exception, has a lesbian or F/F scene.

Is that their target audience?  I think it is more useful to be specific - their target audience is (mostly) straight men who are willing to pay for these films.  This demographic, thus, is considerably smaller than a more comprehensive audience like straight men in general.  Homosexuality, however, is not what is being marketed and sold with lesbian scenes.  Most of them are as fake and ridiculous as straight scenes.  Gertrude Stein was right in one way, the feminine form is more pleasing to straight men (who are willing to pay for porn).  I doubt as a lesbian she speaks without an obvious bias in that choice, though.

Food for thought - T.V. dramas and serials, and romance novels.  How prevalent are M/M relationships and scenes in them?  In the last few I've watched, "The Wire", "Tudors", "Rome", "Spartacus", and so on, there always seems to be a token gay couple.  What is the target demographic of T.V. and romance novels?

Women.  Specifically housewives with the free time to watch these shows as they air or younger women with the income to spend on buying subscriptions/books.

[Rinzler]

Trisexual \ˈtrī-sek-sh(ə-)wəl \ A person who has absolutely no sexual preference and readily partakes in all forms of sexual perversion. The "tri" of course is the fact that a trisexual's attraction (although gender blind) ranges from human, animal, or inanimate object. Live, dead, or grotesquely disfigured/unattractive --it doesn't matter in the eyes of a trisexual. They have an "If it feels good --do it" philosophy when it comes to fulfilling their sexual needs.

Well, damn.

Do they call it 'tri-sexual' cos it involves tri-ing pretty much anything, then?

[Torch]

Is that their target audience?  I think it is more useful to be specific - their target audience is (mostly) straight men who are willing to pay for these films.

I'm not sure I see your point. The target consumers of any commodity or good or service are those who are willing to pay for it. Such specificity does not need to be stated so obviously. I highly doubt anyone would say "The target consumers for cosmetics are women who are willing to pay for them." or "The target audience for the Twilight series are tween girls who are willing to pay to see the movies or read the books." You are picking unnecessary nits.

Food for thought - T.V. dramas and serials, and romance novels.  How prevalent are M/M relationships and scenes in them?  In the last few I've watched, "The Wire", "Tudors", "Rome", "Spartacus", and so on, there always seems to be a token gay couple.  What is the target demographic of T.V. and romance novels?

Women.  Specifically housewives with the free time to watch these shows as they air or younger women with the income to spend on buying subscriptions/books.

The only thing I would disagree with is your supposition that the target audience of "The Wire" are housewives. I'm sure that would be news to the producers of the series and the distributors of the show in syndication.

In any event, one of the fastest growing segments of fiction is M/M romance or erotica. A majority of the authors of this genre are women, and the majority of the readers and purchasers are also women. Straight women.

[Singularity]

If one considers homosexuality or any sexual orientation to be morally wrong, then one is free to not practice that orientation and to not associate with gays/lesbians/etc. in optional social circles. You may as well stick your head right into a sand dune but there's nothing inherently reprehensible about this outlook.

However any and all belief which prompts one to address a homosexual individual on matters not pertaining to sex differently than a hetero is bigoted. Any and all belief which prompts one to take an action that might affect the life of a homosexual individual negatively because they are gay/lesbian/etc. is repugnant.

Speaking as someone who is straight as a picket fence.[/font]

[Sabre]

I'm not sure I see your point. The target consumers of any commodity or good or service are those who are willing to pay for it. Such specificity does not need to be stated so obviously. I highly doubt anyone would say "The target consumers for cosmetics are women who are willing to pay for them." or "The target audience for the Twilight series are tween girls who are willing to pay to see the movies or read the books." You are picking unnecessary nits.

Anyone who are not producers and directors that are following demand at least.  The distinction is somewhat important to the issue of F/F scenes in porn films, and perhaps of the utmost importance to the porn industry in general as they face the crisis of internet piracy and digital distribution.  The reason I brought it up is just to point out that this is pornography we are still dealing with, and the reason these scenes exist is because of the men willing to pay (i.e. having involuted posturing) to be titillated by what they already know: boobs and pussy are hot, yo.  Basically, I would change:

"Even though their target audience is straight men (or couples), almost every mainstream adult film, without exception, has a lesbian or F/F scene."

to

"Because their target audience is straight men (or couples), almost every mainstream adult film, without exception, has a lesbian or F/F scene."

But that this makes F/F more acceptable than M/M isn't clear.  Especially when the now massive MILF and 'amateur' sector is practically bereft of F/F (but plenty of webcam masturbation).  Personally, I think the only reason Ms. Stein would come to the conclusion was because in her time women were still an untapped and mostly subservient pool of consumers unable to affect demand in a male-dominated world of 40's porn. 

The only thing I would disagree with is your supposition that the target audience of "The Wire" are housewives. I'm sure that would be news to the producers of the series and the distributors of the show in syndication.

I'd disagree, too, and I only meant to say the major proportion of T.V. viewership is made up of women.  But it wouldn't be news to the producers - after all, they were constantly fearing they'd have to cancel the brilliant show due to lack of viewers despite the glowing reviews and all-star BET lineup.  Interestingly, one can compare the lack of popularity of 'The Wire' with 'Desperate Housewives' (which incidentally also got a gay couple later on).

In any event, one of the fastest growing segments of fiction is M/M romance or erotica. A majority of the authors of this genre are women, and the majority of the readers and purchasers are also women. Straight women.

Exactly.  Which brings us back to Stein's point about which is more acceptable.  Men like women with squishy jubblies and some wouldn't have scruples about seeing them pushed against another set.  Women like men with depth of emotion and infatuation and some wouldn't have scruples about seeing that matched with another man to see it (which is the reason slash fandom for male characters who are officially not together in their universes is so popular among female fans I think).  I don't think either is seen as more or less acceptable as a whole, but among certain audiences one can prove better masturbation aid than the other.

[HockeyGod]

If one considers homosexuality or any sexual orientation to be morally wrong, then one is free to not practice that orientation and to not associate with gays/lesbians/etc. in optional social circles. You may as well stick your head right into a sand dune but there's nothing inherently reprehensible about this outlook.

However any and all belief which prompts one to address a homosexual individual on matters not pertaining to sex differently than a hetero is bigoted. Any and all belief which prompts one to take an action that might affect the life of a homosexual individual negatively because they are gay/lesbian/etc. is repugnant.

Speaking as someone who is straight as a picket fence.

Hypothetically, if I were to say that I consider being Jewish to be morally wrong, is there nothing morally reprehensible about this statement? What if I were to say that I don't like people who are black? I don't mean to push back because I agree with your following statement regarding repugnance.

I believe the crux of this entire argument rests in the fact that contrary to research and the testimony of millions of lesbians, gays and bisexuals, some individuals still consider LGB to be a "chosen lifestyle." As if people would willingly "choose" to be considered deviants by a large number of people. We excuse people's ignorance of LGB individuals because they don't believe in the lifestyle. There are very few arguments that can be made to dissuade people that have this belief.

