Lets discuss: Homophobia

[holy king]

ah, homosexuals spread disease. filthy rats.

 

[Arakhor]

Any system that marginalises any aspect of society is discrimination, whether or not you agree with it, whether or not the Bible seems to condone it or whether or not "everybody does it". It's still discrimination and that is almost always wrong.

 

[Elrohir]

Thread is too long and messy. Did anyone ever establish a working definition of homophobia, out of curiosity? It seems like you guys are still arguing about it. (Wouldn't that be a page 1, or even better OP, sort of discussion?)

I also resent the homosexuals' misappropriation of the word "gay." It used to be a perfectly fine word, as in " ... and we'll all be gay when Johnny comes marching home," the "Gay Nineties" (1890s), "Don we now our gay apparel," etc.

Well...kinda. It's always sort of had a sexual double meaning.

 

[Flying Pig]

Well...kinda. It's always sort of had a sexual double meaning.

Back when I was young, there used to be certain adjectives or phrases you would use when discussing the matter, partly as a euphamism but also so that people that way inclined could identify each other easily - 'gay' was one of them, but also 'is he earnest?' and 'I quite like the works of Oscar Wilde' (although for some people talking about a taste for drama and poetry might be evidence enough!)

 

[LucyDuke]

Thread is too long and messy. Did anyone ever establish a working definition of homophobia, out of curiosity? It seems like you guys are still arguing about it. (Wouldn't that be a page 1, or even better OP, sort of discussion?)

Not really. And I don't think we'll ever be able to, because (most of) the people it's used to describe refuse to acknowledge the meaning intended by (most of) the people describing with it.

I said I was going to try to replace it in my vocabulary with heterosexist because I'm starting to notice an indentation where I headdesk every time a homophobe says "no 'cause I'm not afraid of gays!"

 

[Elrohir]

Not really. And I don't think we'll ever be able to, because (most of) the people it's used to describe refuse to acknowledge the meaning intended by (most of) the people describing with it.

I said I was going to try to replace it in my vocabulary with heterosexist because I'm starting to notice an indentation where I headdesk every time a homophobe says "no 'cause I'm not afraid of gays!"

Meh. Have you guys at least established whether considering homosexual sex to be sinful is homophobic? (I saw someone said that it was early on, anyway.) If that's the consensus, then I'm not sure we'll ever have a non-homophobic society -- and I don't think we should. (Considering that President Obama believes that to be the case, and from what figures I saw, most gays and lesbians voted for him, that seems a somewhat suspect proposition, though.)

 

[timtofly]

Is there a difference in braking a human law and a law of God. Does one believe that if one brakes a human law that is sin? What if a human law contradicts the law of God. If one keep such law, then one would be sinning against God. If one breaks that law, one would be braking a human law, but not sinning, since he obeyed God's law.

Saudia Arabia has a law against sodomy and it is punishable by death. They do not make an issue of it though and as long as they do not "publicize" it they are not breaking the law. America has no such law, but yet they want to make public declarations against freedom of conscience and IMO change the laws to make them selves feel that is the only way they are accepted.

So as long as Americans think that there is this deep rooted animosity and that there is a need to protect one's freedom of choice by allowing "laws" to be inacted that "everyone by law must bow to that life style" there will be a fear of.

That is why moral laws cannot be enforced and mandated by the state. Remember this little rule called sepearation of church and state. Both sides do not want to have to agree and live by different sets of morals. Establishing any law that restricts religious freedom, is just as bad as one that forces morals on everyone. Equality can never be mandated with out the loss of freedom. Equality is when people agree to disagree and give up their rights for the freedom of all.

 

[GenMarshall]

I don't mean to he a wet blanket, but God's Laws has no place in a secular government.

 

[LucyDuke]

Meh. Have you guys at least established whether considering homosexual sex to be sinful is homophobic? (I saw someone said that it was early on, anyway.) If that's the consensus, then I'm not sure we'll ever have a non-homophobic society -- and I don't think we should. (Considering that President Obama believes that to be the case, and from what figures I saw, most gays and lesbians voted for him, that seems a somewhat suspect proposition, though.)

