A reasonable response to my question, Solon.
The author of that piece went to lengths, in the excerpt I previously posted, to say that his organization had moved away from defining homophobia by attitude, in favor defining it by overt acts. That led to the point that if one discriminates against gays as in denying them the rights of marriage, they qualify as homophobic.
However, as you suggest, consideration of the act inevitably brings one to consider motive. The more the author speculated on that, the more the word "hatred" came up frequently. I think it would be fair to say that the author's thesis was that a "discrimnator" hates gays without necessarily being conscious of it. So that becomes rather circular reasoning concerning attitudes and acts, which both end up in the same place.
In any case, we (the general population) do discriminate against "distinct groups of individuals" besides homosexuals. We forbid bigamists or polygamists to practice their beliefs. We place severe restrictions on the right of naturalists (nudists) to follow practices they believe in. I think it would be difficult to argue in these cases that denials of rights available to others, such as marriage or access to public beaches, are motivated by either hatred or fear.
I think "repugnance" in all of these instances is more likely motivated by something along the lines of a "standard of decency", which, whether you agree with it or not, does not rise to the level of hate ... not remotely. |