I stand by my statement strongly that if a person is "against homosexuality" that they are homophobic just as a person who is "against blacks" is racist or a person who is "against Jews" is anti-semitic. With that said, there are a number of racists and anti-semites that would never harm someone of a different race or a person who is Jewish. That doesn't mean they are free from being labeled as such.

[Singularity]

If any friend of mine were to declare that they do not like gays, I would instruct them to keep that to themselves and only themselves if they wished to remain friends.

That's my outlook.

[Shjade]

I stand by my statement strongly that if a person is "against homosexuality" that they are homophobic just as a person who is "against blacks" is racist or a person who is "against Jews" is anti-semitic.

I don't understand. If someone "against blacks" is racist, and someone "against Jews" is anti-semitic (semitist?), why is someone "against homosexuality" homophobic instead of, say, homosexualist?

Where does the "phobic" come from here?

[Haloriel]

Hmm.  Good point.  Being against something, or in disagreement with a set of actions could have absolutely nothing to do with the actual use of the word 'phobia' which, I personally think is tossed around just a bit too much.

[Sabre]

I don't understand. If someone "against blacks" is racist, and someone "against Jews" is anti-semitic (semitist?), why is someone "against homosexuality" homophobic instead of, say, homosexualist?

Where does the "phobic" come from here?

Words usually capture the zeitgeist of the time they appear in.  Racism and Antisemitism are -ism terms born in the early 20th century when political and social theories were all over the place, and thus denoted a belief that affected political stances and scientific theories.

Homophobia, like homosexuality, was developed during a time where pop psychology was all the rage, and where everything was beginning to be defined in terms that reflected this.  So as homosexuality was being de-listed as a mental disorder, homophobia was taken up as a term to refer to detractors in the same manner.


Today the zeitgeist is about choice and genetic predisposition - thus the issue with using the phrase 'lifestyle choice' and the arguments appealing to evolutionary biology, the mental health of repression, and the nature-vs-nurture arguments involving young homosexuals.  And of course we're finally right, until the next philosophical shift in popular discourse that is.

[Shjade]

Even if it's a link to pop psychology, why "phobia?" Sure, it definitely applies to some people - the proverbial hostile closeted individuals lashing out at those who represent something they're denying about themselves - fine, okay. But there are also people who hate homosexuals in the same way that some hate blacks/asians/etc.: they're not afraid that, deep down inside, they're black, too. They just hate. Maybe sometimes that's derived from fear, but I'd wager it's more often simply how they were raised ("These people are different from you. You're better than they are." And so on.).

I find it hard to believe the only applicable "pop psychology" term for this has to be one linked to fear. Isn't there some scientific name for rage that would've fit better, if that was the reasoning for the term's development?

Edit: Weird that there doesn't seem to be an equivalent Greek term used for rage/anger in psychology; apparently they just use "rage" and "anger." Hunh...

[Sabre]

Well, the term originally was used to refer to an irrational fear of being thought homosexual by others.  Around the 70's and 80's the term really took off when gay activism de-radicalized to shift their polemic from revolutionary terms to demands for normalcy in public and judicial matters.  With that drive for normalcy came the need to combat detractors, and the most useful ad hominem was thus a term that denoted irrationality and social abnormality - you wanted to be normal, and a phobia was anything but.

Edit: Weird that there doesn't seem to be an equivalent Greek term used for rage/anger in psychology; apparently they just use "rage" and "anger." Hunh...

Rabies was already taken when they started dishing out new terms for mental disorders.  Rage/anger however has currency as everyday words, whereas a Greek or Latin name for a disorder is automatically negative (and thus useful).  It's why the phrase was almost instantly adopted and very rarely applied self-willingly on oneself whereas 'racist' took several decades to turn sour and derogatory in the eyes of the general public (when an -ism was all the rage).

[HockeyGod]

I don't understand. If someone "against blacks" is racist, and someone "against Jews" is anti-semitic (semitist?), why is someone "against homosexuality" homophobic instead of, say, homosexualist?

Where does the "phobic" come from here?

Per the Merriam-Webster, the definition of homophobia includes three separate components:

Irrational fear of...aversion to...and/or...discriminates against.

The definition has evolved to mean more than fear.

[athenaspupil]

what i would really like to know is how this conversation got started. I mean did your mother randomly blurt out a gay slur or did the conversation naturally go to that topic and your mother was just voicing her opinion on it.

[YaoiRolePlay]

I think phobia has been used because people really were afraid of homosexuals. At least in the 20th century. And many people still are. Take a look at things like Boys Beware People believed that the word homosexual was the same thing as the word pedophile. Thus fear. Fear is a very strong motivator. It's played a huge role in the massive history of humanity. Thus when you associate homosexual with pedophile creating fear, you get a more effective response of people hating homosexuality.

Homophobia came out of this context from gay communities at the time because people really were afraid of homosexuals. But the word has evolved to mean intolerant in the same way the word racist means intolerant. The word stuck.

[Rhapsody]

"Even though their target audience is straight men (or couples), almost every mainstream adult film, without exception, has a lesbian or F/F scene."

to

"Because their target audience is straight men (or couples), almost every mainstream adult film, without exception, has a lesbian or F/F scene."

But that this makes F/F more acceptable than M/M isn't clear.  Especially when the now massive MILF and 'amateur' sector is practically bereft of F/F (but plenty of webcam masturbation).  Personally, I think the only reason Ms. Stein would come to the conclusion was because in her time women were still an untapped and mostly subservient pool of consumers unable to affect demand in a male-dominated world of 40's porn. 

It's still more or less untapped, though they've been slowly realizing women watch porn too. I'm still waiting for them to make a porn that appeals to me as an individual. As a couple, most any porn will do, but I'm pickier about what I watch solo.

[Etah dna Evol]

Dear OP, semantics aside: yes.

[Sophronius]

While I'm sure it's not the case, the use of the term "-phobia" when describing prejudice against homosexuals does make a certain degree of sense when compared with racist language.  When one looks at the main trends in racist rhetoric, there tends to be a mixture of fear and of a sense of biological superiority - Jews are weak and cowardly, but control all the money and are cunning; blacks are slow and stupid, but are strong and will commit crimes against you; hispanics are lazy and can't speak English, but are taking away jobs (note: I don't agree with these views, but I'm trying to present a simplified version of the rhetoric normally associated with these groups).  While homophobic rhetoric tends to be more fear based than to argue any superiority - gays are destroying marriage or gays are corrupting/converting the youth - and when homophobic rhetoric does touch on the issue of superiority, it tends to be a religiously based superiority and since religiously based superiority from these groups are not only targeted at homosexuals but also at those who support civil liberties for homosexuals and against completely unrelated groups (i.e. people who are of other religions, atheists, people who don't care about church, people who decry censorship, etc.) it does not seem so special or problematic when targeted at homosexuals.

Of course, that fear implies a sense of superiority (what makes heterosexual life so special that it needs protecting?), but it does not directly state it.  This may also be a result of the times - racism was largely a concern of politics 50-60 years ago and it was deemed more socially acceptable (in parts of the country) to say things like "Whites are superior to Blacks" whereas homosexual rights and homophobia have been more in issue starting only about 35 years ago, after the civil rights movement and after it stopped being socially acceptable to state, on the national stages, one group's inate superiority to another (just a theory).  On the other hand, words and language evolves, so it's really not a big deal.

