Misuse of the word Phobic

[Texas Lynn]

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?

That's what happened in the South in the civil rights era. It was considered disgusting by the white majority for African-Americans to eat beside them in restaurants, be subject to equal treatment in the justice system, and to marry white, and they were told those values were reprehensible because they were. So is the hatred and prejudice to which LGBTs are subjected to by bigots, and it will be thrown out the same way.

I have a step-grandmother I loved very much. But she was an old racist. She cried, literally, when her old high school elected an African-American homecoming queen. That is sad, sad for the community and the school, and sad for my step-grandmother, that she was mired in a hateful bigotry. So it is when people are mired in homophobia.

 

[KarateCowboy]

That's what happened in the South in the civil rights era. It was considered disgusting by the white majority for African-Americans to eat beside them in restaurants, be subject to equal treatment in the justice system, and to marry white, and they were told those values were reprehensible because they were. So is the hatred and prejudice to which LGBTs are subjected to by bigots, and it will be thrown out the same way.

I have a step-grandmother I loved very much. But she was an old racist. She cried, literally, when her old high school elected an African-American homecoming queen. That is sad, sad for the community and the school, and sad for my step-grandmother, that she was mired in a hateful bigotry. So it is when people are mired in homophobia.

So we see the mantra again. First there is exhibited the ignorance that is required to conflate a superficial trait like skin color with a core structural trait such as sex which has deep physical, physiological, and psychological effects on the individual. Then there are the delusions of grandeur that we are somehow heroes and champions of rights by advocating the spread of our ignorance. Then there is the emotional reasoning: rather than confronting our naked ignorance, let us paint any who disagree as caricatures of hatred and mentally ill, that way we do not have to deal with their arguments and can simply dismiss them. A child, let on his own, will see the purpose of male is for female and female is for male, but not the willingly ignorant, sanctimonious preachers of debasement. They will rage and seethe against the established wisdom, hurling insults and spitting venom, all the while sweetly preaching of their own love and acceptance of 'those who differ'. Of course, this requires the element of delusion; they must ignore the fact that when they say "those who differ", it means not "those who differ with us" but "those who differ with those who differ with us".

 

[quatona]

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.

It will be accepted, it will not be a norm.

You are asking that people NOT MIND if their entire value system be subverted in society at large.

No, you can keep your personal value system all you like.
Nobody wants you to let go of heterosexuality. Nobody wants anybody to condemn heterosexuality. Nobody wants anybody to consider heterosexuality sinful. Nobody wants you to modify your sexual preference or your sexuality.

For all those who may have misunderstood the implications:
Homosexuality will not - I repeat: not - be mandatory.

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?

1. No, it can´t make me heterophobe because I support heterosexuality fully - seeing that I am heterosexual.
2. No, what it makes me is a guy who defends basic paradigms of democracy (the political system of the very society you are talking about) and the constitution that this society has given itself.

 

[wanderingone]

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

What ever are you talking about? The guy complained about people using words inappropriately and proceeded it by calling himself a language "Nazi" complete with Capital N.... if you're going to be annoyed about the misuse of the word Phobe could you please be consistent in your distaste for the misappropriation of words?

 

[wanderingone]

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."

Half a dozen people pointed out they don't think all people who don't believe homosexuality is acceptable according to their faith are homophobic... but you choose to ignore that.

I'm not gay -another point missed here... not all the people pointing out the homophobia are gay... I still recognize homophobia... I also recognize trolls.. several people who post extensively about homosexuality are really just trolls. Most who simply view homosexuality as a sin as they do premarital sex, or drinking, or gambling, or whatever else they feel God has called a sin don't have all that much to say on the topic beyond "I don't agree"

I do post in almost every thread on the topic, and will continue to.. because every time someone decides to scream and holler about Leviticus the lurking gay teenager barely hanging on needs to hear someone holler back about the greatest commandment.

 

[GeratTzedek]

I acknowledge that not every single last person in favor of gay rights calls me a homophobe. But most, upon hearing my concerns about how gay marraige, etc., would alter society, DO. In fact, in this very thread, such an idea has already been labeled "irrational." (And I didn't see you speaking out against that.) That is the norm. The fact that there are exeptions doesn't mean a rule doesn't exist.

 

[GeratTzedek]

quatona:

Do you understand what a rhetorical question is? sigh*

You are confusing sexual orientation with value systems, and you are confusing personal value systems with societal value systems. All three are quite different, and I don't even know where to begin to untangle it for you.

First, I am talking about the insistance of the gay rights movement that everyone NOT MIND a shift in SOCIETAL values -- the height of presumption and hypocricy, given that they very much mind current societal values and have worked very hard to change them. This has nothing to do with personal values. And it has diddly squat to do with sexual orientation.

Second, you assume that everyone is either gay or straight, when in fact a good deal of people have the ability to some extent to swing both ways. Do you not understand that such a person in a traditional society will opt to nurture attraction to the opposite sex, while in a society where gay marraige is seen as an equally good alternative the same person would be far more open to exploring possibiolities with both sexes???? You have no idea how many women I've known who have gone through periods of being "lesbian" simply because it became a trendy thing among their college crowd, women who would never have even thought of such a thing in an earlier day and age. So please don't kid yourself that these proposed changes will not effect people's choices.

 

[Texas Lynn]

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."

I don't think it's quite so simple. The actor-comedian Ray Romano said that he always sits in the back row of theatres because he is "germphobic" (because that way there are no people in rows behind him who will sneeze or breathe on him). There's no stigma attached to it. It just is what it is.

Likewise people who are down on immigrants and other cultures are "xenophobic". It's no big deal, it's just the truth.

Nice try but no cigar.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Because that way liberal perverts can make a caricature out of the morally upright

"Liberal perverts" (interesting term; "liberalophobia", perhaps?) did not create Anthony Comstock, Mrs. Grundy, Charles Keating, J. Edgar Hoover and so forth...they became what they were of their own accord entirely. That it was a charicature was just serendipity.

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.

You mean like the junk theology that to be LGBT is sinful? The right wing extremists take a handful of Bible passages out of context and utter such theological inanities like Sodom was destroyed because the Sodom Gay Men's Chorus was ogling Lot's house guests and like.

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.

And you know that, how? What makes YOU privy to "the basics of human design and biological purpose" when credentialed scientists disagree about it?

IOW it's just another strawman argument the old "it's not naaaaaaaaaaatural" bromide which merely reveals the squeamishness of the speaker.

 

[Texas Lynn]

So we see the mantra again. First there is exhibited the ignorance that is required to conflate a superficial trait like skin color with a core structural trait such as sex which has deep physical, physiological, and psychological effects on the individual. Then there are the delusions of grandeur that we are somehow heroes and champions of rights by advocating the spread of our ignorance. Then there is the emotional reasoning: rather than confronting our naked ignorance, let us paint any who disagree as caricatures of hatred and mentally ill, that way we do not have to deal with their arguments and can simply dismiss them. A child, let on his own, will see the purpose of male is for female and female is for male, but not the willingly ignorant, sanctimonious preachers of debasement. They will rage and seethe against the established wisdom, hurling insults and spitting venom, all the while sweetly preaching of their own love and acceptance of 'those who differ'. Of course, this requires the element of delusion; they must ignore the fact that when they say "those who differ", it means not "those who differ with us" but "those who differ with those who differ with us".

No offense but I think you just had an attack of logghorrea. That word salad there is some bizarre stuff fo'shizzle.

BTW if the right really believes all children are naturally homophobic then why do they oppose gay scoutmasters?

 

[Texas Lynn]

... my concerns about how gay marraige, etc., would alter society...

Well, I should certainly hope it would!

Robert Anton Wilson postulated people are divided between being "neophilic" (enamored of the new) and "neophobic" (afraid of the new).

I believe we have a dual diagnosis!

 

[Texas Lynn]

quatona:

Do you understand what a rhetorical question is? sigh*

You are confusing sexual orientation with value systems, and you are confusing personal value systems with societal value systems. All three are quite different, and I don't even know where to begin to untangle it for you.

First, I am talking about the insistance of the gay rights movement that everyone NOT MIND a shift in SOCIETAL values -- the height of presumption and hypocricy, given that they very much mind current societal values and have worked very hard to change them. This has nothing to do with personal values. And it has diddly squat to do with sexual orientation.

Second, you assume that everyone is either gay or straight, when in fact a good deal of people have the ability to some extent to swing both ways. Do you not understand that such a person in a traditional society will opt to nurture attraction to the opposite sex, while in a society where gay marraige is seen as an equally good alternative the same person would be far more open to exploring possibiolities with both sexes???? You have no idea how many women I've known who have gone through periods of being "lesbian" simply because it became a trendy thing among their college crowd, women who would never have even thought of such a thing in an earlier day and age. So please don't kid yourself that these proposed changes will not effect people's choices.

LUGS (Lesbians Until Graduation) =bisexuals over time.

I see some more now... fear that unless heterosexuality is mandatory many won't conform to it?

I should hope not. There are too few "lifestyle choices" as it is.

 

[LightHorseman]

Ah yes, the old "making homosexuality illegal will reduce the number of homosexuals" logic.

Well, works for black people. Oh... wait...

 

[BigBadWlf]

I acknowledge that not every single last person in favor of gay rights calls me a homophobe. But most, upon hearing my concerns about how gay marraige, etc., would alter society, DO. In fact, in this very thread, such an idea has already been labeled "irrational." (And I didn't see you speaking out against that.) That is the norm. The fact that there are exeptions doesn't mean a rule doesn't exist.

Which would fit in with the actual definition of homophobe

Homophobia (from Greek homós: one and the same; phóbos: fear, phobia) is irrational fear of, aversion to, contempt for or discrimination against homosexuals.

Your supprt and jsutificationof discrimination agaisnt this particualr minority qualifies you as a homophobe


What you are saying in trying to deny this is that a person who opposes civil rights and interracial marriage, supports voting rights to whites only and segregation not just in schools but in all public places is somehow not a racist.

 

[BigBadWlf]

quatona:

Do you understand what a rhetorical question is? sigh*

You are confusing sexual orientation with value systems, and you are confusing personal value systems with societal value systems. All three are quite different, and I don't even know where to begin to untangle it for you.

First, I am talking about the insistance of the gay rights movement that everyone NOT MIND a shift in SOCIETAL values -- the height of presumption and hypocricy, given that they very much mind current societal values and have worked very hard to change them. This has nothing to do with personal values. And it has diddly squat to do with sexual orientation.

TexasLynn has already correctly compared your stance here to that of white racists in the south in the 1950’s and 60’s. by your argument civil rights should not have happened because not everyone wanted a shift in societal values, it was the height of presumption and hypocrisy for blacks to want good Christian white people had to accept them as social equals


Which leaves a larger question. You speak of not wanting a societal shift yet you are demanding society shift to accommodate your personal prejudices. This society is one of equality and justice yet you want a radical shift away form that just to discriminate against a particular minority. Why should society shift away form its core values?

Second, you assume that everyone is either gay or straight, when in fact a good deal of people have the ability to some extent to swing both ways. Do you not understand that such a person in a traditional society will opt to nurture attraction to the opposite sex, while in a society where gay marraige is seen as an equally good alternative the same person would be far more open to exploring possibiolities with both sexes???? You have no idea how many women I've known who have gone through periods of being "lesbian" simply because it became a trendy thing among their college crowd, women who would never have even thought of such a thing in an earlier day and age. So please don't kid yourself that these proposed changes will not effect people's choices.

So what if bi-sexual chose to marry individuals of the same gender?

You started this thread claiming that you were not a homophobe, yet here you are displaying classing homophobia. You claim you don’t like the title yet you endorse and embrace it

 

[HannahBanana]

GerTzedek, since there is no logical reason to be against homosexuality, what other option do we have than to assume that your opposition to it stems from fear?

 

[wanderingone]

I acknowledge that not every single last person in favor of gay rights calls me a homophobe. But most, upon hearing my concerns about how gay marraige, etc., would alter society, DO. In fact, in this very thread, such an idea has already been labeled "irrational." (And I didn't see you speaking out against that.) That is the norm. The fact that there are exeptions doesn't mean a rule doesn't exist.

Gay marriage already exists... did you feel the earth shudder as my cousin walked down the aisle? I did.. but that was because a couple hundreds friends and family members had a huge party to celebrate their legal union.
My cousin and his husband then went home and did what thousands of middle aged spouses do, went on with their lives, taking care of aging parents, working their jobs and their small bit of land, taking a vacation now and then, having a dinner party here and there, going to church, celebrating holidays...

The fear of some massive shift in society if some people who are gay embrace some of the same values as some people who are straight is rather irrational. Homosexuality has always existed, and gay men and women have always found ways to have relationships, including long term monogamous partnerships that people who couldn't imagine such things decided were simply spinster sisters living as room mates. So to me it appears a very simple thing... the hate the sin love the sinner folks are content to have people do whatever they do as long as they never have to notice it.

For me.. I've discovered that watching my lesbian daughter head into the 2nd half of her teen years nurturing crushes, wondering aloud if I'll ease up on no dating until 16, giggling with her friends about whatever kid she thinks is cute... it's all quite ordinary......and since I've already been through it (granted the straight version) twice before her it's far less annoying than it was the first couple times around.

What I wish for for my daughter, for my cousin, for all "sexual minorities" is to have the same rights and responsibilities as I do and to be safe when they walk down the street from the assaults (verbal, sexual, physical) of people who feel the need to put someone else in their place.

To be afraid of what is already here is no different of being afraid of miscegenation -- plenty of people felt folks of different complexions had no business "mixing" .. at least no all proper and legal like... strangely life has gone on...despite fear of what the impact would be on society.

 

[ReverendDG]

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?

because they have an irrational fear of gay people and what they would do to the society they live in.
a fear that even knowing about gay people will turn a person gay is rational?

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.

yes and the majority is either brain-washed by their religion or would hate something else

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?

some of the nutty things i've read have been by some of the so called "sane" people you claim came to this moral judgement
and most of those didn't come to the conclusion on their own, they either were taught to hate gays or if it wasn't gays it would be black people

plus the only valid argument i've found from the anti-gay crowd is that being gay is gross.
yeah, thats a real good one, if you are 12

 

[mpok1519]

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?

you are very right; yet I think fear itself keeps us alive, but it also keeps us from living, in the same respects.

I think society's values have always been the same; as time progresses, and socieities intertwine, society on a world scale, becomes simply every society as one; some may not care gays can marry else where, but they mind they can marry here; but here will always change. The definitions of things change. Entropy encompasses everything; change is the natural diffusion from the norm. I'm sure even when gay marriage becomes legal, there will be a backlash, and there will be a huge uncathartic reaction from half of the people. And another backlash, and another, and another, and another...

Yeah, our society agrees that male homosexuality is out of the norm. But, when we start to say what they can and can't do, which others can do, for arbitrated reasons (from the Divine; God says its not okay; but people, are a different story) from Ceasar's law which has caused both justice and injustice for numerous nations, yet there have and will always be descrepencies; the myths of homosexuality, however, do not further of this knowledge and justice we have always inherently embraced; our brothers and sisters in Christ do not deserve this stigma that inhibits their freedoms and sense of identity and self-actualization that only they themselves can and will always determine. Christ cannot determine who you are. Only you can. So people need to stop using His name to further an agenda that inhibits all of our walks with God.

Sigh.

 

[Beanieboy]

Let me give you a couple of "phobic" personal experiences that I have had:

I was at a party talking, and someone said that he would never want a homosexual teaching his son.
Me: Why not?
Him: Because I don't want some kid molesting my son!
Me: Because if a teachher is going to molest your child, it better be your daughter?
Him: NO!
Me: You don't think that men molest girls?
Him: NO!
Me: Well, it's heterosexual, though. So you still have a problem with that?
Him: Of course!
Me: So, you are talking about being sexually appropriate, not sexual orientation.
Him: I'm just saying no guy is going to molest my son.
Me: But you don't have a problem with daughter being molested again?

Guy: Just so you know, I'm not gay or nothing. So, don't, like, hit on me.
Me: As hard as it will be, I'll control myself.
(Imagine a man at the office telling you not to hit on him.)

Guy who used to live on my floor:
"I hate gay guys. I wish we could just round them up and shoot them."
"Why? Because mass murder is moral?"
"No. Because I just hate them."
"And hatred that motivates you to murder is moral?"
"Whatever."

I think that it is homophobic to claim that a gay couple doesn't really love each other.
I think that it is homophobic to see two gay people, understand attraction to the opposite sex, understand romantic feelings, understand physical desires, understand wanting to find someone that you grow old with, then scratch your head and think it completely foreign in two gay people.

I don't think it is necessarily homophobic to believe that it is a sin, but rarely have the people that claim that ever did any investigation into the subject, where theologians are split, and use Leviticus while ignoring the other 99% of the book. Rarely have they heard the stories of people coming out, read the research on twin studies, or seen homosexuals past anything more than "sinners," and sadly, often treat them as 2nd class citizens, sometimes to the point of doing all they can to block simply civil rights, like employment. The last time I checked the bible, that goes directly against Christ's call to love your neighbor as yourself.

I question whether they have really ever thought of it at all. Someone will tell me, "I oppose gay people raising children, because they will grow up gay." I ask, "Where do you think gay people come from? Lots of gay couples? So, since they come from straight families, you oppose heterosexuals raising kids?" Honestly, a couple of minutes of thought would have brought you to the illogic of that argument.

They often refer to my life as a "lifestyle", or worse, "a lifestyle choice." They are often the ones spreading misinformation about gay people, at once claiming them to be weak, and overpowering predators. They claim that our life expectancy is 42 years, something that is laughable if you know any gay people at all. I will have it beat by 3 years in July, and HIV neg.

So, I respect your right to call homosexuality a sin.
Please respect my right to no longer care what you think. I'm done answering to man that claims to speak for God.
People at one time thought that slavery was ok, because it's in the bible. People thought treating black people as second class citizens was ok while going to church on Sunday, and reading about loving your neighbor as yourselves.

So, I respect your right to believe as you will, and ask that you respect my right to completely disagree.