Homophobia

Upon reading the first few posts of the thread ''5 reasons gay parents are awesome'', it struck me that any type of criticism toward homosexuals that even hint at the notion of disapproval is instantly regarded as homophobic behaviour. It would seem therefore that any such criticism is not going to be tolerated.

My question is: Is it possible to dissapprove of homosexual behaviour, and not be homophobic?

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In my statement on that thread I was only trying to bring out the point that there's no "better" adopted parents because anyone who adopts do the best they can but sometimes when society is already upset at gays then their adopted children would be coming under criticism which would make it harder for them to fit in with society. That , to m, wouldn't make it any easier but add problems to the adoption for the gays and the children.

I do not think that by saying things like that would be bullying or homophobic but only stating an opinion about the thread without trying to raise anyone's ire.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The question depends entirely upon your philosophical standpoint regarding the direction of the human species.


My own particular viewpoint in that regard is a little too involved to go into here. Other than to say that my own experience of children raised by homosexual parents hasn't been positive. Yes, I've known a couple.
But then who is to say at this point that those childrens particular eccentricities are the result of the parenting, or their prolonged experience of social attitudes towards them and their parents?
Being viewed as weird can make you pretty weird. Or more so.

Time will tell.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is the thread about group criticism at the core? Is the thread asking: is it possible to levy a criticism at groups in general, based on prevalence or perceived prevalence? It appears to be acceptable if directed against majority groups - although examples appear to be growing rarer, IMHO - but not against minority groups. The ethics seem intuitively negative, of course, but it's also acceptable in some instances - Nazis (hello Godwin) and fascists, for example, are widely considered bad and rightly so. I guess the criteria for group judgement appears to be the prejudice of the group: how they in general see the world, what they do, blah blah. So is this in general a bad or good meme? Sorry if this question is either too blase or too sensational: I'm not getting a lot of sleep these days and my brain has gone to jello. I could say that it's appropriate where justifiable, but I'm sure that's too obvious. Everyone and anyone can cook statistics, and do.

 

Disapprove? Yes, if that disapproval is simply a statement of "I wouldn't want to do that. Makes no sense to me" then that is not homophobia.

However, it is expressed as opprobium, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, then it is homophobia. Also, attempting to deprive gays of rights is a characteristic of homophobes.

 

I arrive at my conclusion by convoluted thinking. Homosexual behaviour is integral to defining a homosexual. Homosexuals either engage in homosexual activities, or would like to engage in homosexual activities, or are finding down an innate desire to engage in homosexual activities. Therefore homosexual behaviour is central to the homosexual individual. Obvious? I thought so, but then if we disapprove of such behaviour, we must automatically be disapproving of what is central to a persons identity as a homosexual and that is homophobic. Does that make sense?

So, I guess Jan that my answer to your question has to be, logically, no. You can't dissapprove of homosexual behaviour, and not be homophobic.

 

Not all phobia words mean fear or hatred. Sometimes the meaning is that of an intolerance or aversion to something. In the paper below, the authors explored the possibility of an intolerant personality disorder.

Is Homophobia a Diagnosable Psychological Condition?
Intolerance and Psychopathology:
Toward a General Diagnosis for Racism, Sexism, and Homophobia
Article by: Mary H. Guindon PhD, Alan G. Green PhD, Fred J. Hanna PhD
Published in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry - April 2003

http://borngay.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001361


I've even wondered if it is intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them… We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.” ~Karl Popper

 

People we know intimately, are defined by all that they are, such as history, beliefs, experiences, etc., and not just one thing. With homosexuals, constantly defining themselves by one thing, there is no way to average.

As an analogy, say I went into a group of atheists and constantly tried to convert them to some religion. All they would see of me is on thing and not all that I am, so they can average who I am based on rational proportions. They would judge all of me by only politics.

If cause and effect became reversed, in my mind, I could blame all the atheists for judging me; theo-phobes. In an irrational world, it would have nothing to do with me narrowing myself into one thing so they can't see all of me.

I have had gay and lesbian friends, over the years, and because of an average, I would accept them as they are, since homosexual was not all I could see but one piece of their puzzle. But in the more political sphere all I see is one aspect of homosexuality. If I average that, I can't relate based on them being this one data point. It is not phobia, but it is due to averaging one type data. I like don't ask and don't tell so the data opens up easier, for a better average, before this extra point is added.

Let me give another analogy which many people feel and may be informative to gays. Say there were a group of college guys who want to spit on the sidewalk. This is currently frowned upon because it grouses people out. Looking at spit on the sidewalk, can trigger a gag reflex in many people. It is not the person doing the spitting that cause the gag reflex, but it is the spit on the sidewalk.

Most people know people, in general, will have to spit and can understand that. But they would prefer not to see to piles of spit it every time they walk. It would be better if those college guys would spit in the bushes or off the path; out of sight and out of mind. But the college guys want to be seen and want everyone to see their spit on the sidewalk. If you gag you have a phobia.

If I met a gay person and did not know they were gay, I would judge them as a person and kid around. But once they spit on the sidewalk there is a gag reflex, which is not always easy to control. It could stand in the way of a friendship forming. When I think of them I remember then clearing their sinuses on the sidewalk. I would prefer not to see them spit so I don't visualize them that way. If I am not gagging, while I walk the sidewalk, then I can be more open and get to know the person. But homosexuals feel the need to spit the sidewalk.

 

This full of crap I don't care who the writer is .

I have rentals ( plural ) property And I have and had homosexuals , male and female I will rent apartments to any one who does not jeopardize my property . I don't accept them to put their rainbow flags in the windows nor have party . Yes I don't tolerate those things , You live your life as you want but don't propagate your sexuality.

