• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Degrees of Feminism

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
Well, thanks for finding all those sources to prove my point, my friend. All of those definitions say "fear of" or "aversion to" which is, boiled down to it... fear. My point still stands. Not everyone who dislikes or disapproves homosexual behavior is a homophobe.

Did you miss the part where it said "or discrimination against?" Not to mention that disapproving of "homosexual behavior" counts both as aversion and discrimination.
 

Engineer

Dependable Skeleton
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
625
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I don't think that the term "homophobia" is restricted simply to that literal definition of fear of gay people. It has come to be the representative term for a variety of anti-gay positions, and I believe being anti-gay marriage would qualify as a homophobic position.

I suppose one would only argue that it is NOT homophobic IF they thought that some anti-gay marriage positions were defensible. Hence your example with the color red. If you really think that your example is analogous to the gay marriage issue, then you must think that anti-gay marriage positions are as understandable and acceptable as someone preferring another color.

You are aware that being friends with and enjoying the company of gays does not mean that someone is not homophobic, right? I've known a couple of people, for instance, that have gay friends and acquaintances but who, when asked about gay political issues, would say something heinous like, "I have no problem with them personally, but I just don't want their type of lifestyle to be shoved down my throat."

I wouldn't really jump to heinous. I'm more of a "can't we all just get along" type person, so if that's their opinion, well they're damn well entitled to it. Honestly, though, I guess I could see where they're coming from... I know if I was all like "I'm a straight white male, look at how straight, white, and awesome I am," well... Nobody would like me very much. I don't think anyone likes having culture shoved down their throat, and I'd say that in a perfect world, no one should have to experience that, either. I'm certain homosexuals are just as tired of having straight culture shoved down their throats. But just because people disagree with you doesn't mean you get to throw around epithets. The person who calls a homosexual a "fag" is just as bad in my eyes as someone who calls a person who doesn't care for the gay lifestyle a "homophobe". They're both epithets, and they're both pretty terrible.

Free and open discussion of ideas without resorting to schoolyard insults. If only that actually worked.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
There is a big difference between disagreement and condemnation, as anyone who has been on the receiving end of prejudice can attest. Perhaps we should just dispense with terms like "racist", "anti-Semite", "bigot", and "chauvinist" as well. Trouble is, they actually mean something, as does homophobe. And yes, what they mean is indeed terrible. "Fag", on the other hand, is just a meaningless insult.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I suppose one would only argue that it is NOT homophobic IF they thought that some anti-gay marriage positions were defensible. Hence your example with the color red. If you really think that your example is analogous to the gay marriage issue, then you must think that anti-gay marriage positions are as understandable and acceptable as someone preferring another color.

I don't know where you are coming from on this, but the experience I had within the evangelical Christian world WAS that there were quite a number who didn't necessarily WANT to say gays were going to hell but that they HAD to say it because that's what they believed the Bible said. And I've talked to so many who really seemed to not care one way or the other about gays on their own, but had what they felt was a logical argument that said it had to be wrong, so therefore it was. Yes, I met some raging homophobes too, but they were only part of the crowd.

Basically, the premises of their faith -- how they read the Bible, how they believed that had to interpret the text, led them to conclusion that homosexuality was a lie and false to God and thus had to be opposed, even if they personally didn't care either way.

I have trouble calling that "homophobia." I might call it ignorance or misunderstanding, since I don't read the text or place the same emphasis on it that they do, but I wouldn't call it homophobia.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
I wouldn't really jump to heinous. I'm more of a "can't we all just get along" type person, so if that's their opinion, well they're damn well entitled to it.

They're entitled to their opinion insofar as no repressive institution is allowed to stop them thinking a certain way. That doesn't mean that they're opinion must be respected or that it's as worthy of respect as other opinions.

Honestly, though, I guess I could see where they're coming from... I know if I was all like "I'm a straight white male, look at how straight, white, and awesome I am," well... Nobody would like me very much.

If a gay person acts that way (and I doubt that many do), then it's because they're asserting their identity in reaction to oppressive social and political structures that seek (and have sought) to repress them. If you went around and said, "I'm a straight white male, look at how straight, white, and awesome I am," it wouldn't make any sense.

I don't think anyone likes having culture shoved down their throat, and I'd say that in a perfect world, no one should have to experience that, either. I'm certain homosexuals are just as tired of having straight culture shoved down their throats.

There are several problems with this statement.

1. What does it mean to have culture shoved down one's throat? Visibility? Presence?

2. If you say that homosexuals probably don't like having "straight culture" shoved down their throats, and yet (by what I imagine you mean by "shoving culture down throats") it is - both by virtue of there being a heterosexual majority AND by structural discrimination against gays - then wouldn't it be hypocritical for straight people to complain about "gay culture" being shoved down their throats? That's like a child who always gets his way complaining about the few times he didn't.

3. What is meant by "gay culture" and "straight culture?"

But just because people disagree with you doesn't mean you get to throw around epithets.

No, but you can call it what it is.

The person who calls a homosexual a "fag" is just as bad in my eyes as someone who calls a person who doesn't care for the gay lifestyle a "homophobe". They're both epithets, and they're both pretty terrible.

Those are not equivalent.

Free and open discussion of ideas without resorting to schoolyard insults. If only that actually worked.

I think the problem with the whole "I'm against the gay lifestyle" position is that there is really no discussion to be had. It is a fundamentally intolerant position. It's one thing to say that "well, I don't personally prefer my own sex, but others are free to like what they want," and it's quite another to say, "I disapprove!." The former would be equivalent, like Coriolis said, to the example about color preference. The latter, however, is a discriminatory position (and as such qualifies as homophobic.)
 