[Etah dna Evol]

Homophobe, while not entirely semantically accurate simply implies that the hate of homosexuals comes from a place to be fear. I have often found to be true.

[Shjade]

Homophobe, while not entirely semantically accurate simply implies that the hate of homosexuals comes from a place to be fear. I have often found to be true.

Being against homosexuality != hate of homosexuals.

[Will]

Being against homosexuality != hate of homosexuals.

Is there a practical difference?  That whole "hate the sin, not the sinner" trope wears a little thin, especially when the "sin" is something that makes up a fundamental part of who you are.

[Trieste]

It wears thin enough that you can see the bullshit behind it, even.

If you are against homosexuality. If you honestly believe that someone else's lifestyle that doesn't do any harm whatsoever in itself is somehow 'wrong', I think you need to take a look at your life and figure out what is so miserable that you feel the need to dictate others'. It is sincerely no one else's business what any man or woman does with their affections and their genitals (with another consenting adult blah blah blah disclaimer).

[Shjade]

No, Will/Trieste, you're missing the point. You can be against something/think it's wrong without hating it.

I think speeding is wrong. I don't hate people who drive over the speed limit. I just think they shouldn't do it.

See how that works?

There's no need to make it such a personal ZOMG YOU MUST HAET IT thing. It's not a black and white issue. Plenty of room in-between for people who just don't like the idea/feel uncomfortable about it/are okay with it as long as they don't have to see or hear about it/etc.

Thus: being against homosexuality != hate of homosexuals.

[Will]

Speeding != being gay.  The being is the important part.

[Shjade]

The being is irrelevant, because it doesn't change the fact that someone doesn't have to hate someone else to disapprove of/dislike them.

[Will]

So we're down to a comparison of the meanings of hate/dislike?  I've always thought it was just a matter of degree, and thus, there's no real practical difference.

[Shjade]

The semantics are the only thing I'm arguing, yes. There's a pretty extreme practical difference between disliking a thing and hating it, despite how watered-down the word "hate" sometimes is these days.

There's a reason they're called "hate crimes" and not "dislike crimes," after all. People dislike all kinds of things. That's where preferences come from. Hate is on a whole different level.

[Trieste]

No, Will/Trieste, you're missing the point. You can be against something/think it's wrong without hating it.

I think speeding is wrong. I don't hate people who drive over the speed limit. I just think they shouldn't do it.

See how that works?

There's no need to make it such a personal ZOMG YOU MUST HAET IT thing. It's not a black and white issue. Plenty of room in-between for people who just don't like the idea/feel uncomfortable about it/are okay with it as long as they don't have to see or hear about it/etc.

Thus: being against homosexuality != hate of homosexuals.

I disagree.

How about... we not compare homosexuality to breaking the law, first of all? That would be good.

Second, just because you don't hate something with a fire-and-brimstone type of passion doesn't mean that "well, I just don't like the idea of those people" isn't a type of hate. It just means it's more subtle, more insidious, and more easy to try to justify.

[Shjade]

I disagree.

How about... we not compare homosexuality to breaking the law, first of all? That would be good.

Second, just because you don't hate something with a fire-and-brimstone type of passion doesn't mean that "well, I just don't like the idea of those people" isn't a type of hate. It just means it's more subtle, more insidious, and more easy to try to justify.

Random example was random. I was pointing out the reasoning behind assuming dislike equates hate; the specific example is irrelevant. I wasn't making any comparison between homosexuality and breaking the law. How about we not distract from the point?

Second, yes, it does. Disapproval is not a type of hate, even systemic disapproval. Condescension, prejudice, revulsion, disdain - these are all things it could be. Hate is that passion you're saying it doesn't need to have. It's that element that requires you to respond, to do something about what you're feeling. It's a powerful thing.

Further, I don't understand why there's such a need to equate dislike of an act with dislike of a people. I don't watch homosexual porn because I don't like it. Does that mean I hate homosexuals since, apparently, their sexual preference is all they are and thus disliking it means I am required to both dislike and, therefore, hate them?

Do you see how ridiculous this gets in a very short span of time?

While I'm thinking about it, when did homosexuality become some kind of sacrosanct concept? If I said something like, "I don't find black men attractive," I am highly doubtful anyone would accuse me of being racist because of it, yet saying "I don't find homosexuality attractive" is apparently a red flag of hate against gay people - an insidious, subtle red flag. Wait, what?

[Trieste]

It's not distracting from the point, it's pointing out that your comparison was thoughtless. Do I think you were trying to say homosexuality should be illegal? Hardly. But comparing it to a crime was, in a word, insensitive.

There is a difference between not being homosexual and being against homosexuality. Being against it implies an adversarial point of view, at which point one is essentially placing oneself against a group specifically because of their sexuality. You're right: homosexuals are more than their sexuality. However, that doesn't stop people from judging them based solely on their sexuality, and that is essentially the definition of homophobia; basing your opinion of someone on a small facet of their personality rather than because they're an ass, or because they're greedy, or because they're conniving - or avoiding them despite them being none of those things - is really a hateful thing to do.

[Shjade]

It's not distracting from the point, it's pointing out that your comparison was thoughtless. Do I think you were trying to say homosexuality should be illegal? Hardly. But comparing it to a crime was, in a word, insensitive.

So it's a good thing I wasn't comparing it to a crime, then. I was referring to "something," as noted immediately preceding the analogy: "You can be against something/think it's wrong without hating it." I then gave an example of thinking something is wrong without hating it, point being that whatever fills in the "something" doesn't matter as the same concept applies. There was no comparison to homosexuality there. You are seeing a slight of your own creation.

Yes, it outright states an adversarial position. The point I am trying to get across is that you can oppose a group without hating it. Given how much outrageous bullshit various churches have done in recent (and not so recent) years, it's easy to forget that, at its core, Christianity endorses that very thing: opposing those things which it espouses as being wrong without hating them in the process. It's just extremely unfortunate that so many who claim to be doing God's will etc. etc. utterly fail at making that distinction. Similarly, it's quite possible to have a negative opinion of some aspects of a person's life and actions without having that be the whole of your assessment of that person. (I might not like my friend's romantic choices, but he's still my friend.)

Judging a book by its cover isn't inherently a hateful action, either. It can be, certainly, but it can be motivated by other thought processes as well. If a jock doesn't pick a guy he only knows for being a bookworm first for his baseball team, it's probably not because he hates nerds; he probably just assumes the guy isn't any good at baseball. It's a near-baseless assumption to make and could be completely inaccurate, but it's not made out of hate for books or the people who love to read them. There are plenty of non-hateful idiotic assumptions people make about other people all the time based on tiny bits of information about them. Small-minded, shallow, petty, sure, but not evidence of hatred.

