On my Facebook page, someone posted a question I've heard a million times before.
"Why is it that those who support gay rights are quick to label someone a 'homophobe' if the person is against homosexuality? The reason that I ask is that many people who I know are against homosexuality based on their understanding (or misunderstanding, as the debate goes) of scripture, rather than any animosity or hostility or fear (thus the 'homophobia' label) of those who are homosexual. So, it seems unfair to me for those people to be labeled 'homophobic' or accused of any hatred of or hostility toward those who are homosexual, if one simply disagrees with someone else's convictions."
People who are seeking to justify their anti-gay feelings often protest that they are not "homophobic" because they do not harbor any "animosity or hostility or fear" of gays and lesbians. Instead, they simply, sincerely believe that homosexuality is wrong and goes against God's will as they interpret it in the Bible. Thus, they assert, they cannot be labeled "homophobes."
Let me answer the question this way. There are people who sincerely believe -- and can find biblical justification for their belief -- that black people are inferior to white people. They hold no "animosity or hostility or fear" of black people (some of their best friends are black!), they just believe, and have scriptural "proof," that blacks are inferior. We still, however, do not hesitate to call them "racist."
Likewise, there are people who sincerely believe -- and can find biblical justification for their belief -- that women are inferior to men. They hold no "animosity or hostility or fear" of women (some of their best friends are women!), they just believe, and have scriptural "proof," that women are inferior. We still, however, do not hesitate to call them "misogynists."
Similarly, there are people who sincerely believe -- and can find biblical justification for their belief- - that Jews are inferior to Christians or other faiths. They hold no "animosity or hostility or fear" of Jews (some of their best friends are Jews!), they just believe, and have scriptural "proof," that Jews are inferior. We still, however, do not hesitate to call them "anti-Semites."
That's why I will call those who sincerely believe -- and can find biblical justification for their belief -- that gays and lesbians are inferior to heterosexuals "homophobes." Even if they hold no "animosity or hostility or fear" of gays and lesbians or have gay people as best friends, they remain homophobes.
I don't find that label unfair because, while they may personally profess to have no "fear" of homosexuals or homosexuality, their insistence that homosexuality is somehow "wrong" or "sinful" contributes to the atmosphere of fear that gays and lesbians must live in. Their "convictions" create a social phobia of gays and lesbians.
Even Martin Luther King Jr. knew that some of the most virulent racists were not the ones on the street with clubs and fire hoses. Instead, they were the "nice" people who truly had no fear of black people, they just didn't understand why blacks needed to make such a big deal out of their position in society. King was not afraid to call them on their passive bigotry and how it contributed to the overall fear of black people.
Just as Jesus called his opponents a "brood of vipers," we, too, must call out those who seek to shroud their bigotry in the language of "compassion." No matter how "compassionate" or "well-meaning" those who "disagree" with homosexuality may be, their ongoing condemnation of homosexuality (and yes, by "disagreeing" they are "condemning") only fosters more fear and hatred. You cannot create fear with your convictions and then try to divorce yourself from that fear.
This is why I contend that there is no "other side" to the gay and lesbian issue. There are gays and lesbians, and then there are those who erroneously believe that being gay or lesbian is "wrong" or "sinful" -- just as there are those who know the earth is round and those who stubbornly refuse to give up the belief that it is flat. Just because someone holds an opposite belief about something doesn't mean we have to coddle them and let them believe their "conviction" is valid when it isn't.
Those who "compassionately" insist on the "sinfulness" of homosexuality are on the wrong side of history. Martin Luther King Jr. said that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." It has taken many decades for gays and lesbians to get that moral arc to begin to bend toward justice for our community, but it is happening. A Gallup poll last year showed that, for the first time, 52 percent of Americans believed that homosexuality was "morally acceptable." Forty-two percent of Protestants believe that, along with 62 percent of Catholics. Other polls show the nation fairly evenly split on the issue of marriage equality. What is telling, however, is that young people are most supportive of LGBT rights.
The moral arc is moving in the direction of justice for LGBT people. It is not a matter of if, but when. Homophobes who continue to spread fear because of their sincere conviction that homosexuality is wrong will soon find themselves in the same historical dustbin as racists, misogynists and anti-Semites.
Follow Rev. Candace Chellew-Hodge on Twitter: www.twitter.com/revtheodyke
Brad Hirschfield: Elton John's a Sinner According to Joel Osteen
Homophobia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Homophobia in Rural America | Gay Rights | Change.org
Americans' Acceptance of Gay Relations Crosses 50% Threshold - Gallup
Tolerance for Gay Rights at High-Water Mark - Gallup
Americans Evenly Divided on Morality of Homosexuality - Gallup
None of the sanctimonious "marriage defenders" are trying to amend state and federal constitutions to disqualify from marriage people who are known to beat and rape partners and kids, are they? Nope, just gay people.
Your boss's position is that EVERY straight person deserves access to special legal status and benefits that NO gay person can ever merit.
So yeah, that's textbook homophobia.
Whenever someone thinks that there is something wrong with homosexuality. It's as simple as that.
