Homophobia by any other name

[Zyphlin]

I know your opposition of SSM comes from a religious reason, but the thing is religious arguments aren't applicable in this case. Why should a secular institution be forced to be limited by a religion? Especially in a secular country.

Because there is no constitutional ban from individuals voting for politicians or pushing for issues based on their religion.

If I, as a voter, feel that adultry is immoral becasue of my religion and want to push for an initiative to get it made a felony...that's perfectly and completely constitutional. Even if it passes, its perfectly and completely constitutional. It would only be unconstitutional if it was able to be clearly alluding to and referencing a specific religion and enforcing that religion on it.

There is nothing unconstitutional about having view points based on your morality. I guess what I'm saying is this. Stating "I believe that Gay Marriage is immoral due to my religion, and I do not believe that the government should endorse immoral things, so I am against Gay Marriage" is not a religion view, its a view regarding the role of government based on your moral compass, which happens to be guided by religion. If someone was stating "I believe that Gay Marriage is a sin, and I believe the law should ban it because its in violation to God" then you're dealing with it from a purely religious standpoint and it becomes questionable.

I'll give you a flip side. Lets say someone is FOR welfare programs because morally they feel that welfare is important due to their beliefs in the teaching of Jesus Christ. Would that mean that Welfare is not constitutional because they're in favor of it due to morals given to them from their religion? Of course not.

Someone's morals being based off of philosophy, religion, natural observation, etc is irrelevant i nregards to constitutionality. WHY someone is voting or supporting something is not unconstitutional, only the act is. NOT allowing the government to allow gay marriage is not necessarily unconstitutional in regards to seperation of church and state because there is no way to clearly, accurately, and precisely point to any establishment of a RELIGION by making such a law even if various religious views contributed to people supporting the idea. That doesn't make it a violation of church and state anymore so than welfare is.

Religious issues aren't necessarily relevant, but moralistic ones absolutely are. The "moral" argument is even one that people on the PRO gay marriage side throw out, that its only "moral" to allow everyone to be married. The anti-gay marriage side is no less allowed to argue about it from a moral stance either. The constitution does not dictate what your morals are allowed to be based on, nor does it deny people from voting or pushing for issues due to their moral views however they may be formed.

 

[Your Star]

Because this country is made up of people who's morals come from religion. Morals are a part of our society and in some cases like censorship are indeed law.

We are not a secular country, this is a misnomer. We are country with the vast majority of the population religious and a secular government.

That doesn't mean that laws can be made by ones religion, it is in violation of the 1st amendment. And censorship laws apply to minors, and it is deemed that they aren't mature enough to view such content, and it doesn't have anything to do with religion.

And by country I meant government.

 

[Zyphlin]

We are not a secular country, this is a misnomer. We are country with the vast majority of the population religious and a secular government.

Slight equiviocation here.

A country can not be secular or religious. We are a nation made up prominently of religious individuals, but of varying degrees, and it is not an absolute. We are a secular government that in its early years was heavily influenced by religious morals.

 

[Redress]

Wiki is not the dictionary luv...

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

AVERSION
1obsolete : the act of turning away
2a : a feeling of repugnance toward something with a desire to avoid or turn from it

PHOBIA
: an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation -http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Nope, none of these apply at all.

You need to get a better dictionary, or better yet, use a google search for the full range of definitions: define:homophobia - Google Search

Let's look at some from this page:

Homophobia is a term for a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people identified or perceived as being homosexual. Definitions of the term refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear. .

Literally an uncontrollable fear of homosexuals and of homosexuality, but the term is generally used for a negative and contemptuous attitude to same-sex sexual relationships and to those who participate in them.

An irrational aversion to gay men and lesbians and to their lifestyle.

The irrational fear of homosexuals, homosexuality, or any behavior, belief, or attitude of self or others, which doesn't conform to rigid sex-role stereotypes. It is also the rejection of people considered gay or lesbian and of all things associated with them, for example, gender non-conformity. ...

Any attitude, action or institutional structure which systematically treats an individual or group of individuals differently because of their sexual orientation. See also sexism, racism, and religism. ...

 

[Black Dog]

Good to see you posting on politics Vauge, and I hope you do so more often. If that is the only benefit of The Loft, it alone would make it worthwhile to me.

