Why is someone called a "homophobe" or close minded when they don't agree with homosexuality?

Question

I don't think that some one is less intelligent because they do not agree with some one else. just because they do not agree does not mean they are scared of them. We do not call homosexuals "christianphobes". we should be able to disagree and still coexist.

I really like the last answer from "D". This question is somewhat a rhetorical one but I just asked it to get as many different views as possible. It sucks that some people start to attack or try to answer the question with a question. thank you

Answer 1

Yeah, when I ask them to prove their points they can't.
I can't understand a homophobic person's logic.

e.g. here's some basic dialogue I had with a "friend":
I will be the letter X, and he can be Q.
----------
Q: If I wanted to be gay, I could be.
X: So you'd just come out, and completely stop dating girls, just out of the blue for no reason.
Q: Yep, I could.
X: Well prove it.
Q: No.
----------
X: So you choose to like girls?
Q: Yes.
----------
(This one's my favorite.)
X: Have you ever met a gay person that told you it wasn't a choice?
Q: No.
----------

Answer 2

There's a difference between not "agreeing with" something, and basically condemning it. I personally do not practice or agree with most religions, but I think everyone should be able to practice whatever they want. If you take a similar stance about homosexuality I would not call you homophobic. Homophobes are those who think being homosexual is wrong and merits punishment/conversion. And if someone thought that way about any religion I might very well invent a word like "christianphobe" for it.

Answer 3

Because the word "homophobe" is the same as the word "racist"...its the easiest word to pull out of their limited vocabulary when arguing a point when they have no point.


Because we should call them hetereophobes, or opinionphobes.

A phobia is also to have a fear of something. I find it exceeding arrogant that to simply not agree with the homosexual lifestyle means that you are accused of having a "fear" of it. Its ridiculous.

I think your post has been pretty much shown as the truth, when you see the replies already here. No discussion, just attack.

I guess all those who replied really are either hetereophobes or christianphobes or opinionphobes.

EDIT : People - he used the word "disagree" not CONDEMN, nor was any mention made of NOT BELIEVING that homosexuality exists.

Answer 4

Some people think that the definition of close minded is someone that doesn't agree with them. To me, close minded means that you have never at least thought about the other view point or considered it. Other people that i know, including myself, have heard the arguments for it and read things and talked to people and still disagree. So, in my mind, they are not closed minded. As far as homophobic, or being afraid of gay people, some people are and some are not. I am not afraid of gay people. I do community theater where I am involved with people from the gay community. I don't run away from them. We are in a show together. I simply do not agree with the lifestyle.

Answer 5

First of all, we'll have to cope with your euphamistic expression "I do not agree with [homosexuality]," because we all know what you really mean when you say that. You mean that you believe that homosexual behavior is immoral. It does not do you any good to "debate" things like this when we can see right through your euphamistic terminology.

Second, the reason that the left have adopted the word "homophobia" is because it is a political tool -- like the expression "playing the race card." Furthermore, the tool works not only in the political debate, but also in the legal debate that influences the courts. When the word "homophobia" gets used umpteen million times in the society itself, it works its way into the legal language as well. And the ultimate effect of this is that it persuades the courts -- especially the US Sup. Ct. -- to treat sexual orientation as if it is the same as race. Since racial discrimination, by government, is presumptively unacceptable and presumptively unconstitutional, then if the courts see "homophobia" as being like "racism," then the courts will treat laws which discriminate against homosexuals as being presumptively unacceptable and presumptively unconstitutional. Hence, it is a legal strategy.

Answer 6

The question of why are people who settle for it "open-minded." perhaps they have not considered each and every of the climate to attain a end. Open-minded is a term it is misused incredibly rampantly at the instant. humorous situation is, the human beings who constantly are 'self-proclaimed' as 'open-minded' without postpone invalidate their own place by skill of proscribing those with whom they disagree. inspite of the reality that I thoroughly help homosexuals appropriate to marry, cohabit, or in spite of, i do no longer settle for the existence-type as thoroughly valid. the existence-type itself is going against the guidelines of biology. the easy reality that 2 human beings of an identical intercourse won't be able to procreate trumps any argument as to the organic and organic validity of it. only think of, what could take place to the inhabitants interior usa if all quickly anybody grew to become into relatively a gay? inhabitants does no longer be waiting to maintain itself because of the fact procreation does no longer be conceivable. confident, I do help that they might desire to have equivalent rights as anybody, yet on an identical time i'm grateful that no longer anybody is a gay.