Racism may create a fear of a certain racial group in society at large, but we don't describe racist actions or statements in terms of a phobia.
Furthermore, describing negative attitudes towards homosexuals in terms of a "phobia" is misplaced where there is a conscious choice to hate or not hate, as opposed to a true phobia which is an uncontrollable fear.
There simply needs to be a new name for the phenomenon of hatred based on sexual orientation, because the anti-gay attitudes are based on hatred far more than fear.
I do understand that language can evolve over time, but describing an attitude in terms of a phobia has clear implications of fear. Even the author felt the need to explain how homophobia relates to fear; I simply found the explanation too tenuous.
I would prefer a term that more clearly describes these people as being hateful, rather than the more passive implication that they are simply fearful of homosexuals. A different choice of label could drive this point home better.
Jacobs: "I don't say homosexuality is an abomination Mr. President. The Bible does."
Bartlet: "Yes it does. Leviticus-"
Jacobs: "18:22."
Bartlet: "Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? [silence in the room] While thinking about that can I ask another? My chief-of-staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?
Here's one that's really important, 'cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean, Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side-by-side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you."
No mention of people that are not gay or lesbian but fully support LGBT rights?
I think not. In a world of multiculturalism and religious tolerance why is it OK to label people something because how you live doesn't go along with what they believe in.
C'mon people. We either have religious freedom or we don't. Sure, it sucks that there are people out there who still read and believe in what the Bible, Torah & Koran, says. But saying someone has a phobia because they choose to adhere to their belief is just dumb.
And for those who hate you because of who you are, then do you think that calling them names & hating them back achieves anything?
Love the haters, educate the ignorant and die knowing that no matter how much you were hurt, you never meant hurt anyone.
It wasn't that long ago that a man and woman living together was called "shacking up", and the woman was considered to be trashy for living in sin. Who decided that people who believe that way are wrong and hateful? You? By what authority? What gives you the right to judge people who stand on morals you would rather not be reminded of? By what right do homosexuals trample on other people's rights with name-calling and hateful accusations? Live and let live...........the other side has a right to stand on moral ground, and militant homosexuals need to stop trying to force their agenda on them by trying to marginalize them and punish them for "hate speech" and all that other nonsense.
Take out the labeling from your discussion, and I think you have made good points. Unfortunately, many people will ignore the discussion, and fixate on the label.
While it's not always helpful to say 'You are a homophobe,' this is also something people who seem pretty darn obsessed with 'disagreeing with LGBT people' and doing things to harm and suppress us will use to claim, 'We're the victims here, if we can't make you second-class citizens.'
However, if the Organization has not paid to get on the List Stonewall and others seeking financial gain will accuse them of homophobia. Therefore, homophobia to a lot of Gay Rights Campaign Groups Comes down to how much you are willing to pay. When Christians are being accused of homophobia I as a Gay Male who is agnostic see Stonewall and its ilk as being a Gay Maffia.
Pretty much the only way to 'disagree with homosexuality' without being bigoted is to.. Not practice it yourself if you think that pleases your God or whatever.
The notion that any straight person or any Christian gets to judge any LGBT person in the first place pretty much requires they consider their opinion worth more than the real lives and dignity of others, (Even if they deign to claim they're 'compassionately-tolerant of those poor inferior inherently-choosing-to-be-sinful beings,' they still act as though an LGBT person's life is theirs to pronounce judgment on. )
“Okay, let me get this straight. The Catholic Church is going to decide who can and who cannot get married. If this is the case, how fae will it be before the Catholic Church decides someone can get married, but not to who they want to marry, but who the Church wants them to marry. So how much is the Catholic Church going to charge to arrange marriages?”
An individual reponded:
Uh, last I checked the Catholic Church as a right to marry people or to withhold the SACRAMENT of marriage. What, do you think you can "force" the Catholic Church and clergy to perform gay marriages? And your "fans" just take the cake!
Perhaps we may call this individual a homophobe, because no where in my post did I mention Gay marriage or homosexuality. Yet this individual obviouly lept to the conclusion that this was what was meant.
For the record: My personal belief is that it is unconstitutional to bestow legal distinctions (e.g. IRS filing status) on anyone based on their participation in a religious ceremony.
What we have is overlapping jurisdictions, with some, but not all, religious groups claiming sole ownership over that power.
Fact is, atheists get married. Thus ends any and all religious claims to marriage.
That's a given.
Each and every single person has the right to their faith and the trappings that go with it.
Yes, it's your (the hypothetical you, as opposed to you the author) rite to believe that homosexuality is a sin. The moment that you attempt to pass legislation based on your faith that limit the basic rights and dignities of another person, you move from "following your faith" to "being a bigot". And in this case, the bigotry comes in the form of homophobia.
If it's bad for you, it's because a large segment of the population's animosity has made it bad for you.
Just means you *think* you are.
Nothing but people 'Just believing' that actually indicates that homosexuality is bad for society in any way. Homophobia, however, is *obviously* bad for everyone, whether they 'just believe' *you* or not.
So, there's a rift within Christianity on this issue.