Engineer

Dependable Skeleton
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
625
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp

Well that's certainly an interesting way to see it, and I'm glad that you've developed your own opinion of things and are willing to argue for it.
But all this deconstruction and point-finding really isn't going to change my personal belief either. I don't think either of us can claim to be more right than the other, since this issue is pretty much one of "this is how I see it" and not one of "indisputable fact."
There are two sides and perspectives to every issue. That's all I was trying to point out with my original post.
(See below, I'm True Neutral. That's just how I work.)
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
I don't know where you are coming from on this, but the experience I had within the evangelical Christian world WAS that there were quite a number who didn't necessarily WANT to say gays were going to hell but that they HAD to say it because that's what they believed the Bible said. And I've talked to so many who really seemed to not care one way or the other about gays on their own, but had what they felt was a logical argument that said it had to be wrong, so therefore it was. Yes, I met some raging homophobes too, but they were only part of the crowd.

Basically, the premises of their faith -- how they read the Bible, how they believed that had to interpret the text, led them to conclusion that homosexuality was a lie and false to God and thus had to be opposed, even if they personally didn't care either way.

I have trouble calling that "homophobia." I might call it ignorance or misunderstanding, since I don't read the text or place the same emphasis on it that they do, but I wouldn't call it homophobia.

Personally I've never really run across what you've described here, but if I did, I think I'd still call it homophobia. Whether or not they're 100% emotionally invested in the homophobic ideas that they spout is less of a concern to me than the consequences of their words and (perhaps) resultant actions. And there are consequences. For instance, they might inadvertently impose needless self-loathing and self-esteem issues onto their children who might be gay, or they might transmit dangerous and wrong ideas to their children/other children/other people, or they might vote against gay marriage, etc., Essentially, if all of these "I just believe it because it's my duty," or "I just believe it because it's all I know" folks ran the world, the consequences would be still be loathsome despite whatever cognitive dissonance they might have over the issue internally. JMO.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
Well that's certainly an interesting way to see it, and I'm glad that you've developed your own opinion of things and are willing to argue for it.
But all this deconstruction and point-finding really isn't going to change my personal belief either. I don't think either of us can claim to be more right than the other, since this issue is pretty much one of "this is how I see it" and not one of "indisputable fact."
There are two sides and perspectives to every issue. That's all I was trying to point out with my original post.
(See below, I'm True Neutral. That's just how I work.)

Some positions are better than others by virtue not only of facts but also of logic, morality, and rhetoric.
 

Not_Me

New member
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
1,641
MBTI Type
INTj
But all this deconstruction and point-finding really isn't going to change my personal belief either. I don't think either of us can claim to be more right than the other, since this issue is pretty much one of "this is how I see it" and not one of "indisputable fact."
When there is disagreement, the more consistent perspective is the "better" one. Science has spoken.

Changing an opponent's mind is of minor importance compared to convincing the group that has the power of enforcement. In the context of homosexuality, gays probably couldn't care less whether you approve or not, unless you had the sway to change collective values. That's where debate is useful.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
When there is disagreement, the more consistent perspective is the "better" one. Science has spoken.

Changing an opponent's mind is of minor importance compared to convincing the group that has the power of enforcement. In the context of homosexuality, gays probably couldn't care less whether you approve or not, unless you had the sway to change collective values. That's where debate is useful.

Exactly.
 

Engineer

Dependable Skeleton
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
625
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
When there is disagreement, the more consistent perspective is the "better" one. Science has spoken.

Changing an opponent's mind is of minor importance compared to convincing the group that has the power of enforcement. In the context of homosexuality, gays probably couldn't care less whether you approve or not, unless you had the sway to change collective values. That's where debate is useful.

Oh, I agree absolutely.
In this context, however (a forum inhabited by about 50 regulars, give or take) there's nothing we can change, aside from a meager vote, if that is allowed us. Unless one of us is a United States congressperson, there's basically no point in trying to prove one point is better than another... If this were the real world, absolutely the most consistent opinion would and should be victorious, but as far as this forum goes, it's personal opinion all the way.

I happen to agree with Orangey's overall opinion, mind you. I just objected to the usage by another poster of the word "homophobia." Because in my opinion the word "homophobe" is overused, and is often applied to those who don't necessarily fit the bill of a person who is "contemptuous" or "strongly averse" to gays. My thinking that it's overused doesn't change the fact that I agree with him, so you can put away your stakes and kindling, I'm no witch.

Besides that minor point, in the big issue (gay rights) does it really matter what the definition of homophobe is? So long as gays gain equal status as other citizens, does it matter that all people who feel any degree of disapproval toward their stance are inaccurately labeled as being as bad as a KKK analog? The whole term smacks of "you're ignorant" and does not promote understanding, which is exactly what is needed when trying to make progress in this arena.

Just saying.

(I wish to apologize to the chagrined mods, as I am so heartily at fault for this continued derailing of a thread on feminism... My deepest regrets. ;))
 

Not_Me

New member
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
1,641
MBTI Type
INTj
Oh, I agree absolutely.
In this context, however (a forum inhabited by about 50 regulars, give or take) there's nothing we can change, aside from a meager vote, if that is allowed us. Unless one of us is a United States congressperson, there's basically no point in trying to prove one point is better than another... If this were the real world, absolutely the most consistent opinion would and should be victorious, but as far as this forum goes, it's personal opinion all the way.
Postings on a forum is communicated to far more people than real life conversations. If it makes sense to challenge uninformed opinions in real life, why should it not be done in a forum?
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
If it makes sense to challenge uninformed opinions in real life, why should it not be done in a forum?

Because it hurts our feelings.

In real life our central nervous system is on the inside but on the internet our central nervous system is on the outside and vibrates to the slightest touch. So we need to learn to touch one another with the greatest delicacy.
 
Top