I posted this on the other one, but here it is again.
First, let the record show that I personally am fully supportive of homosexuality.
Now, I realize that there are some people who have middling views on this. I'm talking about "Well, I don't think being gay is right, but I don't think you'll go to hell for it." If we define homophobia as hatred and aversion to gay people, then these people cannot be considered homophobic. However, one might argue that anybody who opposes gay marriage is homophobic because they are supporting a cause that would take a basic human right away from the gay community, and thus downgrading their status as human beings. If this is the case, one could conclude that although disagreeing doesn't make a person inherently homophobic, the vast majority of people who oppose homosexuality are homophobic.
Well, I don't think it has anything to do with any phobia - to most people, a homophobic means a person who has a hateful attitude towards homosexual people. I just don't like word phobia used in this context, it just doesn't fit. Real phobias are classified as psychological disorders, not opinions. If someone was homophobic, he/she would be actually very afraid of homosexual people, instead of being hateful.
I often believe that 'heterosexism' is a more appropriate term than 'homophobia' when one talks about discriminatory attitudes towards homosexuality. 'Homophobia' is more controversial because we might argue about what it means to be 'phobic' until the cows come home without actually addressing the social/political aspects and implications of the issue.
I feel like I'm a good example of my response (no).
I don't think that homosexuality is normal or "natural". I just don't really think it's right.
With that said, I have no problem with it. I've had plenty of friends (both male and female) who were gay.
I'm not hateful towards it in any way and, hell, if someone wants to be gay, let them be gay. I just personally don't think it's natural is all.
p.s. I know people misinterpret things so please don't come back at me with a retaliation for the "natural" quote. I'm simply adding an opinion.
p.s.s. The only thing that really bothers me about some homosexual persons is the flamboyant ones (ie. girls that act/dress like guys and guys that act/dress like girls). So you like the same sex, don't rub it in my face. I don't rub my heterosexuality in yours. ACT NORMAL AND BE GAY. problem?
If we want to discuss blatant homophobia (the vocal gaybashers, Westboro, etc.), even moderate people see that as unnecessarily judgmental and unnecessarily violent.
Usually the gray area revolves around people who would never kill or beat up someone themselves for being gay (nor openly tell others to do so) but still feel uncomfortable with gay people because it feels "unnatural" to them or they have been taught it to be a moral blemish in some way and thus "sin." I think there are more in that category, than in the extreme category. This is the area that people argue about whether the term "homophobia" applies.
The problem is that it can impact equal rights (such as the marriage issue), and personal disapproval/judgment of others even if one never acts on it openly still can contribute to an environment of persecution and oppression. Someone doesn't have to actually be forced to wear a scarlet H on their chest or to be beaten up to still be stigmatized by society and thus victimized socially and treated like a second-class citizen. it reminds me of the "religious tolerance" thing; one can tolerate people of other religions, but it doesn't mean they are being accepted or treated as equal human beings or actually loved as fellow human beings, and there's typically an underlying perception of them being the enemy and needing to be conquered/absorbed into the collective rather than engaged and celebrated as people.
I don't know an answer to that, per se.
As Facebook say, it's complicated.
I don't think that homosexuality is normal or "natural". I just don't really think it's right. With that said, I have no problem with it. I've had plenty of friends (both male and female) who were gay. I'm not hateful towards it in any way and, hell, if someone wants to be gay, let them be gay. I just personally don't think it's natural is all.
Not sure what your definition of "natural" is -- many species of animals indulge in gay behavior, by basic instinct rather than by choice, and we can actually create homosexual behavior through natural mechanisms in lab animals, we know and can detail what the actual biological pathways are from a hormonal standpoint... so it seems pretty "natural" to me because it appears in nature regularly -- but whatever.
Well I will say this but it is probably off the track.Recently our Government here in Australia voted for same sex marriage.It hasn't passed yet,but one of the politicians (ex PM Kevin Rudd)sister withdrew her membership of the ALP (Australian Labor Party) because of her brother's support of same sex marriage.How bloody homophobic is that?
