Lets discuss: Homophobia

[mrt144]

It completely disgusts you to see two people of the same gender engaging in mutual shows of affection? I assume that watching a man and a woman tongue-wrestling in public would offend you as well then, because it certainly disgusts me.

I'm just trying to imagine him being disgusted by hand holding.

 

[IglooDame]

I'm just trying to imagine him being disgusted by hand holding.

More likely, "Jimmy" was just a badly-heard (and through a windshield, too-masculine-looking) "Ginny" and his sordid imagination filled in the rest.

 

[Junius]

Why use the term "abortionist", Junius? It sounds like a nasty label applied to a professional man doing his legal job to discredit his profession.

Well what i mentioned was the "murder of abortionists". That was the crime i was mentioning, in passing. Personally i do feel that abortion is wrong. Just like shooting the people who do it. Not the point of my post though. At all. I was trying to steer things back to a more civil conversation. Would abortion providers have worked better for you? Don't see why it's a big deal.

 

[LucyDuke]

Oh, ok. I understand now. But I still think it'd be best if you'd clarify what exactly your line of thought is on why they're comparable. I've heard multiple ways of comparing the two, with varying avenues of attack, and if I'm thinking of a different way than you are, then clarification won't do much good -- my response, even perfectly clarified, won't address what you're actually trying to say.

But, in short, my argument is this: we think of attraction based on race (And non attraction based on race) differently in many ways from attraction based on gender (And non attraction based on gender). In fact, I think they're far more dissimilar than similar, as gender and biological sex are much more fundamental distinctions. Thus, I don't think it's apt to compare between racism and homophobia. (In my view, it's like comparing racism and hating goth kids -- perhaps similar in some ways, but fundamentally different, so they can't be compared in a really constructive manner.)

Was I any clearer that time?

Yes, you are thinking of a different way than I am. This is what I thought you were saying, but it's so completely different from any comparison I've ever made that I thought I must be misunderstanding you.

I read your analogy as an attempt to establish that race and sex as factors in sexual attraction are not comparable. Therefore it's reasonable for us to have expectations for sex's role in sexual attraction, but not race's role in sexual attraction.

I think your reasoning betrays itself, though. In establishing difference, you asserted that we find sexual attraction as a function of race less acceptable than sexual attraction as a function of sex. It hinges on variations of sex motivating attraction. How can you reconcile that with disapproval of certain sex-motivated attraction?


So yeah, we weren't on the same page, and I think it was my fault. I don't actually agree that preference for various physical features is in any way objectionable, but that's not really relevant.

Spoiler recap :

The problem, though, is that I'm increasingly getting the feeling that most gay rights activists don't agree [with Lucy excusing private belief that same-sex sex was "sinful"]. 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.

What I assume you mean by "religious beliefs on the subject" includes that there is something bad about homosexuality. Only heterosexual couples are able to be good, whole, natural, healthy, moral... homosexual couples are second-class. For better or worse, that is heterosexism (homophobia). When these things are thought of race - that there are superior and inferior types - we have rasism.

So what's the difference? We agree that race doesn't justify discrimination. But to you, heterosexism is justifiable, because the book says don't be gay, because being gay is inferior to being heterosexual. That belief is harmful. It is equivalent to believing that being brown is inferior to being white: you consequently discriminate for no good reason. You believe you have a justification for it, but it's no more truthful than anything rasists have ever used to justify their beliefs.

If one keeps that belief to oneself, it's less harmful. As long as we do away with all its social and policy consequences, well, see my previous post.

Lucy, I don't understand why I have to justify a beef with homosexuality. I have stated plainly that I am disgusted by the concept of homosexuality, and especially by witnessing homosexual acts. Yes, I do know that not all homosexuals engage in "risky sex," that many heterosexuals do engage in "risky sex," and logically then, "risky sex" is in no way definitive of homosexuality. So, what's your point?

Carry on.

