Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
I'm not sure that the word "homophobic" accurately represents a person who just disagrees with the concept of homosexuality without discriminating against or hating its practitioners (and I guess that, in a nutshell, is the point of your post in the first place).
At the same time, though, I think true homophobes (i.e., gay bashers, or those who blather on about "faggots" - no, I am NOT referring to Viper here) are almost invariably losers who are themselves often struggling with unacknowledged homosexual longings, and I'm not sure it adds any value to start creating semantic gradations of homophobia. Frankly I don't think the language needs to underwrite what I regard as a redundant and stupid human inclination to marginalize others, including gays.
At the same time, though, I think true homophobes (i.e., gay bashers, or those who blather on about "faggots" - no, I am NOT referring to Viper here) are almost invariably losers who are themselves often struggling with unacknowledged homosexual longings, and I'm not sure it adds any value to start creating semantic gradations of homophobia. Frankly I don't think the language needs to underwrite what I regard as a redundant and stupid human inclination to marginalize others, including gays.
isildur
Golden Member
- Jan 3, 2001
- 1,509
- 0
- 76
vi: succinctly said - nice
optimus: But saying one hates gays, wants to condemn, commit violence, etc IS homophobic.
You can disagree, just not act against PEOPLE or infringe on thier rights.
Clear as mud?
quite the contrary!
if your are worried about the blanket application of the term, then
take issue with the media
While I agree in principle, in this issue I must contend that the media is merely complicit. After taking some college classes with professors who are (I won't say 'leading,' but certainly 'participating') experts in this area (Queer theory, GLB studies, etc), I can say with certainty that the accademic community in this debate will not even engage the question of whether this label is being used fairly. It is taken as a given that anyone who argues against them at any point and for any spoken reason, is really a hatemonger and a homophobe, by the dictionary definition. Intelligent and rational people will suddenly become, well, hate-mongers when these assumptions are questioned.
Though I don't suggest that this is a premeditated, coordinated strategem, it works nicely - if I can use language and labels to reinforce and propagate the idea that there is no acceptable reason to hold a position, indeed no reason but fear and hate, then I can discredit and (truthfully) discriminate against anyone holding any such position. I can deflect any objection they raise by pointing out their obviously flawed character. I have rendered them and their cause helpless, simply by making a critical point of my position an assumption in the language of the debate as a whole.
Despite its insidiousness, it is, in its way, a beautiful thing.
GL: ah, I getcha now. I still think "fear" would be an irrational response in either case (at least, I can't come up with a solid rationalization for it anyway), but I see your point about discrimination and agree entirely - we can accept discriminating against someone because of choices they have made (criminals, etc), but if they are acting in accordance to something predetermined, how can we justify marginalizing them?
An interesting note though, is the growing reluctance among the GLB studies academics to address or pursue the question of origins. I was even informed once that my assumption that heterosexual behavior predated homosexual behavoir was fallacious. (An interesting position, since our understanding of sexuality is that its biological purpose arrose for the specific goal of reproduction - i.e. sex for pleasure simply could not have predated sex for biological necessity, at least, not by the length of a generation.)
The idea is that, should geneticists find a "gay gene" (please try not to laugh at the idea of such a complex system of feelings/behaviors being genetically predetermined), then society _might_ treat it as an aberration or a disease to be treated and cured by gene therapy. So, rather than engage this debate, legitimacy, even originality, is presupposed.
<shrug>
optimus: But saying one hates gays, wants to condemn, commit violence, etc IS homophobic.
You can disagree, just not act against PEOPLE or infringe on thier rights.
Clear as mud?
quite the contrary!
if your are worried about the blanket application of the term, then
take issue with the media
While I agree in principle, in this issue I must contend that the media is merely complicit. After taking some college classes with professors who are (I won't say 'leading,' but certainly 'participating') experts in this area (Queer theory, GLB studies, etc), I can say with certainty that the accademic community in this debate will not even engage the question of whether this label is being used fairly. It is taken as a given that anyone who argues against them at any point and for any spoken reason, is really a hatemonger and a homophobe, by the dictionary definition. Intelligent and rational people will suddenly become, well, hate-mongers when these assumptions are questioned.
