The SPPf is full of homos thread.

[Antiyonder]

Isn't the population of homosexuals more than 10 percent?

I couldn't even guess if I tried, but there certainly is more homosexuals than one would believe. It only seems like they are a rarity, because a good majority aren't conscious about their sexuality or try to deny it.

 

[Grei]

I'm no homo. D:
If you think it's full of Homos, just leave.

I do believe the topic title was made because of the huge argument that ended the last thread. It was like every homosexual rose up and began fighting with some of the more bigoted and homophobic members. Not to insinuate that you really aren't aware of what your sexuality is.

 

[Murky_Night]

originally posted by J.T

I never said it was a good reason.

sorry i didn't mean that you supported the idea. I meant that you mentioned it. But i find that idea pretty understandable.

Originally posted by Evolutionrex

Before i learned that my brother (Murky_Night) was gay, i had supported gay rights. I see no reason why they shouldn't have the same rights as anyone else, besides religion. Any other reason the people think of on why gays shouldn't have equal rights are just trying to find excuses.

Religious people who are against gays, if you really think that gays are going to hell, then thats good for you. Let them go to "Hell." let them be. Don't try to stop them.

The real reason why people would hate gays is becuase there different. Human nature doesn't like different things. If you saw a guy with all his limbs cut off, you wouldn't just pretend he is like every one else. But, we also wouldn't throw a man in prison becuase he has no limbs, would you? no. You can't just disagree with people just becuase there different, and everyone needs to realize that

Thanks that is very touching to hear from you of all people.

 

[Dashing]

Ethan- fused is right, a Latin root can be attached to a word that it has barley anything to do with.

Except that Homophobia is 100% Greek, not Latin =P
But I agree. It doesn't solely mean 'fear of homosexuals' anymore and everyone knows it. A lot of people use the 'I'm not afraid of homosexuals' as an excuse.

 

[WishforaMilotic]

The only reason some people experience homophobia is because they are afraid that the homosexuals are automaticly get turned on by every human being the same gender as them...

 

[Ethan]

I also don't like this argument.

Homophobia is not just a fear of homosexuals, but it can also be a hatred, prejudice or aversion to homosexuals. In our language, -phobia is not only used to describe fear. A good example is the medical condition of photophobia- it is an extreme sensitivity or aversion to light, not a fear of light.

With the exception of photophobia, -phobia only means "fear" when used in a medical context. When it is used to describe attitudes, its definition broadens and is used in terms like homophobia, xenophobia, ephibiphobia, Christophobia, or chemophobia- a fear or dislike of a particular thing.

Well that's great and all, but its just semantics. The word as its commonly understood simply means fear of gays, otherwise no one would be debating the label in the first place. Apparently if a label doesn't fit all of your opposition, just expand the definition to get the job done!

 

[Dashing]

The only reason some people experience homophobia is because they are afraid that the homosexuals are automaticly get turned on by every human being the same gender as them...

I hear this a lot and whenever someone says this I just want to say: 'Don't flatter yourself, you're not that attractive.'

Also, Ethan. The origin of the word 'tragedy' isn't known either. Should we not use it because we don't know the original meaning? No, because it has evolved to something we all know.

 

[Fused]

Well that's great and all, but its just semantics. The word as its commonly understood simply means fear of gays, otherwise no one would be debating the label in the first place. Apparently if a label doesn't fit all of your opposition, just expand the definition to get the job done!

It's not really semantics, its accuracy, seeing as how the word will inevitably be thrown around, I think its best if we all know what the complete definition of the word is, which includes both fear and hatred. The reason I'm arguing this is because people don't know exactly what this word means; everyone just thinks it means fear when the reality is, when used in a social context, phobia extends to include meanings like hatred, aversion, antipathy or prejudice, not just fear. If I can get the job done without manipulating a word's definition, hell yes I'll use it. That's why this one can be used.

 

[CSolarstorm]

It's not really semantics, its accuracy, seeing as how the word will inevitably be thrown around, I think its best if we all know what the complete definition of the word is, which includes both fear and hatred. The reason I'm arguing this is because people don't know exactly what this word means; everyone just thinks it means fear when the reality is, when used in a social context, phobia extends to include meanings like hatred, aversion, antipathy or prejudice, not just fear. If I can get the job done without manipulating a word's definition, hell yes I'll use it. That's why this one can be used.

That is a valid definition of homophobe, I agree.

