Why is homophobia tolerated here?

[Haven]

If a person were to join this forum making racist comments, using and implying racial slurs, and saying that racial minorities were disgusting, evil, and inherently inferior, they would certainly be swiftly banned (and rightly so!). This person could say the same things about women, people from certain countries, people with disabilities, and the reaction would be the same -- a swift ban.

However, on this forum -- which prides itself on civility -- people can make bigoted and untrue comments about lesbians, gays, and bisexuals with absolutely no consequences. Not so much as a warning. Certain members have been making blatantly homophobic statements for years without even a moderator comment.

Why the double standard? Why is racism banned, but homophobia and heterosexual supremacy tolerated? Are LGB people somehow a less-deserving minority?

[enviousintheeverafter]

... as my first decree I would ban the word homophobe - because it's offensive.

Same goes for racism.

So you would ban the word "racist", then? Clearly its in the exact same category as "homophobe".

[Danmark]

You claim to have read 1984. You don't like the concept of 'newspeak.'

But that's EXACTLY what it is when the powers that be decide that certain opinions MUST NOT BE EXPRESSED because said powers that be find those opinions distasteful.

Perhaps it is because I am so often the target of exactly those sorts of distasteful comments. The opinions given of my religion and my opinions have been, and continue to be, every inch as distasteful and uncivil as anything that the gay community has to deal with....and frankly, so have the actions against those of my own faith. I, personally, have been the target of physical discrimination and even violence because of my belief system.

Yet you don't see me telling anybody that they MUST NOT SPEAK EVILLY OF MORMONS or theists. Given my own experiences in life, I have little patience for this stuff, frankly. The true victory for those who object to negative opinions regarding them isn't to shut the other guy up so that he cannot speak; the true victory is to persuade others, and to live, so that the other guy doesn't want to speak evil.

A distinction should be made between ridiculous ideas and the people who entertain ridiculous ideas. Joseph Smith's claims about the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are indeed ridiculous. And I am privileged to say so. However I am not so privileged to call Mormons evil, even if I thought they were. I do not. And I think you know I would be at the forefront of resistance to any threatened injuries or personal ridicule you might be the target of because of your religious belief.

I feel the same way about racism and calling gays, lesbians, and transgender folk sinners simply because of their status. I am less sympathetic to Mormons and others who believe ridiculous things, because at least they have a choice about their status, but it is wrong to call Mormons immoral or "sinners" because of their beliefs. I agree we should enjoy the right to discuss and ridicule silly beliefs, but when those beliefs charge individuals with immorality, the line should be drawn.

Homophobia [and there is no current appropriate synonym] is a belief system that is worse than racism in at least one respect as practiced by some Christians:
It is a claim that the person [not the idea] is immoral.

I resigned as a moderator because the rules of this forum are not applied fairly and evenly when it comes to Christian homophobia. A Christian or a Muslim is permitted to call all homosexuals immoral ["sinners"]. This is a violation, not just of the forum rule about 'blanket statements,' but also violates common decency and notions of fundamental fairness.

[Danmark]

You remind me of those who say that the law can regulate and punish any action or speech that the folks in charge don't like because 'we don't dictate what anybody THINKS."

Certain issues need to be danced around and approached with extreme formal civility in order to examine them. However, they NEED to be examined. Examined, not 'agreed with.'

I wish it were not true that I remind you of those people. The law certainly cannot successfully regulate all conduct and speech, nor should it. And I agree we not only can't dictate what people think, we should not try.

To use your 'Newspeak' reference, an example of such an effort would be this silly suggestion:

... as my first decree I would ban the word homophobe - because it's offensive.
Same goes for racism. I would ban any any all use of the words "black", " colored", "white", "negro", "caucasian" etc etc - in relation to categories of people.

It is absurd of course because it suggests racism can be cured by eliminating the word "racist."

But, to return to the rules of the forum, I am allowed to demonstrate that debater X has lied, or that he has debated dishonestly by showing his inconsistencies and contradictions in such a way that no reasonable person would think his contradictions were accidental or unintentional remarks. However, I am not allowed to call him a dishonest debater with out being charged with "incivility." I am not allowed to use certain racist labels on pain of receiving a warning or an 'instaban' for "offensive material."

I cannot tell anyone to stop thinking gays are "sinners," but I do suggest that giving voice to such remarks violates the same rule that prevents me from calling someone I think has lied, dishonest. And the reason is the same. I do not have certain knowledge of what a person's intent was when he made his contradictory statements. Neither does the one who calls another "sinner" know the heart of the person he accuses.

* * *
BTW, I've been watching The Day the Earth Stood Still [1951] and finally realized who your avatar reminds me of. Patricia Neal. She was one of the best.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 147 by dianaiad]

Diana, I'm on my phone and it won't let me use the quote function, so I'll just have to restate what you said that I want to comment on.

