View Full Version : Are you homophobic?



buckt
03-13-2010, 07:13 PM
I just wonder if there is a workable, non-emotional definition for what makes a homophobic person? Seems to me those who disgree with the behavior issue only -- are labled 'homophobic'. Are you homophoic based only have disagreeing with behavior?

fuzzytoad
03-13-2010, 07:25 PM
from experience, no matter how you answer this question you will be labeled as homophobic.

I think the only way, from a certain demographic's perspective, for a person to not be homophobic, is for that person to "come out" or already be a member of the homosexual community...

Jethrol
03-13-2010, 07:37 PM
I just wonder if there is a workable, non-emotional definition for what makes a homophobic person? Seems to me those who disgree with the behavior issue only -- are labled 'homophobic'. Are you homophoic based only have disagreeing with behavior?
This is similar to people saying you're arguing and/or being negative when all you're doing is disagreeing with them.

Or the way people cry "SOCIALIZED MEDICINE" when all you want to do is talk about issues surrounding healthcare.

America has become intellectually lazy and many people don't want to talk and/or deal with complex issues. They simply want a reason to move on to less difficult topics.

SkyWestOKC
03-13-2010, 07:55 PM
Read this at face value:

I don't necessarily agree with homosexual activity - but it's none of my business, if you do that, it is your business. And with that said, I have several openly gay friends, we have no problem with each other even though we have a difference in opinion. I don't have any 'phobia' of gay people. Like I said, it is your business, your choice, etc. I just don't agree with the practice, that is all. Agree to disagree type thing.

Bunty
03-13-2010, 09:34 PM
I don't disagree with people and their consensual sexual practices with other adults, but I may very well disagree with them performing them on me or wanting me to do them, such as oral anal sex. That's how I look at it and don't see it as homophobic. But then I seldom get any come ons from either male or females, so it doesn't matter much, anyway.

fuzzytoad
03-13-2010, 09:42 PM
I may very well disagree with them

THEM?

see? you're a homophobe.

sorry dude, it's not me, that's how they get you...

and by me saying "they", that makes me a homophobe...

PennyQuilts
03-13-2010, 10:11 PM
The whole phrase is set up to make it sound negative - homophobic - fear of homosexuality. Calling someone homophobic is intended to be a slam because it implies an emotional - generally irrational - fear of homosexuality - and by extention - hatred of homosexuals. That is how it is commonly used.

So, no, I don't think that label is accurate, much of the time. Plenty of people don't agree with the behavior but they don't hate or fear homosexuals or homosexuality. I think a lot of religious people fall into that category. They have been taught that it is wrong and they accept the teaching without the emotional baggage that many have. Obviously, there are plenty of religious people who get all excited over it in a bad way - not saying there aren't. But they aren't all the same.

Some people genuinely hate homosexuals and it freaks them out. Others don't care one way or the other. Some think it is wrong but aren't freaked out by it. I know a number of people who have absolutely no Gay-dar and, to them, homosexuality is simply not a part of their life. They don't go looking for signs and it doesn't really even occur to them that someone who is single or whatever might be gay. I wouldn't say those people are homophobic, even if they thought the practice, itself, was wrong.

fuzzytoad
03-13-2010, 10:18 PM
even if they thought the practice, itself, was wrong.

So if you think it's a "practice"(or a choice?); Doesn't that makes you a homophobe?

Seriously, I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just harping on the many reasons and situations I've been called a homophobe, not only here on OKCTalk, but irl..

possumfritter
03-13-2010, 10:58 PM
Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: \ˌhō-mə-ˈfō-bē-ə\
Function: noun
Date: 1969
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

— ho·mo·pho·bic \-ˈfō-bik\ adjective

I know several gay men and women. I choose not to go out of my way to include any of them in my close circle of friends (and they have not included me in theirs). Does that make me homophobic?

Bunty
03-13-2010, 11:28 PM
THEM?

see? you're a homophobe.

sorry dude, it's not me, that's how they get you...

and by me saying "they", that makes me a homophobe...