Though I don't suggest that this is a premeditated, coordinated strategem, it works nicely - if I can use language and labels to reinforce and propagate the idea that there is no acceptable reason to hold a position, indeed no reason but fear and hate, then I can discredit and (truthfully) discriminate against anyone holding any such position. I can deflect any objection they raise by pointing out their obviously flawed character. I have rendered them and their cause helpless, simply by making a critical point of my position an assumption in the language of the debate as a whole.
Despite its insidiousness, it is, in its way, a beautiful thing.
GL: ah, I getcha now. I still think "fear" would be an irrational response in either case (at least, I can't come up with a solid rationalization for it anyway), but I see your point about discrimination and agree entirely - we can accept discriminating against someone because of choices they have made (criminals, etc), but if they are acting in accordance to something predetermined, how can we justify marginalizing them?
An interesting note though, is the growing reluctance among the GLB studies academics to address or pursue the question of origins. I was even informed once that my assumption that heterosexual behavior predated homosexual behavoir was fallacious. (An interesting position, since our understanding of sexuality is that its biological purpose arrose for the specific goal of reproduction - i.e. sex for pleasure simply could not have predated sex for biological necessity, at least, not by the length of a generation.)
The idea is that, should geneticists find a "gay gene" (please try not to laugh at the idea of such a complex system of feelings/behaviors being genetically predetermined), then society _might_ treat it as an aberration or a disease to be treated and cured by gene therapy. So, rather than engage this debate, legitimacy, even originality, is presupposed.
<shrug>
actually, I've been re reading the thread
I don't think I would call myself a homophobe seeing as it is more an irrational fear. I know what I don't like about them, it disgusts me but it's their choice. Still the term homophobic is an overused attack at hetero people. It's lost it's meaning. Kinda like the word racism in relation to black people. It has no meaning other than a solid political one.
I don't think I would call myself a homophobe seeing as it is more an irrational fear. I know what I don't like about them, it disgusts me but it's their choice. Still the term homophobic is an overused attack at hetero people. It's lost it's meaning. Kinda like the word racism in relation to black people. It has no meaning other than a solid political one.
Though I don't suggest that this is a premeditated, coordinated strategem, it works nicely - if I can use language and labels to reinforce and propagate the idea that there is no acceptable reason to hold a position, indeed no reason but fear and hate, then I can discredit and (truthfully) discriminate against anyone holding any such position. I can deflect any objection they raise by pointing out their obviously flawed character. I have rendered them and their cause helpless, simply by making a critical point of my position an assumption in the language of the debate as a whole.
That's pretty much my whole point here, just expressed a lot better than I managed to.
I guess what it really comes down to is that I find it offensive to be labelled "homophobic" because I believe that something is wrong. I was curious as to whether or not I was the only one who was offended.
And just for reference, his use of the word was not directed towards me. It just got me thinking.
Viper GTS
That's pretty much my whole point here, just expressed a lot better than I managed to.
I guess what it really comes down to is that I find it offensive to be labelled "homophobic" because I believe that something is wrong. I was curious as to whether or not I was the only one who was offended.
And just for reference, his use of the word was not directed towards me. It just got me thinking.
Viper GTS
This is like how pro-abortionists coined the term pro-choice (because if you're against choice, you're just not American and are evil). And likewise, how anti-abortionists coined the term pro-life (because how can you kill a life)? I agree, it's certainly a word created out of a lot of thought and not one that just stumbled into the English language like so many others.
isildur
Golden Member
- Jan 3, 2001
- 1,509
- 0
- 76
That's pretty much my whole point here, just expressed a lot better than I managed to.
I had lots of time sitting through lectures where this attitude was being indoctrinated to develop that thought!
This tactic is employed in other arenas as well though -
'Pro-Life' = 'Anti-Woman's Rights' = 'Anti-Choice'
or
'Pro-Abortion' = 'Anti-Life' (I have actually heard that one)
LOL
Edit: Dah! GL, you beat me to my own point!
I had lots of time sitting through lectures where this attitude was being indoctrinated to develop that thought!
This tactic is employed in other arenas as well though -
'Pro-Life' = 'Anti-Woman's Rights' = 'Anti-Choice'
or
'Pro-Abortion' = 'Anti-Life' (I have actually heard that one)
LOL
Edit: Dah! GL, you beat me to my own point!