Oh, sorry, no, I don't care if you justify yourself. I just wanted to clarify that "they spread disease" isn't something that can be pinned on the queers. Some people like to do that and it damages their credibility.

(I like to mimic posts I'm replying to too, but the echos need to match each other. "Carry on" doesn't make sense after a question!)

 

[NovaKart]

Lucy, I don't understand why I have to justify a beef with homosexuality. I have stated plainly that I am disgusted by the concept of homosexuality, and especially by witnessing homosexual acts. Yes, I do know that not all homosexuals engage in "risky sex," that many heterosexuals do engage in "risky sex," and logically then, "risky sex" is in no way definitive of homosexuality. So, what's your point?

Carry on.

It disgusts me to think of 2 morbidly obese people or 2 really old people having sex but I don't have a problem with obese couples or elderly couples. I think it's nice that they have a relationship with someone. So what's the big deal here? If I see a fat couple or an old couple hold hands or kiss I don't think - Oh that's nasty. Why single out gays?

 

[EnglishCrusader]

It disgusts me to think of 2 morbidly obese people or 2 really old people having sex but I don't have a problem with obese couples or elderly couples. I think it's nice that they have a relationship with someone. So what's the big deal here? If I see a fat couple or an old couple hold hands or kiss I don't think - Oh that's nasty. Why single out gays?

To be honest I find obese and elderly couples disgusting as well I have nothing against gay people, I just think that it is disgusting to see them kissing in a public area or something.

 

[wcbarney]

Can you please remind me where I allegedly posted "only anal sex results in risks to other people as well" which you apparently find to be a weird argument?

I thought that you used the risks of anal sex as a way to point out why it's wrong and immoral as people were discussing why anal sex would be immoral, but I might have misunderstood your post, in that case my bad.

Apology accepted. Please accept my apology as well. Sometimes I think I'm being clever, but can see that my words were hurtful. -- Cliff in Virginia

I'm just trying to imagine him being disgusted by hand holding.

Well, yeah, now that you mention it.

I'm just trying to imagine him being disgusted by hand holding.

More likely, "Jimmy" was just a badly-heard (and through a windshield, too-masculine-looking) "Ginny" and his sordid imagination filled in the rest.

Most likely you are wrong; not hard of hearing, not looking through a windshield, don't have a sordid imagination. Just didn't turn away & roll the window up in time.

Lucy, I don't understand why I have to justify a beef with homosexuality. I have stated plainly that I am disgusted by the concept of homosexuality, and especially by witnessing homosexual acts. Yes, I do know that not all homosexuals engage in "risky sex," that many heterosexuals do engage in "risky sex," and logically then, "risky sex" is in no way definitive of homosexuality. So, what's your point?

Carry on.

Oh, sorry, no, I don't care if you justify yourself. I just wanted to clarify that "they spread disease" isn't something that can be pinned on the queers. Some people like to do that and it damages their credibility.

(I like to mimic posts I'm replying to too, but the echos need to match each other. "Carry on" doesn't make sense after a question!)

Thanks; I deserved that. I should have stopped after making clear that I had passed Logic 101; just went on trying to be too clever.

 

[Elrohir]

Yes, you are thinking of a different way than I am. This is what I thought you were saying, but it's so completely different from any comparison I've ever made that I thought I must be misunderstanding you.

I read your analogy as an attempt to establish that race and sex as factors in sexual attraction are not comparable. Therefore it's reasonable for us to have expectations for sex's role in sexual attraction, but not race's role in sexual attraction.

I think your reasoning betrays itself, though. In establishing difference, you asserted that we find sexual attraction as a function of race less acceptable than sexual attraction as a function of sex. It hinges on variations of sex motivating attraction. How can you reconcile that with disapproval of certain sex-motivated attraction?

Now I'm lost. I really don't understand the question.

So yeah, we weren't on the same page, and I think it was my fault. I don't actually agree that preference for various physical features is in any way objectionable, but that's not really relevant.