[Etah dna Evol]

If I as a white-ish person said aloud that I just disliked black people and don't approve of their lifestyle, I would definitely be prejudice (by definition). Disapproving of the gay lifestyle is similar. Arguing the semantics between hate and fear is like entering the special Olympics without a disability and losing anyway >_<

[Shjade]

If I as a white-ish person said aloud that I just disliked black people and don't approve of their lifestyle, I would definitely be prejudice (by definition). Disapproving of the gay lifestyle is similar. Arguing the semantics between hate and fear is like entering the special Olympics without a disability and losing anyway >_<

Sure. But would you definitely hate black people? Or are you just making judgments about them out of ignorance?

Your analogy is cute, but considering it's a thread that's pretty much all about defining words and their meanings, arguing semantics is basically the point, so...yeah. Very productive, that. (And who was arguing the difference between hate and fear, anyway?)

[Etah dna Evol]

The word prejudiced is semantically accurate

[Shjade]

The word prejudiced is semantically accurate

What does that have to do with you mocking arguing semantics?

[Etah dna Evol]

Arguing Semantics is a pejorative phrase for a reason. It means rather than dealing with the actual claim you are arguing about the verbiage of an otherwise understood phrase. It's a weak argument. So I changed the language of the claim to be just as clear and more semantically accurate.

[Shjade]

Arguing Semantics is a pejorative phrase for a reason. It means rather than dealing with the actual claim you are arguing about the verbiage of an otherwise understood phrase. It's a weak argument.

It's a weak argument unless the actual claim is the wording being used, in which case it is the entire point and calling it weak is just being unhelpful.

Liberal is also used as a pejorative phrase. That doesn't mean liberalism is actually a bad thing.

[Sophronius]

I think part of the problem is that there are two meanings of dislike that are being used by Shjade.  On the one hand there is dislike meaning something along the lines of do not enjoy participating in - as in "I do not enjoy tomatoes" meaning I do not want to paticipate in their cultivation and consumption without passing any value judgement on those who do.  On the other, there is the use of dislike that holds the connotation of active disapproval - "I don't like French culture" meaning I disapprove of the language, cuisine, and lifestyle of that group. 

Now, the problem is not that you, or anyone, does not want to participate in homosexuality - no one is saying you have to.  The problem comes when you associate wrongness with the act.  To imply that homosexuality is wrong is a form of bigotry.  You can argue that it is not a form of hate because it does not entail violence or passioate rhetoric, but I do not understand how saying "what you do is wrong and you should not do it" is not hateful when directed at someone's sexuality.  I'll note that why you did not say that explicitly, your disapproval of homosexuality does imply/necessitate that view.

The problem also comes from a false equivalency.  Being gay is not the equivalent of being a person who speeds.  First of all, homosexuality is not a choice, one does not choose to be gay, while one who chooses to speed speeds.  Now, you can argue that it is a choce to act on one's homosexuality, and you would be right.  But again, there is a fundamental difference between acting on the inate human need for romantic love and acting one the desire to drive above a safe speed.

In short, expressing disapproval of an trait like sexuality is, without hesitation, bigoted.  To simply assert that you do not want to participate in it is not (that is also a statement whose value I do not understand, since all heterosexuals feel that way) .

[vtboy]

Judging a book by its cover isn't inherently a hateful action, either. It can be, certainly, but it can be motivated by other thought processes as well. If a jock doesn't pick a guy he only knows for being a bookworm first for his baseball team, it's probably not because he hates nerds; he probably just assumes the guy isn't any good at baseball. It's a near-baseless assumption to make and could be completely inaccurate, but it's not made out of hate for books or the people who love to read them. There are plenty of non-hateful idiotic assumptions people make about other people all the time based on tiny bits of information about them. Small-minded, shallow, petty, sure, but not evidence of hatred.

Those involved in selecting baseball teams should never make "baseless" assumptions.

There is an important distinction, however, between the team manager who indulges an unreasoned assumption about the athletic talents of bookworms  and someone who is "against" homosexuality. The team manager has a personal interest in the outcome of the game.  It seems a far more dubious proposition, though, that someone who is against homosexuality is likely to be affected personally by what other people do with their sex organs. While both the manager and the person opposed to homosexuality may be laboring under unreasoned prejudices, it is only the the latter whose views are officious. In the absence of some personal stake (even a remote one), it is difficult to conceive of a situation where one's opposition to a thing is not the product of antipathy.

Being "against" something generally connotes more than merely eschewing personal participation. The term at least implies intolerance, and often an active or aggressive form of intolerance. Moreover, when the thing in issue is human behavior, the difference between disliking or hating the behavior and disliking or hating those who engage in it is often a nebulous one, especially when, as is so often the case, disapproval of the act becomes cause for oppression of the actor. It must be rather cold comfort for gays and lesbians that those who oppose legislation which would guarantee them equal civil rights or who would even criminalize their sexual practices, if given the chance, despise only the sin and not the sinners.

[Will]

Those involved in selecting baseball teams should never make "baseless" assumptions.

Rofl.

This all illustrates pretty well why analogies are a terrible way to debate.  No situation is exactly like another, and by trying to paint them as such, you assign connotations that have no business being assigned.  Then the discussion goes on a tangent as people point that fact out, and that gets debated ad nauseum.  Really, comparing homosexuality to speeding?  Trieste has already pointed out why that's bordering on (or wading knee deep into) offensive, and there are a number of other fundamental differences that have been explained as well.  And comparing sexual prejudice to picking a baseball team?  Now that is a cute analogy.  What could be more benign than picking a baseball team?  Random example is random, indeed.  Or is it?

Really, can we skip the analogies and just talk about the subject at hand? 

[Oniya]

And comparing sexual prejudice to picking a baseball team?  Now that is a cute analogy.  What could be more benign than picking a baseball team?  Random example is random, indeed.  Or is it?

Really, can we skip the analogies and just talk about the subject at hand?

Well, I have heard of describing someone whose sexuality is opposite to your own (particularly if they are also appealing to you, and therefore unavailable as a result) as 'playing for the other team'.  And then there's the talk about 'pitchers' and 'catchers'... ;D

[vtboy]

Rofl.

This all illustrates pretty well why analogies are a terrible way to debate.  No situation is exactly like another, and by trying to paint them as such, you assign connotations that have no business being assigned.  Then the discussion goes on a tangent as people point that fact out, and that gets debated ad nauseum.  Really, comparing homosexuality to speeding?  Trieste has already pointed out why that's bordering on (or wading knee deep into) offensive, and there are a number of other fundamental differences that have been explained as well.  And comparing sexual prejudice to picking a baseball team?  Now that is a cute analogy.  What could be more benign than picking a baseball team?  Random example is random, indeed.  Or is it?

Really, can we skip the analogies and just talk about the subject at hand?

Fair enough. My point was only this: since those who are "against" homosexuality do not appear to have a personal stake in the matter, there would seem to be little other than antipathy to explain their judgments about it.

[Suiko]

Speaking as a homosexual who has experienced (thankfully not a lot) of homophobic behaviour, I can say with some confidence that I think there is a definite difference between being 'against' homosexuals and being homophobic.

I have a few friends who are devout Catholics, so they disapprove of the relationships I have and we have argued occasionally about it. Despite this, we're still pretty good friends because there is no hate of me or my partner; I don't sit in front of them and flaunt how very gay I am, just like they don't sit and preach to me about how I'll apparently burn in Hell. They're against homosexuals and find it wrong, but they know they can't chance me and aren't threatened.