But I was referring to them, or I should say those sex acts, that I don't want to mess with, not to any one of any particular adult sexual orientation.

oknacreous
03-15-2010, 03:10 PM
I think the term is overused. While I find it bizarre, I understand that some people consider any non-procreative sex to be a sin, and for those who can live up to that standard, more power to them (just don't force your beliefs on me!) There are of course the many hypocrites running around who think that non-procreative sex is okay for them but sinful for others, but that doesn't rise to the level of homophobia either. I think the true homophobes are the ones who try to spread their irrational fear to others about gays being a threat to children, a threat to families and marriages, a threat to society bigger than terrorism, etc., despite the growing mountains of clear evidence to the contrary.

possumfritter
03-15-2010, 03:43 PM
I think the term is overused. While I find it bizarre, I understand that some people consider any non-procreative sex to be a sin, and for those who can live up to that standard, more power to them (just don't force your beliefs on me!) There are of course the many hypocrites running around who think that non-procreative sex is okay for them but sinful for others, but that doesn't rise to the level of homophobia either. I think the true homophobes are the ones who try to spread their irrational fear to others about gays being a threat to children, a threat to families and marriages, a threat to society bigger than terrorism, etc., despite the growing mountains of clear evidence to the contrary.

I agree with ya on that.

RealJimbo
04-01-2010, 03:50 PM
Interesting thread. I strongly disagree with practicing homosexuality. At one time I was pretty badly biased against anyone who was homosexual in orientation. But as soon as I found out that a long-time friend was homosexual in orientation, I had to re-examine my core beliefs. I found, to my own surprise, that it wasn't the people with whom I had the problem, but the practice. From there I found that if I was honest with myself, I had compassion for those who were suffering from AIDS and/or from being mistreated for their orientation.

Yes, I am choosing my words carefully because I don't want to be mischaracterized as a person who hates anybody, because I don't. Where I have a problem is when people, be it the Westboro Baptist Church or any number of in-your-face homosexual support organizations, try to cram their agenda down your throat.

"They" have a right to their opinions and I have an equal right to mine. As long as we can peacefully co-exist or even have civil discussions, I am good with that.

So do I seem homophobic by my writing here? I'm curious.

ronronnie1
04-01-2010, 04:12 PM
I think it's one of those situations where if it walks like a duck, it's a duck. You kind of just know.

buckt
04-01-2010, 04:31 PM
From what I've observed the past couple of years many times some of the most intolerant people are those who are screaming for acceptance of their lifestyle. Notice...I didn't say 'all' people. But I did say 'many' people.

I really, really do not want to know what someone does in their bedroom...so let's keep it there. However all people should be treated fairly unless their life jepordizes my safety. I can be tolerant of just about anyone but lets keep bedroom things private...shall we?

ronronnie1
04-01-2010, 05:50 PM
Yes, stay out of other people's bedrooms.

Joe Daddy
04-01-2010, 06:25 PM
All Homo Sapiens are great! Who would be a homophobe?

gmwise
04-01-2010, 07:08 PM
I often noticed that those men who "claim" to be a straight (heterosexual),is "offended" by being hit on by someone who dont know they're a straight.
I grant them I would understand if they're known to be a straight and got hit on.
My favorite though is the "anger" of that same person for not getting hit on..
Just because someone is gay doesnt preclude them having standards of attraction, just as a heterosexual would (ie age,looks,...scores of other factors of criteria).
Also a male who is gay, can have a platonic relationship with an heterosexual male.

ronronnie1
04-01-2010, 07:14 PM
^^^Interesting point, gmwise. A cousin of mine, who is terribly unattractive, likes to use negative slang when refering to gays. I often wonder if he's just upset that no gay man would give him a second look. And I'm being absolutely serious. All of my gay male friends are incredibly picky when it comes to physical appearance.

nik4411
04-01-2010, 07:22 PM
i really just dont give a damn. do what you want. whatever it may be.

Caboose
04-01-2010, 08:09 PM
Basically, if you disagree with anything promoted by the modern Left you are a homophobe. The same way you are a racist, and all around bigot.

To be more accurate, you don't even have to disagree with the modern Left to be labeled in this manner.... if you merely fail to agree with them fully or as vociferously as they expect, you will draw these labels as well.

Homophobic, racist, bigot... they have pretty much been stripped of any real meaning by the modern political Left over the years. The terms now amount to nothing more than blunt instruments for the inarticulate foot soldiers of the Left to bludgeon those who disagree with them. (Im looking at you, RonWestboro)

ronronnie1
04-01-2010, 08:26 PM
Homophobic, racist, bigot... they have pretty much been stripped of any real meaning by the modern political Left over the years. The terms now amount to nothing more than blunt instruments for the inarticulate foot soldiers of the Left to bludgeon those who disagree with them. (Im looking at you, RonWestboro)

Hey shortbus, how's your day going? Seriously, if you're not a homophobe, racist, sexist, antisemite, islamophobe, etc, then you have nothing to worry about. And if you are one of these, why shy away from the label. Wear it with pride.