I only want to address this part, but it is because it's something my mother has commented on in such a way that I think it is worth passing along. This is something she said long ago, trying to explain to me as a teenager about her being gay. I don't remember her exact words, but they where fairly close to this:

"Why would I choose to be gay? Since I came out, I have been run out of my hometown, lost my good job, been thrown out of my chosen church and publicly condemned there, lost all my old friends, have people in the neighborhood I live in tell their kids that they cannot come near my house, was disowned by my mother who rarely talks to me and then is usually condemning.

"If being gay was a choice, I would never, ever have chosen it. I knew that things would be very bad, but it is what I am. There was not a choice in whether I was gay, the only choice I had was whether to hide it and be miserable, or admit it and be treated like **** but have a chance someday of happiness."

Thankfully, my mom has since found happiness in a close to 15 year relationship now, and things are not nearly so bad for gay people as it was.

You know Red, I have heard a very similar story from a gay man. I believe they believe it, and accept that as the truth. I am glad she is happy.

Unfortunately it in no way convinces me it is not a choice. Lots of people have chose to do things that would have been much easier to live with or do etc.

 

[Zyphlin]

That doesn't mean that laws can be made by ones religion, it is in violation of the 1st amendment. And censorship laws apply to minors, and it is deemed that they aren't mature enough to view such content, and it doesn't have anything to do with religion.

And by country I meant government.

However, what if someone voted or supported censorship laws because their religion told them it would be immoral to subject minors to pornography...would it suddenly not be constitutional because now suddenly someone is supporting it due to their religion?

You seem to be confusing the notion that the constitution forbids the government from establishing a religion with the constitution forbidding people to vote or support generic issues based on their morals.

 

[Redress]

Because this country is made up of people who's morals come from religion. Morals are a part of our society and in some cases like censorship are indeed law.

This is not true. I am not religious, and I make up a part of this country. My morals count too.

 

[Black Dog]

You need to get a better dictionary, or better yet, use a google search for the full range of definitions: define:homophobia - Google Search

Let's look at some from this page:

The Merriam Webster dictionary is reputable and un-biased. Those sites, blogs and personal opinion sites are not.

 

[Black Dog]

This is not true. I am not religious, and I make up a part of this country. My morals count too.

Do you honestly think that is what I was saying red?

 

[Redress]

You know Red, I have heard a very similar story from a gay man. I believe they believe it, and accept that as the truth. I am glad she is happy.

Unfortunately it in no way convinces me it is not a choice. Lots of people have chose to do things that would have been much easier to live with or do etc.

I am not trying to convince you, I simply feel the story is relevant and a worthy viewpoint.

Thank you though for the kind words directed towards my mother though.

 

[Redress]

The Merriam Webster dictionary is reputable and un-biased. Those sites, blogs and personal opinion sites are not.

The point is though that a large number of the definitions encompass more than what you quoted. The usage of the word does have more meaning that just what you quoted, as I showed.

 

[Black Dog]

Slight equiviocation here.

A country can not be secular or religious. We are a nation made up prominently of religious individuals, but of varying degrees, and it is not an absolute. We are a secular government that in its early years was heavily influenced by religious morals.

This is exactly what I said.

This is not true. I am not religious, and I make up a part of this country. My morals count too.

I would greatly appreciate it guys if you would, try not to take me out of context..

Because this country is made up of people who's morals come from religion. Morals are a part of our society and in some cases like censorship are indeed law.

We are not a secular country, this is a misnomer. We are country with the vast majority of the population religious and a secular government. - Blackdog

As you can see I did not imply this was a religious nation or a secualr one etc.

 

[Black Dog]

The point is though that a large number of the definitions encompass more than what you quoted. The usage of the word does have more meaning that just what you quoted, as I showed.

And they are wrong. I listed the complete and legal definition. Just because others want to change it to vilify people who do not support gay marriage does not make it correct.

 

[Redress]

I do not think I did take you out of context. It appeared to say that you felt the morals of this country came from religion, which is false.

 

[Your Star]

Because there is no constitutional ban from individuals voting for politicians or pushing for issues based on their religion.

If I, as a voter, feel that adultry is immoral becasue of my religion and want to push for an initiative to get it made a felony...that's perfectly and completely constitutional. Even if it passes, its perfectly and completely constitutional. It would only be unconstitutional if it was able to be clearly alluding to and referencing a specific religion and enforcing that religion on it.