Compare that to a guy in a club who told me I was standing too close to him and that he didn't want to be touched by a fag. Its obvious which side is homophobic.

In my opinion, you can disapprove of something without completely hating; I disapprove of people who play obnoxiously loud music on the busses, but that's all. I don't get in a flap about it and complain and rage.

Basically, no; I don't think being against homosexuality makes you homophobic. In my experience, homophobes are cruel, sometimes violent because of one's sexuality... That's a lot different to just disagreeing with it.

Just my two cents.

[Shjade]

The problem also comes from a false equivalency.  Being gay is not the equivalent of being a person who speeds.

This all illustrates pretty well why analogies are a terrible way to debate.  No situation is exactly like another, and by trying to paint them as such, you assign connotations that have no business being assigned.  Then the discussion goes on a tangent as people point that fact out, and that gets debated ad nauseum.  Really, comparing homosexuality to speeding?  Trieste has already pointed out why that's bordering on (or wading knee deep into) offensive, and there are a number of other fundamental differences that have been explained as well.  And comparing sexual prejudice to picking a baseball team?  Now that is a cute analogy.  What could be more benign than picking a baseball team?  Random example is random, indeed.  Or is it?

Sigh. I give up trying to explain the leaps you folks keep insisting on making when they take you to places I haven't gone. If you want to insist on being obtuse, fine, have fun with that.

Speaking as a homosexual who has experienced (thankfully not a lot) of homophobic behaviour, I can say with some confidence that I think there is a definite difference between being 'against' homosexuals and being homophobic.

In my opinion, you can disapprove of something without completely hating; I disapprove of people who play obnoxiously loud music on the busses, but that's all. I don't get in a flap about it and complain and rage.

Thank you. Unfortunately you're going to be criticized by someone for "comparing homosexuality to music and public transportation" very soon, so get ready for that.  ::)

On a tangentially related note: I have no problem with homosexuality, either in theory or practice. My beef is with the position that there are apparently only two legitimate positions to be taken: supportive or hateful. It's just not that simplistic a subject.

[Will]

So you make leading statements in passing, and then get all bold and italic when people get upset about it?  Just because you didn't go there doesn't mean you didn't point the way.  We've made substantive points about your points, but all you can say is sigh...

[Shjade]

I get bold and italic when my first two or three explanations that you're completely missing the point are also missed completely. Had to get your attention somehow.

[vtboy]

Speaking as a homosexual who has experienced (thankfully not a lot) of homophobic behaviour, I can say with some confidence that I think there is a definite difference between being 'against' homosexuals and being homophobic.

I have a few friends who are devout Catholics, so they disapprove of the relationships I have and we have argued occasionally about it. Despite this, we're still pretty good friends because there is no hate of me or my partner; I don't sit in front of them and flaunt how very gay I am, just like they don't sit and preach to me about how I'll apparently burn in Hell. They're against homosexuals and find it wrong, but they know they can't chance me and aren't threatened.

Compare that to a guy in a club who told me I was standing too close to him and that he didn't want to be touched by a fag. Its obvious which side is homophobic.

In my opinion, you can disapprove of something without completely hating; I disapprove of people who play obnoxiously loud music on the busses, but that's all. I don't get in a flap about it and complain and rage.

Basically, no; I don't think being against homosexuality makes you homophobic. In my experience, homophobes are cruel, sometimes violent because of one's sexuality... That's a lot different to just disagreeing with it.

Just my two cents.

Let me preface what I'm about to say with the caution that I am in no way suggesting your devout Catholic friends do not love you or cherish the friendship. Human relationships are complicated things, and one can certainly love and admire a friend in spite of what one perceives to be the friend's faults. 

What I do question, though, is whether your friends' beliefs about the immorality of homosexuality is something more than mere dispassionate "disagreement". Must not your friends' beliefs necessarily lead them to consider you somehow less worthy than they would if you were a heterosexual? If your sexual orientation has no effect on their judgments about you, then what does it mean that they "disapprove of the relationships (you) have"? Is it really possible they do not think any the less of you for behavior they are convinced will, in God's good justice, lead to your eternal punishment? Is there not, at least, a touch of condescension in the hope they may persuade you to see the spiritual error of your ways?

The "antipathy" to which I've made reference in my posts expresses itself in violence and blatant cruelty against homosexuals only in what I hope are becoming increasingly rare instances. They are many other benchmarks on the antipathy spectrum, though. Opposition to legislation which would guarantee equal civil rights to homosexuals, in my view, is a less extreme variant of the same thing. Preaching it is evil to embrace one's sexual orientation is another.

[TheGlyphstone]

On a tangentially related note: I have no problem with homosexuality, either in theory or practice. My beef is with the position that there are apparently only two legitimate positions to be taken: supportive or hateful. It's just not that simplistic a subject.

Not to totally disrupt a fascinating argument with a tangent that makes me think about, but I'll do it anyways. What would one consider a person who personally disliked homosexuality for whatever reasons, but was still a dedicated backer of gay rights in a Voltaire-like sense of "I disapprove of what you sayare, but I will defend to the death your right to saybe it"?

[Trieste]

Not to totally disrupt a fascinating argument with a tangent that makes me think about, but I'll do it anyways. What would one consider a person who personally disliked homosexuality for whatever reasons, but was still a dedicated backer of gay rights in a Voltaire-like sense of "I disapprove of what you sayare, but I will defend to the death your right to saybe it"?

I believe we would call that person 'straight'. ::)

[Silverfyre]

Oh now that's just not fair, Trie.   :'(  (Yes, I know that was an attempt at humor or just snark).

I identify as "straight" but I have no problem with homosexuals, homosexuality or any other "alternative" sexualities or gender identification.  It's every person's right to identify as what they wish as far as I'm concerned.  What everyone else does with their sexual identity is their business, not mine.

[Trieste]

Sorry, I let my smartassery get away with me.  :P

That does demonstrate something, though.

My beef is with the position that there are apparently only two legitimate positions to be taken: supportive or hateful. It's just not that simplistic a subject.

There is also indifference. Or maybe looking at someone holistically. I suppose it depends on whether you consider homosexuality a choice (like, say, speeding) or an ingrained trait like race.

[TheGlyphstone]

Sorry, I let my smartassery get away with me.  :P

That does demonstrate something, though.
There is also indifference. Or maybe looking at someone holistically. I suppose it depends on whether you consider homosexuality a choice (like, say, speeding) or an ingrained trait like race.

That just reorients the issue onto different tracks, though- with the current cultural/sociopolitical landscape as it seems, considering it a "choice" is often inextricably linked to conservatives and the religious right as the "bad, anti-gay" perspective, and considering it an ingrained trait is the accepting and ''good" perspective. You occasionally see the most hardline religious zealots with a 'it's inherent' attitude, but I honestly can't think of any time that 'it's a choice, and good for them' is presented positively. No less either/or, just along different axis.

[Oniya]

I honestly can't think of any time that 'it's a choice, and good for them' is presented positively.

