When do you think somebody is homophobic?

biko wrote: »

On a side note - why do people call it phobic? I'd hardly think homophobes are actually afraid of catching the gayness, they just don't agree with it.

I think there genuinely is an element of fear in homophobia

Homophobic people feel threatened by gay people because they're a little bit different.

Homophobic people tend to be quite conservative and like things to stay the way they are, Homosexual people threaten the status quo

Then there's the latent fear that they might 'corrupt' either themselves, or their children, or 'society'

It's down to ignorance really.

frostyjacks wrote: »

I mean respect as in "to avoid interfering with or intruding upon".

I think female (and male) genital mutilation is wrong, but if some cultures are happy to carry it out, then that's their own business.

WOOOOAAAHH there a second...
you're talking about a culture's 'right' to mutilate a child's genitals...

What about the african cultures who think Albinos are killed in human sacrifice...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pius-kamau/three-year-old-albino-vic_b_1462991.html

Is that their own business too?

drunkmonkey wrote: »

He's a dude dressed as a man mostly for profit. He's not T so he's doing them no favours and I think your mistaken that he won votes if anything the opposite is true.

I'm a dude dressed as a man too.
I don't get paid to dress up though.
Probably explains why my clothes are old and tattered

orubiru wrote: »

Agree with you on all of this.

But.

The only problem I see is when people are branded as "homophobic" without giving them a chance to defend themselves or to explain their position.

If (as described in the OP) a person says "I've nothing against the gays, some of my best friends made that choice, but..." then surely it's what comes after the "but" that tells us whether or not the person is homophobic?

Just calling someone homophobic right off the bat seems more like a refusal to engage because we don't want our own beliefs and opinions to be questioned and maybe refuted.

Yeah, I agree, going around labelling people as homophobic willy nilly (i love that phrase) just shuts down the conversation.

This was most annoying during the SSM campaign as pretty much every point the "No" side had to make could be easily dismissed and could have been publicly, intelligently, rebutted. I don't think the majority of people who voted No were homophobic. I think many of them were misled and misinformed by the "No" side and were then insulted by the "Yes" side which really just meant they were guaranteed to not listen to rational discussion.

this is the nature of every political campaign. The people who make the most extreme statements get the most attention and then anyone who feels sensitive towards any particular attitude gets their back up and plays the victim card

In the end, the political campaign is over, and now normal life resumes, except that this is now the new normal where people of all sexual preferences can get married and people who were afraid that society would be harmed will forget that they were ever afraid at all.

Just flat out saying that someone is homophobic is incredibly confrontational and abrasive, leaves no room for discussion, and pretty much guarantees that the accused person will go on the defensive instead of explaining their belief/opinion.

I think we can acknowledge on some level that people are becoming increasingly afraid to voice their opinions, or to even ask questions, because they don't want to be accused of being homophobic (or racist, or whatever)?

Another way of saying this is that people are afraid of voicing racist opinions because their reputation will suffer...

People should be prepared to defend their beliefs in public. Maybe their beliefs are wrong if they cannot defend them.

Getting aggressive or defensive when someone criticises your belief is a sign that maybe you're on shaky ground

Obviously any debate should be held in a mature and calm way. A lot of public and media driven debate is shrill and confrontational from both sides, and this is always a waste of time.

Would people say that there is a distinctive LGBTQ culture? If so, is it fair to instantly brand or condemn someone who is critical of, or wants to make observations about, that culture?

No, people shouldn't be branded for criticising a cultural practice, people are entitled to like or dislike any aspect of any subculture

For example, I think a lot of the 'new age' sub culture is a bit silly and annoying but it that's fine, I don't discriminate against individual people and I would be happy to engage with any individual and get to know them for the people they are.

It's ok to not like people who are overly camp on a purely personality clash basis. It's also ok to not like nerdy people, or people who are way too into personal fitness, or people who like postmodern philosophy, or socialists, or libertarians... Some personalities clash, that's perfectly fine. It doesn't make you a bad person.

It crosses a line if you go out of your way to deny equal status to other people simply because you don't get along with them personally.

frostyjacks wrote: »

I draw the line at murder. For everything else up to that, it's not really my business to interfere. So long as they keep it in their own country and not try importing it over here.

I draw the line at consent.

If it was grown women lining up to have their labia's cut off, then I wouldn't care as long as they were free to choose. (I'd still think they were mad to do it, but it's their body so..)

But FGM is mutilating babies and young girls who will have to live with the consequences of that act for the rest of their lives.