| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/05/2007 12:27:20 AM · #1 |
My original thread was actually about homophobia, and what people thought of it, not necessarily state-sponsored, although I did link to an article about Iraqi police murdering homosexual people. The thread was inspired by someone's comment somewhere that the term itself is stupid, and has no real meaning, and threatens their belief that homosexuality is "wrong".
I thought to suggest otherwise about the word, and that despite its etymology (it means "fear of the same" and infers "fear of homosexuality"), it suggests mostly bigotry and bias, and those issues are very real. My thinking is that the word "homophobia" is itself feared, because it exposes a deeply ingrained bias using a semi-technical word. Such a natural-feeling dislike as the one toward homosexual people is blind-sided by a seemingly clinical evaluation of an irrational bias, and does indeed threaten deeply entrenched negative views. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 01:22:16 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by Louis:
My original thread was actually about homophobia, and what people thought of it, not necessarily state-sponsored, although I did link to an article about Iraqi police murdering homosexual people. The thread was inspired by someone's comment somewhere that the term itself is stupid, and has no real meaning, and threatens their belief that homosexuality is "wrong". |
Well, here we go!
I find that belief wrong.
Homosexuality is not wrong.
Originally posted by Louis:
I thought to suggest otherwise about the word, and that despite its etymology (it means "fear of the same" and infers "fear of homosexuality"), it suggests mostly bigotry and bias, and those issues are very real. My thinking is that the word "homophobia" is itself feared, because it exposes a deeply ingrained bias using a semi-technical word. Such a natural-feeling dislike as the one toward homosexual people is blind-sided by a seemingly clinical evaluation of an irrational bias, and does indeed threaten deeply entrenched negative views. |
There's a loaded statement!
If you use "natural-feeling dislike as the one toward homosexual people" as a tenet, then yeah, you're get a lot of grief from people who feel that is neither a rational or reasonable attitude.
Why is disliking homosexual feeling a natural dislike on any level?
It would pretty much seem to me to have to stem from fear, ignorance, and the person's insecurity.
Homosexuality isn't contagious, nobody's going to get their mind warped, and guess what?
"They" are people just like you and I who have the same hopes, dreams, rotten Mondays, and bills to pay.
"They" live and love and laugh and are just as much a part of everyday life as the next person.
Actually, one couple that are friends of mine have been together the second longest of any couples I know.
And Lisa and I have been together for 29 years.
I'm sure this one will go off into the stratosphere, but I'm signing in on the side of gay rights, and I have *NO* agenda on that other than many of the nicest and most decent and kind opeople I know are gay, and they deserve to have the same rights and privileges that I enjoy.
Let the flames fly!
|
|
|
|
11/05/2007 01:36:57 AM · #3 |
It seems to me that "homophobia" is exactly the right word for what we are discussing: extreme reactions to homosexuals. If someone believes homosexuality is "wrong", or "immoral", or whatever, that isn't homophobia, that's a belief. When a person is so obsessed with perceived homosexual behavior that s/he acts out against it, especially violently, THAT is homophobia.
I know plenty of people who are "bothered" by homosexuality, but do not in any tangible way discriminate against homosexuals, except by steering clear of them. I don't think of them as homophobes. But "gay bashing", to name just one behavior, THAT is homophobia in my eyes. People who do that feel threatened by homosexuality, at some primal level.
To say, as was stated in the locked thread, that homosexuality is "clearly" a "choice", because it is a behavior that is engaged in, is patently absurd. Never mind the semantics of the thing, the scholarly/medical definitions etc; if I am turned on by women, perhaps even obsess about them in the recesses of my mind, but am so painfully shy that I am unable to establish a relationship with one, am I not still heterosexual? Is a man who has taken a vow of chastity, for whatever reason, not a heterosexual? For that matter, according to this issue of choice of behavior defining the condition, are not all virgins neuter?
Does anyone REALLY think you don't become defined in your sexual orientation until you engage in the act of sex? That's ridiculous! Just as ridiculous as saying if a gay person has sex with an opposite-sex partner, s/he is not "really" gay, or that anyone who EVER has had sex with a same-sex partner is definably homosexual...
R.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2007 01:38:15 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by Louis:
My original thread was actually about homophobia, and what people thought of it, not necessarily state-sponsored, although I did link to an article about Iraqi police murdering homosexual people. The thread was inspired by someone's comment somewhere that the term itself is stupid, and has no real meaning, and threatens their belief that homosexuality is "wrong".
