Misuse of the word Phobic

[GeratTzedek]

Phobic means fearful. A person with a phobia has a psychologically pathological condition that makes them dysfunctional -- it is nothing to laugh at.

So why are those who believe homosexual acts to be sin called homophobes?

Are there those out there who are latent homosexual acting out on gays their own fear? Yes. But they are such a small, small insignificant minority of those who believe that homosexuality is wrong.

Is it simply easier for homosexuals to write off those who judge their actions to be wrong as nutcases than to deal with the pain that sane people simply come to that moral judgment?

 

[quatona]

"Phobia is also used in a non-medical sense for aversions of all sorts. These terms are usually constructed with the suffix -phobia. A number of these terms describe negative attitudes or prejudices towards the named subjects. See Non-clinical uses of the term below."

Since this is not a medical discussion board the use of the word seems to be in line with the common usage.
I personally wouldn´t use it in a discussion, though (unless for a person who describes herself as homophob). Generally I think it is a better idea to stick to arguments than to remarks, descriptions or terms concerning the person opposite or her assumed state of mind.

 

[LightHorseman]

quatona pretty much closes this discussion in one post.

Yes, phobia means fear (root word "Phobos" the Greek God of terror) however its meaning has been expanded to encompose irrational hatreds AS WELL.

Wonderful thing language, the way it evolves and changes.

And especially sad when people base flawed arguments on the exact definition of words, regardless of the reality to which they pertain.

 

[wanderingone]

I do place several posters on CF in a category that can only be described as phobic, the only thing that comes close to their paranoia about homosexuality is that of certain anti public schoolers and their paranoia about "government schools" - although to be sure one of the first arguments usually tossed out by those folks is the schools are teaching their kids homosexuality is okay.....

 

[cantata]

Not everyone who believes homosexual acts are sinful is a homophobe. I'm sure that most people here who are in favour of gay rights would agree with me.

A homophobe is someone who has an irrational hatred and/or fear of gay people. And it has to be said that such people do exist. For example, I have heard men on CF say that if a man flirted with them or asked them out, they would punch him in the face. That is homophobic behaviour.

 

[jayem]

Well, ok, I admit to being somewhat of a language Nazi. To me, sloppy word usage is a reflection of sloppy thinking. "Homo-aversion" would more accurately describe what most people mean with the term "homophobia." Though it doesn't roll off the tongue as nicely.

 

[Polycarp1]

Words mean what they've been accepted by a social consensus to mean, regardless of derivation. My wife makes ham with a pineapple glaze; I'll guess that nobody reading that thought of a red fruit on a needle-leaved tree when they saw "pineapple." Our car also has a scissors jack, despite the fact that we've never used it to elevate a pair of scissors. More directly to the point, if you ignore the elderly veterinarian's signs warning that the quarantined dog has hydrophobia, you may be right about the erroneous derivation, but you'll still die of rabies.

As for homophobia itself, I think Cantata nailed it quite well.

And it is somewhat more polite than "hatemongering bigot" which in many cases might be more accurate but is highly offensive.

 

[wanderingone]

Well, ok, I admit to being somewhat of a language Nazi. To me, sloppy word usage is a reflection of sloppy thinking. "Homo-aversion" would more accurately describe what most people mean with the term "homophobia." Though it doesn't roll off the tongue as nicely.

I take it you are only aggressive about other people's language use...Or are you actually a Nazi?

 

[Washington]

I take it you are only aggressive about other people's language use...Or are you actually a Nazi?

Because jayem capitalizes "nazi" he's obviously telling us he's "a member of a German fascist party controlling Germany from 1933 to 1945 under Adolf Hitler" (Merriam-Webster). Now, just how "language" in "language Nazi" qualifies/modifies "Nazi" is a bit of a mystery, but perhaps he'll explain this rather odd membership.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Is it simply easier for homosexuals to write off those who judge their actions to be wrong as nutcases than to deal with the pain that sane people simply come to that moral judgment?

Perhaps a diagnostic continuum of homophobia could be designed and found to be valid and reliable in reasearch.

I do not believe for a minute that most expressing "moral objection" to homosexuality are simply following the Bible at all. They are saying they do, but, they are being highly selective about their Biblical literalism to validate their preexisting homophobia.

BTW, there's no shame in being a "nutcase". As Charles Bukowski said, "There are some people who never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead."

 

[PetersKeys]

"homophobe" is nothing but a red herring. What I don't like about it is that most pro-gay people use it as a license to shut down any rational discussion and concentrates the topic on the person rather than the subject. Its an aversion technique to help make the pro-gay group look more dignified and the people against homosexuality as just "ignorant narrowminded homophobes". The homosexual community needs to concentrate more on the message itself rather than the messenger.

 

[mpok1519]

Some people are afraid of gay people though, and some people fear what might happen to society if homosexuality becomes accepted practice.

Its all very irrational fears though.

Heres a good question; your son/daughter suddenly comes out of the closet; you're not afraid now what others in the church might think? You're not afraid that they'll go to hell?

