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?

[otseng]

Your OP is a loaded question. I don't think a homophobe would describe everyone who opposes homosexuality.

Let me say that attacking homosexuality is tolerated here. Any belief system is allowed to be attacked. This includes homosexuality, Christianity, atheism, etc.

Homosexuality is a particularly sensitive topic. It is probably the most contentious issue on the forum since the very founding of this place. Many people attempt to skirt the line of personally attacking another when debating this issue. But really the only time a moderator would step in is when the line is crossed of personally attacking another.

[Haven]

Your OP is a loaded question. I don't think a homophobe would describe everyone who opposes homosexuality.

Would "racist" describe everyone who opposes racial minorities? Would "sexist" describe everyone who opposes women? When you think about how you'd answer these questions, you'd realize the answer to the question I proposed in the OP.

Let me say that attacking homosexuality is tolerated here. Any belief system is allowed to be attacked. This includes homosexuality, Christianity, atheism, etc.

Christianity and atheism are belief systems. Homosexuality, like blackness, Hispanicness, or femaleness, is a biological trait, a state of being (this is backed up by several psychological, endocrinological, and neuroscientific studies). It isn't a belief system. Since it isn't okay to attack blackness, Hispanicness, or femaleness here, why should it be acceptable to attack homosexuality?

Homosexuality is a particularly sensitive topic. It is probably the most contentious issue on the forum since the very founding of this place. Many people attempt to skirt the line of personally attacking another when debating this issue. But really the only time a moderator would step in is when the line is crossed of personally attacking another.

I am both non-white and gay. I feel the same hurt when someone attacks me for my sexual identity as when someone attacks me for my racial identity. Both my race and my sexuality are things I didn't choose and can't change, even if I tried (and believe me, I was closeted for years and tried to change, as have millions of other lesbians, gays, and bisexuals across the planet).

Why, on a forum that preaches neutrality, civility, and respect for persons, is it acceptable to attack one immutable characteristic but not another? Why the double standard?

[otseng]

Homosexuality, like blackness, Hispanicness, or femaleness, is a biological trait, a state of being (this is backed up by several psychological, endocrinological, and neuroscientific studies).

This is debateable, which we did debate that here.

Why, on a forum that preaches neutrality, civility, and respect for persons, is it acceptable to attack one immutable characteristic but not another? Why the double standard?

It is also debateable that homosexuality (or even sexual preferences in general) is immutable. In that same thread, there are instances of people choosing to be gay and becoming gay.

I do not subscribe to the claim that homosexuality is in the same category as being a particular race or gender, so I see it as fair game to attack homosexuality.

[bluethread]

Would "racist" describe everyone who opposes racial minorities? Would "sexist" describe everyone who opposes women? When you think about how you'd answer these questions, you'd realize the answer to the question I proposed in the OP.

Not by me. I believe "race" is an artficial construct devised by evolutional determinists to justify tribalism, so they can maintain the appearance of modern rationalism. I also believe that "sexist" is a term devised by the unisex movement for the purpose of demonizing all recognition of sexual differences as unjustified generalization. I think "homophobia" is a similar term, designed to categorize opposition to homosexual behavior as a psychologocal disorder. I believe it is more accurate to simply point out an unjustified generalization as an unjustified generalization. Terms like racist, sexist and homophobe are just attempts to increase the strength of one's argument based on ones personal revulsion for the opposing argument.

Christianity and atheism are belief systems. Homosexuality, like blackness, Hispanicness, or femaleness, is a biological trait, a state of being (this is backed up by several psychological, endocrinological, and neuroscientific studies). It isn't a belief system. Since it isn't okay to attack blackness, Hispanicness, or femaleness here, why should it be acceptable to attack homosexuality?

Well, in civil discourse it is not really acceptable to "attack" the opposing view, that is just another form of sophistry designed to strengthen one's argument based on ones personal revulsion for the opposing argument. It is also sophistry to characterize generalization as an "attack". All that is required is for one to show that falacy of the opponents argument.

I am both non-white and gay. I feel the same hurt when someone attacks me for my sexual identity as when someone attacks me for my racial identity. Both my race and my sexuality are things I didn't choose and can't change, even if I tried (and believe me, I was closeted for years and tried to change, as have millions of other lesbians, gays, and bisexuals across the planet).