 

The whole concept that two people's love relationship is even something that CAN be disapproved of, as if they are already to be seen, just by their being gay, as less deserving of love relationships than heterosexuals, is homophobic. Who are you to "disapprove" of someone's personal love relationship? What gives you the right to insert yourself with such arrogance and audacity into such a personal matter? That you can even see gay people as NEEDING your approval in any sense is homophobic from the outset. As if our very existence HAD to be validated in some sense. How dare you! It's none of your business who or how I love. We exist. Get over it.

 

I don’t think that’s entirely true. Personally, I find religious fundamentalists deeply offensive but I don’t believe that they should be banned. I’m a heterosexual atheist who understands that a lot of people have the need to believe. Therefore, I would only be intolerant of your intolerance.

So do heterosexuals. I’m not fond of any PDA so don't propagate yours, either. However, the difficulty here is that being offended by merely knowing that something exists or is taking place is not as serious as being offended by something that one does not like and that one cannot escape. Simple enough; don’t look at the spit, err!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

“These forms of dehumanization have clear connections to disgust. Researchers have proposed that many disgust elicitors are disgusting because they are reminders that humans are not diverse from other creatures. With the aid of disgust, animalistic dehumanization directly reduces one’s moral concerns towards excluding members from the outer group. Disgust can be a cause and consequence of dehumanization. Animalistic dehumanization may generate feelings of disgust and revulsion. Feelings of disgust, through rousing social distance, may lead to dehumanization. Therefore, a person or group that is generally connected with disgusting effects and seen as physically unclean may induce moral avoidance. Being deemed disgusting produces a variety of cognitive effects that result in exclusion from the perceived inner group.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgust#Disgust_and_morality

BTW, I stumbled onto this the other day. Interesting, eh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

They are human, that is ok whit me but you don't have to flaunt about your sexuality, that is private.

 

No..intolerance of intolerance IS tolerance. It is the principled position of standing up against intolerance and counteracting it, not thru force, but thru education and social discourse. Tolerance of intolerance otoh is to side yourself with that intolerance. To stand by silently and allow racism, homophobia, or anti-semitism to go on right in front of you is to be complicit in it. It is to allow such bigotry to prosper and to victimize others as if this too is tolerance. It is not. When good men do nothing, evil flourishes.

 

Is flaunting heterosexuality okay?

 

If a majority uses every sword at its disposal to protect itself (from what...?), one can then hardly blame threatened minorities of the past (and their allies) for dishing out inverted doses of "medicine" once (or still) utilized for their own persecutions. However, it can get scary for either of the applicable sets of groups involved (depending upon the era) when what collectively falls out of these "tit for tat" exercises and amusements starts becoming impetus for driving the creation of either unofficial witch-hunts or institutionalized laws seeking ever higher degrees of ideological correctitude. One can only hope that there is always an ample supply of gifted "neutrals" around -- with an uncanny knack for navigating their way successfully over any treacherous minefield and stream of rapids -- to save the rest from impaling themselves on their assorted manias and quests for a utopian / dystopian society. (A slash there because they're hardly exclusive; what's problem-solving for one faction can be problem-generating for another).

 

But we live in a society and a culture that makes much ado of heterosexuals' spitting on sidewalks. Whole institutions are set up to allow heterosexuals to proudly spit on sidewalks everyday, talking loudly of their marriage, their spouses, their love lives, their dating, etc. Our sidewalks are so drenched with heterosexual saliva you cannot walk anywhere without stepping in it. Movies, music, talk shows, TV series, magazines, novels--the spit of heterosexuality is so hyped up and viewed almost reverentially that we actually enjoy seeing it. So what's a little gay spitting now and then in this world of heterosexual spittlemania? Should gay people pretend they have no love life so as not to distract from the overwhelmingly constant spitting of heterosexuals all around them? Nonsense. Fat people get to spit on sidewalks. Ugly people. Old people. Everybody gets to spit and spit except gays right? Your homophobic prejudice is laughable..

 

Let me give another example. Say someone was on a date, with a new person they like. The first thing they say is, "Hi I am unemployed". This can be a deal closer for a male talking to a female, since this does not put his best foot forward in the eyes of the date. If he had first talked about himself, discussed things they both liked, displayed common sense and a good sense of humor, and then mentioned this, the other person may already like them enough to average this in. But to lead with it would create noise.

In this first scenario, the person first saying, I am unemployed, would be testing the waters for unconditional love, so even the worse foot forward is acceptable. In the second case, they have enough common sense to know that strangers will not give unconditional love, off the bat, so he has to satisfy some conditions before that will be accepted.

Homosexuals want unconditional love, and if it is not given, that makes you a homophobe. But nobody owes anyone unconditional love and you may need to put this worse foot near the end to get a better conditional reaction. If you meet all the first conditions of a good person, then unconditional love is more likely to appear.

I can handle the visual of lesbians, it is hot; coins on the sidewalk. But gay is spit on the side walk, to me. I would prefer walk together in a spit free environment until I can better average things I cannot accept, by themselves; conditional.

 

Careful. You're treading awfully close to violating people's right to free speech and expression. What else might be banned because you disagree with a certain cause? Tibetan prayer flags? The star of David? T-shirts with messages that disagree with your personal philosophy of life? Rainbow stickers scraped off their bumpers? Where does it end, this denying to folks their right to display their own values and causes? We're talking a constitutional right here as opposed to your homophobic supression of pro-gay symbols. Do you really want to get sued?