Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Hot Topic: Define Homophobia

LGBT Homophobia

  • Please log in to reply
186 replies to this topic

#21 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,226 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 04:23 AM

G1223, on Jun 11 2003, 09:13 AM, said:

There are moral rights and wrongs in sexual manners otherwise why is rape wrong?
Sex with children?

These are matters for debate that is why we have dialogs about homosexuality the act is between two consenting partners but not all of our society is comfortable with the topic they do not need to be locked away and quized by head shrinkers we need to see what their reservations are concerning.

Maybe they have a valid claim maybe not. So it's not nessicarily right to sterotype any person's behavior Pro or Con.
Those hurt people, two consenting adults (heck over two consenting adults :p) isn't anyone else buisness, unless they are hurting someone. My morality usually draws the line at harming people. The Idea that homosexual couples can, do, or should have sex, and might live in your neighbourhood - or are legally santified in marriage by the law, doesn't hurt people (though they may disagree with it to various degrees). Verbally/emotionally hurting people is a whole other ball game though, and I'm not going to get into that :D
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#22 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 04:35 AM

sierraleone, on Jun 11 2003, 05:27 PM, said:

G1223, on Jun 11 2003, 09:13 AM, said:

There are moral rights and wrongs in sexual manners otherwise why is rape wrong?
Sex with children?

These are matters for debate that is why we have dialogs about homosexuality the act is between two consenting partners but not all of our society is comfortable with the topic they do not need to be locked away and quized by head shrinkers we need to see what their reservations are concerning.

Maybe they have a valid claim maybe not. So it's not nessicarily right to sterotype any person's behavior Pro or Con.
Those hurt people, two consenting adults (heck over two consenting adults :p) isn't anyone else buisness, unless they are hurting someone. My morality usually draws the line at harming people. The Idea that homosexual couples can, do, or should have sex, and might live in your neighbourhood - or are legally santified in marriage by the law, doesn't hurt people (though they may disagree with it to various degrees). Verbally/emotionally hurting people is a whole other ball game though, and I'm not going to get into that :D

So do my morals and that is why it's moraly right to prevent such acts. Not becasue I have said it but becasue it is a commonagreement of people that such acts are wrong.

This why the debate homosexuality is needed there are folks who disagree and say that it is wrong. They quote their beilfs and use the bible to at times defend these beilfes but not does not automaticly mean they are right or wrong. Same with those saying it is natural and there should not be any concernabout it. They maybe right or wrong.

Edited by G1223, 12 June 2003 - 04:39 AM.

If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#23 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,226 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 04:58 AM

^ can't even be a "live and let live" kinda of person these days without someone saying *thats* wrong??? :D :D :D
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#24 Bossy

Bossy

    Chaos Personified

  • Islander
  • 1,408 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 05:13 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Jun 11 2003, 11:53 AM, said:

Quote

It presupposes that people who have problems with homosexuality have not done so. Is presupposes that everyone who has critically looked at the issue must conclude that homosexuality "just is" and that there are no moral rights or wrongs involved. It presupposes that people who critically look at the issue and come up with a conclusion other than your own are wrong.

In this case you are right.  It presupposes all of these things.  Because in this case if you don't agree with me I think you *are* wrong.  That's the way I feel about it and I'm not ashamed to say so at all.

In my view there ARE no moral rights or wrong to sexuality.  It just is.  

QT, what if we substitute people of color for homosexuality.

What if I say something like "Oh yeah those people totally deserve to be equal under the law but I sure wouldn't want my daughter dating one."

Or, if you think it's a matter of choice, let's use religion instead.

"Oh yeah, Jews don't deserve any kind of persecution but I sure wouldn't want my daughter marrying one."

Would you agree that I have "issues" with people of color or Jews.

It wouldn't make me a Nazi or a card carrying member of the KKK but would not such attitudes demonstrate a degree of bigotry on my part?

Why is it different for homosexuals?

Because it's in the bible?  Because it's sexuality?  

These are questions, not an attack.

Lil (p.s., I would be less likely to come out of the shoot with a loaded word like homophobe if I hadn't been preemptively called a liar first.;))
Let me ask you this then Lil. If believing homosexuality is wrong makes you a homophobe, does believing Christianity is wrong make you a Christianophobe? Does believing that Islam is wrong make you an Islamophobe? Does believing eating meat is wrong make you a Carnivorophobe?