Same sex marriage should be allowed. But no church should be forced to wed a gay couple if it is against their belief. That's pretty much how it works here in Sweden. The former state church allows it in principal but the local congregation can vote against it, and no priest is forced to carry out the ceremony. Everybody happy ; )
Doing so, and withdrawing support automatically gets you labeled as a homophobe, even if you love the people and never talk about them or harbor hatred.
no, it means you have a different definition of what is/is not sinful. homophobia is fear of homosexuals. it also doesn't mean you hate homosexuals, it means that you think they are sinful. for instance, you might feel the same way about a thief whose chooses you disagreed with, but admired for other qualities (maybe he is a supportive father or donates the money to starving children in Africa, or you might just like his personality)
there are basically 3 ways to view homosexuality in a negative light
1) a choice, and a choice that is wrong
2) not a choice to be attracted to the same sex, but still sinful if you partake in the act
3) homosexuality is not a choice, but those attracted to the same sex are sinning inherently just for being alive
You are comparing apples to oranges here. If you want to compare race to sexuality, then you should either compare:
1) racism to sexual orientation discrimination, or
2) homophobia to xenophobia
you can't really compare homophobia (what this thread is about) to racism...it just doesn't work
source: a dictionary
If homophobia means intense hatred and fear of homosexuals, then no, disagreeing with the status of homosexuality does not make one homophobic. This is because to disagree with the idea that homosexuality is right does not necessarily mean to hate or be afraid of a homosexual. It just simply means that you think that homosexuality is wrong based on some moral/religious doctrine.
That's all there is to it, really.
However, if by "disagree", you meant disagree with the idea that homosexuals should attain the right to marry, etc. Then, I guess that could be considered "hateful" (based on how you define it) and thus the person could be labeled homophobic.
Going to go with a big "yes" on this one. Being quiet about having bigoted beliefs doesn't make one any less of a bigot. And I don't see how "disagreeing" with homosexuality isn't bigoted. "Well I think the entire basis of your sexual identity is wrong and morally corrupt, but I don't HATE you as a person! What? Why are you calling me a bigot? Are you one of those political correctness Nazis?"
Factually speaking on the etymological meanings, no. If you're subjective enough you can probably convince yourself of the logic @lirulin stated, but you have to be willing to be subjective enough to use this logic:
Hateful Person = Racists = "I don't hate [blacks/whites/whatevers] but I disagree with being one"
Hateful Person = Homophobia = "I don't hate homosexuals but I disagree with being one"
Hateful Person = Opinionated Person = "I don't hate [democrats, republicans] but I disagree with being one"
Hateful Person = Vegetarian = "I don't hate omnivores but I disagree with being one"
Hateful Person = Domestic-Car-Driver = "I don't hate Import-Car-Drivers but I disagree with being one"
Essentially you're hateful if you have an opinion. The argument against this is "it depends on the situation," in which you go back to defining the exact terms instead of throwing out the meaning of the words.
I support homosexuality in just as many ways as I support heterosexuality: as long as it doesn't interfere with my life and how I wish to live it, people are free to express themselves in any manner they wish. The legal system should not be involved in either hetero or homosexual litigation, so in essence I support same sex marriage along with heterosexual marriage.
Discrimination: The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex. Racism: Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief. Homophobia: An extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people. Xenophobia: Intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries.
As you can see from the definitions: Homophobia and Xenophobia are alike in that there is either a fear or dislike of gay and race respectively but no action is taking against them. You can also see from the definitions that Racism and and Discrimination are alike in that there is action. From this, you can make the conclusion that xenophobia is a cause and racism is an effect. You can also see that homophobia is a cause and discrimination is the effect. Comparing homophobia to racism is comparing a cause to an unrelated effect. While comparing two dissimilar things can be done, it would hold no bearing in a debate. You would either need to compare the two effects or the two causes to have a valid argument.
Now on to something in your previous post: you stated that not agreeing with a certain ideal (in this case, homosexuality) would make you feel superior to those people (a bigot). You then went on to say that one who felt this way would have to "restrain themselves enough to not go out of their way to be a jerk to these people". While I agree that this is all very probable, I would disagree that this is always the case. This is the problem with thinking in terms of black and white; you ignore the grey.
I will use myself as an example. I do not agree with homosexuality; however, I also have no problem with someone else being a homosexual. I feel no superiority towards another person based off of their sexual preference because that is a very minute characteristic of their being.