Michael
Elite member
- Nov 19, 1999
- 5,435
- 234
- 106
A little pot calling the kettle black here. There's a "gay" agenda? As if there is some sweeping movement that united all homesexuals. Don't ever confuse the words of extremists or whoever the media shines the spotlight on this week to really represent all the people in the group. The incorrect use of "homophobe" in a political area is simply a political move to undermine the arguements of your opponents.
There is a difference between rejecting homosexuality and discrimating against homosexuals. I don't want any one group to get extra rights, but they should be able to equally share the rights that everyone does have.
So Viper GTS' religious opposition to homosexuality (he's a homephobe, btw, under his definitions - religion is by its very nature irrational so he has an irrational "fear" of homesexuality) is fine as long as it relates to his own personal views and sexuality. If he rejects the arguement that homosexuality is "natural", that's his business. If he doesn't hire someone because they're homosexual, that's another story.
Michael
There is a difference between rejecting homosexuality and discrimating against homosexuals. I don't want any one group to get extra rights, but they should be able to equally share the rights that everyone does have.
So Viper GTS' religious opposition to homosexuality (he's a homephobe, btw, under his definitions - religion is by its very nature irrational so he has an irrational "fear" of homesexuality) is fine as long as it relates to his own personal views and sexuality. If he rejects the arguement that homosexuality is "natural", that's his business. If he doesn't hire someone because they're homosexual, that's another story.
Michael
"rewligion is by its very nature irrational so he has an irrational "fear" of homesexuality"
I'd respectfully disagree. While religion is based on faith, it is not inherently irrational. Obviously some would disagree here.
I'd respectfully disagree. While religion is based on faith, it is not inherently irrational. Obviously some would disagree here.
Linflas
Lifer
- Jan 30, 2001
- 15,395
- 78
- 91
<< Do you feel that the homophob/e/ic/ia terms are a legitimate term to be used for discrimination against homosexuals, or are they merely designed to attack the heterosexual population? >>
I feel they are no different than such terms as liberal/conservative/radical/left/right wing/racist. They are used to stop legitimate debate and I treat them all as meaningless for the most part. People that use them want to focus the debate on an individual and off of whatever topic is being debated. The target is generally obligated to now prove why he is not one of these terms rather than defend his position.
isildur
Golden Member
- Jan 3, 2001
- 1,509
- 0
- 76
So Viper GTS' religious opposition to homosexuality (he's a homephobe, btw, under his definitions - rewligion is by its very nature irrational so he has an irrational "fear" of homesexuality) is fine as long as it relates to his own personal views and sexuality. If he rejects the arguement that homosexuality is "natural", that's his business. If he doesn't hire someone because they're homosexual, that's another story.
<sigh>
While some beliefs that fall under religious may be 'irrational,' the blanket generaliztion you use here is fallacious. Indeed, it has been long argued by many a religious and nonreligious philosopher alike that religious beliefs should have their own catagory (non-rational), simply becuase beliefs that make claims about an unobservable realm are by definition seperated from the possibility of rational disproof - and since this is the foundation of the concept of 'irrationality,' the term doesn't work. (Granted, this deals more with coloquial definitions than dictionary ones, though the assumptions are sufficiently solid.)
I can't decide which is more irritating, your blind confidence with which you make such a disputable claim, pretending it is a given, or the fact that you commited that fallacy when half of this thread is dedicated to that very thing!
<sigh>
While some beliefs that fall under religious may be 'irrational,' the blanket generaliztion you use here is fallacious. Indeed, it has been long argued by many a religious and nonreligious philosopher alike that religious beliefs should have their own catagory (non-rational), simply becuase beliefs that make claims about an unobservable realm are by definition seperated from the possibility of rational disproof - and since this is the foundation of the concept of 'irrationality,' the term doesn't work. (Granted, this deals more with coloquial definitions than dictionary ones, though the assumptions are sufficiently solid.)
I can't decide which is more irritating, your blind confidence with which you make such a disputable claim, pretending it is a given, or the fact that you commited that fallacy when half of this thread is dedicated to that very thing!
you know isildur, you well spoken people really piss the rest of us off. I always enjoy reading your posts. May I ask what is your profession?
I always enjoy reading your posts. May I ask what is your profession?A little pot calling the kettle black here. There's a "gay" agenda? As if there is some sweeping movement that united all homesexuals.
