As a general rule of principle, we have broadly settled on the idea that behaviors, whether innate or chosen, that do not impact our lives but may be present in subsets of human society should not be penalized or disdained. It certainly seems a very reasonable way to coexist with a multitude of people with a multitude of behaviors and viewpoints.
So someone believing something different or contrary is considered a phobia?
What someone believes cannot be determined, and thus cannot be considered either a phobia or not. It is what they do with that belief that lets us determine anything at all about them.
How so? The existence of homosexuals, and their activities affect him not at all. It doesn't demean or even impact his behavior.
But Cannoli chose to express his distaste for homosexual acts. That definitely demeans people who identify as part of the LGBTQ spectrum. I was pointing that out.
To put it another way, Cannoli was expressing demeaning opinions on a group whose existence doesn't impact him. I was judging that act, not his religious belief or the group he belongs to.See the difference?
A comparable or worse act from me would be to express distaste for all Christians, and not in response to some action.
I'm not seeing what adherence to faith and the length of its existence have to do with it. Homosexuality, as a behavior, is far older than Christianity.
Nor does the existence of far worse homophobes mean much. Of course there are people who do worse, both in the words they use and in the sometimes violent actions they take out of their hate. But being better than that isn't the point, is it? Since when is "better than the absolute worst" an acceptable or sought after standard?
Don't automatically think that the purpose is to judge them.
I didn't. I responded to specific statements Cannoli made. I assumed nothing about him at all.
Great, but I'm not making any kind of judgment about you at all. I was very specifically telling Cannoli that his statements in his post showed an aversion to homosexuals, which he doesn't dispute, and pointing out that phobia, as it is commonly understood, encompasses both the "fear" and "aversion" meanings.
I made, or make, no assumptions about Cannoli beyond what he specifically stated.
<quote?I originally asked you how you could tell that someone is phobic, and you jumped to the conclusion that aversion to a behavior in order to demean them is translated to a phobia. I'm still wondering how you know his motivations. How do you know his motive is to demean them?
~Jeordam
Because he did demean them? To help clarify, I will quote again Cannoli's own words:
Cannoli compared homosexuality to fornication, said he has an innate distaste for it, and called homosexuality an "aberrant sexual practice". I know of no way of interpreting the English language where these statements aren't demeaning.
Further, as Cannoli clearly says, this isn't an invited judgment, or arising from any personal impact the existence of homosexuality has had on him.
The opinions are demeaning, they exhibit aversion to homosexuality, Cannoli himself agrees the aversion exists. Hence, he has a phobia to homosexuality.
*NM*