I do, however, feel disdain for people who turn this minute detail into something that controls most of the actions of their life. This is not limited to homosexuals mind you. This can include transvestites and men whose every action is directed at getting laid; among other people.
I guess I just perceive more going on under the surface with homosexuality as the topic, than with other aversions.
For example, people could say, "getting a tattoo" or "getting piercings" are unnatural acts, but typically they do not. It's just considered a preference issue, and the person evaluating it might be turned off by them but not typically attach a moral "this is WRONG" stigma/vibe to the practice.
yet for some reason, even those homosexuals who are in long-term monogamous relationships will still be processed under the moral/unnatural vibe.
Tbh, if people were okay with it while not being into it, it wouldn't even be a topic of conversation. A couple could be in a same-sex relationship and people would just shrug, say, "that's not for me," and move on. But because it becomes an actual topic of conversation and people feel the need to regulate/hide/legislate it away, well, that suggests some stronger aversion and that it's not really acceptable.
I'd just like to take a moment to appreciate the fact that this entire thread has been about gay men only. Unless we're saying that cunnilingus is biologically hazardous. roud:
i guess i would vote "no", based on what i understand you mean by the definition of the two words. homophobic means that you are afraid of gay people. "disagreeing with homosexuality" i suppose means that you think it is wrong.
however, i don't think that you are understand what you are asking in a way, because it is impossible to "disagree" with homosexuality. it's like saying "i disagree that people are caucasian". what does that even mean?
i guess it's good though that you say you don't have a problem with people being homosexual though...you just think they're being liars, and i suppose you're saying you don't judge people who lie.
All semantics at this point. Either you take it literally and by definition, or you inject social opinion as to its meaning. Either way it seems some of us are going a little too far in making assumptions and judgements about each other...
I thought this was a discussion, not a "who's semantics are better" or a "lets judge those who don't agree with us as homophobic or ****-sympathetic."
true, we should not be judging each other period. but he's asking us to vote, and i'm not totally clear on what i'm voting on. so we've kind of got to understand what he means, and not assume we know what he means. i for one don't know how to take him literally. because i don't quite get what he's saying. how can he "disagree" with homosexuality when he says he doesn't judge people for being gay? i'm not trying to be difficult, i just don't quite get it. :s
Disagreeing with an identity is incoherent. It's the acts or ideas that people disagree with.
I don't think that religious folk really disagree with the identity of homosexuality; they disagree with the idea that the acts of homosexuality are morally right. It only makes them intolerant of the idea that homosexuality is right. That's it. It doesn't mean that they are intolerant of their rights as homosexuals. So to say that these individuals are bigoted is way off the mark because they are only intolerant of the idea that homosexuality is morally right, not intolerant of the homosexuals themselves.
Also, to say that one is hateful of homosexuals because they merely disagree with the idea is senseless. Homosexuality is one damn aspect of an individual. If someone steals a loaf of bread from me, I will say what they did is wrong, but, hell, that doesn't mean that I hate them. FFS
@progBOT I'm a type 3 as well so maybe I can try to explain where the others are coming from. Although I'm gay*, I'd never cross-dress because of how limiting it can be. I want to be successful and the only way to do that is to be as open to as many different people as possible. But not everyone is a type 3 and not everyone wants success in life. Some people just want to be comfortable with how they feel inside even if it does limit their options, because without being utterly and truly them they feel they're trapped. We 3's can be chameleons, so I try and look at people who are like that with admiration because they'll truly be more themself than we could ever comfortably be.
*And of course, this is just one of the many subsets of who I am.
It's all in the semantics, i.e. how you define "homophobia". If you define it as what the word actually means, fear and/or hatred of homosexuals, then no, "disagreeing" wouldn't be homophobia. However, if you define it as "thinking someone is morally wrong because of something that they cannot help [which some people would argue, but I would not]" then yes, to "disagree" with homosexually is the same as homophobia. That's why a lot of discussions on these "hot button issues" can get fairly heated very fast -- people don't define their terms, so the people arguing may be arguing about totally different things. This is especially true with terms that mean very different things to people with different world views, such as the word "homophobia".
I love how he is missing the point that it is homophobia and bigotry that makes it 'limiting' to be openly gay and not any other factor. Maybe people should be less homophobic so gay people wouldn't be limited when they are just not hiding their sexuality, their identity, just as straight people get to do everyday? WHAT A THOUGHT!!!!