 

[Texas Lynn]

"homophobe" is nothing but a red herring. What I don't like about it is that most pro-gay people use it as a license to shut down any rational discussion and concentrates the topic on the person rather than the subject. Its an aversion technique to help make the pro-gay group look more dignified and the people against homosexuality as just "ignorant narrowminded homophobes". The homosexual community needs to concentrate more on the message itself rather than the messenger.

People have a right to their opinion; they do not have a right to state it free from criticism.

The message that homophobia's mighty ugly is lost on no one.

 

[GeratTzedek]

I take it you are only aggressive about other people's language use...Or are you actually a Nazi?

Hmmm... How can I say this politely? There are two "N" words that are just not acceptable to be said.

 

[GeratTzedek]

Some people are afraid of gay people though, and some people fear what might happen to society if homosexuality becomes accepted practice.

Its all very irrational fears though.

Heres a good question; your son/daughter suddenly comes out of the closet; you're not afraid now what others in the church might think? You're not afraid that they'll go to hell?

mpok:

Your logic needs tweaking. Fear of a gay person is very, very different from fear of the changes that will take place should gay behavior become an accepted norm. You are asking that people NOT MIND if their entire value system be subverted in society at large. Is that reasonable? After all, you obviously mind it very much that society currently does not support your own value system, and that's why you are seeking to change it. Does that make you a heterophobe?

 

[GeratTzedek]

"homophobe" is nothing but a red herring. What I don't like about it is that most pro-gay people use it as a license to shut down any rational discussion and concentrates the topic on the person rather than the subject. Its an aversion technique to help make the pro-gay group look more dignified and the people against homosexuality as just "ignorant narrowminded homophobes".

Yes, that is my point exactly. By writing off those who believe homosexuality is sin as nutcases, they therefore don't have to deal with them. It's a classic ad-hominem attack. "I'm gay and you're phobic."

 

[KarateCowboy]

Because that way liberal perverts can make a caricature out of the morally upright, which makes them easy to dismiss and not have to deal with the argument. A prime example of this is here:

When you start your proposition based on abject hatred and disgust for gay people, I can see why you have a hard time understanding. Tends to color things. Throw in some hatred for those you define as liberal, and things must get really difficult for you. Like when you say all kinds of nasty things like “perversity advocates” you make it clear that you are closed to the idea of people having same sex orientation, but see it only as a choice. A choice you hate. Laws which discriminate against homosexuals are laws based on hatred. You hate them so very much that you will totally ignore the fact that they can’t marry the person they love and can focus only on genitalia. For me, some of the most upstanding community members I know are gay and have been in committed relationships for decades. Difference is, because people like you hate them so much, you will do everything you can to ensure they cannot have the same legal rights with regard to one another as other committed couples. It’s a sick thing, the bigotry that is so ingrained in you. It must be quite a burden to carry that much hatred for people who never did anything to you and whose relationships have no relevance to your life. Typically this is because of a tendency toward homosexuality. You see, I have no tendency toward it and don’t find men attractive in that way. And even if I did, I’d have no social baggage telling me I’m scum. It seems you might be different from me on both accounts. Don’t worry. I don’t hate you for it.

Anyone who disagrees is bigoted and a hate monger. Notice how the word 'hate' is used over and over? It's the mantra. If you repeat it over and over people will believe it whether it is true or not. It's all a psychological attack to condition people so that there is little attention paid to the fact that homosexuality goes directly against the basics of human design and biological purpose. I

 

[quatona]

By writing off those who believe homosexuality is sin as nutcases, they therefore don't have to deal with them.

I have already shown how "phobia" is a word for a pathological state of mind only in medical language, and has a different meaning in common language.



Anyways - maybe you would appreciate it if people called those rallying against homosexuality "sinful" instead of "homophob"?

While we are at talking about improving the homosexuality discussion, I think it would help the discussion greatly if those who want to see homosexuality oppressed would come up with a rational argument once in a while, in the first place.
'I think it´s immoral and - surprise! - the god of my concepts believes that, too' (and all variations of this statement to the same effect) just don´t give much ground for discussion.

 

[quatona]

Because that way liberal perverts[...]

You have lost every credibility as someone who is concerned with an objective discussion and opposed to name calling already here.

 

[selfinflikted]

You are asking that people NOT MIND if their entire value system be subverted in society at large. Is that reasonable? After all, you obviously mind it very much that society currently does not support your own value system, and that's why you are seeking to change it. Does that make you a heterophobe?

This is.. beyond me. How on earth would leaving gays to their own devices affect your personal "value system". For instance, when gays gain the right to marry, does this mean that you, personally, will have to go out and get married to a person of the same gender? I hate to let you in on this, but the U.S. is made up of all kinds of different people. Not everyone thinks alike, not everyone dresses alike, and certainly not everyone has the same "value system". For such a melting pot to function effectively, one "value system" cannot take precedence over another. This is what we refer to as a Secular Society. As such, one religious system or moral system shall not be preferred or endorsed over another. Simply put, there is no secular reason to deny gays that which makes them happy. It will not affect "your value system" in the least. Let them be, and stop trying to force your beliefs on the rest of us.

Because that way liberal perverts can make a caricature out of the morally upright, which makes them easy to dismiss and not have to deal with the argument.

lol. The "morally upright" do a superb job of making caricatures out of themselves. No help needed from the rest of us.