There is nothing unconstitutional about having view points based on your morality. I guess what I'm saying is this. Stating "I believe that Gay Marriage is immoral due to my religion, and I do not believe that the government should endorse immoral things, so I am against Gay Marriage" is not a religion view, its a view regarding the role of government based on your moral compass, which happens to be guided by religion. If someone was stating "I believe that Gay Marriage is a sin, and I believe the law should ban it because its in violation to God" then you're dealing with it from a purely religious standpoint and it becomes questionable.

I'll give you a flip side. Lets say someone is FOR welfare programs because morally they feel that welfare is important due to their beliefs in the teaching of Jesus Christ. Would that mean that Welfare is not constitutional because they're in favor of it due to morals given to them from their religion? Of course not.

Someone's morals being based off of philosophy, religion, natural observation, etc is irrelevant i nregards to constitutionality. WHY someone is voting or supporting something is not unconstitutional, only the act is. NOT allowing the government to allow gay marriage is not necessarily unconstitutional in regards to seperation of church and state because there is no way to clearly, accurately, and precisely point to any establishment of a RELIGION by making such a law even if various religious views contributed to people supporting the idea. That doesn't make it a violation of church and state anymore so than welfare is.

Religious issues aren't necessarily relevant, but moralistic ones absolutely are. The "moral" argument is even one that people on the PRO gay marriage side throw out, that its only "moral" to allow everyone to be married. The anti-gay marriage side is no less allowed to argue about it from a moral stance either. The constitution does not dictate what your morals are allowed to be based on, nor does it deny people from voting or pushing for issues due to their moral views however they may be formed.

See I really don't understand that. If someone says, "I believe it is immoral because my religion says it is, and I believe the government shouldn't endorse that immoral action", I don't see how that is not using your religion to base laws on. Now you give welfare as an example, that some people say it is morally right, because of their religion. Well, there are also other secular arguments for welfare, and the law isn't being based on a religious argument. The problem I have is when people only have a religious argument against something, and use that as a reason to have it put into law, and I think that is unconstitutional.

 

[Zyphlin]

I see Blackdog and Red's point here...

To Blackdogs point, he is not the TECHNICAL definition of the word. Even one of your definitions notes what the "Technical" definition is. And by technical, the actual CORRECT definition.

However, to Redress's point, this is one of those words that have changed over time to mean MORE in common usage than what it is actually technically means. In many ways, to go on a flip side with it, it is much like the way the word "Faggot" is used as slang now in many ways coinciding with words like "jackass" and "asshole" (or harley rider) more so than with words like "queer" or "homosexual". BECAUSE "homophobic" has been used SO broadly by those that are pro-gay rights, applying it for so long to people that the definition really doesn't fit for, the COMMON use of it has changed from the TECHNICAL definition.

"Homophobic" now, to many on the pro-gray rights side, essentially means...when you break it all down...someone who is not in favor of "gay rights" as we see them existing. However, to those NOT on the pro-gay rights side, they see the term and understandably see an attacking term based off the ACTUAL, not the common use, definition of it.

 

[Black Dog]

I do not think I did take you out of context. It appeared to say that you felt the morals of this country came from religion, which is false.

I did not say anything like that. I said "Because this country is made up of people who's morals come from religion." and I qualified it with "We are country with the vast majority of the population religious and a secular government."

76.5% of American adults are Christian (52% Protestant; 24.5% Catholic).
14.1% do not follow any organized religion; they are Agnostics, Atheists, Humanists, Secularists, or have no religious affiliation.
1.3% are Jewish.
0.5% are Muslim, followers of Islam.
0.5% are Buddhist.
0.4% are Hindu.
0.3% are Unitarian Universalist.
0.1% are Neopagan (Druids, Pagans, Wiccans, etc)

There are many more small religions, each of whom are followed by fewer than 0.1% of American adults. - RELIGIOUS MAKEUP OF THE UNITED STATES

Nuff said.

 

[Zyphlin]

See I really don't understand that. If someone says, "I believe it is immoral because my religion says it is, and I believe the government shouldn't endorse that immoral action", I don't see how that is not using your religion to base laws on.

That's the thing though. To me, I see things completely different regarding constitutionality and religion.

You CAN use your religious beliefs to base laws on. What you can't do though is make a law enforce a religious belief.

You can say "Due to my religious beliefs I think Murder is immoral so I will vote in favor of this measure that will cause the law to act harsher towards murder in hopes of detering it"

What you can't say is "Due to my religious beliefs I think murder is immoral so I will create a law stating 'An individual shall be sentenced in x ways if they commit murder due to it being a sin in the eyes of jesus christ, our lord'".