#25 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 05:26 AM

Bossy, on Jun 11 2003, 06:17 PM, said:

Let me ask you this then Lil. If believing homosexuality is wrong makes you a homophobe, does believing Christianity is wrong make you a Christianophobe? Does believing that Islam is wrong make you an Islamophobe? Does believing eating meat is wrong make you a Carnivorophobe?
While I can't answer for Lil, saying something like Christianity is wrong is just as bad as saying homosexuality is wrong.  It's fine to say that Chrisitianty is wrong for you without just as it's fine to say 'I'm not gay', but with those examples it's still wrong to try to force other people to believe what you believe.  If I think believing in one true god is immoral, then yes, I'm going to have a few issues in dealing with people.  Does that mean I should try to pass laws that Chrisitians or Muslims or Jews shouldn't be allowed to marry beause it will created more of those people?  NO!  because they aren't hurting anyone by doing anything.  They do not infringe upon my rights, and I should not be allowed to infringe upon theirs.
Now, were I afraid of these people should I yell degrodatory terms at them, or just shun them?  No, and I'm not saying everyone who doesn't think gays are immoral do all these things- it's a matter of degree.

In my view, you should look at people as people and ignore things like religion and sexual oritention.  It's hard sometimes, harder if you were raised to believe a certain things about certain people, but if it doesn't hurt anyone why bother worrying so much?
We have fourty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse  -- Rudyard Kipling

Develop compassion for your enemies, that is genuine compassion.  Limited compassion cannot produce this altruism.  -- H. H. the Dalai Lama

#26 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 05:27 AM

^A thoughtful response, QT.

I'm not sure in the end it matters whether a person is gay by biology or inclination, any more than whether a transsexual is that way by biology or inclination. If you feel something so strongly that it drives you life, what difference does it really make in the end why you feel that?

I come from a different direction than a lot of people because I live in an area where there is enormous diversity, and where gay people are considered normal and part of the landscape, and therefore generally not feared or condemned.

I was raised a Christian - I consider myself an agnostic. And I tend to believe that a lot of the Old Testament has seen better days. We eat shellfish but condemn homosexuality. I suspect that if Christ were alive today he would tell us to love and tolerate each other, no matter what form our lives take.

Edited to add: Lest I cofuse everyone, I started writing this response about 7:30 or 8 and it sat on my desktop for hours before I got a break and posted it.   :blush:

Edited by Rhea, 12 June 2003 - 05:56 AM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#27 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,333 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 05:32 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Jun 11 2003, 12:53 PM, said:

In this case you are right.  It presupposes all of these things.  Because in this case if you don't agree with me I think you *are* wrong.  That's the way I feel about it and I'm not ashamed to say so at all.

In my view there ARE no moral rights or wrong to sexuality.  It just is.
And you have a right to your opinions.  I'm just pointing out that that's what it is.


Quote

QT, what if we substitute people of color for homosexuality.

What if I say something like "Oh yeah those people totally deserve to be equal under the law but I sure wouldn't want my daughter dating one."

Or, if you think it's a matter of choice, let's use religion instead.

"Oh yeah, Jews don't deserve any kind of persecution but I sure wouldn't want my daughter marrying one."

Would you agree that I have "issues" with people of color or Jews.

Yes - being born a particular color is not a choice, and until it is proven that homosexuality is not a choice, I would never make this comparison.

On a religious question - I can think of at least one good reason for someone saying they wouldn't want their daughter marrying outside of their own religion.  Stating it as you worded it, I would assume some sort of bigotry was present, but there are lots of people who believe that you should marry within your own religion.  Including lots of Jewish people.  So a reticence on this issue is one that I would not automatically consider bigotry.

Quote

Why is it different for homosexuals?

Because it's in the bible?  Because it's sexuality?

Let's rephrase the question.  Is it wrong for someone to believe their religion is THE WAY?  You may not agree with them, and you may not like their absolute position - but they have a right to their belief.  And there are corrollaries.  People who believe their religion is THE WAY may feel compelled to share that with others - they may feel it is their moral duty to help others find THE WAY.  And they may feel that it is essentially irresponsible to compromise on the issue.  

Yet - some will say that this attitude is inherently bigotted - discriminating against people of other faiths.  In a way, they would be right.  If I think my religion is right, and yours is wrong - then that's my opinion - and my actions are going to follow suit.  I'm going to discriminate against you on some level - because I might try to proselytize you - inherently judging you as being in the wrong until you worship the way I do.  Notwithstanding - this is an issue of conscience... and our country made freedom of conscience a hallmark from its earliest foundation.  

