Stop Using the Word Homophobe

Yes! Calling someone a HOMOPHOBE is OFFENSIVE!
Yes! Calling someone a HOMOPHOBE is OFFENSIVE!

Stop using the word homophobia. It’s offensive. It implies an irrational fear, which very few people have. Most people who oppose homosexuality have good reasons for doing so; there’s nothing irrational about it. Calling someone a homophobe in response to someone’s argument is like responding by calling them ass hole. That’s not a counter-argument; it’s name-calling. And did I mention offensive?

Yeah, I know there are a few people that are actually homophobic, but they’re few and far between, and to use it for every person that is anti-gay is foolish and inaccurate. Did I mention offensive?

When one person calls another person a homophobe, I feel like the targeted person would be correct to respond with dumb ass.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Stop Using the Word Homophobe

    1. It’s funny. When I wrote this post I thought I should probably answer that very question elsewhere first, but then I thought, nah. Nobody’s going to read this anyway. I’ll get to it later.

      In summary:

      1. God condemns ALL sex outside of marriage as sin; He’s not singling out gays. Prom night? It’s a sin. College hookup culture? Sin. Adultery? Sin. Living together, but not married? Sin. Homosexuality? Sin. If you’re having sex, and it’s not with your wife, it’s a sin.
      2. Homosexuality just isn’t natural. I’ve commented a little on this in There’s No Such Thing As A Homosexual Human Being and Heterosexuality Rears Its Ugly Head In a Same-Sex "Marriage".
      3. A gay lifestyle is an unhealthy lifestyle. So says the "ultra-liberal" Centers for Disease Control. The information used to be easier to find, but they keep moving it around. I think they want people to stop looking. In short, people engaged in a gay lifestyle have higher rates of: smoking addiction, alcohol addiction, drug addiction, suicide, depression, domestic violence, and sexually transmitted diseases. There may have been more, but that’s off the top of my head. Those same rates tend to be found in children raised by homosexual couples with additional higher rates of child abuse and teen pregnancy. I plan on putting something together summarizing the findings of the CDC and other organizations, but haven’t gotten to it. In the meantime, check out CDC report: Homosexual lifestyle extremely violent. I’d also like to mention that I find it interesting how as a society, we’re gung ho about cracking down on other people’s unhealthy lifestyle choices–think smoking, obesity (fat shaming!?)–but homosexuality is taboo.

      Like

      1. Ok, now that I am in a position to, I can respond.

        1. If someone does not believe in God, should they still be expected to be beholden to God’s rules?

        2. Homosexuality exists in nature. It can be found throughout the animal kingdom, across thousands of species. In particular, it has been observed in primates, which are our closest relatives. It is arguably the existence of religious and social constructs that condemn homosexuality that are actually unnatural.

        http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality/

        http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality.aspx

        3. The spread of diseases is as much about education and the proper use of contraceptives as anything else. It is a fallacy to suggest it is an inherent trait of homosexuals.

        So what’s the route cause of STDs? It’s primarily people not practising safe sex. This is as big a problem for heterosexuals as it is homosexuals, and is based on a lack of education. Protection is out there, readily available, and greater awareness of this needs to be pushed. Pretending young people (both straight and gay) don’t have sex is to bury one’s head in the sand. Wielding religious arguments whilst simultaneously speaking of natural law is to both force a set of beliefs upon someone, and massive hypocrisy (homosexuality exists in nature – our religious beliefs do not).

        Indeed, religious objections to contraception play a part in the lack of proper sex education. The Catholic Church considers the use of contraception to be a sin, and wields tremendous influence, all around the world. This cannot fail to influence the presence (or lack thereof) of education on the subject, and of the availability of contraception. Proponents of this position have created, at least in part, the conditions for STDs to spread, by promoting ignorance.

        It alarms me greatly that the Church will oppose a means to control STDs and then lambast the problems with unprotected sex. This is a not-so-subtle effort to ensure the dominance of religious thinking and mandates in people’s private lives (including of course, homosexuality). Controlling the sexual behaviour of a population is but one way of controlling the population, and a pretty cynical one at that.

        Another means employed by the religious right is to assert that homosexuals (in particular gay men) are more likely to be child molesters than straight men. This reflects both a confusion surrounding terminology, and an effort to deflect attention away from abuse scandals in the Church.

        The assumption is that a man who assaults a male child is homosexual, when in fact the adult may have no preference for adult men. Would it reasonable to assume that an adult male assaulting a female child is a heterosexual? This is (unsurprisingly) not a link that the religious right argues exists.

        The realilty is not based on sexual orientation but rather, psychological disorders. These are not an inherent trait of homosexuals, despite efforts to manipulate the facts to say otherwise. In fact, the Catholic Church alone has a history of abuse scandals, and subsequent cover-ups. Would it be remotely fair to tar everyone with the same brush in these circumstances? Of course not, yet those who advocate discrimination against homosexuals never appear to extend this consideration.

