HappyJackWagon Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 During a contentious debate I viewed a poster's comments as particularly harsh towards gays. I stated... Quote No need to yell. Your exclamation is bordering on homophobia. Your disgust at the possibility is duly noted. Even though I was attempting to be somewhat charitable by stating the person was only "bordering" on homophobia, the poster took offense, and it is understandable. Even though I feel I was accurate, it wasn't my best moment. He recently responded with ... Quote "borderline homophobia"? "[my] disgust"? If you can imagine God our Father in a homosexual relation, ghave at it, I admittedly cannot even fathom it. I am repulsed by the idea but "homophobia"... really HappyJack? The word "homophobia" seems scarier perhaps than the meaning behind it. Maybe the word is simply too loaded to be useful in any way (similar to gaslighting ) But as a descriptive word and not as a pejorative, I think it's accurate. The definition of homophobia is... Quote irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals From Wikipedia... Quote Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT).[1][2][3] It has been defined as contempt, prejudice, aversion, hatred or antipathy, may be based on irrational fear, and is often related to religious beliefs.[4][5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia So it seems that homophobia is often based on religious beliefs (which seems to fit in context of this post) and could include contempt, prejudice, aversion, irrational fear, hatred or antipathy. It doesn't have to be all of those things but at least one of those things. It strikes me as odd that in the same sentence a person could be offended by the idea that their comments are "bordering" on homophobia, while also stating that the concept of a gay God is unfathomable and that he is "repulsed" by the idea. (Is there a substantial difference between being repulsed and being disgusted?) I don't think this poster is unique in this attitude. I suspect there are many members who would be "repulsed" by the idea of a gay God based on their religious beliefs. But can't that reasonably be seen as at least "bordering" on homophobia as defined above? Prejudice? Fear? Aversion? If someone were to say they were "repulsed" by the idea of a black God, would that be acceptable, or would it border on racism? What if someone said they were "repulsed" by the idea of a female God, would that be acceptable, or would it border on sexism? I'm honestly asking because I don't understand this. How can someone express repulsion to a kind of person yet not have any kind of aversion, contempt or prejudice to that kind of person? Like I said, I don't think this poster is unique. In fact, I suspect that the majority of members might feel the exact same way. If that were the case, would the church at least be "bordering" on homophobia? Does the church have an irrational fear, prejudice and aversion towards homosexuality? Or is the word just too scary to use?
Popular Post bluebell Posted June 16, 2017 Popular Post Posted June 16, 2017 I think it's one of those words that is too emotionally loaded to be useful. But no, I don't think the church is homophobic. Some members are I'm sure, but I don't believe the church is. 8
HappyJackWagon Posted June 16, 2017 Author Posted June 16, 2017 Just now, bluebell said: I think it's one of those words that is too emotionally loaded to be useful. But no, I don't think the church is homophobic. Some members are I'm sure, but I don't believe the church is. Is the church not averse to homosexuality? Does it not discriminate against homosexuals?
CV75 Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Or is the word just too scary to use? Maybe you are just to scary to use it. LOL
Rain Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 Technically I think you are correct on what it is and how someone may fit the definition. However, I'm not sure if I have even heard the word used as a definition rather than accusation/judgment. I obviously cannot read the minds of the people saying it and there are likely times when it is only used in definition, but it does seem like it is rarely used that way. That is why it is a loaded word. 1
Ouagadougou Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I'm honestly asking because I don't understand this. How can someone express repulsion to a kind of person yet not have any kind of aversion, contempt or prejudice to that kind of person? Like I said, I don't think this poster is unique. In fact, I suspect that the majority of members might feel the exact same way. If that were the case, would the church at least be "bordering" on homophobia? Does the church have an irrational fear, prejudice and aversion towards homosexuality? Or is the word just too scary to use? Yes, IMO, the church is homophobic and has an irrational fear/prejudice toward gays. Look at the following examples: - Kids with gay parents (who are 100% innocent IMO) are not allowed to be baptized. The only underlying reason I can see for this is some type of fear or prejudice from leadership. It's hard for me to believe that Christ himself doesn't want these young kids to join his fold through baptism. - A young girl is forced to end her testimony for expressing her own views on being gay that don't align with what the church wants. Is she really such a threat to the church? Just let her finish. - The church's involvement with Prop 8 in CA was not necessary and a waste of time/money, IMO. Out of all the suffering and terrible things taking place throughout the world, the church could have used its resources/time/money to focus on something else; however, this undertaking to ban gay marriage, IMO, stemmed from an irrational fear/prejudice toward gays. - Comments from LDS friends and family member about gays: Unfortunately, I have heard many friends and family members (who are active in the church) belittle, mock, and even ridicule people who are gay; this is the complete opposite of what Christ teaches. This might not be the case for all -- and I don't want to generalize -- but I think many Christian churches might have this same problem with accepting and loving those who are gay. 3