I thought to suggest otherwise about the word, and that despite its etymology (it means "fear of the same" and infers "fear of homosexuality"), it suggests mostly bigotry and bias, and those issues are very real. My thinking is that the word "homophobia" is itself feared, because it exposes a deeply ingrained bias using a semi-technical word. Such a natural-feeling dislike as the one toward homosexual people is blind-sided by a seemingly clinical evaluation of an irrational bias, and does indeed threaten deeply entrenched negative views. |
so you are saying that people that are "homophobic" are afraid of being labeled so. And if so it's probably because the definition of the word isn't clear or has two possible meanings. One meaning that a person is actually afraid of gay people and the other is that they just dislike them. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 01:46:23 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Does anyone REALLY think you don't become defined in your sexual orientation until you engage in the act of sex? That's ridiculous! Just as ridiculous as saying if a gay person has sex with an opposite-sex partner, s/he is not "really" gay, or that anyone who EVER has had sex with a same-sex partner is definably homosexual...
R. |
Is this similar to other concepts of thought and action? If I have been considering stealing something from a store, even planning it, does that make me a thief?
I think there is a definition problem (communication problem) that feeds the anger and frustration.
Message edited by author 2007-11-05 01:47:35. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 01:58:12 AM · #6 |
| If one compares homophobia to heterophobia I think the distinctions come quickly and are easily defined. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 02:09:42 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by briantammy:
Is this similar to other concepts of thought and action? If I have been considering stealing something from a store, even planning it, does that make me a thief?
I think there is a definition problem (communication problem) that feeds the anger and frustration. |
The definition of a thief is "one who steals". But you can be homosexual and celibate.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2007 02:21:24 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by briantammy:
Is this similar to other concepts of thought and action? If I have been considering stealing something from a store, even planning it, does that make me a thief?
I think there is a definition problem (communication problem) that feeds the anger and frustration. |
The definition of a thief is "one who steals". But you can be homosexual and celibate.
R. |
i have no problem with that definition.
Are there other names then to distinguish those homosexuals that engage in the activity of sex verses those that don't?
Message edited by author 2007-11-05 02:24:00. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 02:30:59 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by briantammy:
i have no problem with that definition.
Are there other names then to distinguish those homosexuals that engage in the activity of sex verses those that don't? |
Why would you need to make that distinction? What's wrong with "celibate"? A human being who does not engage in sex is celibate, and that's all there is to it.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2007 02:42:40 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by briantammy:
i have no problem with that definition.
Are there other names then to distinguish those homosexuals that engage in the activity of sex verses those that don't? |
Why would you need to make that distinction? What's wrong with "celibate"? A human being who does not engage in sex is celibate, and that's all there is to it.
R. |
This is not something i've given much thought to before but i think there is a need for the distinction. I think if I explain it this thread will find the same fate as the other one. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 02:49:14 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by briantammy:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by briantammy:
i have no problem with that definition.
Are there other names then to distinguish those homosexuals that engage in the activity of sex verses those that don't? |
Why would you need to make that distinction? What's wrong with "celibate"? A human being who does not engage in sex is celibate, and that's all there is to it.
R. |
This is not something i've given much thought to before but i think there is a need for the distinction. I think if I explain it this thread will find the same fate as the other one. |
There's an implication you're making here, that for a heterosexual person celibate/not celibate is not a value distinction, but for a homosexual person it is — that being a celibate homosexual is more "acceptable" than being a sexually active homosexual. The distinction carries all that baggage that many label as "homophobia"...
R.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2007 02:50:32 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Louis:
My thinking is that the word "homophobia" is itself feared, because it exposes a deeply ingrained bias using a semi-technical word. Such a natural-feeling dislike as the one toward homosexual people is blind-sided by a seemingly clinical evaluation of an irrational bias, and does indeed threaten deeply entrenched negative views. |
What if a heterosexual is born that way? Not an irrational bias, but ingrained in our "ability" to survive? They were born to have a natural feeling to not like and not want homosexual behavior, because it is not good for the tribe/pride/herd. 12000+ years of trying to keep the human race alive by propagating the species, may be hard to weed out of society in less than 100 years.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2007 02:52:22 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by briantammy:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by briantammy:
i have no problem with that definition.
Are there other names then to distinguish those homosexuals that engage in the activity of sex verses those that don't? |
Why would you need to make that distinction? What's wrong with "celibate"? A human being who does not engage in sex is celibate, and that's all there is to it.
R. |
This is not something i've given much thought to before but i think there is a need for the distinction. I think if I explain it this thread will find the same fate as the other one. |
There's an implication you're making here, that for a heterosexual person celibate/not celibate is not a value distinction, but for a homosexual person it is — that being a celibate homosexual is more "acceptable" than being a sexually active homosexual. The distinction carries all that baggage that many label as "homophobia"...
R. |
exactly |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 02:59:48 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The distinction carries all that baggage that many label as "homophobia"...