In one case you are passing a secular law based on your personal morals that are built upon religious beliefs. The law forces in no way any endorsement of any specific or even broadly defined religion.

In the second case you're passing a religious law based on your personal morals that are built upon religious beliefs. This law forces an endorsement of a specific or broadly defined religion by acknowledging in the law that its bad due to it offending "The lord jesus christ".

There is nothing in the constitution in my opinion that suggests an individual can not vote or advocate for things based on their religion. Doing so is absolutely no different than advocating for it due to your belief in Platonic or Hobbesian philosophy. One can easily vote for things regarding murder, censorship, welfare, health care, immigration, abortion, gay marriage, drunk driving, and school education all based off of morals that are created in them due to their religion....yet you can't pick and choose and say "When they do that for abortion and gay marriage its unconstitutional but if they do it for health care and welfare its okay".

Now you give welfare as an example, that some people say it is morally right, because of their religion. Well, there are also other secular arguments for welfare, and the law isn't being based on a religious argument.

Not all arguments against gay marriage are based on religious beliefs. You may THINK or FEEL that they're rooted in that, but that doesn't change the fact that an argument can be made against it without even touching religion. Ultimately, it is not your or my call to say what someone is REALLY thinking. You may think its a POOR argument, but that doesn't change that argument from existing.

Simply because some people may argue for Welfare based on secular reasonings doesn't, to me, make it any different than the gay marriage debate. It, just like gay marriage, can be argued for and agaisnt based on secular and non-secular reasons. We are entitled, by the constitution, to practice our religion (or lack of religion) and that's a wonderous thing...and one such practice is allowing it to guide our morals and thus our choices for the country. What it doesn't allow is passing of laws that specifically enact or establish a religion under the government.

The problem I have is when people only have a religious argument against something, and use that as a reason to have it put into law, and I think that is unconstitutional.

But there's not ONLY a religious argument against gay marriage, not as an overrall thing. And if you are not talking overral, but specific to individuals, then to me it would mean you're suggesting someone stating the following is somehow "unconstitutional" because its based off morals that are rooted in religion:

"My morals, taught by the book of our Lord the Bible, state that we should help our fellow man. I believe that many people are unlucky and downtrodden and my morals say we should help them. As such, I am in support of Welfare because it helps those that are less fortunante"

To me, the above is absolutely fine. It would not be fine to me however if it said that they support a law that states "In keeping in accordance with the biblical teaching to love they neighbor, individual taxes for a particular neighborhood will be used to help the poor in that or nearby neighborhoods through the means of welfare" as it would specifically be endorsing a particular religion.

Our constitution in and of itself was voted for by some of the founders of our country due to their morals that were shaped by their religious beliefs. Some of our earliest laws that are still on the books were shaped by religious beliefs. There is nothing in the constitution that limits an individual on HOW they are allowed to come to a conclussion about an issue they wish to support, there are only limitations on what the GOVERNMENT may actually do.

Personally, I do not see how not allowing gay marriage establishes a religion no more than not allowing murder does.

 

[Zyphlin]

This is exactly what I said.

My apologizes, I was rushing to post before leaving my computer and misread your statement. My fault.

 

[Zyphlin]

I don't want the governments benefits and want the government out. That is not going to happen though realistically speaking. However I am not going to support the government condoning or legitimizing something that to myself is morally wrong.
I don't know how to be any clearer on this. :shrug:

I just think we're both going to have to accept not understanding each other because the above bolded statement makes zero sense with me combined with the notion of supporting Civil Unions between gay people as supporting civil unions between gay people is condoning the coupling of homosexuals and thus stating homosexuality is "acceptable", something you've specifically said is a reason why you don't want the government to allow gay marriage.

 

[Redress]

I see Blackdog and Red's point here...

To Blackdogs point, he is not the TECHNICAL definition of the word. Even one of your definitions notes what the "Technical" definition is. And by technical, the actual CORRECT definition.

However, to Redress's point, this is one of those words that have changed over time to mean MORE in common usage than what it is actually technically means. In many ways, to go on a flip side with it, it is much like the way the word "Faggot" is used as slang now in many ways coinciding with words like "jackass" and "asshole" (or harley rider) more so than with words like "queer" or "homosexual". BECAUSE "homophobic" has been used SO broadly by those that are pro-gay rights, applying it for so long to people that the definition really doesn't fit for, the COMMON use of it has changed from the TECHNICAL definition.