Not objectionable, but somehow unfortunate if they're extremely limiting. It's not just general physical features -- like liking brunettes or big boobs or whatever -- but a categorical and arbitrary delineation that strictly separates humanity. White versus non-white, for instance. I don't think it's particularly unfortunate if you have a thing for blonds, but I do think it's kind of unfortunate if you're physically incapable of being attracted to anyone who isn't of European descent. Do you disagree?

What I assume you mean by "religious beliefs on the subject" includes that there is something bad about homosexuality. Only heterosexual couples are able to be good, whole, natural, healthy, moral... homosexual couples are second-class. For better or worse, that is heterosexism (homophobia). When these things are thought of race - that there are superior and inferior types - we have rasism.

So what's the difference? We agree that race doesn't justify discrimination. But to you, heterosexism is justifiable, because the book says don't be gay, because being gay is inferior to being heterosexual. That belief is harmful. It is equivalent to believing that being brown is inferior to being white: you consequently discriminate for no good reason. You believe you have a justification for it, but it's no more truthful than anything rasists have ever used to justify their beliefs.

Well, for starters, I don't think your overall characterization is entirely fair -- if we're going to argue the Christian position (And the Abrahamic one more generally) no one can really be entirely good, whole, natural, healthy, or moral. Some are less bad than others, but none are truly good. (It doesn't resolve the problem you're proposing, but it's an important point to note.)

Second, remember we're not talking about discrimination per se, just belief about the sinfulness of a particular thing.

Third, you're using a circular argument here. You're starting with the assumption that your opponent's belief (Gay sex is sinful) is wrong, and then building outward from that a comparison to racism. Your argument could be succinctly if simplistically stated as "since it's not wrong to have gay sex, it's wrong to think that having gay sex is wrong." While logical, it's not a particularly helpful argument to make.

Finally, there's nothing in my Bible that says "being gay is inferior to being heterosexual." You're making this a matter of identities, when I'm talking about actions. Being black isn't really an action; having gay sex is. It'd work better if you limited it to, say, opposing interracial sex on racial grounds alone. Working back from there, you could reasonably say that the basis for that moral judgment is based on race -- specifically, an idea (and a twisted one) about the values or compatibilities of different races. Calling this racism makes sense for that reason.

But what's behind the idea that having gay sex is wrong? It's not actually a statement about orientation -- I've never heard a Christian argue that it's only wrong to have gay sex if you're gay, 'cause that'd be pretty weird. (I've heard a few liberal Christians, like pasi, say it's only wrong if you're straight, but that's contrary to the general orthodoxy, and silly in my opinion.) Rather, what's behind it is fundamentally ideas about biological sex, and the related notion of gender. Even if we accept that these ideas are wrong, it'd be more accurate to label them as some sort of sexism or genderism rather than heterosexism. It's about sex, not orientation. (So derogatorily label us accordingly! )

 

[The_Tyrant]

There is no such thing as "homophobia" for the most part. People are not scared of gays, we just disagree with their flamboyant and extreme lifestyle.

 

[Gustave5436]

But what's behind the idea that having gay sex is wrong? It's not actually a statement about orientation -- I've never heard a Christian argue that it's only wrong to have gay sex if you're gay, 'cause that'd be pretty weird. (I've heard a few liberal Christians, like pasi, say it's only wrong if you're straight, but that's contrary to the general orthodoxy, and silly in my opinion.) Rather, what's behind it is fundamentally ideas about biological sex, and the related notion of gender. Even if we accept that these ideas are wrong, it'd be more accurate to label them as some sort of sexism or genderism rather than heterosexism. It's about sex, not orientation. (So derogatorily label us accordingly! )

So religious hatred of gay people is a eugenics thing? It's not "you're gay, therefore you're inferior," but "you can't reproduce, therefore you're inferior?"

If I am interpreting you correctly, then this point of view is somewhat inconsistent with known science. By the concept of kin selection, you don't need to directly have children in order to pass on your genetic code. Genetically speaking, a niece or nephew is the same to you as a grandson or granddaughter. By creating an environment more conducive to their survival (which we, as a social species, specialize in), you are thus passing on your own genes through them, even if they are not directly descended from you.