mrmarklin Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Is the church not averse to homosexuality? Does it not discriminate against homosexuals? The church expects all its worthy members to live virtuous chaste lives. It applies that standard to all members AFAIK. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted June 16, 2017 Author Posted June 16, 2017 It would seem to me that homophobia would be a spectrum of belief, feeling, etc. As I've tried to think why someone would be offended by a word that is an accurate description of their beliefs and attitudes, it strikes me that the person doesn't want to be identified with people further down the spectrum. For example, if I feel antipathy toward homosexuality and therefore fit into the broad definition of homophobic, I would not embrace the label because 1. it's a label, and 2. because the more extreme end of the spectrum doesn't fit. I can feel "aversion" to homosexuals but that doesn't mean I "hate" them. I may accept some discriminatory policies yet not some policies that are more extreme or even violent. I certainly don't think the church "hates" gays, or desires to do them harm, yet I think the church fits a bit lower on the spectrum of homophobia as I do see evidence of "irrational fear", "aversion", and even some "prejudice".
HappyJackWagon Posted June 16, 2017 Author Posted June 16, 2017 4 minutes ago, mrmarklin said: The church expects all its worthy members to live virtuous chaste lives. It applies that standard to all members AFAIK. That's partially true. The church expects everyone to live chaste lives, yet they have additional restrictions on gays. The "policy" is an obvious example as well as additional law of chastity restrictions. For example, a hetero couple can hold hands, kiss, hug etc, which is all chaste. But a gay couple could not do the same things. There is a double standard. 1
ksfisher Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 4 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said: - Kids with gay parents (who are 100% innocent IMO) are not allowed to be baptized. CFR
HappyJackWagon Posted June 16, 2017 Author Posted June 16, 2017 Just now, ksfisher said: CFR Seriously? 1
pogi Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: It doesn't have to be all of those things but at least one of those things. It really doesn't matter what the word can mean, what matters is what you mean by it, and even more important - how others are likely to perceive it. Even if people technically can fit the definition if you squint your eyes just right, yes, the word is way too loaded to label the church "homophobic" because of how people will likely perceive the term and improperly judge the church. 2
HappyJackWagon Posted June 16, 2017 Author Posted June 16, 2017 1 minute ago, pogi said: It really doesn't matter what the word can mean, what matters is what you mean by it, and even more important - how others are likely to perceive it. Even if people technically can fit the definition if you squint your eyes just right, yes, the word is way too loaded to label the church "homophobic" because of how people will likely perceive the term and improperly judge the church. But what if some of that judgment is warranted? So if I suggested in my response to the original poster, "I think you may be bordering on homophobia because you are fitting the definition x,y,& z" would that be more acceptable. Is it fear of being thought to be farther down the spectrum than one is comfortable with? But maybe they should feel a small level of discomfort.
JAHS Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 No, the church is theophobic (fear of God), but in a good way. It will follow what God wants us to do and believe; not what man wants us to believe. 1
Duncan Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 I think I saw an article recently somewhere that had Prof. Spencer Fluhman of BYU Religion dept. and he said that homophobia is a sin. 1
pogi Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said: But what if some of that judgment is warranted? So if I suggested in my response to the original poster, "I think you may be bordering on homophobia because you are fitting the definition x,y,& z" would that be more acceptable. Is it fear of being thought to be farther down the spectrum than one is comfortable with? But maybe they should feel a small level of discomfort. I think it would be more appropriate to simply state X,Y and Z and avoid terms which can be pejorative. Even you noted that it was not your finest moment, so... 2
Ouagadougou Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 3 minutes ago, ksfisher said: CFR http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mormon-church-bars-children-same-sex-couples-baptism-blessings-n458416 http://www.npr.org/2015/11/14/456016022/barred-from-baptism-mormon-kids-of-same-sex-couples-face-a-frought-choice https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-christofferson-says-handbook-changes-regarding-same-sex-marriages-help-protect-children?lang=eng http://www.sltrib.com/home/3144035-155/new-mormon-policy-would-make-apostates http://kutv.com/news/local/lds-apostle-policy-on-same-sex-couples-revelation-from-god 1