However, if this is the definition of homophobe, then after being spread so thin, it ceases to be an insult or a derogatory word. In fact, if everyone who has an aversion to gayness, is a homophobe, then entire nations and religious denominations are homophobic. With so many people guilty about being homophobic, why should they be guilty? 0__0 THIS DEFINITION of homophobia is a label and a political instrument meant to stigmatize people who aren't behind the gay rights movement. But you don't know who you're really calling homophobic, you don't know their motivations; are you really going to call the average Joe and Jane who are foster parents, or the Christian Church of ___ that raises money for starving children in Africa, homophobic?

And if you do that, with the emotional charge that it carries (YER A BIGOT) is it really recieved well by anyone when you use it against a person who happens to be "averted to gayness" yet is a foster parent, or raises money for starving children? Under this definition of homophobia entire churches are homophobic, but anyone who looks at this matter in a social light will be confused when they see otherwise kind or socially-involved people incriminated just because they won't recognize a marriage as between two people who love each other. And then this makes the gay rights movement look petty.

In fact people are conscious of being labeled and don't like it. They feel insulted, so they insulate themselves by saying "Yeah, I'm a homophobe, so what?" They take the word and use it with pride, and then gay people feel offended by one person who's already been pushed and is standing up for their opinion. If people keep using the word homophobe in such a politically-charged way, it will cease to have any value or meaning after so long.

On the other hand, just because homophobe can be defined as anyone who hates, fears, or has a personal belief that being gay is wrong, doesn't mean that it should. If we went back to saying that someone who hates or fears homosexuality is homophobic, and not everyone who has an opinion against it, then we wouldn't have this problem.

 

[Fused]

That is a valid definition of homophobe, I agree.

However, if this is the definition of homophobe, then after being spread so thin, it ceases to be an insult or a derogatory word. In fact, if everyone who has an aversion to gayness, is a homophobe, then entire nations and religious denominations are homophobic. With so many people guilty about being homophobic, why should they be guilty? 0__0 THIS DEFINITION of homophobia is a label and a political instrument meant to stigmatize people who aren't behind the gay rights movement. But you don't know who you're really calling homophobic, you don't know their motivations; are you really going to call the average Joe and Jane who are foster parents, or the Christian Church of ___ that raises money for starving children in Africa, homophobic?

And if you do that, with the emotional charge that it carries (YER A BIGOT) is it really recieved well by anyone when you use it against a person who happens to be "averted to gayness" yet is a foster parent, or raises money for starving children? Under this definition of homophobia entire churches are homophobic, but anyone who looks at this matter in a social light will be confused when they see otherwise kind or socially-involved people incriminated just because they won't recognize a marriage as between two people who love each other. And then this makes the gay rights movement look petty.

In fact people are conscious of being labeled and don't like it. They feel insulted, so they insulate themselves by saying "Yeah, I'm a homophobe, so what?" They take the word and use it with pride, and then gay people feel offended by one person who's already been pushed and is standing up for their opinion. If people keep using the word homophobe in such a politically-charged way, it will cease to have any value or meaning after so long.

On the other hand, just because homophobe can be defined as anyone who hates, fears, or has a personal belief that being gay is wrong, doesn't mean that it should. If we went back to saying that someone who hates or fears homosexuality is homophobic, and not everyone who has an opinion against it, then we wouldn't have this problem.

And all of that is very valid and I would have to be incredibly thick to believe otherwise, I just didn't want people to be throwing around words that they don't actually know the definition of or people using incorrect information to defend themselves from labels.

Of course, with the problem posed above, you can also easily apply the term chemophobe to anyone who doesn't give unequivocal support to the use of artificial substances and so on.

I do agree though that we are a society built on roles and labels. That's why gay rights are still trucking, and ironically enough, I suppose you could claim something of a parallel between gay people and homophobes: What constitutes one? What are the (inherent) behaviors of one? Is this the correct term for such people? What do these words mean or imply? Should these people be treated fairly or differently? Not a perfect parallel, but what is?

 

[evolutionrex]

So now people are arguing about the definition of homophobe? People use the term all the time when some one hates gays. You don't have to take it so literally, Ethan. In modern day, words have many meanings even if they aren't in the dictionary.