"Homophobic" now, to many on the pro-gray rights side, essentially means...when you break it all down...someone who is not in favor of "gay rights" as we see them existing. However, to those NOT on the pro-gay rights side, they see the term and understandably see an attacking term based off the ACTUAL, not the common use, definition of it.

That is not how I am using the term though. I am using it to mean some one with an antipathy or negative attitude towards homosexuals, which is an accepted and fairly standard usage of the word.

 

[Zyphlin]

That is not how I am using the term though. I am using it to mean some one with an antipathy or negative attitude towards homosexuals, which is an accepted and fairly standard usage of the word.

Which is why I get your ponit. However "accpeted and fairly standard usage" is not the same as "definition". Its essentially the same, but the technical definition of the word is not "having antipathy or negative attitude". One of your own definitions even highlights the fact that the common usage is different than the technical definition.

Blackdog has a wonderful point in regards to the adultry thing. There are numerous things...adultry, lying, cheating, etc...that people find immoral, and are commonly done by people, yet the "phobia" term isn't use for them. Its because by definition it does not fit. "Homophobic" was used as an insult for many, many years attempting to subject anyone that was against "gay rights" to ridicule and scorn by minimizing their legitimacy by trying to demean them as being "scared" of homosexuals. Due to the heavy use of it in this way it has transcended a bit in the common vernacular to simply mean "negative attitude towards gays", but that doesn't really change the definition of it completely NOR is it reasonable to expect the people having a word that has such highlight different meanings to simply accept and immedietely understand and recognize that its being used in a much lighter sense.

In a much much different way, the "n" word in parts of the black community has lost a lot of its bite if used between members of said community. However, a black person going up to another random black person and calling them the "n" word may still be responded to with a very very negative attitude. Why? Because just because in your particular circle, even if its common amongst many circles, may use it in its more lienent commonly formed way, that doesn't change the history of why the word was used nor does it mean everyone that is called it immedietely takes it in such a way.

Indeed, I don't believes its impossible to believe that the act of homosexuality is immoral and yet still have a general positive feeling towards people who indulge in it. I believe lying is immoral, I think a majority of people lie, yet I do not have a negative feeling towards most people because they are likely liars. I've known a number of my friends who have cheated in some way...be it on tests or in relationships or in contests. I think cheating is immoral. Yet despite these people cheating I don't have a negative overall view towards them. Similarly its possible to believe that homosexuality is immoral or not "normal", and yet have a relatively neutral or positive feeling towards homosexuals in a general sense.

The problem is that the "common" usage of it is typically only thought of as "common" to those that routinely or at times have no issue throwing the word out against someone on the opposite end of their spectrum. To the people at that opposite end, there's a good chance they've had both the technical and the "common" use thrown at them with absolutely zero way to acknowledge which way its meaning, which makes it completely understandable for them to take it in the more insulting and denegrating way unless they have good reason to believe otherwise.

 

[Redress]

Zyphlin, I am pointing out why he is called a homophobe by some(and point out that I am not one who has called him such). The usage of the word is such that his beliefs could be classified as such by the common usage of the word, without breaking it down into "someone who is not in favor of 'gay rights' as we see them existing".

 

[Zyphlin]

I agree Red, which is why I say I see your point.

At the same time, I see Blackdogs point as well. There's no indication when he's called a Homophobe that he's being called "Someone who has a negative view toward homosexuality" rather than somoene who has an irrational fear of, or aversion to them. And when its being used in a dismissive, belittling way, with no indication of how its meant to be being used, I believe its perfectly understandable and reasonable for him to take it as the more technical definition than the "common" usage...in part because being on the other side from those that routinely use the word, to me the usage you say is "Common" does not come off as the "common" usage when I view it but something that occurs just as much as people meaning it as a full out slur and insult along the lines of what blackdog is saying.

I understand FULLY that you're saying people don't always use it for that way. I'm just saying, I disagree with the notion that what you described is how its most "commonly" used and stating I understand blackdog taking it at its most negative measure when its being thrown out without any kind of indiciation of the length in which the person is meaning it.

 

[Redress]

I actually cringe every time some one uses the term. I don't call BD a homophobe because I cannot see into his brain and know if he is. People do overuse the term, and I would be the last person to argue otherwise.

I hope DB knows that, despite his attitudes about gays and GM, I do have a ton of respect for him. I do understand his frustration with the usage of the word. I am frustrated at times with the usage of the word. I see it in it's current form as being similar to the word "racist", which is another word I cringe at every time it is thrown out.