PennyQuilts
04-01-2010, 08:34 PM
Homophobic, racist, bigot... they have pretty much been stripped of any real meaning by the modern political Left over the years. The terms now amount to nothing more than blunt instruments for the inarticulate foot soldiers of the Left to bludgeon those who disagree with them.

This.

Bunty
04-01-2010, 10:47 PM
I just wonder if there is a workable, non-emotional definition for what makes a homophobic person? Seems to me those who disgree with the behavior issue only -- are labled 'homophobic'. Are you homophoic based only have disagreeing with behavior?

How about clearly hateful as in this new story:

Claremore Assault Victim Says He Is Targeted Because He's Gay - NewsOn6.com - Tulsa, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports - KOTV.com | (http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=12237013)

Shake2005
04-02-2010, 11:38 AM
Interesting thread. I strongly disagree with practicing homosexuality. At one time I was pretty badly biased against anyone who was homosexual in orientation. But as soon as I found out that a long-time friend was homosexual in orientation, I had to re-examine my core beliefs. I found, to my own surprise, that it wasn't the people with whom I had the problem, but the practice. From there I found that if I was honest with myself, I had compassion for those who were suffering from AIDS and/or from being mistreated for their orientation.

Yes, I am choosing my words carefully because I don't want to be mischaracterized as a person who hates anybody, because I don't. Where I have a problem is when people, be it the Westboro Baptist Church or any number of in-your-face homosexual support organizations, try to cram their agenda down your throat.

"They" have a right to their opinions and I have an equal right to mine. As long as we can peacefully co-exist or even have civil discussions, I am good with that.

So do I seem homophobic by my writing here? I'm curious.

Try This :



Interesting thread. I strongly disagree with being Black. At one time I was pretty badly biased against anyone who was Black. But as soon as I found out that a long-time friend was black by race, I had to re-examine my core beliefs. I found, to my own surprise, that it wasn't the people with whom I had the problem, but the race. From there I found that if I was honest with myself, I had compassion for those who were suffering from being mistreated for being black.

Yes, I am choosing my words carefully because I don't want to be mischaracterized as a person who hates anybody, because I don't. Where I have a problem is when people, be it the KKK or any number of in-your-face Black organizations, try to cram their agenda down your throat.

"They" have a right to their opinions and I have an equal right to mine. As long as we can peacefully co-exist or even have civil discussions, I am good with that.


What do you think?

Midtowner
04-02-2010, 11:53 AM
In my younger years, I definitely said some things re: gays I'm not awfully proud of now, but that's growing up in Oklahoma, or truthfully, that's growing up in most of the U.S.. Until you get to a certain age, you just don't question many of the cultural realities you were brought up in.

For some of you older folks, I'm sure that concept rings fairly true where it comes to racial equality in the U.S. If you were born in the 40s, 50s or before, I'll betcha at one time, you, nor the adults around you thought twice about dropping an n-bomb or calling a grown black man "boy." That doesn't excuse bad behavior, but it does explain it. You can't judge someone without understanding their cultural background.

I think the biggest thing to really change how I felt re: most gay issues was the basic moral tenant I've gradually adopted that my right to swing my fist ends at everyone else's nose.

Examining things like gay equality under the law, I really don't see how them swinging their fists (in a manner of speaking) even gets close to my nose or anyone else's. If we're talking about preserving traditional moral values, first we have to ask are those values actually moral or anachronistic? I think the later. Then we have to really think about what purpose they serve. None as far as I can tell.

Therefore, I can see no moral or legal reason to object to homosexuality or homosexuals' full participation in society.

PennyQuilts
04-02-2010, 01:18 PM
Shake, I am not really following what you are trying to say.

A lot of people want to make an analogy of black vs. gay but it only goes so far. The reason I say that is because some people are racist and simply don't like black people. We all know that. It has a lot to do with the way they are taught, like most things, but the root of the problem is that they think all black people are a certain "way." We've all heard racists get to know a nice black person and rather than admit that maybe their prejudices are wrong, they believe that this nice black person is an exception to most black people. Prejudice, in large part, is a product of ignorance. People see all the ghetto thugs and think that is what black people are like. In Oklahoma, for a lot of reasons, they are less likely than in some other areas to see middle class black people running around taking the kids to dance class or soccer games, driving SUVs, paying off student loans, and bitching about their taxes. (Back in DC, some black people even watch Fox News and vote republican, if you can believe that!).