Until homosexuality is ESTABLISHED to be something that is NOT a matter of conscience - I have a right to make my conscience my guide in my opinions here - and I have a right not to be discriminated against or ridiculed for the free exercise of conscience.

Quote

Lil (p.s., I would be less likely to come out of the shoot with a loaded word like homophobe if I hadn't been preemptively called a liar first.;))

In this, all I'll say is re-read the argument being made.  I won't agree or disagree with it - I'll only point out that it is a different way of thinking.

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#28 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,333 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 05:41 AM

Rhea, on Jun 11 2003, 02:31 PM, said:

^A thoughtful response, QT.

I'm not sure in the end it matters whether a person is gay by biology or inclination, any more than whether a transsexual is that way by biology or inclination. If you feel something so strongly that it drives you life, what difference does it really make in the end why you feel that?
Thank you, Rhea!

I want to reiterate that the point of this thread is to address the term "homophobe" - which seems to have the implication that any and all opposition to homosexuality is a fear or bigotry of some sort.

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#29 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 05:55 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Jun 11 2003, 10:10 AM, said:

Hi Jid.

Yeah I've talked to "reformed homosexuals" too.

I think it's a crock.  I think that these poor people have been so brainwashed and are so afraid of being who they are that they "reform".  I actually think it's criminal.:(

As to your friend talking about it as choice because of where he "gravitated", um, so I suppose I could say that I "choose" to be heterosexual because I "gravitate" towards men.

Needless to say, I think *that* is um, a crock too. 

What do you think causes that "gravitation"?

Lil
In all fairness, Lil, you're disregarding two classes of people - those who are on BOTH sides of the street and people who jsut don't know where they belong and may gravitate in one direction earlier in their life and another later down the road. I've known a number of men from the UK over the years who will admit to having homosexual experiences while in school, who are definitely NOT homosexual by preference as adults.

Sexuallity is a pretty complicated affair. But then again, that's why I'm inclined to think everyone ought to go down their own road at their own pace. :p :p
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#30 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,333 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 06:06 AM

Rhea, on Jun 11 2003, 02:59 PM, said:

In all fairness, Lil, you're disregarding two classes of people - those who are on BOTH sides of the street and people who jsut don't know where they belong and may gravitate in one direction earlier in their life and another later down the road. I've known a number of men from the UK over the years who will admit to having homosexual experiences while in school, who are definitely NOT homosexual by preference as adults.

Sexuallity is a pretty complicated affair. But then again, that's why I'm inclined to think everyone ought to go down their own road at their own pace. :p :p
Rhea...Lil seems to be arguing that homosexuality is not a matter of preference.  Therein lies the difference.  If in fact that were proven - then I think we would have to think things through differently.

You asked why biological determinism matters.

Consider this in another way.  We have accepted that addiction is a disease.  There are some possible indications that some people are genetically predetermined to become addicted to alcohol.  Is it wrong to drink alcohol?  To be a drunk?  What about the people who (if it is determined to be truly genetic) really had no choice in the matter?

There are some who believe that drinking alcohol at all is immoral.  That decision isn't going to go away with an understanding of the genetic components of alcoholism.  But there are some who believe that being DRUNK is immoral - not drinking alcohol.  They may reconsider their thinking should it turn out that someone who has the alcoholism gene will always get drunk when given alcohol.  

Moral decisions are often predicated on the amount of free will exercised by the person being judged. If free will is not an issue in homosexuality, then the morality of it has to be looked at differently.  If free will is always the issue - then your opinion - that it's all up to the person is your moral thinking, mine - that there is a standard of morality to be repaired to that doesn't include this behavior, is another.

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#31 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 06:17 AM

I'm going to regret this.

Quote

Lil: In my view there ARE no moral rights or wrong to sexuality. It just is.

So, incest is okay? Pedophilia is okay? If "there are no moral rights or wrongs to sexuality," they must be.

Quote

Lil: QT, what if we substitute people of color for homosexuality.

Apples and oranges. Race discrimination is not equivalent to discrimination based on who someone sleeps with.

Quote

I suspect that if Christ were alive today he would tell us to love and tolerate each other, no matter what form our lives take.

True, and as a Christian I think it's more important that people come to a saving faith in Jesus first and foremost. I'm not going to insist that people straighten out their lives (pun unintended, but claimed) before putting faith in Christ. Afterward, it might be something they'd want to think about, but I always remember that "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." We didn't have to get all cleaned up first.

Why should I expect someone who doesn't even share my worldview to see this issue as I do? Not only are we not on the same page, we're not even in the same library.  