I would call it the least problematic form of homophobia/heterosexism possible.

If we universally instituted every couples and parenting right that the Radical Militant Homosexual Agenda is pushing for, if a handful of churches were the only place queers faced discrimination, if gay kids weren't subject to disproportional bullying, if Heather Has Two Mommies was not banned from school libraries, if queers could serve in the military and shower alongside non-queers and everyone remained adult and professional about it, if conversion therapy went the way of the lobotomy, if the only remaining whiff of heterosexism was private belief that same-sex sex was "sinful", I would consider that a complete victory.

 

[Mathilda]

I said I was going to try to replace it in my vocabulary with heterosexist because I'm starting to notice an indentation where I headdesk every time a homophobe says "no 'cause I'm not afraid of gays!"

I support this

 

[Elrohir]

I would call it the least problematic form of homophobia/heterosexism possible.

If we universally instituted every couples and parenting right that the Radical Militant Homosexual Agenda is pushing for, if a handful of churches were the only place queers faced discrimination, if gay kids weren't subject to disproportional bullying, if Heather Has Two Mommies was not banned from school libraries, if queers could serve in the military and shower alongside non-queers and everyone remained adult and professional, if conversion therapy went the way of the lobotomy, if the only remaining whiff of heterosexism was private belief that same-sex sex was "sinful", I would consider that a complete victory.

Fair enough.

(Although I can't say I support all of that. )

The problem, though, is that I'm increasingly getting the feeling that most gay rights activists don't agree. Even private belief, absent any discriminatory policy or law, is increasingly seen as the enemy -- comparisons of religious beliefs on the subject to racist ideas certainly don't help in this regard. (We tend to view racist beliefs as immoral and harmful, and not want to associate with or employ the people who hold them.) It's increasingly becoming a war of ideology and worldviews without any compromise or quarter, rather than a debate on public policy. We'll see how far things go; I'm hoping people behave reasonably, but given the history on the subject, I'm not counting on it.

 

[Mango Elephant]

If that's the consensus, then I'm not sure we'll ever have a non-homophobic society -- and I don't think we should. (Considering that President Obama believes that to be the case, and from what figures I saw, most gays and lesbians voted for him, that seems a somewhat suspect proposition, though.)

A politicians view on gay rights is important, but anyone who only votes for someone because they share their view on gay rights is a fool.

 

[GenMarshall]

if gay kids weren't subject to disproportional bullying

Sadly, they're still going to get bullied. Kids and teenagers are the most cruelest people on the planet. But at least there is more interventions from teachers and parents than years ago when bullying was a rite of passage in childhood (I call BS on whoever said that bullying is a rite of passage for a child. No child, weather gay or straight, has to put up with any kind of bullying).

if conversion therapy went the way of the lobotomy

They still do that?! I thought lobotomy was phased out around the 60s-70s.

 

[LucyDuke]

Fair enough.

(Although I can't say I support all of that. )

The problem, though, is that I'm increasingly getting the feeling that most gay rights activists don't agree. Even private belief, absent any discriminatory policy or law, is increasingly seen as the enemy -- comparisons of religious beliefs on the subject to racist ideas certainly don't help in this regard. (We tend to view racist beliefs as immoral and harmful, and not want to associate with or employ the people who hold them.) It's increasingly becoming a war of ideology and worldviews without any compromise or quarter, rather than a debate on public policy. We'll see how far things go; I'm hoping people behave reasonably, but given the history on the subject, I'm not counting on it.

Personally I've just given up completely on arguing with the book-based belief that Leviticus 20:13 or whatever. That belief isn't adopted rationally so it can't be dispelled rationally. I don't like it. I would prefer for it to go away. It might go away on its own time, it might not, but there's nothing to be gained by railing against it.