In contrast, most people who are homophobic bring in a moral element. They think that what gays do is "wrong." At least for the males, a lot also think it is icky. And since that particular behavior is pretty definitive of being gay, it is not like they can just get to know a nice gay person who doesn't behave a certain way. Depending on how offended someone is, that is difficult. If someone doesn't like the "gay lifestyle," they might be put at ease to see a long term, monogomous gay couple. But if they just are freaked out at the notion of gay sex, not much you can do about that.

The basis of the disconnect is quite different than the person who is a racist. A racist doesn't think that a black person is immoral simply because of their race, rather, they just don't like them because they have a perception of what they are like and can't get beyond their preconceptions. In some ways, racism is easier to get past because it won't stand up to honest scrutiny. Homophobia is a different game since it is rooted in values and that really isn't as easy to challenge.

Shake2005
04-02-2010, 01:55 PM
The real argument here is choice. Do you choose to be gay? Every gay person I have ever known would say no, science is saying no. In both cases people are stating that they dislike someone based on something that is an inherent part of their being, something they have no control over, something that they were born with.

Let’s rewrite your own paragraph:

They think how blacks look is "wrong." At least for the males, a lot also think it looks icky. And since that particular look is pretty definitive of being black, it is not like they can just get to know a nice black person who doesn't look a certain way. Depending on how offended someone is, that is difficult. If someone doesn't like the " black look," they might be put at ease to see a light skinned back person. But if they just are freaked out at the notion of black skin, not much you can do about that.

Just because someone wants to claim morality as the basis for their being “offended” by gays doesn’t make it less wrong. The fact that most people are wrong on this issue doesn’t make them less wrong. It just makes it easier and more socially acceptable for them to claim they aren’t wrong, when they are.

ronronnie1
04-02-2010, 02:01 PM
Rationalizing bigotry is what bigots do best. No surprise here.

And you were SPOT ON with your response, Shake.

Caboose
04-02-2010, 02:09 PM
Rationalizing bigotry is what bigots do best. No surprise here.

And you were SPOT ON with your response, Shake.

Rationalizing your intolerance and vitriol is what intolerant vitriolic people do best. No surprise here.

Caboose
04-02-2010, 02:10 PM
The real argument here is choice. Do you choose to be gay? Every gay person I have ever known would say no, science is saying no. In both cases people are stating that they dislike someone based on something that is an inherent part of their being, something they have no control over, something that they were born with.

Let’s rewrite your own paragraph:


Just because someone wants to claim morality as the basis for their being “offended” by gays doesn’t make it less wrong. The fact that most people are wrong on this issue doesn’t make them less wrong. It just makes it easier and more socially acceptable for them to claim they aren’t wrong, when they are.

Shake, I appreciate your logic... but why dont you continue it to it's conclusion?

Shake2005
04-02-2010, 02:24 PM
Shake, I appreciate your logic... but why dont you continue it to it's conclusion?


I would hate to assume what conclusion you are referring to. Please elaborate.

PennyQuilts
04-02-2010, 02:46 PM
The real argument here is choice. Do you choose to be gay? Every gay person I have ever known would say no, science is saying no. In both cases people are stating that they dislike someone based on something that is an inherent part of their being, something they have no control over, something that they were born with.

Let’s rewrite your own paragraph:


Just because someone wants to claim morality as the basis for their being “offended” by gays doesn’t make it less wrong. The fact that most people are wrong on this issue doesn’t make them less wrong. It just makes it easier and more socially acceptable for them to claim they aren’t wrong, when they are.

I think you are projecting your own belief about what motivates people. I also think the intellectual shortcut you keep trying to use to prove your case doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

But I'll concede that many people are more accepting of gays if they believe being gay is not a choice. I suspect the logic there is that if they are "just that way," they have a place in the natural order. This can even include people who have been taught that being gay is wrong or immoral. It appeals to their sense of basic fairness.

However, some people don't care why people are gay. They see them as a freaks and won't accept them. They don't want to hear about it, don't want it shoved in their faces and are likely to get pretty peeved if someone insists on doing that.