R. |
actually the reason, I believe, for much of the friction is the fact that the distinction isn't being made. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 03:27:43 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I know plenty of people who are "bothered" by homosexuality, but do not in any tangible way discriminate against homosexuals, except by steering clear of them. I don't think of them as homophobes. |
I'm puzzled by this. "Steering clear of them" sounds a lot like fear to me. Why else would someone do that if it's not fear based?
|
|
|
|
11/05/2007 03:36:43 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Originally posted by Louis:
My thinking is that the word "homophobia" is itself feared, because it exposes a deeply ingrained bias using a semi-technical word. Such a natural-feeling dislike as the one toward homosexual people is blind-sided by a seemingly clinical evaluation of an irrational bias, and does indeed threaten deeply entrenched negative views. |
What if a heterosexual is born that way? Not an irrational bias, but ingrained in our "ability" to survive? They were born to have a natural feeling to not like and not want homosexual behavior, because it is not good for the tribe/pride/herd. 12000+ years of trying to keep the human race alive by propagating the species, may be hard to weed out of society in less than 100 years. |
That could be extended to any who are not the same.
Those who dress differently.
Those with different colored skin.
Those who speak differently.
Those who worship differently.
etc.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2007 06:53:55 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Louis:
My original thread was actually about homophobia, and what people thought of it, not necessarily state-sponsored, although I did link to an article about Iraqi police murdering homosexual people. The thread was inspired by someone's comment somewhere that the term itself is stupid, and has no real meaning, and threatens their belief that homosexuality is "wrong".
I thought to suggest otherwise about the word, and that despite its etymology (it means "fear of the same" and infers "fear of homosexuality"), it suggests mostly bigotry and bias, and those issues are very real. My thinking is that the word "homophobia" is itself feared, because it exposes a deeply ingrained bias using a semi-technical word. Such a natural-feeling dislike as the one toward homosexual people is blind-sided by a seemingly clinical evaluation of an irrational bias, and does indeed threaten deeply entrenched negative views. |
Again, you make wrong and harmful generalizations that have absolutely no basis in fact.
Homophobia is CLEARLY an incorrect and inflammatory word used solely to discredit the completely valid views people have about homosexuality. Those views are typically not toward any person directly -- except as false claims that unacceptance of their chosen lifestyle is "harmful" to them.
I have no dislike toward "homosexual" people, just toward their actions. I think most people incorrectly labelled "homophobes" feel the same way.
There are exceptions where folks are intolerant or even violent toward those who have chosen this lifestyle, but those people are typically rejected by the community they claim to align with -- because their actions of intolerance and violence violate the beliefs and practices of said group.
So yes, homophobia is an incorrect word -- and is itself a term of hatred.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2007 06:55:50 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Louis:
My thinking is that the word "homophobia" is itself feared, because it exposes a deeply ingrained bias using a semi-technical word. Such a natural-feeling dislike as the one toward homosexual people is blind-sided by a seemingly clinical evaluation of an irrational bias, and does indeed threaten deeply entrenched negative views. |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
What if a heterosexual is born that way? Not an irrational bias, but ingrained in our "ability" to survive? They were born to have a natural feeling to not like and not want homosexual behavior, because it is not good for the tribe/pride/herd. 12000+ years of trying to keep the human race alive by propagating the species, may be hard to weed out of society in less than 100 years. |
See, There's the rub.....I don't believe for one instant that you can be born with a bias. That's conditioning.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
That could be extended to any who are not the same.
Those who dress differently.
Those with different colored skin.
Those who speak differently.
Those who worship differently.
etc. |
There's a concept!
|
|
|
|
11/05/2007 07:10:11 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
What if a heterosexual is born that way? Not an irrational bias, but ingrained in our "ability" to survive? They were born to have a natural feeling to not like and not want homosexual behavior, because it is not good for the tribe/pride/herd. 12000+ years of trying to keep the human race alive by propagating the species, may be hard to weed out of society in less than 100 years. |
That could be extended to any who are not the same.
Those who dress differently.
Those with different colored skin.
Those who speak differently.
Those who worship differently.
etc. |
??? He ( dacrazyrn) was headed in the direction of procreation and survival of the species. That has nothing to do with "differences". I think he made a solid point. Homosexuality is not natural (we wouldn't have male/female combinations if it was). A built-in bias against the "unnatural" could have some long-term survival roots. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 07:16:33 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Again, you make wrong and harmful generalizations that have absolutely no basis in fact.
Homophobia is CLEARLY an incorrect and inflammatory word used solely to discredit the completely valid views people have about homosexuality. Those views are typically not toward any person directly -- except as false claims that unacceptance of their chosen lifestyle is "harmful" to them. |
No, it isn't.
