Civil Bigotry

[Sophus]

Obviously some bigots are more barbaric than others. But it is it possible to state such vile things civilly.

I had situation come up where a homophobic woman was casual in the way she addressed me but the things she was saying was awful. All of they gays are promoting their sexuality, recruiting children, harming them in mental ways, "killing" the American family, responsible for the AIDS epidemic, their behavior should be outlawed (whilst likening them to drug addicts participating in a devious "addiction") and sure they're born that way but they are being strong enough to overcome . Every time I disproved a point she remained calm and stuck to her guns. I'm growing frustrated and a bit indignant so now she says I'm attacking her and being disrespectful.

That got me thinking: Is it even possible to be disrespectful to a racist, sexist, or homophobe? No matter how "civil" they're being? They way I see it, stating beliefs casually does not make you civil when what your saying is vicious and uncivilized in itself. She would often add, "but I tolerate them," and "I don't hate them" missing the blatantly obvious contradiction/irrelevance.
 :pop:

[GAYtheist]

I don't give a damn how they act, there is no civility in their words.  Every time I run into someone like that I want to ask to see their bible, so I can beat them to death with it.    :brick:  

[Tank]

It's the old 'I'm not a racist but...' comment isn't it? As if adding so fatuous comment lets you get away with everything else you then go on to say. You could always counter with, 'I'm not a bigot, but I have to say that I have found that people who hold the same views you do have been some of the most prejudiced, bigoted and poorly educated I have ever met. I'm not saying you're like that just that what you are saying makes you sound that way. I'm sure you're not a prejudiced bigot. Are you?'

[Caecilian]

That got me thinking: Is it even possible to be disrespectful to a racist, sexist, or homophobe? No matter how "civil" they're being? They way I see it, stating beliefs casually does not make you civil when what your saying is vicious and uncivilized in itself. She would often add, "but I tolerate them," and "I don't hate them" missing the blatantly obvious contradiction/irrelevance.
 

I'd say that the contradictions are the thing to latch on to. 'You say X, and then you say that you tolerate them. How does that make sense? Surely if you really do think X, then you can't tolerate gay people.'

Another tactic is the historical parallel. What does she think of the folks who say very similar stuff about jews? Nazis,for instance? Not too keen on 'em, I'd guess. But where is the difference?

[Thumpalumpacus]

We have a guy like that on another board, he claims to respect gays, and argues that denying them marriage is sensible because "marriage is defined as between man and woman."

As if a word is more important than people ... but he respects them.

If you want a good argument, Tank's line of thought is great, because it is spot-on.  However, it'll probably generate more heat than light.

[Sophus]

I think homophobes are self-loathing homosexuals until proven otherwise.

[Tank]

lol I think homophobes are self-loathing homosexuals until proven otherwise.

That is  bit of a generalisation but it would appear to be the case, what was that preachers name who was seeing a gay guy while slagging off homosexuality?

But back on topic. Simply adding the caveat 'But I don't believe this....' and the spouting off in support doesn't wash with me. It's just bigotry behind a smoke screen.

Some strains of Christian dogma has the caveat 'We love everybody... but...' then add any discriminatory, bigoted, small minded, spiteful and hateful prejudice you can think of. This sort of Christian dogma stinks and those that support that dogma stink to. But not all Christians do support dogma and in that there is hope that in years to come some strains of Christianity will continue to become less dogmatic almost to the point of homoeopathic concentrations.

[Sophus]

To better understand this question, PZ Myers comes through for us!
These arguments from a Catholic professor, who views homosexuality as immoral, are different from the mere awful accusations this person I had been talking with made, which lacked in evidence and any sort of attempt of reasoning. PZ himself says "I hate to say it, but... I read the professor's email, and I don't think it is hate speech at all. It's stupid speech." This Catholic professor, however daft, does seem to be polite. I doubt he has an open mind or would really believe the things he says are convincing if he considered PZ's excellent response, however... what do you think? Is he being civil or is calling homosexuality immoral rude enough in itself?

I'll admit, his silly argument was interesting because it made me laugh a bit.

For those who don't feel like clicking on the link here's what was said by the Catholic professor. Still, I highly recommend you read PZ's splendid response

But the more significant problem has to do with the fact that the consent criterion is not related in any way to the NATURE of the act itself. This is where Natural Moral Law (NML) objects. NML says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same. How do we know this? By looking at REALITY. Men and women are complementary in their anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Men and women are not interchangeable. So, a moral sexual act has to be between persons that are fitted for that act. Consent is important but there is more than consent needed.

One example applicable to homosexual acts illustrates the problem. To the best of my knowledge, in a sexual relationship between two men, one of them tends to act as the "woman" while the other acts as the "man." In this scenario, homosexual men have been known to engage in certain types of actions for which their bodies are not fitted. I don't want to be too graphic so I won't go into details but a physician has told me that these acts are deleterious to the health of one or possibly both of the men. Yet, if the morality of the act is judged only by mutual consent, then there are clearly homosexual acts which are injurious to their health but which are consented to. Why are they injurious? Because they violate the meaning, structure, and (sometimes) health of the human body.