Slash-fiction?  ;)

[TheGlyphstone]

Slash-fiction?  ;)

Heck, not even then - most of the time, slashfics take the perspective of repressed true feelings rather than conscious decisions. :D

[Will]

Sorry, I let my smartassery get away with me.  :P

That does demonstrate something, though.
There is also indifference. Or maybe looking at someone holistically. I suppose it depends on whether you consider homosexuality a choice (like, say, speeding) or an ingrained trait like race.

I suppose I buy into the concept that "If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem."  Silence always benefits the status quo.  So even if a bigot never voices his or her views or bothers a single person, he or she is still complicit in the discrimination.  Call it whatever you want, but it seems hateful to me.

[vtboy]

Not to totally disrupt a fascinating argument with a tangent that makes me think about, but I'll do it anyways. What would one consider a person who personally disliked homosexuality for whatever reasons, but was still a dedicated backer of gay rights in a Voltaire-like sense of "I disapprove of what you sayare, but I will defend to the death your right to saybe it"?

Enlightened, in the classically liberal sense. 

Your example demonstrates that defense of the civil rights of homosexuals does not necessarily imply a favorable, or even an indifferent, disposition toward them. I think, however, that the converse is untrue, and that one may infer hostility toward homosexuals from a denial of their civil rights or from other oppressive conduct.

[Shjade]

I suppose I buy into the concept that "If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem."  Silence always benefits the status quo.  So even if a bigot never voices his or her views or bothers a single person, he or she is still complicit in the discrimination.  Call it whatever you want, but it seems hateful to me.

So from your point of view, anything toward which a person is indifferent is something they hate?

Man, talk about using a term loosely. I guess I hate lacrosse, pottery, Taoists and sudoku and never even knew it.

[Will]

Your indifference doesn't prevent lacrosse players from getting married.  See?  Here we go again with the analogies.

[Oniya]

Okay - by the 'if you're not part of the solution' theory, someone who is indifferent would technically be 'part of the problem' to both the DOMA crowd and the people fighting for gay marriage. 

DOMA:  "If you aren't fighting to preserve the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, which is somehow threatened by gay marriage, but not by divorce or adultery, then you are hostile towards heterosexual marriage, and blazing the trail towards allowing marriage to turtles and anime characters!"

Gay rights:  "If you aren't fighting to allow homosexuals to marry whoever they want to, then you are intolerant and want to force gays and lesbians into marriages of convenience so they can be screwed straight!"

Puzzled indifferent person:  "Dude, I'm just not fighting.  There's a lacrosse game on." 

(Yes, those were deliberately over the top.)

[Will]

I suppose I buy into the concept that "If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem."  Silence always benefits the status quo.  So even if a bigot never voices his or her views or bothers a single person, he or she is still complicit in the discrimination.  Call it whatever you want, but it seems hateful to me.

[Shjade]

Technically, Will, silence always benefits the vocal majority. It only benefits the status quo if the status quo has the greater support already; if those looking to overturn the status quo are the greater party, silence benefits them. This is the force behind the whole "First they came for the X, and I said nothing" bit. Silence can benefit change just as much.

Further, what you think of a silent party re: "part of the problem" has no bearing whatsoever on what they feel. In case my point isn't clear, the fact that you think someone with no comment on an issue is part of the problem by not participating in it in no way means that they feel anything about the issue, much less something as personal as hatred.

How it seems to you does not define what it is.

[Will]

Technically, Will, silence always benefits the vocal majority. It only benefits the status quo if the status quo has the greater support already; if those looking to overturn the status quo are the greater party, silence benefits them. This is the force behind the whole "First they came for the X, and I said nothing" bit. Silence can benefit change just as much.

Well then, if advocates for homosexual rights are the dominant party, why is gay marriage still disallowed in a majority of places?  Why are gay jokes and bullying still so prevalent everywhere?  I'm not just talking about in schools, either.  I have a hard time believing that we're the "greater party."

Further, what you think of a silent party re: "part of the problem" has no bearing whatsoever on what they feel. In case my point isn't clear, the fact that you think someone with no comment on an issue is part of the problem by not participating in it in no way means that they feel anything about the issue, much less something as personal as hatred.

How it seems to you does not define what it is.

My point is, and has always been, that there is no practical difference between the two.

[Shjade]

I didn't say advocates for homosexual rights are the dominant party. I was simply pointing out you're wrong, since you made a point of putting it in bold, and since that point of view seems to be the basis for your whole "everything that isn't on my side is hateful" argument.

There's a pretty big difference between not wanting to be involved with something at all on either side and actively working against it, much less actively working against it out of hatred. That you refuse to see any "practical" difference baffles me.

[Samael]

I don't want to make a new thread for this, so I'm putting it here.
Lincoln Nebraska proposed LGBT protection ordinance: Best In Show!
The guy behind her is completely losing it at several points.
Which is the only thing that made me laugh about this sad clip.

Edit:
Also

[vtboy]

Question: Is that Rick Santorum in drag?

[blknwhite11]

Lincoln, Nebraska LGBT hearing: the lady BEHIND hat lady has HER say too: she's wonderful

I would like to give this woman a standing ovation.

[MercyfulFate]

I didn't say advocates for homosexual rights are the dominant party. I was simply pointing out you're wrong, since you made a point of putting it in bold, and since that point of view seems to be the basis for your whole "everything that isn't on my side is hateful" argument.

There's a pretty big difference between not wanting to be involved with something at all on either side and actively working against it, much less actively working against it out of hatred. That you refuse to see any "practical" difference baffles me.

I hate even saying anything on this subject, because if you don't march lockstep with how it's said, you're automatically attacked. You're right though.

If I don't like seeing men making out on a billboard, am I a homophobe? No. Want to know why? I don't want to see ANYONE making out on a billboard, straight or gay.

My ultimate point is, homophobia is homophobia. It's just gotten to the point where everyone who isn't talking about gay rights all the time, is labeled a homophobe. Hell, I got attacked on another forum for being one for making an observation that I thought Ryan Gosling's character in Drive was gay.

If thinking someone is gay = homophobe, it's just damaging to gay rights. Homophobes don't care if you call them one, but calling people it erroneously instantly destroys your argument.

[Exelion]

I hate even saying anything on this subject, because if you don't march lockstep with how it's said, you're automatically attacked. You're right though.

If I don't like seeing men making out on a billboard, am I a homophobe? No. Want to know why? I don't want to see ANYONE making out on a billboard, straight or gay.

My ultimate point is, homophobia is homophobia. It's just gotten to the point where everyone who isn't talking about gay rights all the time, is labeled a homophobe. Hell, I got attacked on another forum for being one for making an observation that I thought Ryan Gosling's character in Drive was gay.

If thinking someone is gay = homophobe, it's just damaging to gay rights. Homophobes don't care if you call them one, but calling people it erroneously instantly destroys your argument.

Well yes and no. If you call a man in a movie gay because they dress nice, act mildly effeminate, or something like that...you're essentially feeding incorrect (and to some extent negative) stereotypes about homosexuality. Which could therefore be defined as homophobia. It's a fine line.

