Being against homosexuality is homophobic?

[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.