Are YOU a homophobe?

[Ziggy Stardust]

irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination

"or" being the key word there. If it would have said: "and" you'd have a point.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I think that irrational fear is very different from discrimination. People have all sorts of irrational fears - lightning, spiders, what have you - and an alternative and very-different-from-the-majority sexuality can easily qualify. On the other hand, discrimination tends to have different motives and different results.

 

[Japanrocks12]

They used to be complete aliens to me.. until I learned that one of my friends was gay. Since then I have treated them no differently from the rest of my friends or the people I know

 

[Erik Mesoy]

irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination

"or" being the key word there. If it would have said: "and" you'd have a point.

I will now dispute the use of the term (not word) or, and the above definition.

Someone with an irrational fear of homosexuals who also discriminates against them obviously has irrational fear and discrimination. As you yourself point out, it doesn't say "and", but such a person should obviously be considered a homophobe.

This has been your daily Useless Argument Alert for the day.

 

[Endim_Analys]

So you are all right with dumbing down the language? If a person has subopinion 1, would you be comfortable using the overopinion for his/her opinion even though you then say that the person might have subopinion 2 or 3 instead?

What I'm saying is that the definition is crap because it removes precision.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Allright Erik, I didn't want to do this but you leave me no choice

I have onel thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca.

Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with the defin ition of the word homophobe?? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this word! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a dutch poster on some backwater of the internet defending a dictionary, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're on that computer deliberatin' and conjugatin' the arguments against this definition, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed forum, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must admit the arguments against this definition also don't make sense! The defense rests.

 

[Endim_Analys]

So, lets drop it then?

I won.

 

[Che Guava]

So you are all right with dumbing down the language? If a person has subopinion 1, would you be comfortable using the overopinion for his/her opinion even though you then say that the person might have subopinion 2 or 3 instead?

What I'm saying is that the definition is crap because it removes precision.

I just think its broad enough to cover a number of things. Whether you have some kind of irrational fear, a moral objection, or outright hatred for homosexuals, you can still say that each of these groups has a discomfort with homosexual lifestyles, whatever thier reason. And no matter what the reason, I think in the end it really does come down to some kind of fear...

 

[warpus]

I am not homophobic but I am definiately homophobephobic

 

[aronnax]

Not a Homophobe but getting my bow and arrow for those that are

 

[Endim_Analys]

I just think its broad enough to cover a number of things. Whether you have some kind of irrational fear, a moral objection, or outright hatred for homosexuals, you can still say that each of these groups has a discomfort with homosexual lifestyles, whatever thier reason. And no matter what the reason, I think in the end it really does come down to some kind of fear...

Once again, you won't get a good answer to a the question "Are YOU a homophobe?" since it has too broad a meaning. If one answer "Yes" without further specifying one's thoughts, the broadness of the term means we can not know if the person is a little giddy in the presence of homos, or if he/she is regularly out on the streets, bashing em'. It is best not to use the term at all, choosing instead more presice words, like discrimination, hatred or discomfort.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Endim, I don't see your problem.

For instance, european. If I say, you are European if you live in Holland, England, France or Germany. (excluding lots of countries because the list would be a bit long)

Now you are saying that someone living in France can't be sure he is a European because he doesn't live in Germany?

 

[Abaddon]

idiot thread really.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yeah, what took you so long?

 

[Che Guava]

Once again, you won't get a good answer to a the question "Are YOU a homophobe?" since it has too broad a meaning. If one answer "Yes" without further specifying one's thoughts, the broadness of the term means we can not know if the person is a little giddy in the presence of homos, or if he/she is regularly out on the streets, bashing em'. It is best not to use the term at all, choosing instead more presice words, like discrimination, hatred or discomfort.

WHat do you propose, exactly? That we call people homo-discriminators, homo-haters and homo-just-don't-sit-next-to-me-on-the-bus-ers? Is it not fair to call someone a racist because it lumps the Aryan Brotherhood and people who just mumble under thier breaths about those 'other people'? Is it unfair to call somone a xenophobe if they don't care about a person's skin but can't stand people that don't speak the same language as themselves?

IMHO, if you are not comfortable with homosexuals around you, for whatever justification you might have, you have either a fear of being near them or what they are. That's why the term homophobe is apt.

 

[Abaddon]

Yeah, what took you so long?

Took a trip away from OT for a while.. obv. needs me to crusade against the drivel some people propose as a discussion.

 

[brainpan]

So you are all right with dumbing down the language? If a person has subopinion 1, would you be comfortable using the overopinion for his/her opinion even though you then say that the person might have subopinion 2 or 3 instead?

I don't like the word myself, but language adapts itelf when the need arises.

The American Heritage Dictionary now includes simple contempt for gays or lesbians as a qualification for homophobia, so the definition is broad enough to encompass some pretty divergent attitudes.

I would venture a guess that most people understand that homophobia is more than just fear of homosexuals.

 

[Endim_Analys]

You can ask someone if he is European and get a Yes/No-style answer, but since this can mean he is any of the European nationalities it would be better just to ask "What nationality are you?", because then you'd get a more complete answer. Also if you live in France you shouldn't state that you're just European as that could be interpreted as "Aha, he's one of those darn krauts!" thus diffusing the entire debate. Same thing with homophobia, avoid the word altogether and the diffusion of terms will be minimalised.

 

[Abaddon]

@ Endim: Or just ban homosexuality.


I dont mean this, but you can't just pretend a nasty word doesnt exhist because you want it too.

 

[Endim_Analys]

WHat do you propose, exactly? That we call people homo-discriminators, homo-haters and homo-just-don't-sit-next-to-me-on-the-bus-ers? Is it not fair to call someone a racist because it lumps the Aryan Brotherhood and people who just mumble under thier breaths about those 'other people'? Is it unfair to call somone a xenophobe if they don't care about a person's skin but can't stand people that don't speak the same language as themselves?

IMHO, if you are not comfortable with homosexuals around you, for whatever justification you might have, you have either a fear of being near them or what they are. That's why the term homophobe is apt.

I'm proposing that you shouldn't use the word homophobia since it's so diffuse and apt to be misrepresentative. Do you really have to put a label on every group? Can't you just call them by the thing that unites them? For example black people who slightly dislike yellow people for no apparent reason need not be called racist since that would make it fair to call them hatemongers or genocide-proponents since thats what the word means. Instead just call them "people who slightly dislikes yellow people for no apparent reason". What do you lose from it? You win increased precision and decreased misunderstanding.