 

[Mayfan]

I don't support homosexuality, but I'm fine with them, do whatever you want. Like with religion. I don't support, say for example, Judaism, but I respect the opinions of people who do. I believe in gay rights because, seriously, people should be allowed to do whatever they want when it comes to marriage 3:

 

[evolutionrex]

I don't support homosexuality, but I'm fine with them, do whatever you want. Like with religion. I don't support, say for example, Judaism, but I respect the opinions of people who do. I believe in gay rights because, seriously, people should be allowed to do whatever they want when it comes to marriage 3:

So, if there was a law that said Jews couldn't get married, you still wouldn't support Jews?

 

[Grei]

So, if there was a law that said Jews couldn't get married, you still wouldn't support Jews?

I don't think that's quite what Mayfan was saying (I mean, it could be, but I'll assume it wasn't for now). I think it's just that stance of "It doesn't directly influence my life, so why should I have a problem with it?"

(S)he just said (s)he finds no reason why gay people shouldn't be able to get married so I get the feeling if you replaced homosexuals with Jews, the situation would be the same. "people should be allowed to do whatever they want when it comes to marriage 3:"

Of course, I'm assuming this is how he/she feels.

 

[Mayfan]

I would not believe Jews are correct religiously, but I would support them being able to get married, that's what I'm saying here.

 

[evolutionrex]

I would not believe Jews are correct religiously, but I would support them being able to get married, that's what I'm saying here.

So what i'm asking is, why not the same with homosexuals?

 

[CSolarstorm]

And all of that is very valid and I would have to be incredibly thick to believe otherwise, I just didn't want people to be throwing around words that they don't actually know the definition of or people using incorrect information to defend themselves from labels.

Of course, with the problem posed above, you can also easily apply the term chemophobe to anyone who doesn't give unequivocal support to the use of artificial substances and so on.

I do agree though that we are a society built on roles and labels. That's why gay rights are still trucking, and ironically enough, I suppose you could claim something of a parallel between gay people and homophobes: What constitutes one? What are the (inherent) behaviors of one? Is this the correct term for such people? What do these words mean or imply? Should these people be treated fairly or differently? Not a perfect parallel, but what is?

That's very well, and the parallel between the label homosexual and homophobe is great. Chemophobe isn't a buzzword like homophobe. You may compare them etymologically but there are more angles to look at the issue toward. Socially people aren't going to go, "Ah yes, there's a homophobe, just like people who are opposed to artificial chemicals are chemophobes". There's going to go, "Ah yes, there's a homophobe, just like an Anti-Semitic, or an Islamophobe."

So let me pose a question:

There is a Muslim who favors Islam because that is the religion they belong to. They don't like Christianity but they haven't taken any action to interfere with Christian activities and worship. Are they Christophobic because they don't agree with Christianity by principle, and prefer Islam instead?

Are then, all people of religion, phobic of other religions because they believe their own religion is right and the other religions are wrong, and they would spread their message and disagree with other people?

There is a Christian who favors Christianity over Islam, because that is their religion. They don't interfere with Muslims or Muslim places of worship (this particular Christian has no problem with the Ground Zero Mosque) but they still don't really agree with Islam. They have an aversion to Islam.

What grounds would you have to call them Islamophobic? Just because they dislike Islam? Does that dislike make them -phobic? There are more conditions someone has to satisfy to be Islamophobic than just being averted to it.

So what grounds would you have to call someone homophobic, if they disagreed with homosexuality? Wouldn't you have to identify some basis of fear or antipathy before you could call them phobic? What if they just don't have any (because they don't really take the issue that personally) and stubbornly still doesn't agree with homosexuality?

Not all disagreement has hatred, prejudice, or antipathy behind it; you can be against something by principle. So which is it? Does homophobia mean hatred and fear toward gay people, or does it ALL aversion toward gay people, including informed, rational disagreement? Most other forms of phobia include by rule have to include some sort of irrationality and many people assume homophobia does too. When you start including informed, rational disagreement in the definition, it sets a social precedent that hasn't been made yet. After all, there are many things that people in the world cannot agree on, and we haven't yet put -phobic suffixes on all of them. It would be kind of redundant to do so.

 

[J.T.]

So what i'm asking is, why not the same with homosexuals?

Why not indeed. She said they deserve the same rights as everyone else.

 

[Murky_Night]

yeah e-rex stop bugging people who already stated that support gay rights.
You are turning this into a religious argument, lets not make it one please.

 

[iColorfulEevee]

So what i'm asking is, why not the same with homosexuals?

._. She did say that homosexuals deserve the same rights. Its just that she doesn't "endorse" ( if that's what she meant ) it or think its "correct" if you compare homosexuals to Jews.



P.S. I soooo need to get back in this debate xD