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?

[enviousintheeverafter]

*sigh*
Please stop trying to explain what a genetic fallacy is - I already know.
Instead, please show that I have made such a fallacy argument.

I already did so. I quoted you. You claimed that "homophobia" means the irrational fear of homosexuality/homosexuals because the etymology of "homophobia" is "homo"(as in "homosexuality") and "phobia" (irrational fear).

In order to commit the genetic I would have to be arguing that something was good/bad because its antecedent was good/bad.

No. I thought you said you knew what a genetic fallacy is? A genetic fallacy simply is "X used to be/originally was Y, therefore X is Y". But that's basically what you argued.

And I am going to repeat for the last time, I accept that the meaning of the word "homophobia" has come to mean a much wider range of feelings and emotions than merely irrational fear or hatred.

In other words, you now recognize that your previous statement (something to the effect of "I don't have an irrational fear of homosexuality therefore I'm not homophobic") was mistaken, and are now retracting it- gotcha. Glad we can agree that homophobia consists in a far larger range of negative emotions/valuations than fear- opposition/moral judgment, hatred, discomfort, etc. We're making progress, great.

"Not really" Is that all you got?

Nope. There was all the rest that you cut out of the quote.

You think abusive ad homs might occasionally have a role to play?
How about instead of white noise cut-n-paste from nizkor...

Lol, so sources confirming my assertion is "white noise". I gather you don't have any actual rebuttal.

... you demonstrate how an abusive ad hom fits any rational dialogue on the topic of homosexuality in society.

Why? That has nothing to do with what I said. Since an ad hominem is a fallacious/invalid form of argument, it cannot establish the truth or falsity of any claims/conclusions and so in that sense I agree- its pretty much useless (i.e. as an argument) in any debate or dialogue. But simply pointing out that a certain view or individual qualifies as homophobic is not an ad hominem, since it doesn't involve any inference/conclusion. Something is only an ad hominem fallacy if one infers from some personal fact that a given claim/argument is therefore true or false.

Here. I've used your own logical form example to show your error.

Person 1 (Lion IRC) is claiming Y.
Person 1 (Lion IRC) is a [strike]moron[/strike] bigoted homophobic hater.
Therefore, (Lion IRC) is not to be trusted/believed/listened to/etc.

If you changed your last line to something like "Lion IRC's argument/claim is false", this would have been a perfectly accurate example of an ad hominem. Of course, what makes it fallacious is not that its mean, or doesn't have any place in a debate, or any such thing, but the fact that the argument is logically invalid; the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

[Danmark]

I can no longer be a moderator of a forum that tolerates homophobia. I consider the homophobic posts on this forum no different from racist posts which also should not be tolerated. Since in good conscience I cannot accept the rules of this forum which allow either racist or homophobic posts whether in the name of Christianity or not, I hereby resign my status as a moderator.

[Lion IRC]

I can no longer be a moderator of a forum that tolerates homophobia. I consider the homophobic posts on this forum no different from racist posts which also should not be tolerated. Since in good conscience I cannot accept the rules of this forum which allow either racist or homophobic posts whether in the name of Christianity or not, I hereby resign my status as a moderator.

[Replying to post 120 by Danmark]

Perhaps if there was a clearer definition of what constitutes homophobia it might be easier to draw a line for Moderators.
But as it stands, the term homophobe or homophobic can mean anyone or anything, intentional or unintentional that the self-appointed LGBTQIA thought police decide.
...including retrospectively altering what used to be acceptable.

See the example where my past tense reference to Bruce Jenner as a man - because at that time in his life he was a man - was deemed offensive. Note that I didn't refer to Kaitlyn Jenner as a man/he/him.

[enviousintheeverafter]

Perhaps if there was a clearer definition of what constitutes homophobia it might be easier to draw a line for Moderators.

Not likely, the definition is perfectly clear as is.

But as it stands, the term homophobe or homophobic can mean anyone or anything

Nope. It has a clear and specific meaning, and only applies in those cases that qualify.

intentional or unintentional that the self-appointed LGBTQIA thought police decide.

Riiight. Actually, what the word "homophobia" now means is a function of how everyone actually uses the word. As much as us "thought police" (lol!) wish we could dictate the meaning of words, we're at the mercy of common usage just like everyone else.

...including retrospectively altering what used to be acceptable.

Clearly you're mad that I called you on your genetic fallacy. I'm sorry, but the meaning of words change over time, this is a simple fact of linguistics that happens to be inconvenient for you in this particular case. You'll get over it.

[Danmark]

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.

Does that include racism?
Are racist remarks allowed as long as the remark is not 'personal;' that is, as long as it is not directed at a particular individual?

[dianaiad]

....Clearly you're mad that I called you on your genetic fallacy. I'm sorry, but the meaning of words change over time, this is a simple fact of linguistics that happens to be inconvenient for you in this particular case. You'll get over it.

Moderator Comment

Please do not make personal comments about the writer of a post. Address the content of the post only. Thank you.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[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.

Does that include racism?

Race can be discussed here.

Are racist remarks allowed as long as the remark is not 'personal;' that is, as long as it is not directed at a particular individual?

It'll be more on a case-by-case basis. Can you provide some examples?

[Danmark]

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.

Does that include racism?

Race can be discussed here.

Are racist remarks allowed as long as the remark is not 'personal;' that is, as long as it is not directed at a particular individual?

It'll be more on a case-by-case basis. Can you provide some examples?

How about my avatar? Should that be tolerated?

I didn't ask if "race" could be discussed. I asked if 'racism' should be tolerated.
Example:
"Europeans are intellectually inferior to Asians."

We might start with a common question in America these days: Do Asians have higher I.Q.s than whites? The answer is probably yes....

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1208 ... ve-excerpt

Therefore we should deny civil rights to European Americans because they are not smart enough to vote intelligently. And don't even get me started about blacks."
OR

"My religion says being of African descent makes one an animal; therefore it is a sin for them to procreate or call themselves human."

[Lion IRC]

Perhaps if there was a clearer definition of what constitutes homophobia it might be easier to draw a line for Moderators.

Not likely, the definition is perfectly clear as is.

But as it stands, the term homophobe or homophobic can mean anyone or anything

Nope. It has a clear and specific meaning, and only applies in those cases that qualify.

intentional or unintentional that the self-appointed LGBTQIA thought police decide.

Riiight. Actually, what the word "homophobia" now means is a function of how everyone actually uses the word. As much as us "thought police" (lol!) wish we could dictate the meaning of words, we're at the mercy of common usage just like everyone else.

...including retrospectively altering what used to be acceptable.

Clearly you're mad that I called you on your genetic fallacy. I'm sorry, but the meaning of words change over time, this is a simple fact of linguistics that happens to be inconvenient for you in this particular case. You'll get over it.

[Danmark]

Calling homosexuality a sin violates the guidelines on ranting.
"4. Avoid posting blanket -- particularly derogatory -- statements against any belief system or group of people."
That is one more reason why neither homophobia nor racism should be tolerated here.

When a debater calls homosexuality a sin, and then starts three topics claiming science supports his position, and then tries to structure those debates so that his hatred for this particular 'sin' cannot be discussed, it is unfair censorship, and in this case unfair censoring that has been protected by moderator rulings.