By the "gay agenda" I mean:
- The lifestyle
- The political objectives
- The attempted vilification of anyone who dares to disagree with either of the above
Viper GTS
By the "gay agenda" I mean:
- The lifestyle
- The political objectives
- The attempted vilification of anyone who dares to disagree with either of the above
Viper GTS
Michael
Elite member
- Nov 19, 1999
- 5,435
- 234
- 106
Capn - I'm meaning the "weak" form of irrational, not the raving lunatic meaning. If you look at the definitions of faith and irrational, you can easily see that they're linked. I am not saying that religious beliefs are wrong. Once the irrational/supernatural is introduced (religion), rational arguments cannot be used to argue pro or con.
Once Viper GTS says that he rejects homosexuality on religious reasons, I cannot prove him right or wrong. I could discuss myths and statistics surrounding the debate, but I cannot debate the reason for his rejection as it is faith-based, especially since I do not share his faith.
At times, a faith-based view comes from a bedrock of interpreting scripture. It is sometimes possible to debate and examine the scriptures being used, but once faith is used as a justification, logical, reasoned arguments become moot.
Michael
Viper GTS - again - who leads this "agenda"? I would submit that the agenda is made up by opponents of homosexuality the same way that some homosexuals use the label "homophobe" to try and discredit those you oppose their views.
Once Viper GTS says that he rejects homosexuality on religious reasons, I cannot prove him right or wrong. I could discuss myths and statistics surrounding the debate, but I cannot debate the reason for his rejection as it is faith-based, especially since I do not share his faith.
At times, a faith-based view comes from a bedrock of interpreting scripture. It is sometimes possible to debate and examine the scriptures being used, but once faith is used as a justification, logical, reasoned arguments become moot.
Michael
Viper GTS - again - who leads this "agenda"? I would submit that the agenda is made up by opponents of homosexuality the same way that some homosexuals use the label "homophobe" to try and discredit those you oppose their views.
Michael, I don't think ViperGTS ever said it was because of religious reasons. I said that for him, just as speculation.
You could actually prove ViperGTS wrong by showing that homosexuals are born that way. But because there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that, it is still valid to claim that homosexuality is a choice (although most evidence nowadays leans towards other factors in addition to or exclusive of choice).
Why I believe what I do has no bearing on this conversation. This thread was not intended to discuss the rights/wrongs of homosexuality, but whether or not people object to the term "homophobe" when it is levelled at them because of their beliefs, whatever their origin may be.
Viper GTS
Viper GTS
Michael, I understand your point, however I like isildur's word "non-rational." Calling something irrational, whether weak or strong, has some negative connotations with it. Now, hopefully you are using it in a more simplistic and less negative sense, as to define irrational as "belief without material evidence." If that is the case then we would agree. However generally irrational is defined as "without reason." Of course this is a point of contention, but my religious beliefs are based reason.
Michael
Elite member
- Nov 19, 1999
- 5,435
- 234
- 106
To be clear, I also know that labels like "homophobe" are often a debating/political trick. One that can easily be dealt with.
I also have respect for other people's religious beliefs. For example, I would vote yes to legalize same sex unions as marriage. However, I support the need for a local vote and would accept the views of the majority saying no even if many of the votes were on religious grounds.
Michael
Capn - "non-" and "ir" as a prefix are basically the same thing. I would accept the use of "non-rational" in a discussion because of the negative connotation of irrational (crazy) versus the weaker but correct definitions that also exist for the word.
I also have respect for other people's religious beliefs. For example, I would vote yes to legalize same sex unions as marriage. However, I support the need for a local vote and would accept the views of the majority saying no even if many of the votes were on religious grounds.
Michael
Capn - "non-" and "ir" as a prefix are basically the same thing. I would accept the use of "non-rational" in a discussion because of the negative connotation of irrational (crazy) versus the weaker but correct definitions that also exist for the word.
Good thread, nicely reasoned.
<< Though I don't suggest that this is a premeditated, coordinated strategem, it works nicely - if I can use language and labels to reinforce and propagate the idea that there is no acceptable reason to hold a position, indeed no reason but fear and hate, then I can discredit and (truthfully) discriminate against anyone holding any such position. I can deflect any objection they raise by pointing out their obviously flawed character. I have rendered them and their cause helpless, simply by making a critical point of my position an assumption in the language of the debate as a whole. >>
I would suggest that it is a pre-meditated coordinated strategy.