On the other hand...I do agree the term "homophobe" is improperly used almost as often as the term "gay". Almost.

[MercyfulFate]

Well yes and no. If you call a man in a movie gay because they dress nice, act mildly effeminate, or something like that...you're essentially feeding incorrect (and to some extent negative) stereotypes about homosexuality. Which could therefore be defined as homophobia. It's a fine line.

On the other hand...I do agree the term "homophobe" is improperly used almost as often as the term "gay". Almost.

Even if you're pointing out stereotypes, it's not really homophobic. Studies have shown for example, that gay men are generally identifiable by their face, and most would agree based on anecdotal evidence.

I live close to a town that has a large gay population, and you'll see the stereotypes every day. Not everyone fits them of course, but saying they don't exist is like saying a straight dude-bro frat guy doesn't walk around with a popped Abercrombie collar. It's just not honest.

[MasterMischief]

Yay for sexuality profiling!

[Oniya]

Even if you're pointing out stereotypes, it's not really homophobic. Studies have shown for example, that gay men are generally identifiable by their face, and most would agree based on anecdotal evidence.

I live close to a town that has a large gay population, and you'll see the stereotypes every day. Not everyone fits them of course, but saying they don't exist is like saying a straight dude-bro frat guy doesn't walk around with a popped Abercrombie collar. It's just not honest.

I'd like to see those studies.  They would have saved me a lot of time and energy back in college.

[Torch]

I'd like to see those studies.  They would have saved me a lot of time and energy back in college.

+1

[fireflights]

People in the media sometimes make the reverse kind of leap, they'll argue (completely openly or a bit below the surface) that "If you're denying what I say, or if you say my arguments (or my LGBT buddy's arguments) or my choice of loaded words don't hold water or could be used, in another context, for dubious ends, then you are really homophobic, that's what drives your arguments - why else would you be doing this petty arguing with me/with us?" The arguments that are under fire don't even have to be about LGBT issues as such, all it takes is that one or more of the people delivering the argument is LGBT or wants very badly to come across as pro-LGBT.

That's a gratifying way to bring your case today because argument and presentation of points of view in the media have become so personalized: it's often more important to cut an attractive figure than to present a valid argument, the message is heavily identified with the one who offers a face for it, and of course no one wants to make people think one might be a homophobe (or a misogynist).

It's also a way to make quick black headlines. You don't really have to show that your argument is sound anymore, all you have to do if you have a columnist position, a standing outlet for writing reviews or op-ed pieces or a decently read blog is to  show up how some figure your target audience won't like had trouble with what you said last week and start yelling this person's a homophobe. Or saying "we didn't get this story, or this show, or this take on things, widely noticed which proves the media or the general culture hates gay people". I have real issues with this kind of debating, because I think arguments in the public realm should be based on general principles that can apply to all of us, can be carried by all, and lines of argument that can be shown, tried and tested by anyone who so wishes essentially without bothering if they be straight or gay, male or female, native or immigrant, as long as they are honest. I want that kind of general validity aimed at in public argument, at least as a standard - certainly if it's ultimately about bringing in new legislation, or about how public authorities or public education should be working; that kind of thing shouldn't just be motivated by wanting to please this or that "identity group". But these days identity wooing seems to be the preferred way to drive support to your cause, or to get your stuff read.

Obviously one principle I regard as self-evident is that no one should be discriminated against for their gender or sexual orientation. But to me that doesn't have the corollary that gays are always morally superior or have outstanding valid demands on everything just because of their sexual orientation - that's part of the kind of argument pushing I'm thinking of. For instance, if a guy writes (this is one I saw in a paper here) that "doctors hate gays" because these docs have imposed a longer time of quarantine for blood donorship on self-avowed gays and lesbians who have been sexually active at a given time and want to give blood, that argument is bollocks to me,. the real reason for that kind of quarantine is to minimize the risk to those who would receive the blood from getting infected with STDs, especially HIV. And like it or not, the rates of some STDs, and certainly HIV, are much higher among gays and lesbians, outside of Africa, than among heteros, if other risk factors (substance abuse etc) don't enter the equation. So security overrides any need to take an "extra fair" stance to homosexual blood donors here. The argument "if your kid were in a car crash and they had to get fresh blood really fast, would you want to indulge your homophobia or would you want to see your child live?" isn't valid either. Once the blood has been donated it is not labeled as to what actual person gave it, everyone knows that. But to some people, the point that terms of security in use of the blood must come first seems to count as homophobic, because it hurts somebody's feelings, or somebody's need to feel on top.

I seriously wish there was a like button for this, because you totally hit the nail on the head here!

[Aethereal]

          I admit I did not read the thread, but I'm generally against the term "homophobia" as such, or at least the way it's often used. If someone has a crippling fear of members of their own sex because they fear they would force themselves on them, or they collapse in a panic attack from seeing a gay couple, then *that* is actual homophobia. Phobia is a medical condition, a pathological, irrational, crippling fear response, and I feel that "broadening" the term to include who are essentially just a bunch of assholes is beneficial to none.

         What most people seem to mean when using the word is bigotry, homointolerance, and a bunch of other things, but not phobia.

[Kythia]

          I admit I did not read the thread, but I'm generally against the term "homophobia" as such, or at least the way it's often used. If someone has a crippling fear of members of their own sex because they fear they would force themselves on them, or they collapse in a panic attack from seeing a gay couple, then *that* is actual homophobia. Phobia is a medical condition, a pathological, irrational, crippling fear response, and I feel that "broadening" the term to include who are essentially just a bunch of assholes is beneficial to none.

         What most people seem to mean when using the word is bigotry, homointolerance, and a bunch of other things, but not phobia.

That's not all phobia means. See xenophobia, for example. Words can mean more than one thing and I think you're just going to have to learn to live with that. Sorry.

[Aethereal]

That's not all phobia means. See xenophobia, for example. Words can mean more than one thing and I think you're just going to have to learn to live with that. Sorry.

I do not approve of that word, either, and I retain the right to not use it and promote alternatives. I am also of the opinion that language should move towards more nuances and stricter meanings rather than the opposite way around - having a dozen different words that mean the exact same thing in one use case but completely different things in other contexts only causes unintentional ambiguity and hinders people's ability to understand one another as intended.
       But that's a topic for another thread.

[Renegade Vile]

As many others seem to have stated, I don't think her stance on homosexuality immediately makes her homophobic. Homophobia is either a pathological disorder that, like many other phobias, are irrational and rooted in something that's not wired correctly upstairs; or it's an outright, personal aversion that can manifest in intolerance, discrimination or aggression. Neither of these I'm going to guess are what your mother exhibits or seems willing to, so I don't think she's homophobic. If she doesn't like homosexuality, she's well within her rights; so long as she does not attack people on the other end of the spectrum. You can't and shouldn't expect everyone to like everything, after all.

[Far eyes]

I dont think that is homophobic for that, but you could make the argument that she is on the way to it? Thing is if she is against it based on her religious beliefs then well thats just kind of a thing. Because thats a whole nother can of worms depending on how serious she is about it and what her flavor of it is. 