People will be less homophobic, it just takes time. You can't blame a person for how they were raised and with more and more people accepting it for the non-issue that it is eventually society will follow suit. It's pointless to expect that change overnight, however.
Oh dear, I've been out of this discussion so long I missed the foray into crossdressing? Alas.
Note: I responded to all this, then got to the end of the thread and saw that progBot bailed on the discussion. NooOoooooOoo. But I already wrote my answers, so I'm posting them anyway, even if they shall never hear a cogent response! Cuz I just feel like it.
@progBOT: What does it mean to "dress like a man"? What does it mean to dress like a "woman"? Culturally it differs.
I do agree with your comment about letting one aspect too much define who one is... whether we're talking about sexual preference, or gender, or religion, or whatever else? We are more than male or female, straight or gay, tall or short, muslim or christian or whatever else, etc. we're people. I think we get out of whack when one traits defines everything about us. There are "general traits" like that about me that people can find fascinating, but I tell them that it's only part of who I am, and it's likely not the most interesting thing(s) about me.
I'm still not sure why you're identifying homosexuality with cross-dressing, though. The two are not the same. Drag queens are typically homosexual males, with male identities; but there are lots of gay people who don't wear cross-gendered clothing. It seems like a weird side-discussion; how many gay males crossdress to work? How many lesbians do? (And aside from wearing a suit with tie, can a lesbian even cross-dress effectively in this culture?)
Note: just saw your comment about being ESTJ. Okay. That explains some of the thinking patterns here.
I do appreciate you putting yourself out there clearly by saying this:
I feel like the people who are doing it because they can are being selfish. They want to be able to do something that offends a lot of people just because they can and don't want ridicule for it. They aren't thinking of the majority of people whom they are offending.
My response to that is, well, that's a pretty big assumption of their motives! I feel like the entire dialogue has been reduced to the flamboyant minority of gays that would indulge as you have said, but typically must gay people I've met, you wouldn't even be able to tell they're gay... at least, not until you find out who their SO is. And I'm talking gays in the professional sector here.
Anyway, still not sure how this discussion veered into the crossdressing tangent.
Getting back to the "gay" thing and homophobia, I think my earlier post hinted at what I can just say outright: Typically people done't feel the need to label certain tastes/preferences as "unnatural," and in fact it's common sarcastic humor to call someone's preference (like for a particular type of weird food) "unnatural" -- it just highlights that there is a moral component to the word "unnatural," it's not a neutral term.
Because if it's just a preference, with no moral stigma, why does the word "unnatural" have any value? unnatural is only used to justify labeling something as wrong/deficient "because it goes against nature and the way things SHOULD be."
I just really think that's a loaded word, and does not express a neutral/indifferent view, it has a lot packed into it.
I hate the term "common-sense", because it's anything but common. There are so many different life experiences and sometimes a person will miss things growing up that others didn't. When people are constantly questioning their intelligence, eventually they'll put up a wall that when someone genuinely tries to help them understand, they'll get defensive and refuse to listen. I get what you're saying and why you're frustrated, but you have to look at all the others who disagree as just as intelligent with different life experiences that haven't given them the complete picture. If you can treat someone with dignity they'll learn to respect you and your opinion and that's when you have the chance to mold their views.
You have every right to think that it's stupid. Just remember that once you say it out loud you've most likely lost an opportunity to make a difference where it counts.
I suggest you read up on the derailing/silencing tactic called the tone argument (link here: focusses on racism but applies to any bigotry). People aren't going to stop oppressing homosexuals/lesbians if they just asked more nicely. Seriously.
"An extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people."
Which pretty much answers the question. You can disagree with homosexuality and not be homophobic. Homophobic means you have "an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people."
Disagreeing with homosexuality is not homophobia in my opinion but discrimination and prejudice against homosexuals is. I support gay rights (being pansexual myself) and I think that just because you don't like it doesn't you can mistreat someone because of it.
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Personality Cafe
10.9M posts
165.6K members
Since 2008
A forum community dedicated to all ranges of personality types and people. Come join the discussion about health, behavior, care, testing, personality types, and more!