        Some further reading:

        http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10407559

        Like

      2. Sorry for the delayed response. I was sick, and then had to put my dog down. Haven’t been in the mood for writing.

        1. If someone does not believe in God, should they still be expected to be beholden to God’s rules?

        Generally speaking… Yes. In fact, for the most part, society already does agree with God’s rules. While people don’t necessarily do them, most people would agree that the following are wrong: stealing, drunkenness, gossip, lying, backstabbing, laziness, murder, coveting your neighbor’s wife, bestiality, incest, adultery, etc.

        I find it amazing that one can look at the list of things God tells us not to do, and there are usually secular reasons that can tell us why. In other words, the two generally line up with each other.

        The same is true when it comes to sex, but secular reasoning seems to fall apart. Yes, there are secular reasons that agree with God’s rules, when it comes to sex, but we’ve adopted this in-your-face, anything goes mentality. And what do we see? The deterioration of relationships and the family; sky-high divorce rates, single-parent homes, poverty, dead-beat dads, hook-up culture, abortion, sexually transmitted diseases. Sex has been reduced to a recreational activity, and it’s taking a toll. Single-motherhood is the number one cause of poverty. You want to combat poverty? Start with promoting marriage, and staying married.

        Further:

        Besides, there is no good reason to not believe in God. Check out I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist.

        1. Homosexuality exists in nature.

        It does, but that doesn’t mean it’s right. Human beings have the capacity to think about right and wrong, while animals don’t. We shouldn’t be getting our lifestyle examples from animals.

        1. The rest.

        I had a bunch of stuff written (and still do), but felt it got way off topic (why the term homophobe is offensive), and shortened my response to bullet points.

        • I never said STDs were an inherent trait of homosexuals. What I said is that they occur in higher rates, and despite "better education" these days, it continues to rise: Sexually Transmitted Diseases | Gay and Bisexual Men’s Health | CDC.

        • Part of the problem is that there are two different definitions of safe sex:

          1. God’s definition: sex between a husband and wife within the confines of marriage. Period.

          2. The World’s definitions: sex with whoever you want, whenever you want, as long as you use a condom.

        • The problem is that there’s no such thing as "safe sex." Even condoms are only 99.9% effective. And despite the massive amounts of money spent on education, and the availability of free contraceptives, people don’t use them.

        • Condoms aren’t readily available because people just don’t carry them around, and people have sex anyway. The education needs to change. People need to be taught that sex for recreation is wrong. Talk about condoms needs to be secondary.

        • Imagine, for a moment, sex God’s way: no sex except within marriage. STDs would be virtually wiped out within a generation!

        • I also find the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception disturbing. Here are my reasons:

          1. Sex is not always a sin; only outside the confines of marriage. In marriage contraception can be used to control family size, and I don’t see anything wrong with that. The Catholic Church teaches that God will determine if you going to have kids or not, but this is true whether you use contraception or not. Even if contraception were 100% reliable, if God wanted a pregnancy, no condom would stop it.

          2. Having sex outside of marriage is a sin. Not using a condom is stupid; not a sin. If you’re going to have sex anyway, despite God’s teaching, and many Christians and non-Christians do, use a condom. I don’t think it’s a problem of education. I think it’s a three-fold problem. The first being too lazy to go and get one. How many people stop a session of heavy petting to run out to the all night party store? The second is simply a preference for going at it natural, especially when other birth control is used, such as the pill. The third is poor planning. Despite being readily available, how many people keep a stockpile of them in their apartment? How about the glove box for those backseat moments?

        • Yes, there’s a certain portion of the religious right that does associate homosexuals with child molesters, but I would agree with you that it’s wrong. Personally, I would expect the percentages to be about the same for homosexuals and heterosexuals, because as I’ve pointed out earlier, there’s no difference between the two (we’re all heterosexual by nature).

        • I don’t believe the Catholic Church is pushing the homosexual/child molester idea to deflect attention away from the abuse scandals. I don’t know their official stance on the issue, but it seems to me to be an argument pushed more from Protestant circles. God’s Word is clear. Homosexuality is a sin, and the Church would be remiss to teach otherwise. I do, however, think the Church has been remiss in it’s conversation regarding other sex outside marriage.

        • I’ve written about discrimination elsewhere: Discriminating Between People and Events

        • And this isn’t a bad article: Why Discrimination Is Not Always Wrong

        We won’t agree on whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong. You’ll give more credence to your studies, and I’ll give more credence to my studies, and both can point out counter-arguments as to which study is better. But it’s a discussion that needs to be had, without name-calling, hence the article on the use of the word homophobe.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Firstly let me say that you have my deepest sympathies when it comes to the loss of your dog. Pets are part of the family – I have two cats, one of whom is quite old now and not in the best of health, so I understand what you’re going through.

        Regarding the rest, I think you said it best at the end – we won’t agree, and can throw information at each other all day long without changing that. With that in mind, it’s difficult to see where this conversation will go, so perhaps it is best to part ways amicably. I wish you good health.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s