Many anti-gay people enjoy their hetero-normative lifestyle, and dread the notion of gay people living amongst their world as gay rights continue to develop and society changes.
That's probably true, though I've seen no evidence of fear or dread.
There are also many heterosexuals such as myself who harbor no hostilities toward gays, but simply like society the way it is and don't want to change it. We're not motivated by fear or dread, but simply a love for tradition and the preservation of things as they've been all our lives.
These people, wishing to uphold their current world view, will deny the rights of gays via political means or whatever else.
Can you be more specific? Exactly what "rights" are being denied gays that are currently granted to heterosexuals? How exactly are the people you mention actively denying those "rights?"
I ask this because as Americans we all have the same rights, whether gay or hetero. The Bill of Rights doesn't specify gender preference. So I honestly have no idea of what you're talking about.
This fear of SOCIETAL change, rooted in anti-gay prejudice, is what knicks255 was obviously referring to - not the clinical definition of fearing change which bared no relevance at all.
There are a lot of unsupportable assumptions that must be embraced in order to validate this posture, each of which are built on top of the previous one.
Unsupportable assumption #1: Gays don't have the same rights as heterosexuals.
Unsupportable assumption #2: Those who oppose passing gay-specific laws do so out of fear of societal change.
Unsupportable assumption #3: All fear of societal change is routed in anti-gay prejudice.
Now before you start with the predictable
I never said that! objections, don't bother. I'm not claiming you or Knocks said those words. I'm saying those are the assumptions necessary to justify his position that "homophobia" is "the
perfect word to describe people who think they have the right to deny the right to love from others just because of religion or some decrepit traditional values." A position you seem willing to defend. Good luck with that.
Apologists often divert homophobia discussions to an argument of semantics to invalidate anti-gay prejudice.
Then perhaps in order to preclude such diversions, it's time to come up with a more definitionally suitable word, rather than a derisive epithet designed to inflame those whose opinions they would minimalize.
Homophobia is not a black and white term, and encompasses a range of negative attitudes towards homosexuals including aversion and contempt, not just fear.
If by that you mean it's widely misused, in an attempt to ridicule and put down those who aren't on board with the GBLT political agenda, I would have to agree. Otherwise, not so much.
The simple point being made is that some (not all) M/M haters dislike it as it coincides with their distaste for homosexuals.
That's certainly possible, but you have no way of knowing what percent (if any) of those who dislike M/M fall into this category. People like you and Knocks just assume that's the standard. The definition of homophia that you and Knocks seem desperate to cling to assumes this as the standard.
They may not FEAR homosexuals literally, but may harbour a strong aversion and deep rooted prejudices towards them.
Or they may do neither. It's a moot point, because the reason why any particular individual hates M/M is the business of nobody other than that particular individual.
So homophobia is a not a real phobia and there are NO people afraid of gays?
Don't be ridiculous. Of course there are some scattered random few people who are. You can name just about any kind of thing or place and there is somebody who is afraid of it.
There are many straight men who irrationally fear homosexuals will automatically be attracted to them and want to jump their bones.
How is that in any way irrational? Woman often fear the same thing from heterosexual guys. Guys can be very aggressive, whether homo or hetero, so it's a very well justified and rationsal fear.[/quote]
Phobias are also not always born out of 'mental instability', they are often learned, and can be mentally ingrained by societal standards and upbringing.
<hr />Extreme and irrational fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation. A phobia is classified as a type of anxiety disorder (a neurosis), since anxiety is its chief symptom. Phobias are generally believed to result when fear produced by an original threatening situation (such as a near-drowning in childhood) is transferred to other similar situations (such as encounters with bodies of water), the original fear often being repressed or forgotten. Behaviour therapy can be helpful in overcoming phobias, the phobic person being gradually exposed to the anxiety-provoking object or situation in a way that demonstrates that no threat really exists.<hr />
The term phobia was first used in 1786.
The term homophobia wasn't coined until 1969.
You can't just take a word that's over 200 years old and say, we're going to add this meaning and that meaning, in order to suit our political agenda.
The term homophobia was created, and is widely understood, to describe a strong dislike or fear of gays
I think it would be more accurate to say that it is widely understood to describe a fear of gays, but it is misunderstood to describe a strong dislike of gays.
...not out of 'derisive hate' by gay victims.
Often it is out of derisive hate, but not by victims of hate, but rather perpetrators of it.
Someone who maliciously abuses a gay person with hateful slurs like '******' is likely to posses hateful attitudes towards gays, and by definition they are homophobic.
I could just as easily say that someone who maliciously abuses a hetero person with hateful slurs like "homophobe" is likely to possess hateful attitudes toward heteros and therefore are by definition heterophobic.
Therefore labelling such an individual as a homophobe is accurate, and by no means hypocritical.
It is without a doubt, entirely inaccurate given that fear is only assumed and not a given. And when people use hateful slurs like homophobe to describe those who use hateful slurs like "cocksucker," it is completely hypocritical.
Privileged people too often think they're the authority on how offended minorities should behave, react and conform to their world view.
I wouldn't presume to know how privileged people think.
Your problem with 'homophobia' is its usage beyond your clinical definition.
First of all, between the two of us, YOU are the one using it incorrectly. That makes it your problem. Not mine. Secondly, it's not just MY clinical definition. It's yours and everybody else's as well. It's a medical and psychological term, bastardized into the chief buzz word in the world of political correctness to describe those not on board with the gay lobby's political agendas.
A gay person's problem with homophobia is living in potential fear of being abused, ostracised or killed due to their sexual orientation.
It's certainly naive to make sweeping generalisations on others' thoughts based on your own select experiences. Just because you never personally witnessed anyone saying "I fear homosexuals" it doesn't mean there is no anti-gay prejudice behind their behaviour, or none in existence at all.
That's true. But if you'll recall, when I said that, I was responding to you saying that it was naive to think there were nobody
on this forum is homophobic.
And not to be candid, but you are hardly in any position to criticize "sweeping generalizations" after your last couple of posts.
It's typical for privileged people to undermine and dismiss the discrimination minorities face because they haven't experienced it themselves.
I wouldn't presume to know what's typical of privileged people. I don't happen to know any.
Tickling is a big part of the sex life of many TMF members. I think it's unfair to label any of them homophobic simply because you take offense at the level of revulsion some might feel.