Appeals to one's personal sensibilities, though worthy of acknowledgement as a matter of civility, are appeals to tact and not refutations of an argument, unless of course one is voluteering to have one's sensibilities examined as part of the debate. In that latter case, one can not then protest that one is being attacked, when the example is made subject to examination.

Why, on a forum that preaches neutrality, civility, and respect for persons, is it acceptable to attack one immutable characteristic but not another? Why the double standard?

Neutrality would dictate that statements speak for themselves. Civility would dictate that one neither appeal to one's sensibilities or make statements designed to offend the sensibilities of others. Respect would dictate not requiring others to state one's arguments according to a personal preference and that one would attempt to present one's arguments in a manner that promotes understanding over victory. Under the above conditions attacking anything would be questionable. However, expressing any view including generalizations based on skin color, anatomy, physiology, social structure, etc. should be fair game, as long as they are stated as assertions of principle, can be supported and are not personal attacks, in my opinion. Such can be refuted by pointing out fallacies and unwarranted generalizations in those views.

[cnorman18]

Let me put in my two cents here as a Jew: Blatant antisemitism has been, and is, tolerated on this forum -- and I am OK with that. Let them parade their hatred and try to defend it in public, so that the rest of the world can see what they're made of and what they stand for. Phil Donahue used to invite Ku Klux Klanners onto his show regularly; when asked why, he would reply to this effect: "I want people to see them in all their gap-toothed, illiterate, hateful ignorance."

The same applies here. Some think that exhibiting and beating the drum for their hatred is a way to "defend Christianity" -- even as they are told that they drive others AWAY from that faith with their sneering, spitting contempt for other human beings. If their hatred is more important to them than anything else, let them exhibit that to their heart's content, with all the falsehoods, distortions, and obvious obsessiveness that accompanies it.

So I say, let them speak. When they violate the rules of this forum, let them be banned. One's views alone ought not determine that. If they did, who got banned would immediately depend on who is in charge -- and that's why, e.g., Jews and atheists regularly get banned from "Christian" forums and liberals get banned from "conservative" forums.

[help3434]

Homosexuality, like blackness, Hispanicness, or femaleness, is a biological trait, a state of being (this is backed up by several psychological, endocrinological, and neuroscientific studies).

This is debateable, which we did debate that here.

And did anybody in that 25 page thread claim that they could choose what gender they were attracted to? Did anyone provide solid evidence that people could?

[Joab]

I would like to know why these disgusting statements didn't warrant a warning being issued to the alleged christian who made them to a self confessed lesbian.

Oh really? Al you woman parts somehow redesigned themselves?

Oh really? Do you ovulate?

By what right do you posses to make a statement about a Christian family? You are not a Christian.

Can someone tell me?

[bluethread]

It's national homophobic day! Let's all get out there and support the rights of the homophobic by having a Homophobic Pride Parade. After all, infra red as well as beta and gamma rays are also parts of the rainbow.

[Joab]

Let me put in my two cents here as a Jew: Blatant antisemitism has been, and is, tolerated on this forum -- and I am OK with that. Let them parade their hatred and try to defend it in public, so that the rest of the world can see what they're made of and what they stand for. Phil Donahue used to invite Ku Klux Klanners onto his show regularly; when asked why, he would reply to this effect: "I want people to see them in all their gap-toothed, illiterate, hateful ignorance."

The same applies here. Some think that exhibiting and beating the drum for their hatred is a way to "defend Christianity" -- even as they are told that they drive others AWAY from that faith with their sneering, spitting contempt for other human beings. If their hatred is more important to them than anything else, let them exhibit that to their heart's content, with all the falsehoods, distortions, and obvious obsessiveness that accompanies it.

So I say, let them speak. When they violate the rules of this forum, let them be banned. One's views alone ought not determine that. If they did, who got banned would immediately depend on who is in charge -- and that's why, e.g., Jews and atheists regularly get banned from "Christian" forums and liberals get banned from "conservative" forums.

Very recently a poster was given a warning for using the term anti-gay. Considering the misrepresentations promoted by one poster concerning gays without sanction I find this discriminatory. Just my opinion.