There are no "powers that be" dictating an "approved" lexicon, so characterizing Danmark's words as "newspeak" isn't accurate, and it implies deliberate dishonesty, along with a bunch of other negative things that genuinely are not there.

The LGBT community, like blacks, Mexicans and women, are asking society to use nominatives that do not immediately bring to mind their history of public shaming (among other things). There's no "powers that be", just one more minority group speaking up to request the appearance of respect with the avoidance of some labels and please will you use this label instead. . If actual respect is too much to ask for, could folks call us a label today at least SOUNDS respectful?.

This is one group of people asking another group, it's a request. When the request is refused, there are consequences -- being called a bigot or racist are a couple of them. "The powers that be" (we're still not sure who they are ) are not enforcing the label "bigot" on anyone, either, you could say they're merely describing the behavior with approximately the same amount of disrespect.

One protest I've heard from theists (generic) is that LGBT are trying to fiddle with reality with their "requests" for certain labels. This is kind of true linguistically; avoiding offensive labels will have an effect on attitudes in the long run, and some don't want their attitude adjusted. Intuitively, folks 'get' this, I think. In any event, this argument is a straw man. There are no big brothers forcing anyone to use the pronouns a person prefers, but refusing this simple politeness has consequences -- I have yet to meet a Christian who likes to bE characterized by their rude behavior (bigoted).

I suppose it could be considered a trade off?. Refuse (for no good reason) to refer respectfully, yes even as requested, to avoid using offensive labels in exchange for having an offensive label back at ya (speaking generically). Very simple economics.

Mormon Christians, of all theists, have dealt with this, and suffered from it. Casually insulting Mormons is still common, and Lord knows how many"real Christians" I've pissed off by placing "Mormon" next to "Christian", right ?

I'm confident you get this in a way majority theists do not. Can you see the similarities, though?. LGBT folks feel just the same way.

[Danmark]

....
...Lord knows how many"real Christians" I've pissed off by placing "Mormon" next to "Christian", right ?
....

One of my guilty pleasures is annoying both Mormons and other Christians by declaring there's no significant difference between them. When 'regular' Christians talk about strange Mormon beliefs, it's fun to look at them incredulously before ticking off the virgin birth, a man rising from the dead, the trinity, the flood, people ascending to 'heaven,' and so forth, ad nauseam.

[dianaiad]

I suppose it could be considered a trade off?. Refuse (for no good reason) to refer respectfully, yes even as requested, to avoid using offensive labels in exchange for having an offensive label back at ya (speaking generically). Very simple economics.

Mormon Christians, of all theists, have dealt with this, and suffered from it. Casually insulting Mormons is still common, and Lord knows how many"real Christians" I've pissed off by placing "Mormon" next to "Christian", right ?

I'm confident you get this in a way majority theists do not. Can you see the similarities, though?. LGBT folks feel just the same way.

The problem I have is that the 'labels' (0r 'nominatives') preferred keep CHANGING, and if you don't think that there is a 'they' or a 'powers that be,' you never went to high school and dealt with a clique...or were part of one.

.....and frankly, I have found that, in general, the members of that 'powers that be' group are the most likely to be the ones to claim that there is no such group.

The term 'politically correct,' though it is held up as mockery BY the politically correct, is quite accurate; there is a 'correct' way to be, and to speak, and to think...and those who do not do so are sanctioned, if not legally, then socially.

....and many people are being sanctioned legally for being 'politically incorrect,' and THAT is the epitome of 'newspeak.'

That's what happened to the photographer who was sued for refusing to 'do' a gay commitment ceremony....when no such lawsuit has every been filed against a photographer who only DOES gay ceremonies for refusing to 'do' a heterosexual one.

That's what happens to those businesses for whom it is ILLEGAL to advertise that they 'do' heterosexual weddings exclusively,...but it is perfectly legal to advertise that they 'do' gay weddings exclusively.

As for me, I'll call you whatever you want...if I happen to know what that currently is. As I mentioned, things change; preferences change.

*I* will bake the cake for a gay wedding. I will photograph one. I'll provide whatever services you like; it's no skin off my nose. However, there are those for whom it MATTERS that they not participate in any way in a RELIGIOUS (and to them, weddings are very much a religious thing) event that goes against their beliefs. They should be allowed to refuse.

Just as YOU are allowed to sue the pants off of anybody who wants you to stay in the room while they offer a prayer.

I wonder....why doesn't anybody GET this? It IS about civil rights...everybody should have the right to do, say, believe...and behave according to...their belief systems.

NOBODY has the right to force others to violate THEIR consciences and belief systems because one is more...approved of...by those with power than another is.

[Danmark]

The problem I have is that the 'labels' (0r 'nominatives') preferred keep CHANGING, and if you don't think that there is a 'they' or a 'powers that be,' you never went to high school and dealt with a clique...or were part of one.

