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

#41 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 06:36 AM

Nikcara, on Jun 11 2003, 12:37 PM, said:

There is evidence that some people are just born homosexual.
See, that's kind of a non-starter for me, and I'm on the pro-gay rights side.

We *know* that people are born with their race (and I'm using race loosely, since we are, of course, one race).

I do believe that most homosexuals (and heterosexuals) don't choose to be their orientation; however, I do think that there could well be more to it than genetics.

This is totally EtU thread fodder, btw.
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.

#42 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 06:37 AM

QueenTiye, on Jun 11 2003, 12:40 PM, said:

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?
I'm not sure what 'this case' is. However, any rights that gay couples can't get that married couples can is, by definition, discrimination. IMO.

People can speak out against homosexuality, or heterosexuality. That's their right. But it's inappropriate for the gov't to discriminate.
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.

#43 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 06:39 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Jun 11 2003, 07:40 PM, said:

Nikcara, on Jun 11 2003, 12:37 PM, said:

There is evidence that some people are just born homosexual.
See, that's kind of a non-starter for me, and I'm on the pro-gay rights side.

We *know* that people are born with their race (and I'm using race loosely, since we are, of course, one race).

I do believe that most homosexuals (and heterosexuals) don't choose to be their orientation; however, I do think that there could well be more to it than genetics.

This is totally EtU thread fodder, btw.
The thing that neither side really likes to talk about is just how damned complex human sexuality is.  There's a whole continuum of behavior when it comes to who and what people find sexually desirable, and genetics, environment, society, and heaven knows what else all come into play.   But using biological determinism to explain it all seems just as simplistic as saying it's a matter of choice.

Zack
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#44 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 06:42 AM

Zack-- That's exactly what I was trying to say. Thanks! :cool:
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.

#45 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 06:49 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Jun 11 2003, 07:40 PM, said:

Nikcara, on Jun 11 2003, 12:37 PM, said:

There is evidence that some people are just born homosexual.
See, that's kind of a non-starter for me, and I'm on the pro-gay rights side.

We *know* that people are born with their race (and I'm using race loosely, since we are, of course, one race).

I do believe that most homosexuals (and heterosexuals) don't choose to be their orientation; however, I do think that there could well be more to it than genetics.

This is totally EtU thread fodder, btw.
Personally, so do I.  I think I should clarify a little.

What I meant was how much does the person really *choose* to be gay?  Some people know from a really young age, and gentics may have something to do with it, but like a person's personality in general I think it's a mix of genetics, life experiances, and some unexplainable force that sparks us all (I do believe in reincarnation, so that goes into it as well.  However, for a more scientific type explaintion, I'll leave that out).  Therefore, if homosexual is something you are why should descrimination against that be so much different from racial descrimination?  You can't force yourself to find someone attractive, and if you can I dare one girl in here to make themself find Rush Limbagh or the Pope seem sexy.  I would give an example for straight boys as well, but they're not really springing to mind.
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

#46 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 06:53 AM

Nik-- In that case I agree with you, except the reincarnation part. :). It's a complex interweaving of factors, no doubt.
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.

#47 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 06:53 AM

Nikcara, on Jun 11 2003, 02:37 PM, said:

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?
The jury's still out on whether homosexuality is a matter of biology. But the jury settled the race/biology question millenia ago.

Even if you argue that sexual preference is not a choice, you must still choose whether or not to act on that preference. You can choose to follow your primal instincts, you can choose to reject them, you can choose to remain celibate.

But choice can never be a factor in race.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#48 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 07:26 AM

K a question before I try and tackle that other thread and try and make sense out of what I was getting at (though actually, what Zack said was close):

Why does it matter if it's a "practice/choice/lifestyle" or not?

Let's forget about legality for a moment and just talk about morality.

Why is it okay to discriminate (more on the definition of *that* word, which is a loaded gun in and of itself, in a bit) or feel bias against a an adult who has sex with another consenting adult who is the same sex.  Whether it's by choice or by instinct?
Posted Image

#49 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 07:33 AM

I'm not sure anyone here is arguing that discrimination is okay.

Are you really asking "Why is it acceptable to believe that homosexual behavior is (morally) wrong?"

Edited by Drew, 12 June 2003 - 07:34 AM.

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

#50 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,333 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 07:35 AM

Drew, on Jun 11 2003, 04:37 PM, said:

I'm not sure anyone here is arguing that discrimination is okay.

Are you really asking "Why is it acceptable to believe that homosexual behavior is (morally) wrong?"
Precisely.  The issue of discrimination is not the subject of this thread.

QT

OOPS - Editing to say - except as the issue of discrimination relates to the definition of homophobia...

Edited by QueenTiye, 12 June 2003 - 07:37 AM.

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#51 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 07:55 AM

To answer Drew and QT, I've decided to throw some definitions out here.

First, the definition of Discrimination from the EEOC.  Note that this is a legalistic definition and is specifically in the context of civil rights law:

Quote

Discrimination is defined in civil rights law as unfavorable or unfair treatment of a person or class of persons in comparison to others who are not members of the protected class because of race, sex, color, religion, national origin, age, physical/mental handicap, sexual harassment, sexual orientation or reprisal for opposition to discriminatory practices or participation in the EEO process.
  (Emphasis added)

Second a definition of Bias  I couldn't find a legal one so I had to rely on Webster online:

Quote

BENT, TENDENCY b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : PREJUDICE c : an instance of such prejudice

Finally, a definition of prejudice as put forth by the famous Harvard psychologist, Gordon Allport, who published The Nature of Prejudice in 1954.