stemelbow Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 50 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: During a contentious debate I viewed a poster's comments as particularly harsh towards gays. I stated... Even though I was attempting to be somewhat charitable by stating the person was only "bordering" on homophobia, the poster took offense, and it is understandable. Even though I feel I was accurate, it wasn't my best moment. He recently responded with ... The word "homophobia" seems scarier perhaps than the meaning behind it. Maybe the word is simply too loaded to be useful in any way (similar to gaslighting ) But as a descriptive word and not as a pejorative, I think it's accurate. The definition of homophobia is... From Wikipedia... So it seems that homophobia is often based on religious beliefs (which seems to fit in context of this post) and could include contempt, prejudice, aversion, irrational fear, hatred or antipathy. It doesn't have to be all of those things but at least one of those things. It strikes me as odd that in the same sentence a person could be offended by the idea that their comments are "bordering" on homophobia, while also stating that the concept of a gay God is unfathomable and that he is "repulsed" by the idea. (Is there a substantial difference between being repulsed and being disgusted?) I don't think this poster is unique in this attitude. I suspect there are many members who would be "repulsed" by the idea of a gay God based on their religious beliefs. But can't that reasonably be seen as at least "bordering" on homophobia as defined above? Prejudice? Fear? Aversion? If someone were to say they were "repulsed" by the idea of a black God, would that be acceptable, or would it border on racism? What if someone said they were "repulsed" by the idea of a female God, would that be acceptable, or would it border on sexism? I'm honestly asking because I don't understand this. How can someone express repulsion to a kind of person yet not have any kind of aversion, contempt or prejudice to that kind of person? Like I said, I don't think this poster is unique. In fact, I suspect that the majority of members might feel the exact same way. If that were the case, would the church at least be "bordering" on homophobia? Does the church have an irrational fear, prejudice and aversion towards homosexuality? Or is the word just too scary to use? I'll add this piece: http://www.withoutend.org/elder-packer-danger-homosexuality-20-years/ I think the history the Church has had of treating homosexuals as enemies very much confirms the Church has been homophobic. For instance, in the midst of the issue of gay marriage in Hawaii, President Packer called out the "dangers I speak of come from the gay-lesbian movement..." So it was fear that there was a danger for members to support the gay-lesbian movement. Simply put, seeing danger in a movement is an expression of fear for that movement--fear of course is what phobia means. Of course this is one example. IT's obvious the Church is trying harder then it used to to not print such angry, or divisive language about those that are gay or support the "gay and lesbian movement", as it was termed back in the day by President Packer. But my experience is that most members who participate in Church, who I know, will express, quite often, ideas similar to Elder Packer back when he called out the gay-lesbian movement as something to be quite fearful of. In many ways, the Church is just the people. So, I conclude yes. The Church is not only bordering on homophobia but has in large measure embraced it. I realize that's emotionally loaded. It is for a reason. And, yes, from the start, the Church could have handled this issue much better. Hopefully we can move away from it. The 2015 Nov Policy change does nothing to help, but only hurt any progress the Church had made since 2008. 1
hope_for_things Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: Even though I was attempting to be somewhat charitable by stating the person was only "bordering" on homophobia, the poster took offense, and it is understandable. Even though I feel I was accurate, it wasn't my best moment. 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: If someone were to say they were "repulsed" by the idea of a black God, would that be acceptable, or would it border on racism? What if someone said they were "repulsed" by the idea of a female God, would that be acceptable, or would it border on sexism? I'm honestly asking because I don't understand this. How can someone express repulsion to a kind of person yet not have any kind of aversion, contempt or prejudice to that kind of person? Like I said, I don't think this poster is unique. In fact, I suspect that the majority of members might feel the exact same way. If that were the case, would the church at least be "bordering" on homophobia? Does the church have an irrational fear, prejudice and aversion towards homosexuality? Or is the word just too scary to use? I think the words homophobia or racist are so charged that people will immediately reject the accusation even when the evidence is pretty clear that they fall into those definitions. Its that backfire effect happening, and people aren't being reasonable. For that reason I try not to use that language because its counter productive at that point. I will admit it that I was homophobic years ago prior to my faith journey, and i think that is true for many members with very good intentions. Unfortunately this is what the culture of Mormonism most frequently produces through its teachings, the product of the rhetoric and doctrines is homophobia. 3
Rain Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 (edited) I think one of the things with looking at the church and homophobia is the word "irrational". After reading your post I started thinking about how other phobias are talked about. They are often used as an excuse or means of understanding the actions of orhers. Homophobia is rarely used this way. Then I started looking up definitions of various phobias. Again and again I found things such as "irrational fear", but not words like contempt. It leads me to wonder if words like contempt have been added since the original definition. It may seem obvious that someone is having an irrational fear of heights when we are talking about 3 inches. If, however, we are talking about standing on a cliff of one mile is it still irrational? If homosexual acts do not stop your progression then the church is going to feel homophobic. If you can never be happy in a same sex relationship the church may seem far from irrational fear. Since at this point we can only use our beliefs and not knowledge this is always going to be a problem in deciding what is irrational. Edited June 16, 2017 by Rain 3
