behavior, morals, characteristics...

[asterroc]

As usual, I've said something that started a nearly-very-heated discussion. :-\ In short, to a discussion about the Boy Scouts I added that I did not like their religious bent, someone took that a step further by accusing the BSA of homophobia, and then Howard Tayler said that the BSA's actions are not homophobic, and are instead promoting morals uniformly against any form of sexuality.

I respect Tayler a good deal - he is really smart and funny, and for a Mormon is quite open minded, so I was surprised at his comment, with which I disagree. As I understand it, and as I read it online, the Boy Scouts of America expressly forbids anyone who self-identifies as preferring people of the same gender rather than people of opposite gender. (They also forbid atheists, but that's a different issue.) They do not expressly forbid promiscuity. Their policy is against "known or avowed" homosexuals, does not allow "out" but celibate homosexuals, but does allow promiscuous heterosexuals. To me, this shows a policy directly targeting homosexual preference, not homosexual behavior, and therefore is a homophobic policy, not a morals-based policy.

Comments

[howardtayler.livejournal.com]

It's still not homophobia.

Gay-bashing = homophobia
disallowing homosexuals = taking a moral stance

Stop using that word, please. You don't know what it means.

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

Ah, we have come across a differing of opinions on the definition of the word "homophobia." It's my impression that there is no universal definition or qualification of the term.

Merriam-Webster defines homophobia as an "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." I suspect we can both agree that hate crimes and hate speech (gay-bashing) are firmly within the realm of "irrational fear of," and "aversion to." I can see where there could be differing opinions on whether "disallowing homosexuals" falls under "aversion to, or discrimination against," though I personally think so.

I take a broad view of the word "homophobic," using it to mean any person or action intentionally treating homosexuals or homosexual behavior differently from heterosexuals or heterosexual behavior, though I definitely agree that hate crimes and speech are of a much more serious order than "mere" exclusionary practices. I use the term "homophobia" the same way as I use the term "racism" or "sexism." While it is definitely less severe to keep women out of golf clubs than it is to rape women, I would classify both as sexism. Similarly, it is less severe to keep homosexuals out of the BSA than to beat them, but I still classify both as homophobia. My classification is based upon tangible actions, rather than morals. If I were to base my definitions upon morals, it would not be considered racist if a group decided to disallow black people based upon the group's belief that there was something morally abhorrent about black people (e.g., neo-Nazis).

Unintentionally treating homosexuals differently I would classify as "heteronormativity" - assuming that heterosexual is "normal" and forgetting that others exist. Would you classify disallowing homosexuals as being a heteronormative action, rather than a homophobic action?

(cross-posted w/ modifications to my front page)