Answer 7

Please, and I mean no offense telling you this, please don't use the term 'disagree' when referring to homosexuality. It simply is, do you understand? You can not disagree with homosexuality. It is impossible to do. You can 'disapprove', and I know that is what you meant, but you can not disagree with what is. That would be like disagreeing with oxygen, or disagreeing with dwarfism. It exists. You can disapprove but in both cases the people involved are simply a variation of the human condition.

I think the reason for being called a homophobe could stem from the slant put on any argument where someone 'disagrees' with the existence for whom the message is intended. It is degrading.

Submitted for your consideration. Thank you for your time.

Answer 8

It's usually a 2-fold problem:

1) Invariably when someone expresses disagreement/disapproval with orientation in this forum, it is usually prefaced or laced with inflammatory and judgmental adjectives and adverbs, i.e., "disgusting," "abnormal," and the like. And then they'll often say "I mean no disrespect" or something along those lines, as if that somehow excuses rudeness. This isn't the basis of a disagreement - it's a slap in the face.

2) The underlying disagreement is choice. You can't disagree with something beyond one's control, and wouldn't attempt to justify it. Would anyone say "I would have no problem with Asians if they weren't Asian?" "I would have no problems with blonds if they weren't blond?"

I think most people here and most LGBT people I have known elsewhere would be more than happy to discuss what it's like to be gay, when they first realized they were gay, and anything about it. But to simply disagree with one's existence is usually going to cause an argument.

And I agree that native intellect is not the issue. Bigotry rarely recognizes itself, especially in the presence of a strong intellect which can rationalize its existence. And bigotry is born of ignorance, whether that ignorance is simply lack of knowledge or the refusal to accept facts.

When 99.999% of a population tells you that their sexual nature is not and never was a choice, then refusal to accept that fact is bigotry born of refusal to accept facts, which is not an intellectual choice.

The only possible argument would be whether or not the behavior which manifests itself as a result of orientation is in itself destructive or sinful. Indiscriminate sex is destructive, but love never is.

Answer 9

It's like disagreeing with people being African American. It's not like they can help it.

Generally you will be called a homophobe if you don't believe that gay people should have equal rights in society, or if you walk around saying that you are disgusted with homosexuality, or if you express clear hatred for homosexuals. Just change each situation a bit and replace it with minority races or something that you understand.. shouldn't black people have equal rights? Wouldn't you call someone who believes that black people should not have equal rights racist? Doesn't it sound racist when someone goes around saying they are disgusted with black people, or that they hate black people?

Answer 10

You are allowed to not agree with homosexuality. But when you hold us back, that's when you become a homophobe. So disagree, but don't bad mouth us then, and we're fine. :)

I mean there are many things in this world that I don't agree with. But I take the stance that it's your business and your life, so who am I to judge you?

Answer 11

"phobia" is when a person is afraid of the specified objects. I am not afraid of queers, therefore i am not a homophobe and you cannot call me one because that would not be accurate. you could say i dont agree with homosexuality that is perfectly true. I dont have to accept you and you dont have to accept me so stop pushing yourself on me and accept that. Also, calling me close-minded is another inaccuracy. Can you really call me close-minded when I have looked at your side, even attempted empathy for queers, and tried to understand them in depth, but, only after seeing both sides of the issue, i decide to disagree with it? no. a simple no. I have considered your side, i am not homophobic nor opressive, i am merely expressing my point of view, and it is not a close minded one. I know i will get flogged for this answer, and i accept it willingly, because i know every one of you who rates this down knows in your heart that i am right about my openmindedness. try to consider MY point of view before you scream discrimination, try to do for me what i did for you before attacking me for not accepting you, for i do not have to.