This is a good point, but LANGUAGE keeps changing, as do social mores.
Last year's euphemism becomes this year's forbidden shibboleth.
On this forum we have an unnamed list of words, the writing of which, even in code, will result in an instaban. I would use one or two right now, in quotes, to prove the point, but banishment could follow.

I think we can distinguish between 'politically correct' and 'microaggressions.'
There's a great article on the subject at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... nd/399356/
From the article:
'For example, some students have called for warnings ... that F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby portrays misogyny and physical abuse, so that students who have been previously victimized by racism or domestic violence can choose to avoid these works, which they believe might “trigger� a recurrence of past trauma.
....
However, there is a deeper problem with trigger warnings. According to the most-basic tenets of psychology, the very idea of helping people with anxiety disorders avoid the things they fear is misguided. A person who is trapped in an elevator during a power outage may panic and think she is going to die. That frightening experience can change neural connections in her amygdala, leading to an elevator phobia. If you want this woman to retain her fear for life, you should help her avoid elevators.'

So where does one draw the line? I suggest that if 'political correctness' forbids use of the "N-word" in most contexts and forbids calling gays "sinners" then that's the kind of 'political correctness' I favor. Calling some one an @@@@@@@ seems mild by comparison, butt that's just me, since I wear that badge myself from time to time.

[Haven]

That's what happened to the photographer who was sued for refusing to 'do' a gay commitment ceremony....when no such lawsuit has every been filed against a photographer who only DOES gay ceremonies for refusing to 'do' a heterosexual one.

That's what happens to those businesses for whom it is ILLEGAL to advertise that they 'do' heterosexual weddings exclusively,...but it is perfectly legal to advertise that they 'do' gay weddings exclusively.

According to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, any public business has the obligation to refrain from discriminating against someone for their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity. The photographer decided to break that law and discriminate based on sexual orientation, so they should have been sued. They're the legal and moral equivalent of a racist in the Jim Crow era who put up "we serve whites only" signs in front of their business. It's illegal to discriminate, and it should remain that way. Don't like it? Don't own a business.

[Divine Insight]

That's what happened to the photographer who was sued for refusing to 'do' a gay commitment ceremony....when no such lawsuit has every been filed against a photographer who only DOES gay ceremonies for refusing to 'do' a heterosexual one.

That's what happens to those businesses for whom it is ILLEGAL to advertise that they 'do' heterosexual weddings exclusively,...but it is perfectly legal to advertise that they 'do' gay weddings exclusively.

If there aren't any law suits in the other direction it can only be because they aren't being filed. No one is being sued for the things you claim they are doing.

It is illegal for a business to only do gay weddings exclusively.

However, what they can do is "specialize" in gay weddings. There's nothing illegal about that.

The reason they aren't being sued for refusing to do straight weddings, is no doubt because no one is asking them to do them, and/or they aren't refusing requests that they might get.

But yeah, if they flat out refused to do a straight wedding there would be absolutely no reason why they couldn't be sued for discrimination too.

[Danmark]

Regarding the impunity with which this site regards calling being 'gay' a sin, a post from another thread, and my response are relevant:

[Replying to post 31 by Wootah]

Wootah, did I miss it or did you ever answer this one:

"Exodus 21:20-21
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is NOT to be punished, since the slave is his own PROPERTY " (caps my emphasis)

So clearly the Bible is saying it is OK to beat one's slave half to death, since the slave is PROPERTY.

Is that from God? Or is that a flaw in the Bible based on the human element.

Either way, are you comfortable with that Mosaic ruling? And does that in any way change our view that the Bible is infallible?

Or can you admit now that even Evangelicals and Fundamentalists "pick and choose" to some degree.

Whether Church fed, or Preacher fed, or on our own, we ALL pick and choose the lens with which we filter the Bible.

There is also this rather odd passage in Philemon, where Paul writes mysteriously about his relationship with Onesimus:

I, Paul, an old man and now a prisoner also for Christ Jesus— 10 I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I became in my imprisonment. 11 (Formerly he was useless to you, but now he is indeed useful to you and to me.) 12 I am sending him back to you, sending my very heart. 13 I would have been glad to keep him with me, in order that he might serve me on your behalf during my imprisonment for the gospel, 14 but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own accord. 15 For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back for ever, 16 no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother—especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

In any event, I am aware of no place in the Bible where slavery is condemned, and as EJ points out the Bible only talks about not killing a slave, but allowing them to be beaten severely. This 'morality' seems extremely odd today.

Looked at in the most charitable way possible, the Bible's approach to slavery is another example of why the Bible's declarations of what is and what is not 'sin' should be seen in light of the culture of the day. I say this in particular regard to its references to homosexuality. Most Christians, I assume, would be quick to agree that today slavery is wrong and beating a slave half to death is even worse. So why not look at the Bible's statements about homosexuality in the same light.