In the other thread I asked my RMHA comrades to lay off at the point where the only vestige of heterosexism is private disapproval of the sort I've called irrational. I will continue to discourage that badgering. It's not the way to change minds.

I do think the analogy with rasism is apt. We all agree that there is nothing about race that justifies discrimination. If the analogy bothers you, if you feel outraged at being compared to a rasist, well, you have a good grasp on how fundamentally wrong heterosexism is to us. I don't expect you to agree, but it's good that you understand.

And I'm hopeful. We've made enormous progress. The reality of homosexuality - we're just like you - is becoming more visible. People are noticing that children aren't screwed up by being raised by gay parents. Same-sex marriages haven't damaged opposite-sex marriages. When society doesn't marginalize them, queers live lives that are identical in every way to straights'. The goal is for it to become a nonissue.


@CivGeneral - Of course kids are still going to be bullied. We have to fight it, but I don't expect it to stop. That's why I said disproportional bullying. Being gay shouldn't make a kid a "better" target than any other reason children find to single each other out.

And no, lobotomies don't really happen anymore, neither should conversion therapy.

 

[GenMarshall]

Who in the world would want to go through or force anyone to go through conversion therapies. Seems quite immoral and shady in my eyes.

 

[timtofly]

I don't mean to he a wet blanket, but God's Laws has no place in a secular government.

Personally I've just given up completely on arguing with the book-based belief that Leviticus 20:13 or whatever. That belief isn't adopted rationally so it can't be dispelled rationally. I don't like it. I would prefer for it to go away. It might go away on its own time, it might not, but there's nothing to be gained by railing against it.

Spoiler :

In the other thread I asked my RMHA comrades to lay off at the point where the only vestige of heterosexism is private disapproval of the sort I've called irrational. I will continue to discourage that badgering. It's not the way to change minds.

I do think the analogy with rasism is apt. We all agree that there is nothing about race that justifies discrimination. If the analogy bothers you, if you feel outraged at being compared to a rasist, well, you have a good grasp on how fundamentally wrong heterosexism is to us. I don't expect you to agree, but it's good that you understand.

And I'm hopeful. We've made enormous progress. The reality of homosexuality - we're just like you - is becoming more visible. People are noticing that children aren't screwed up by being raised by gay parents. Same-sex marriages haven't damaged opposite-sex marriages. When society doesn't marginalize them, queers live lives that are identical in every way to straights'. The goal is for it to become a nonissue.


@CivGeneral - Of course kids are still going to be bullied. We have to fight it, but I don't expect it to stop. That's why I said disproportional bullying. Being gay shouldn't make a kid a "better" target than any other reason children find to single each other out.

And no, lobotomies don't really happen anymore, neither should conversion therapy

.

Actually I agree there should be no "moral" related laws. That is limited government. I do not think that I should be forced to go against my conscience. Neither do I expect others to go against their conscience. Making more and more legislation is just asking for people to give up their freedom by force. Secular government is not a problem as long as it does not demand you to do want you would prefer not to morally. People are getting confused and they want to silence any "thought" that might offend them. Life is offensive, that is why freedom of speech is tolerated and a privilege, not a right. Bullying is done because our society produces individuals with no self-control. Let the inner nature out, if it is corraled it will hurt their psyche. I have a problem with that, because the psyche is selfish and if let out will destroy any civilized society.

 

[LucyDuke]

Sorry, I don't understand how that's responsive to my post.

 

[timtofly]

Sorry, I don't understand how that's responsive to my post.

I was agreeing that God's law has no place in Secular government. I do not agree that we should keep making laws that make things a right. It diminishes freedom for others.

There is a thin line between feeling free and being free?

 

[LucyDuke]

I am advocating making laws to recognize rights for queers - but only rights straights already have. It doesn't diminish anyone's freedom.

 

[GenMarshall]

I was agreeing that God's law has no place in Secular government. I do not agree that we should keep making laws that make things a right. It diminishes freedom for others.

There is a thin line between feeling free and being free?

What's the big deal extending minority rights to gays?