pogi Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I think the words homophobia or racist are so charged that people will immediately reject the accusation even when the evidence is pretty clear that they fall into those definitions. Its that backfire effect happening, and people aren't being reasonable. For that reason I try not to use that language because its counter productive at that point. I will admit it that I was homophobic years ago prior to my faith journey, and i think that is true for many members with very good intentions. Unfortunately this is what the culture of Mormonism most frequently produces through its teachings, the product of the rhetoric and doctrines is homophobia. Just be careful, it appears that you are both rejecting the use of the word homophobia while simultaneously stating that the product of Mormonism is homophobia. It is entirely unclear what you mean by your use of the word "homophobia" when you say that it is the product of the rhetoric and doctrines. I instantly feel defensive because of what it can mean and how most people generally use it. The product of the rhetoric and doctrines is indeed aversion to homosexual activity (sin). If that is what you mean, just be clear, because I think we can all agree with that without getting defensive.
rockpond Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: It strikes me as odd that in the same sentence a person could be offended by the idea that their comments are "bordering" on homophobia, while also stating that the concept of a gay God is unfathomable and that he is "repulsed" by the idea. (Is there a substantial difference between being repulsed and being disgusted?) I don't think this poster is unique in this attitude. I suspect there are many members who would be "repulsed" by the idea of a gay God based on their religious beliefs. But can't that reasonably be seen as at least "bordering" on homophobia as defined above? Prejudice? Fear? Aversion? If someone were to say they were "repulsed" by the idea of a black God, would that be acceptable, or would it border on racism? What if someone said they were "repulsed" by the idea of a female God, would that be acceptable, or would it border on sexism? Or is the word just too scary to use? I agree... the word has become too loaded to use but if we stick to the actual definitions of words, you are correct: Someone who is repulsed by the idea of a gay God has some degree of homophobia just as most would likely agree that if you are repulsed by the idea of a black God than you likely have some degree of racism. 2
ksfisher Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 49 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Seriously? Yes. I don't think it's too much to ask that when Ouagadougou goes on one of his anti-church rants to at least accurately state what the church's position is. 2
HappyJackWagon Posted June 16, 2017 Author Posted June 16, 2017 9 minutes ago, Rain said: I think one of the things with looking at the church and homophobia is the word "irrational". After reading your post I started thinking about how other phobias are talked about. They are often used as an excuse or means of understanding the actions of orhers. Homophobia is rarely used this way. Then I started looking up definitions of various phobias. Again and again I found things such as "irrational fear", but not words like contempt. It leads me to wonder if words like contempt have been added since the original definition. It may seem obvious that someone is having an irrational fear of heights when we are talking about 3 inches. If, however, we are talking about standing on a cliff of one mile is it still irrational? If you don't believe that homosexual acts stop your progression then the church is going to feel homophobic to you. If you believe that you can never be happy in a same sex relationship the church may seem far from irrational fear. Thanks for your comments, Rain. But if someone expresses being "repulsed" by a certain type of person, is that just my sensitivity feeling that the comment is homophobic? If a policy is enacted that prohibits children of gays from being baptized, is my feeling that the policy is discriminatory and therefore bordering on homophobic merely in my mind, or is there a rational basis for using the term? I understand that my personal views will color the way I view the behaviors or words of others, but at some point isn't there some level of acceptance that when a certain line is crossed, the behavior becomes homophobic, or racist, or sexist, etc. While I understand the word is emotionally charged I have a hard time rejecting the word because I think it is instructive and descriptive. Saying someone is bordering on homophobia, and providing examples of why I think that is the case, seems different to me that stating that someone seems like a sexual predator without offering any kind of explanation or evidence. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted June 16, 2017 Author Posted June 16, 2017 2 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Yes. I don't think it's too much to ask that when Ouagadougou goes on one of his anti-church rants to at least accurately state what the church's position is. He was accurate in his statement and I suspect you knew that, just as I suspect you knew the sources you requested he supply.
Recommended Posts