There is no such thing as "homophobia" for the most part. People are not scared of gays, we just disagree with their flamboyant and extreme lifestyle.

Fear and hatred are the same thing. People fear that which they do not understand; the outside entity, the "other," which, as necessarily implied by the fact that it is a relative outsider, is poorly understood.

 

[Elrohir]

So religious hatred of gay people is a eugenics thing? It's not "you're gay, therefore you're inferior," but "you can't reproduce, therefore you're inferior?"

If I am interpreting you correctly, then this point of view is somewhat inconsistent with known science. By the concept of kin selection, you don't need to directly have children in order to pass on your genetic code. Genetically speaking, a niece or nephew is the same to you as a grandson or granddaughter. By creating an environment more conducive to their survival (which we, as a social species, specialize in), you are thus passing on your own genes through them, even if they are not directly descended from you.

Umm....no. Not at all. I'm not quite sure where you got that idea from my post.

 

[The_Tyrant]

Fear and hatred are the same thing. People fear that which they do not understand; the outside entity, the "other," which, as necessarily implied by the fact that it is a relative outsider, is poorly understood.

Let me quote myself again:
"we just disagree with their flamboyant and extreme lifestyle."

I hope you're not trying to make a connection that the human populace hates and fears all that they disagree with.

 

[choxorn]

Let me quote myself again:
"we just disagree with their flamboyant and extreme lifestyle."

So, all gays have a flamboyant and an extreme lifestyle, and no non-gays do?

 

[The_Tyrant]

So, all gays have a flamboyant and an extreme lifestyle, and no non-gays do?

I'm not one for generaliziations, but this is one instance where I can find enough confidence to claim that the large majority of gays have a flamboyant and un-american lifestyle.

For instance, I live about 100 miles from San Francisco but I absolutely refuse to travel there simply because I despise what the city now represents. It had so much history and eloquence but ever since the gay community overran the city it has become tainted.

On the rare occasion I do travel to San Francisco, I almost always run into these people
http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2...retty-silly-watters-world-takes-san-francisco

Moderator Action: Saying a large majority of gays have an un-american lifestyle and suggesting that the city of San Francisco has become tainted due to gays is inappropriate.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[choxorn]

I'm not one for generaliziations, but this is one instance where I can find enough confidence to claim that the large majority of gays have a flamboyant and un-american lifestyle.

I hear that word "un-american" spoken a lot by rightists (and leftists, but rightists more often) to refer to something they don't approve of. I always interpret the use of it as a tacit admission that the speaker doesn't have any actual argument and just wants to parrot around a meaningless word. It's almost like comparing something to Socialist Communazis or whatever.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I always thought of America as very flamboyant. Russia, on the other hand, I always imagined to be stern and severe.

 

[The_Tyrant]

I always thought of America as very flamboyant. Russia, on the other hand, I always imagined to be stern and severe.

I take it your not American? Anyway, don't judge all of America on the corrupted and dirty cities like San Francisco. Yes the influx of gays the past few decades has resulted in a very flamboyant city. But San Francisco is just the bad apple in the bunch, you have to look beyond the bay area to truly discover America.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Meh, even the most strict Protestant pastor pales in comparison with the stern, disapproving look on the bearded face of a Russian Old Believer.

 

[GamezRule]

After all, who doesn't want to live in a crappy conservative country? I suppose after you strip gays of all their rights, you will want to move on to even more horribly acts like the Civil Rights act of 1964 and the Emancipation Proclamation?

 

[The_Tyrant]

After all, who doesn't want to live in a crappy conservative country? I suppose after you strip gays of all their rights, you will want to move on to even more horribly acts like the Civil Rights act of 1964 and the Emancipation Proclamation?

The term "gay rights" is misleading and should be considered a fallacy, Gays have all the rights you and I have. Marriage is not and has never been considered a right by the United States government.