I would say she would make the step into homophobic if she actively did something against people, like say those idiots with the signs. I think the real question would be how she would react if say somebody of her family or close friends came out, that to me would actually be the point of 'decision' if you want to put it like that.

   

[Anteros]

I'll admit I don't even really understand the OP's question, perhaps because I don't associate the same ideas to the terms used as he does.
To me being against homosexuality involves an opposition, a condemnation, or a rejection of either the sexual orientation, the sexual identity, or the sexual behavior of gay people.

If my understanding of the idea is correct, then I don't see how it cannot be homophobic.
If I have a negative opinion of a core component of someone's identity, then I have a negative opinion of that person, don't I? Unless the trait I dislike is a harmful one, how is my negative opinion not prejudiced? And if my prejudice is against homosexuality, how is not homophobia?

[Renegade Vile]

I'll admit I don't even really understand the OP's question, perhaps because I don't associate the same ideas to the terms used as he does.
To me being against homosexuality involves an opposition, a condemnation, or a rejection of either the sexual orientation, the sexual identity, or the sexual behavior of gay people.

Those three things are in ever-increasing order of severity and precisely why it does not automatically imply homophobia. Opposition does not imply condemnation or rejection, in fact, it doesn't even mean she is opposed to it. I believe the original poster just said she doesn't like it. Without any more information, that might be all it is.

If my understanding of the idea is correct, then I don't see how it cannot be homophobic.
If I have a negative opinion of a core component of someone's identity, then I have a negative opinion of that person, don't I? Unless the trait I dislike is a harmful one, how is my negative opinion not prejudiced? And if my prejudice is against homosexuality, how is not homophobia?

Having a negative opinion does not instantly mean prejudice. It would be if she saw gay people in and of themselves as people to be reviled because of their homosexuality; meaning she would pass judgement on them based solely on their sexual orientation. Once again, we lack information so all we can assume is that she doesn't like homosexuality, but says nothing about the people themselves, just their orientation.

[Anteros]

Those three things are in ever-increasing order of severity and precisely why it does not automatically imply homophobia. Opposition does not imply condemnation or rejection, in fact, it doesn't even mean she is opposed to it. I believe the original poster just said she doesn't like it. Without any more information, that might be all it is.

Having a negative opinion does not instantly mean prejudice. It would be if she saw gay people in and of themselves as people to be reviled because of their homosexuality; meaning she would pass judgement on them based solely on their sexual orientation. Once again, we lack information so all we can assume is that she doesn't like homosexuality, but says nothing about the people themselves, just their orientation.

If it's merely not liking homosexuality, then there was indeed a lack of understanding of the meaning of the terms on my part. It's just that I see a difference when someone says "I don't like something" and "I'm against something". The second proposition seems to me implying going beyond merely feeling, and heading into ideology.
Nobody can ask someone else to like something or someone and as long as it is a matter of personal tastes and sensibilities without going as far as opposition, and if it doesn't result in harmful speech or acts it's probably not homophobia.

[Nachtmahr]

First of all, I think it's kind of interesting that this thread is now active after around 4 years.

Anyways, in literal terms, no. Being opposed to homosexuality for other reasons than an irrational fear of discomfort doesn't make you homophobic. The term has been adopted by many and is nowadays used as synonymous with anti-gay sentiments of any kind though.

[Oniya]

What's also kind of encouraging is the fact that since it was last active, this quote at least:

Well then, if advocates for homosexual rights are the dominant party, why is gay marriage still disallowed in a majority of places? 

has become obsolete.  Yay, progress!

[Lustful Bride]

has become obsolete.  Yay, progress!

YAY 'Murrica! :P

[Far eyes]

YAY 'Murrica! :P

http://satwcomic.com/red-white-and-rainbow-stripes

Thats the only thing i have :P

[Renegade Vile]

http://satwcomic.com/red-white-and-rainbow-stripes

Thats the only thing i have :P

Kind of a good way of illustrating how a lot of us Belgians, and possibly other Europeans, sometimes look at America...

[Far eyes]

Kind of a good way of illustrating how a lot of us Belgians, and possibly other Europeans, sometimes look at America...

America has this tendency of thinking it is the world, its partially what irks me about the brand of SJ thats cropping up it seems to willfully ignore and not want to deal with actual situations and instead spends its time going ballistic about bathrooms.
 

[Renegade Vile]

America has this tendency of thinking it is the world, its partially what irks me about the brand of SJ thats cropping up it seems to willfully ignore and not want to deal with actual situations and instead spends its time going ballistic about bathrooms.

Plenty of channels on YouTube discuss SJW activities far more elloquently than I ever could (Sargon of Akkad comes to mind), but indeed. More often than not, they are some of the most entitled nitpickers the world has ever seen, who actively seems to want us to take steps -back- in social development with their nonsense. But, that is entirely off-topic.
We just usually find it more funny how the US is rather boisterous when compared to Belgium, which tends to be low-key, as in the one guy waving the one flag.

[TaintedAndDelish]

America has this tendency of thinking it is the world, its partially what irks me about the brand of SJ thats cropping up it seems to willfully ignore and not want to deal with actual situations and instead spends its time going ballistic about bathrooms.

Ehm. Not all Americans are like that. That's a pretty broad brush and stinks of Donald Trump, Obama and some other embarrassingly outspoken Americans who do not represent the rest of us. We are diverse and come from many different countries. The only "native Americans" would be your native Indian tribes and they are certainly not the majority either.

[Renegade Vile]

Ehm. Not all Americans are like that. That's a pretty broad brush and stinks of Donald Trump, Obama and some other embarrassingly outspoken Americans who do not represent the rest of us. We are diverse and come from many different countries. The only "native Americans" would be your native Indian tribes and they are certainly not the majority either.

We know you're not all like that, they are most likely even a minority, but it's a public image that's caused some significant problems in the relations between Europe and the US, sadly.

[Far eyes]

We know you're not all like that, they are most likely even a minority, but it's a public image that's caused some significant problems in the relations between Europe and the US, sadly.

This prty much, its the prevailing image its a distorted one and i have enough friends in the US to know. But it is one that gets projected out a lot, sometimes by some well meaning people i am sure.

[TheGlyphstone]

I believe TVTropes would refer to this image as Eagleland Type 2.

[Renegade Vile]

I believe TVTropes would refer to this image as Eagleland Type 2.

In all fairness, a lot of Americans I've met are pretty lousy at geography *smirks teasingly*.

[Far eyes]

In all fairness, a lot of Americans I've met are pretty lousy at geography *smirks teasingly*.

There was a running joke here for a while that Serbia did not get bombed because nobody could find it

[Kythia]

In fairness, I'm European and if asked to point to Serbia on a map my answer would be preceded with finger circling and a "It's about....kinda...round here...ah, there we go"

[Far eyes]

In fairness, I'm European and if asked to point to Serbia on a map my answer would be preceded with finger circling and a "It's about....kinda...round here...ah, there we go"

Its a trick, we are making it smaller and more difficult to find. AHA! its a cunning plan!

[TaintedAndDelish]

In all fairness, a lot of Americans I've met are pretty lousy at geography *smirks teasingly*.

lol