How many times have heterosexuals been called homophobes by individual homosexuals? Not many I think. Usually it's on television or on college campuses during rally's and protests. Next time your on a college campus and see a GLSO rally count up the number of signs containing the words "Homophobe" or "Homophobic". It's a coordinated effort on the part of national organizations to brand anyone who disagrees with the lifestyle as an irrational hatemonger.
<< Though I don't suggest that this is a premeditated, coordinated strategem, it works nicely - if I can use language and labels to reinforce and propagate the idea that there is no acceptable reason to hold a position, indeed no reason but fear and hate, then I can discredit and (truthfully) discriminate against anyone holding any such position. I can deflect any objection they raise by pointing out their obviously flawed character. I have rendered them and their cause helpless, simply by making a critical point of my position an assumption in the language of the debate as a whole. >>
I would suggest that it is a pre-meditated coordinated strategy.
How many times have heterosexuals been called homophobes by individual homosexuals? Not many I think. Usually it's on television or on college campuses during rally's and protests. Next time your on a college campus and see a GLSO rally count up the number of signs containing the words "Homophobe" or "Homophobic". It's a coordinated effort on the part of national organizations to brand anyone who disagrees with the lifestyle as an irrational hatemonger.
isildur
Golden Member
- Jan 3, 2001
- 1,509
- 0
- 76
Michael - you are definitely right with regard to ir- and non-: their meanings are supposed to be the same, but it is the dogged use of irrational to mean "in flagrant opposition to all reason" that lead to the suggestion that the term 'nonrational' be used to refer to those things that are not in opposition to reason, but impossible to address using reason.
If Joe believes that the world was created by the sneeze of some intergalactic beast, and his theories regarding this 'genesis' do not openly contradict observed reality, it is 'irrational' to label his beliefs 'irrational.' (This station does not endorse Joe-ism.) However, most people will do right ahead and do so anyway.
Then they'll chain smoke for 40 years and bitch when they get lung cancer.
If Joe believes that the world was created by the sneeze of some intergalactic beast, and his theories regarding this 'genesis' do not openly contradict observed reality, it is 'irrational' to label his beliefs 'irrational.' (This station does not endorse Joe-ism.) However, most people will do right ahead and do so anyway.
Then they'll chain smoke for 40 years and bitch when they get lung cancer.
Michael
Elite member
- Nov 19, 1999
- 5,435
- 234
- 106
Viper GTS - I could also view this thread as a thinly veiled attack on homosexuals. One that uses the old strawman approach. In the terms you presented, it would be hard to argue against the "wrong" use of homophobe and it presents an opportunity for others to jump in and toss in a couple of more bashes for good measure.
Of course, I'm also rather cynical and I would only recognize it as such because I used the same appoach when I was younger.
Tiger - Of course using homophobe to attack those who oppose the activist goals of the gay and lesbian university clubs would be prevelent. It is an effective tactic and works well when people do not take the extra care needed to defuse it. It is so blazingly obvious, I see no need for a co-ordinated effort.
Michael
Of course, I'm also rather cynical and I would only recognize it as such because I used the same appoach when I was younger.
Tiger - Of course using homophobe to attack those who oppose the activist goals of the gay and lesbian university clubs would be prevelent. It is an effective tactic and works well when people do not take the extra care needed to defuse it. It is so blazingly obvious, I see no need for a co-ordinated effort.
Michael
isildur
Golden Member
- Jan 3, 2001
- 1,509
- 0
- 76
I think Viper has done a few things to prevent this thread from being interpreted that way though:
- he stated his opinion fairly clearly, in which he agreed that the dictionary definition of the term is useful and does accurately describe the feelings of some individuals
- he made a clear distinction between his opinion regarding the misuse of this term and any opinions or feelings regarding homosexuals
- he re-entered the discussion from time to time to 're-focus' the thread onto the question posed - i.e. making the above seperation more clear when some people tried to blur it
<shrug>
- he stated his opinion fairly clearly, in which he agreed that the dictionary definition of the term is useful and does accurately describe the feelings of some individuals
- he made a clear distinction between his opinion regarding the misuse of this term and any opinions or feelings regarding homosexuals
- he re-entered the discussion from time to time to 're-focus' the thread onto the question posed - i.e. making the above seperation more clear when some people tried to blur it
<shrug>
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter