No Such Thing As Homophobia!

[The Bellman]

Oh yeah I forgot: it's easier to corrupt the English language so you don't have to go through the trouble of looking up the correct definition.

Is it? I wouldn't know about that. Have you looked up the correct definition? I have. Let's see:

irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

So, I was right, and you were wrong; homophobia does not relate merely to fear of homosexuals. Nice try, though.

 

[WatersMoon110]

but if you absolutely need examples, try these:

1) i disapprove of a specific homosexual activity known as jailhouse rape.

Rape is very different from consensual sex.

Nobody likes rape. Rape is a bad thing. However, that really says nothing about consensual sex, be that rape preformed on a member of the opposite gender or of the same gender. Rape isn't a "homosexual activity" in that it is not something usually done by average homosexuals. In fact, almost all "jail house rape" is perpetrated by heterosexuals against other heterosexuals.

2) hypothetical Guy Bob disapproves of homosexual activity on the grounds that procreation is the only logical usage for sex. Turns out Bob's an Evolutionist and believes in evolving beyond the lust response to experience a higher pleasure, and a higher love than human love.

Um, that isn't what people who accept the theory of evolution believe that evolution is or how it works.

I have met people who are against homosexuals because "homosexual sex doesn't result in procreation" but all of them have been Fundamentalist Christians...

3) Suzie is a little crazy. She isn't scared or angry about it, but she thinks every time a homosexual couple makes love it causes her puppy dog piercing joint pain, and that makes Suzie cry sometimes.

A little crazy? Also, one would assume that this particular fictional crazy chick would hate homosexuals, since they "cause her dog pain"...

4) Many strange things have happened to Ralph that seemed to confirm God really is in Heaven, and Jesus is Lord, and everything in the Holy Bible is true. For instance, every unselfish prayer Ralph has ever made, since childhood, has come true. So naturally Ralph condemns homosexuality because of scriptural law.

Except that one can very well be a Christian and understand that the particular sections of the Bible are talking about not having sex with male temple prostitutes, or are not very clear in translation (like when Paul apparently makes up a new word)...But I do agree that some people are against homosexuality for religious reasons, but don't hate or fear homosexuals.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Dogma is not always rooted in hate/fear. Many Dogmatists have experienced "Religious Awakenings," wherein they, because of some crisis or because of fasting for three weeks, finally accepted the "Truth" with their whole hearts. Many Dogmatists are sincere, passionate, loving optimists.

Not denied…but that does not preclude the motivation of hate and or fear.

Dogma isn't the reason for the conditioning, it is merely an aspect of the conditioning. You ask if people are just things to be programmed? Well, your biology and your environment and possibly also your soul (merely another consciousness-containing thing, possibly separate from the physical body) interact with each other, and this interaction determines how you will behave.

No dogma is a buffer. You talk about environmental influence, specific here to “object to homosexuality” yet the very cultural bias is based on said hate/fear.

You also mention reasonable people. reasonable people examine such things as prejudice and discrimination and reject them as they do not hold up to scrutiny and reject such things as social programming.

 

[KalithAlur]

I would like to point out evolutionists can't all be lumped into one big category, evolution is a very popular theory.

The hypothetical was based on an interesting dialog I found by a Hindu, who was talking about evolution and the purpose of sex... I think, if memory serves, his point was that focusless, attachment-free, unconditional love is an emotional state that is so "high" lust no longer exists, so celibacy is preferred... other writings I'v come across on this subject suggest celibacy shouldn't be a religious taboo (at least not for this reason), but a spontaneous result of spiritual attainment.

admittedly, all my examples were a bit ridiculous.

 

[KalithAlur]

by "cultural bias," I wouldn't include just one thing that can be easily isolated, and i think you'r a long, long way from proving all cultural bias related to homosexuality is based on hate/fear. to me, the assertion that it is, is you speculating without demonstrating the evidence whut proves your point.

i don't think merely being a "reasonable person" makes you immune to social programming or personal bias. in fact, i think nearly all people have some form of emotional bias that wouldn't make sense to a being of pure logic.

for instance, to let an animal have consensual sex with you would be morally disgusting even to most gay people... but where's the rational reason for that? so many people use the consent issue, but a clever person CAN find ways to make an animal consent, and nobody objects to killing certain animals for food. Why is it ok to kill certain animals for food, and not others? the rational reason would be, "well, some animals have an emotional capacity, others don't." the real reason is this: social norms based on the love owners have of pets, and the economic dependency some farmers have on pigs.

 

[BigBadWlf]

but if you absolutely need examples, try these:

1) i disapprove of a specific homosexual activity known as jailhouse rape.

I have never heard anyone say this and i have heard alot of people trying to defend personal prejudice.


Most people disapprove of rape.

However rape has no more to do with homosexuality than it does heterosexuality
Making this statement about rape, not sexual orientation.

2) hypothetical Guy Bob disapproves of homosexual activity on the grounds that procreation is the only logical usage for sex. Turns out Bob's an Evolutionist and believes in evolving beyond the lust response to experience a higher pleasure, and a higher love than human love.

If Bob were an evolutionist he would not fall into the procreation fallacy. Any evolutionist knows that the human sexual response has little or nothing to do with procreation and an evolutionist would know that sexual orientation is not a lust response

3) Suzie is a little crazy. She isn't scared or angry about it, but she thinks every time a homosexual couple makes love it causes her puppy dog piercing joint pain, and that makes Suzie cry sometimes.

She fears causing her puppy dog pain. Try again

4) Many strange things have happened to Ralph that seemed to confirm God really is in Heaven, and Jesus is Lord, and everything in the Holy Bible is true. For instance, every unselfish prayer Ralph has ever made, since childhood, has come true. So naturally Ralph condemns homosexuality because of scriptural law.

Textbook fear and hate


0 for 4

 

[happydance]

Homophobic is a pretty tame word in my opinion.
I can think of a dozen words to label the Holier-than-thou, over fixated, hate spouting members of society.

Rubbish by any other name stinks all the same.

 

[KalithAlur]

BigBadWlf, any example I give you, you will turn into an example of fear and hate.

quote: "the human sexual response has little or nothing to do with procreation." maybe you could have said "little", but "nothing" ??? sex does sometimes result in pregnancy doesn't it? and i think the majority of procreation is because of sex... and don't lump all evolutionists into the same category.

you'r right about the first example, it is anti-rape and in extension anti-homosexual-rape, and isn't an argument against homosexuality in general. but you asked for any example of not approving of homosexuality without feeling hate or fear, and that is an example, at least to my semantically-oriented mind.

suzie is my character. suzie only feels sorrow, not fear or hate. as to whether or not this sort of thing can happen in real life, it can. individuals are complex organisms, with a diversity of emotional responses. not only that, she isn't the cause of the pain anyway, so your wording is off.

the last example's dismissal leads me to believe you equate religious person with fear and hate. to condemn something is simply not the same as hating it There was nothing in the example to indicate fear or hatred, so i conclude you invented it.

why? you'v been conditioned to believe dogma = fear and hatred

 

[ShieldOFaith]

Homophobia differs from an ethical disapproval. It exists, and your denial of its existance doesn't make it go away.

Homophobia is the irrational fear and hatred of homosexuals and homosexual behavior. It may also indicate a fear of being gay.

Ronnie Antonio Paris, a three year old, was beat to death by his father because his father was afraid he would grow up to be gay. Does this sound rational to you?

Nice to see the propaganda working. It has you hood-winked.

It is a word created to do something evil. It was created to smear right thinking people with a label so that they would feel like they are doing something wrong, or are thinking something wrong.

It is ever so sublime, and tactical. I have to give it to the homosexual agenda here. Very very top notch job. Powerful and simple. You don't see propaganda any better.

It is sick and vile. Yet the media jam it down the country's throat as much as possible. Lovely.

Those who have a brain and can think for themselves no this is a crock of ...badness.

The entire heterosexual world is not "homophobic". Yet, if any one of us even looks the wrong way at a homosexual, BAM! SLAPPED WITH THE LABEL OF "HOMOPHOBE"

WHAT A JOKE!!! hehe

Look here:

Critics of the term

Some researchers within the field have preferred other terms to "homophobia." For example, Gregory M. Herek, a researcher at the University of California, Davis, compared several related terms: "homophobia," "heterosexism," and "sexual prejudice." In preferring the latter term, he noted that "homophobia" was "probably more widely used and more often criticized," and observed that. "Its critics note that homophobia implicitly suggests that antigay attitudes are best understood as an irrational fear and that they represent a form of individual psychopathology rather than a socially reinforced prejudice." He preferred "sexual prejudice" as being descriptive and free of presumptions about motivations, and lacking in value judgments as to the irrationality or immorality of those so labeled.
In 1980 Hudson and Ricketts proposed the term "homonegativity," arguing that "homophobia" was unscientific in its presumption of motivation.
In 1993, behavioral scientists William O'Donohue and Christine Caselles concluded that the usage of the term "as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality" itself, arguing that both homophobia and homosexuality are social constructions.
The Concerned Women for America, a conservative lobby group, has called homophobia a "deceptive term" which is "used by pro-gay proponents to confuse the issue and control the debate" by defining all opposition to homosexuality as irrational. CWA asserts that pro-gay proponents would not be able to identify any examples of non-homophobic opposition to homosexuality because they define all opposition as "homophobic" and "irrational bigotry. CWA calls this "deceptive rhetoric." The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, an organization affiliated with the ex-gay movement, describes the term homophobia as being "often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds." They claim that, "Technically, however, the terms actually denotes a person who has a phobia—or irrational fear—of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled 'homophobia.'

Reference.com



Read it and weep H. agenda.

 

[Polycarp1]

Read up on the "Concerned Women of America"" and their information sources.

 

[KalithAlur]

This is one of those rare moments when I actually half way agree with Shield of Faith. I don't believe homophobia doesn't exist, but do believe it is unscientific and misleading to label all forms of anti-homosexual thinking as homophobic.

this is like saying, "If you'r against lawn ornament flamingos, you must be flamingo-phobic." Hardly. an irrational prejudism doesn't have to spring from fear and hatred. plenty of other emotions can lead somebody to believe something that isn't true. and so can misleading evidence.

For instance, if I'v spent my whole life having my unselfish prayers answered, I'd have a heap, I mean a HEAP, of evidence to confirm the God (gods, goddesses, spirits, ect) I believe in exist, especially if I prayed often for things difficult to obtain. Considering how many people there are on the planet, this sort of thing has probably happened to more than one person. It doesn't prove God is real (and I'm DEFINITELY not arguing for the existence of God) but it's strong evidence in that direction for that particular person ... and you know what? The right move for that person, according to an objective interpretation of the evidence, would be to listen to THAT GOD.

of course, one thing I'm trying to demonstrate is even an objective interpretation of the evidence risks serious error

 

[WatersMoon110]

For instance, if I'v spent my whole life having my unselfish prayers answered, I'd have a heap, I mean a HEAP, of evidence to confirm the God (gods, goddesses, spirits, ect) I believe in exist, especially if I prayed often for things difficult to obtain. Considering how many people there are on the planet, this sort of thing has probably happened to more than one person. It doesn't prove God is real (and I'm DEFINITELY not arguing for the existence of God) but it's strong evidence in that direction for that particular person ... and you know what? The right move for that person, according to an objective interpretation of the evidence, would be to listen to THAT GOD.

Except for all of the Christians who do (obviously) have personal evidence that leads them to believe that the Christian God exists, but do not believe that He thinks homosexuality is a sin, or that the Bible means that it is a sin.

 

[KalithAlur]

i'm not even just talking about christians.

any deeply religious person who experiences personal awakenings while worshiping a God who seems to have communicated the sinful nature of homosexuality.

 

[WatersMoon110]

i'm not even just talking about christians.

any deeply religious person who experiences personal awakenings while worshiping a God who seems to have communicated the sinful nature of homosexuality.

Well, I suppose many Muslim sects also believe that homosexuality is bad.

 

[The Bellman]

It is a word created to do something evil. It was created to smear right thinking people with a label so that they would feel like they are doing something wrong, or are thinking something wrong.

It is a word created to describe an attitude, just like 'racism' and 'sexism'.

It is sick and vile.

Yes, homophobia is sick and vile.

The entire heterosexual world is not "homophobic".

Certainly not. Nobody suggested they are.

Yet, if any one of us even looks the wrong way at a homosexual, BAM! SLAPPED WITH THE LABEL OF "HOMOPHOBE"

That would be a complaint about over-usage of the word, not about the word itself.

Read it and weep H. agenda.

Nothing to weep about. You sound exactly like some guy in the 50's arguing that the blacks are doing fine, they have their own busses and their own schools, they're equal, and there's no such word as 'racism', it's just a propaganda tool.

 

[BigBadWlf]

i'm not even just talking about christians.

any deeply religious person who experiences personal awakenings while worshiping a God who seems to have communicated the sinful nature of homosexuality.

What about any deeply religious person who experiences personal awakenings while worshiping a God who seems to have communicated the sinful nature of racial equality?

 

[BigBadWlf]

This is one of those rare moments when I actually half way agree with Shield of Faith. I don't believe homophobia doesn't exist, but do believe it is unscientific and misleading to label all forms of anti-homosexual thinking as homophobic.

Yet the best example of non hate/fear based anti-homosexual “reasoning” you could come up with is psychosis and delusions about a dog being in pain.

Would you similarly claim that you believe racism does exist but find it misleading to label all forms of prejudice//discrimination based on skin color as such?

 

[BigBadWlf]

Nice to see the propaganda working. It has you hood-winked.

It is a word created to do something evil. It was created to smear right thinking people with a label so that they would feel like they are doing something wrong, or are thinking something wrong.

Bigotry is wrong. No matter how one tries to defend it.

It is ever so sublime, and tactical. I have to give it to the homosexual agenda here. Very very top notch job. Powerful and simple. You don't see propaganda any better.

Do you also believe in the black agenda and that they created the word racism as propoganda to “smear right thinking people with a label so that they would feel like they are doing something wrong”?

It is sick and vile.

Anti-gay bigotry certainly is sick and vile

Look here:

Critics of the term

Some researchers within the field have preferred other terms to "homophobia." For example, Gregory M. Herek, a researcher at the University of California, Davis, compared several related terms: "homophobia," "heterosexism," and "sexual prejudice." In preferring the latter term, he noted that "homophobia" was "probably more widely used and more often criticized," and observed that. "Its critics note that homophobia implicitly suggests that antigay attitudes are best understood as an irrational fear and that they represent a form of individual psychopathology rather than a socially reinforced prejudice." He preferred "sexual prejudice" as being descriptive and free of presumptions about motivations, and lacking in value judgments as to the irrationality or immorality of those so labeled.

In the future you would do well to actually read what you are quoting.

“The term proved to be tremendously influential in reframing society’s thinking about sexual orientation. It helped many people to articulate their newfound understanding that homosexuality wasn’t the problem; rather, the real problem was prejudice against those who aren’t heterosexual.”

And in regards to your claim “He preferred "sexual prejudice"” Dr. Herek wrote:

“I’m not crusading to have these terms replace homophobia in popular discourse, but I believe they can be useful in pushing us to think about the problem of hostility against sexual minorities in new ways.”

In 1980 Hudson and Ricketts proposed the term "homonegativity," arguing that "homophobia" was unscientific in its presumption of motivation.

From your link:
"The exact meaning of the term "homonegativity" is a subject of scientific discussion and disagreement."

In 1993, behavioral scientists William O'Donohue and Christine Caselles concluded that the usage of the term "as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality" itself, arguing that both homophobia and homosexuality are social constructions.

Considering these two have to misrepresent the research findings of others to make their points using them here really doesn’t say much.

The Concerned Women for America, a conservative lobby group, has called homophobia a "deceptive term"

I think the name “Concerned Women of America” is deceptive

 

[Trevorocity]

I think the name “Concerned Women of America” is deceptive

Considering their policy director for cultural issues (basically their whole gist) is called Matt Barber.

 

[MachZer0]

Is it? I wouldn't know about that. Have you looked up the correct definition? I have. Let's see:

Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster online
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

So, I was right, and you were wrong; homophobia does not relate merely to fear of homosexuals. Nice try, though.

Therein lies the key. there is noting irrational about hatred of a sinful behavior