And views based on fear, ignorance, and/or conditioning, while typical, should not be labeled as valid.
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
I have no dislike toward "homosexual" people, just toward their actions. I think most people incorrectly labelled "homophobes" feel the same way.
There are exceptions where folks are intolerant or even violent toward those who have chosen this lifestyle, but those people are typically rejected by the community they claim to align with -- because their actions of intolerance and violence violate the beliefs and practices of said group.
So yes, homophobia is an incorrect word -- and is itself a term of hatred. |
Okay, folks, let's throw these into the mix here NOW!
Get off the whole inflammatory word thing, you're wrong.
Dictionary.com Unabridged ho·mo·pho·bi·a [hoh-muh-foh-bee-uh]
noun- unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.
[Origin: 1955–60; homo(sexual) + -phobia]
Related forms
ho·mo·pho·bic, adjective
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - ho·mo·pho·bi·a
Pronunciation Key (hô'mə-fô'bç-ə)
n.-Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
Behavior based on such a feeling.
[homo(sexual) + -phobia.]
ho'mo·phobe' n., ho'mo·pho'bic adj.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
WordNet-homophobia
noun-prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary - Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun-irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals —ho·mo·phobe /'hO-m&-"fOb/ noun —ho·mo·pho·bic /"hO-m&-'fO-bik/ adjective
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
To me, the operative word is irrational.
Notice that the MEDICAL dictionary considers this fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality as irrational.
I don't disoute that this behavior isn't all too typical of conditioning, but I have a reall problem with its perpetuation.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2007 07:21:27 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
He ( dacrazyrn) was headed in the direction of procreation and survival of the species. That has nothing to do with "differences". I think he made a solid point. Homosexuality is not natural (we wouldn't have male/female combinations if it was). A built-in bias against the "unnatural" could have some long-term survival roots. |
Okay.....two things here...
One-homosexuality is common in other species. As much as we'd like to think we're special in the big picture, we are first and foremost, mammals and primates.
Explain to me your basis for stating that homosexuality isn't natural.
You think it's a choice?
Who would sign up for the abuse and harassment?
Two-The procreation of the species argument won't fly with me either if you're going to try and fly it that homosexuality is a choice.
You cannot have one choice such as homosexuality, and then throw the instinct thing and the natural bias toward same in the argument......it's apples and oranges.
If you make the choice to be homosexual, then how can homophobia be anything BUT conditioning?
Message edited by author 2007-11-05 07:22:40.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2007 07:22:29 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
??? He ( dacrazyrn) was headed in the direction of procreation and survival of the species. That has nothing to do with "differences". I think he made a solid point. Homosexuality is not natural (we wouldn't have male/female combinations if it was). A built-in bias against the "unnatural" could have some long-term survival roots. |
Actually homosexuality can be found in many species. I don't tend to think it is unnatural. Besides... we aren't underpopulated these days, there is no need to fear lack of procreation. I get that your are saying it on a "built-in" basis but I think that is founded on any sort of fact.
So I got beat to the punch!
Message edited by author 2007-11-05 07:22:57. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 07:24:25 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Actually homosexuality can be found in many species. I don't tend to think it is unnatural. Besides... we aren't underpopulated these days, there is no need to fear lack of procreation. I get that your are saying it on a "built-in" basis but I think that is founded on any sort of fact.
So I got beat to the punch! |
You mean you DON'T think that it is founded on any sort of fact, right?.....8>)
|
|
|
|
11/05/2007 07:27:15 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Again, you make wrong and harmful generalizations that have absolutely no basis in fact.
Homophobia is CLEARLY an incorrect and inflammatory word used solely to discredit the completely valid views people have about homosexuality. Those views are typically not toward any person directly -- except as false claims that unacceptance of their chosen lifestyle is "harmful" to them.
I have no dislike toward "homosexual" people, just toward their actions. I think most people incorrectly labelled "homophobes" feel the same way.
|
Completely valid views? That's like saying racism is completely valid. Which at a point in time and in some areas is still said to be valid... just like valuing males over females (still practiced today as well). All of these things that are thought to be valid for religious or "scientific" reasons or otherwise.
Disliking the action or the person, you are still passing judgment. |
|
|
|
11/05/2007 07:27:49 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Actually homosexuality can be found in many species. I don't tend to think it is unnatural. Besides... we aren't underpopulated these days, there is no need to fear lack of procreation. I get that your are saying it on a "built-in" basis but I think that is founded on any sort of fact.
So I got beat to the punch! |
You mean you DON'T think that it is founded on any sort of fact, right?.....8>) |
yes yes... it's 4:30 in the AM gimmie a break! :)
Back to homework now... |
|
