The PC crowd has already injected into our lexicon its definition of "homophobia."?

Question

It seems like whenever someone says something against homosexuality, they are deemed homophobic, which basically is explained as : if you don't like homosexual activity then you are homophobic, and you are homophobic because you don't like homosexual activity, and because of your bias against homosexual activity, all your opinions concerning homosexuality have no merit because they are based on a fear.

My question is: if that is true, then is the converse true as well? meaning that if I grant card blanche to homosexual activity just on the basis alone that it is homosexual activity, and don't criticize any aspect of it, am I also practicing a homophobia?

I ask this because I see two ends of a spectrum here, one that opposes the behavior of these people in all respects and thereby voices opposition to it, versus the other end of the spectrum that grants a pass to all activities engaged in by these people by never opposing the behavior of said group.

What's your opinion?

I'm referring to the denigration of a Christian church in San Francisco by gay activists. Seems the mainstream media thought that was not newsworthy. Is the mainstream media homophobic by not reporting a newsworthy -- by giving card blanche to the activists' behavior i.e., they are gay activists, that's what they do, it's only against a Christian church, what's news about that. That is the attitude I'm referring to

MY APOLOGIES TO ALL, being that you are all answering the same question, I apparently was not able to word my question properly, because none of your answers are responding to my intent. -- My bad. How could you know what my intent is if I don't phrase it properly. but thanks all for your opinions, BTW, some of which I agree with, some not.

Answer 1

People don't have an irrational fear of homosexuals. There is no such thing as homophobia.

This tactic is used to intimidate people in an argument. You disagree with the premise of homosexuality, then you have to defend yourself against being called a homophobes. You'll almost always loose.

Answer 2

Well number one -- homophobia is fear of homosexuality, as you note. I know lots of straight people who are 100% supportive of homosexuality -- they obviously don't have FEAR of it. I've heard the term homofriendly and I'm sure that others can be created. Create your own if you want.

Number two -- As for the issue of the flyer for the Folsom Street Fair with a caricature of the Last Supper painting - the only thing that you can be talking about with your statement regarding attacks on Christian Churches in San Francisco:

*The Last Supper is NOT part of the Christian church -- it is an art piece by DaVinci. This is a caricature of ART. I do not find this surprising, considering that even the most hateful people would acknowledge that there are a lot more artistic homosexuals (by percentage of community) than there are artistic heterosexuals.

*DaVinci was, probably not really even a Christian, it is likely that he was a Johannite, masquerading as a Christian. This is not something that Dan Brown dreamed up -- it has been suspected for centuries.

*I happen to be Christian (Episcopalian) from a fairly large (about 1000 attendees at Mass on the average Sunday) parish. Yet, no one I know who is Christian considers what was done in the flyer to be heretical or insulting. Why then do extremists think it is?

Kind thoughts, looking forward to your response.

Reyn
[e-mail]

Answer 3

No i don't think of so. even regardless of the shown fact that i don't consider the determination of the administration to bypass after advisers of the former administration. it variety of feels that our gadget of government has been slowly being poisoned for a while now. a lot of human beings look to think of we live in a democracy which exchange into a minimum of not actual interior the previous and is not the way the U. S. government exchange into set up. Our gadget is meant to be a representative republic which differs very much from a democracy. we've superior right into a 2 celebration gadget that bends to the latest polls, something that became maximum popular during the Clinton era. for my area i think the finished present day shape of our government has exchange into some variety of legislative maximum cancers that's destroying the U. S.. I worry that till "we the individuals" regain administration that our decline and fall will seem very very like that of the Roman Empire of the previous. we are helping via ever increasing taxes a 2 headed monster that keeps scuffling with this is self particularly than appearing interior the best pastime of the individuals. the federal government keeps to advance and invade our rights offered interior the form. With the gadget of exams and balances, our governmental antibodies, being unable to resign the main cancers. It look purely a be counted of time earlier a entire gadget failure.

Answer 4

IMO, homosexual behavior is fair game for criticism --IF AND ONLY IF -- you would also equally criticize heterosexuals who engaged in the same behavior.

For example, if you see 2 men holding hands in public and are on the verge of saying something unkind, stop and think -- would you make that same comment to a man and a woman holding hands in public? If not, then your comments are based in homophobia and anti-gay animus. OTOH, if you don't approve of any public displays of affection by anyone, whether gay or straight, then you're not being homophobic (you're still being rude and obnoxious, but at least you're being consistently rude and obnoxious to everyone).

EDIT: I don't understand the concept of "granting carte blanche" to homosexual activity. What makes you think you have any power to give permission or approval to what other consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes? If you're asked to participate in these activities, you have the right to say no, but you have no control whatsoever over what *other* people do!

For that matter, I also don't understand the attitude of some other posters here who say they "disagree" with homosexuality. That's like saying you "disagree" with blue eyes, or brown skin. Its a nonsensical statement. If you find the idea of homosexual sex personally distasteful, then don't engage in it. But you have NO control over what other consenting adults do.

Answer 5

I think you're trying a dodge.

You oppose the behavior of homosexuals. What specifically do you oppose? You will never see me engage in a sexual act, if it's the act you oppose. I don't know of anyone who wants to force anyone - straight or gay - to watch or participate in a sexual act. So what do you oppose?

If someone opposes a person based upon an aspect of their makeup, that person is a bigot, and in this case specifically a homophobe. You can try to sugarcoat it with terms like "PC" all you want, it doesn't change what it is. And your gambit, speculating that granting carte blanche "permission" to LGBT's doesn't make sense. How would that be homophobia in any way?

Answer 6

Taking a deep relaxing breath. I think there is such a thing as homophobia, but I think if we explore beneath the surface we will see that it is something to do with the breakdown of male male friendships. I think this is something that is worth pondering about deeply.
I'm not exactly proud of this posting, wading into heated controversy and all, but I'm so close to getting to the second level,.......

Answer 7

granting carte blanche approval is another form of homophobia.. what right or power do you or anyone have to either approve or disapprove of it. if you don't like homosexuality then don't be a homosexual. thats it. nothing more.

gay people have no disgust toward heterosexuals because we arent obsessed with it the way straight people are with homosexuality.

Answer 8

If you don't like "homosexual activity", don't do it.

I don't know what you mean by "granting a pass" or "granting cart blanche" to homosexual activity". As opposed to what? Making sexual behavior between consenting adults illegal again?

Answer 9

Firstly, why does there have to be opposition in the first place?
You people act as if we are horrible monsters. We are constantly compared to pedophiles and rapists. In reality, that's how the majority of you people view us. You people take no time at all to get to know any of us, but rather base your feelings on your own imaginations. And because of what you people have in your head about us, causes a fear and nonacceptance of us based on YOUR reality of the situation. In my book, that is homophobia.

Activities....humbug. You people think that being gay is all about gay sex. Yet we are the ones that are called sex crazed. That's a fine howdoyoudo. It's amazing that you people only focus on ONE aspect of being gay without taking the mature responsibility of educating yourself on the other hundreds of facets of our lives. That's prejudice. And all prejudice is based in ignorance and fear.


With all due respect, Mr Jello you are biased and you know it. Anyone that has followed your questions and answers knows that how you feel about gay people is dealt with on a personal level based on one person. I feel for you. But you use that as a basis to generalize the entire populous. That's not fair to the rest of us.

Answer 10

Me thinks if you oppose "homosexual activity" you should stop thinking about it so much, and concentrate on your life not other peoples.