Quote

"Prejudice is an antipathy based on faulty and inflexible generalization. It may be felt or expressed. It may be directed toward a group or an individual of that group".

Now I think that we all can agree that "discrimination" is behavior.

However, and this is based on my personal and professional experience, the behavior of discrimination often stems at least partially from a bias or prejudice against the object of discrimination.

In my view, it *is* wrong to discriminate or be prejudiced or be biased against people just because (whether by choice or not) they are sexually attracted to people of the same sex.

Moreover the argument that one should "fight" these tendencies is one that I find completely unpersuasive.  That argument assumes that these "tendencies" are some kind of evil thing that need to be squelched.  In my view these "tendencies" are no more un natural than say Drew's tendency to be sexually attracted to women or mine to be sexually attracted to men.

Again this is my view and, although I maintain that people who think it's okay to think ill of people based on their sexuality (eventually I'll get back to that thread) are wrong, I don't think it makes a person bad.  Just human.

In my view, as I said in my first post of this thread, there is not a single person in this world who can claim to be wholly free from any bias or prejudice.  

Lil
Posted Image

#52 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,333 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 08:02 AM

sierraleone, on Jun 11 2003, 02:02 PM, said:

^ can't even be a "live and let live" kinda of person these days without someone saying *thats* wrong??? :D :D :D
Meant to answer this.

There ARE Live and let live people! But everybody doesn't have to be one.

The same argument comes up with drug usage - people say "if the person wants to take drugs, it's nobody's business but their own."  Perhaps the government SHOULDN'T have anything to say about it - but that doesn't prevent someone from having a moral opinion, and the fact that someone doesn't want the government telling people what to do doesn't mean that that same someone agrees that it is moral to use addictive drugs.  It just means that they don't think the offense is one that the government should be involved in.

For this reason - the homophobia label bothers me.  I can still make a moral judgement about homosexuality without agreeing that discrimination against people who commit the same is right.  Linking the two issues misses the point.

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#53 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 08:03 AM

I think that simply using the word "bias" or "prejudice" already puts a negative spin on the sentiment. Anyway, until thoughts are made crimes (anyone care to discuss hate speech legislation?) we're free to believe as we want to believe.

That brings us back around to the word "homophobia" and the way it's used to attack others. Essentially, those accused of "homophobia" are being accused of "thoughtcrimes."
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#54 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,333 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 08:04 AM

Lil I get your point.  There is no other way for you to say it that will make it different from what it already is.  You believe that having a moral opinion about homosexuality is wrong.  I disagree.

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#55 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 08:05 AM

EDIT: Double post (triple, really) and I don't know why.

Edited by Drew, 12 June 2003 - 08:30 AM.

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

#56 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 08:07 AM

Quote

The same argument comes up with drug usage - people say "if the person wants to take drugs, it's nobody's business but their own." Perhaps the government SHOULDN'T have anything to say about it

I don't think your analogy is appropriate.  People on drugs do things like drive drunk.  There is verifiable hard evidence that it's not just THEMSELVES involved here.  Consensual sex between two adults hasn't a single thing to do with drug use.

Quote

For this reason - the homophobia label bothers me. I can still make a moral judgement about homosexuality without agreeing that discrimination against people who commit the same is right. Linking the two issues misses the point.

No one wants to be told they have homophobic tendencies.  At least no one I know.

But QT, homophobia is not just about the act of discriminating, it's about attitudes and feelings and (with all due respect to you and Drew) I think that bias and prejudice are perfectly valid (and accurate) terms here.

I'm not trying to insult you.  I mean it.  It's just that I truly believe that homophobia encompasses far more than discrimination.

Lil

Edited by Una Salus Lillius, 12 June 2003 - 08:10 AM.

Posted Image

#57 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 08:10 AM

And one more thing.  It's not a crime to be homophobic.

So if someone uses the word they're not accusing anyone of a crime but commenting on their attitudes.

Something they're free to do though as QT points out, coming out of the shoot with such a loaded word is unlikely to lead to fruitful discussion.
Posted Image

#58 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,333 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 08:11 AM

Sticking with my substance abuse analogy for a minute...

I don't drink.  Both because I believe that alcoholism runs in my family, and because I believe it is morally wrong to do so.

No one accuses me of being discriminatory against people who drink.  I'm not.  Most people I know DO drink, and I can make a moral judgement about that - and still know that calling them a drunk when they aren't one would be discriminatory, and I still know that if they get hit by a car after a night at the bar, evidence has to be presented to establish fault.  I know that even drunk drivers are human beings who may possibly need help - and I know that some are irresponsible human beings who deserve to be in jail.    And THAT'S with an almost universally accepted moral wrong - (driving while intoxicated)!  I don't discriminate against people because of their moral failings.  

Having moral opinions doesn't make me any kind of phobic person.

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#59 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 08:14 AM

QueenTiye, on Jun 11 2003, 02:08 PM, said:

Lil I get your point.  There is no other way for you to say it that will make it different from what it already is.  You believe that having a moral opinion about homosexuality is wrong.  I disagree.

QT
Yup.  We disagree.

Vive la difference!

:)

Lil
Posted Image

#60 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 12 June 2003 - 08:16 AM

Drew, on Jun 11 2003, 02:09 PM, said:

That brings us back around to the word "homophobia" and the way it's used to attack others. Essentially, those accused of "homophobia" are being accused of "thoughtcrimes."
I could say the same thing about the word "racist".  Or "anti semitic".  Or "sexist".  Or "agist".
Posted Image



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