But we're drifting from the topic, aren't we?   :cool:

(For what it's worth, it bothers me the way the word "tolerance" is wielded like a cudgel, as much as the way the word "homophobia" is used to attack. I find those who cry "tolerance" the loudest are usually the least tolerant of others.)

Edited by Drew, 12 June 2003 - 07:16 AM.

"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#32 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 06:19 AM

Quote

Apples and oranges. Race discrimination is not equivalent to discrimination based on who someone sleeps with.

Why?
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#33 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 06:21 AM

QueenTiye, on Jun 11 2003, 02:10 PM, said:

Moral decisions are often predicated on the amount of free will exercised by the person being judged. If free will is not an issue in homosexuality, then the morality of it has to be looked at differently.  If free will is always the issue - then your opinion - that it's all up to the person is your moral thinking, mine - that there is a standard of morality to be repaired to that doesn't include this behavior, is another.
QT, you're a breath of fresh air.  :cool:  I love it when people actually think through philosophical issues logically instead of merely reacting.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#34 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 06:23 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Jun 11 2003, 02:23 PM, said:

Quote

Apples and oranges. Race discrimination is not equivalent to discrimination based on who someone sleeps with.

Why?
One is discrimination based on identity, the other is based on an action. Equating the two does a great disservice to those who have fought against race discrimination for decades.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#35 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 06:25 AM

Drew, on Jun 11 2003, 12:27 PM, said:

One is discrimination based on identity, the other is based on an action. Equating the two does a great disservice to those who have fought against race discrimination for decades.
And that's the answer I was expecting.

Here's my follow-up:

If it's okay to discriminate against gays because of their actions, is it okay to discriminate against Christians based on their actions? If a Christian goes to church every Sunday, is it okay to discriminate against him or her because it's an action, not an identity?

EDIT: To clarify, even if you argue that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, the fact that it *is* a lifestyle choice doesn't make discrimination legitimate.

Edited by Javert Rovinski, 12 June 2003 - 06:26 AM.

St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#36 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 06:30 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Jun 11 2003, 02:29 PM, said:

Here's my follow-up:

If it's okay to discriminate against gays because of their actions, is it okay to discriminate against Christians based on their actions? If a Christian goes to church every Sunday, is it okay to discriminate against him or her because it's an action, not an identity?
I never argued that discrimination was acceptable in either case. I argued that they are not equal.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#37 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,226 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 06:31 AM

What if homosexuality is a intricate dance of genes and enviroment? (as so many things of human nature seem to be)

Edited by sierraleone, 12 June 2003 - 06:32 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#38 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 06:33 AM

Drew, on Jun 11 2003, 12:34 PM, said:

I never argued that discrimination was acceptable in either case. I argued that they are not equal.
:cool:

I misunderstood you. My mistake.

Still, I think the rhetorical point stands, I just picked the wrong 'target'.

People often say that homosexuality is in a different class because it's allegedly a choice... completely ignoring the fact that their religion is a free choice, and nobody wants to be discriminated against on the basis of that. Again, my mistake.  :upside:
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#39 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 06:33 AM

Drew, on Jun 11 2003, 07:34 PM, said:

I never argued that discrimination was acceptable in either case. I argued that they are not equal.
Why?  because someone is born a race?

There is evidence that some people are just born homosexual.  I know a lot of gays and more then a few (by no means do I mean 'all' here though) have admitted that even when they were little, their parents had an idea of what they were.  Talking to some of the parents they admit things like 'well, I never thought of it at the time, but thinking back...'  Right there is an argument that they were born that way.

Or is it because homosexuality is less noticable then race when you look at a person?
We have fourty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse  -- Rudyard Kipling

Develop compassion for your enemies, that is genuine compassion.  Limited compassion cannot produce this altruism.  -- H. H. the Dalai Lama

#40 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,333 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 06:36 AM

The topic being homophobia....

where does the issue of discrimination come in?  Who is discriminating? How?  What constitutes discrimination in this case? Or is every opposition to homosexuality necessarily a discrimination against homosexuals?

Further - discriminating against actions is absolutely the norm, when the actions are wrong.  When people break laws, for instance, we take away their freedom, or fine them or otherwise punish them.  Not because we have anything against the person, but because they took a wrong action.

I make that point without making the point that homosexuals are or should be discriminated against on the basis of their actions.  Just clarifying the distinction between discrimination between people on the basis of their identity and discrimination between people on the basis of their actions.

and, thank you, Drew for the compliment.

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: LGBT, Homophobia

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users