They might have the same attitude towards a pedophile (and I am not confusing gays with pedophiles so please don't go there - this is just an analogy). I will tell you that from my experience, most pedophiles didn't choose to be that way. They just are. They have choice on rather to act on their preferences but the underlying thing going on is probably not their choice. Do I want to hear about it? No. Do I give them a pass and accept them just because that is the way god made them? Hell no. Not unless they are making darn sure they are contolling the impulses that lead them to molest children. But gays who are pushing for acceptance aren't controlling what some people see as freakish behavior, no matter whether it is a choice or not. And if someone thinks that sort of behavior os freakish, they likely don't want to hear about it and they aren't likely to care if it is a choice or not. They will focus on whether the gay person is acting on his impulses or not - that is the only choice many are concerned about.

Frankly, it can be pretty aggravating when someone is going around talking about their sex life and all but demanding that others approve of what they are doing. It is none of our frickin business and many resent people trying to make it their business. When gays do this, they may see it as merely advocating for their rights in society and I get that. But for a lot of people, gays advocating for their right to a certain lifestyle isn't much different than a 15 year old boy who just got laid for the first time insisting on telling the whole world his business. It's icky and it doesn't matter if it is straight or gay or with a goat. It is icky because it crosses a privacy boundary.

The argument goes that there is a difference from a fifteen year old boy because gays are discriminated against in work, housing, etc. so they need advocates to get people to accept them. I get that, too. But we all know that there are advocates and there are advocates. Some of the biggest jerks I know are gays who think being obnoxious and hateful and in your face is somehow standing up for their brothers. BS. Their intelligent gay friends need to tell them to quit it because it is like a rapper rapping about rape and bitches and hos and glorifying crime trying to insist that people should respect the boyz from the hood. Just not the best spokesperson to the point where the message is not going to come through.

Staight people who have had good gay neighbors and relatives and the like are frequently the best people to go to bat for gay people. But that being said, gay people need to realize that straight people are watching them, all the time. If they act like idiots in public, they reinforce sterotypes. I personally would go a long way to defend the rights of a gay couple who are just trying to be good citizens and neighbors. I wouldn't do much of anything to defend some drama queen who is acting the fool. Of course, I'm talking about defending their civil rights. I wouldn't treat them any differently than anyone else if I saw them being the victim of a crime.

ronronnie1
04-02-2010, 03:24 PM
Rationalizing your intolerance and vitriol is what intolerant vitriolic people do best. No surprise here.

Tolerate the intolerable? No thanks. By your logic, calling out Nazis would be oh so intolerant. Why must you constantly take up for bigots? Oh yeah, you're a teabagger right wing nutcase. No surprise here.

ronronnie1
04-02-2010, 03:25 PM
I think... blah blah blah blah blah....



There, I simplified it for you.

Bunty
04-02-2010, 03:32 PM
i really just dont give a damn. do what you want. whatever it may be.

Does that include that you mean that two guys should be able to dance together, including up close, on any night club dance floor, without anyone thinking that they're trying to shove the gay lifestye down everyone's throat and so should be thrown out?

Bunty
04-02-2010, 03:38 PM
Tolerate the intolerable? No thanks. By your logic, calling out Nazis would be oh so intolerant. Why must you constantly take up for bigots? Oh yeah, you're a teabagger right wing nutcase. No surprise here.

She is so right on, Caboose. Bigots in this supposedly free country need more criticism, not someone taking up for them.

Lauri101
04-02-2010, 03:38 PM
Does that include that you mean that two guys should be able to dance together on any night club dance floor, without anyong thinking that they're trying to shove the gay lifestye down everyone's throat, so the two should be thrown out of the night club?

I get more grossed out when a hetero couple is playing suckface. What difference could it possibly make in the grand scheme of things?

Shake - I agree with your analogy - it rocks!

Caboose
04-02-2010, 03:44 PM
She is so right on, Caboose. Bigots in this supposedly free country need more criticism, not someone taking up for them.

When did I ever defend bigotry? All I did was point out that RonWestboro is about the most intolerant vitriolic person on this board. Stop pretending she is "intolerant of intolerance". She is intolerant of anyone who disagrees with her about anything, period. She is just as quick to label you a racist for questioning AGW than she is for using the "N" word. No one spews more vitriol and hate as she does.As I said earlier, Racist and Bigot are just blunt instruments that RonWestboro and her ilk use for bludgeoning. They have almost no meaning anymore. Once you decide to label EVERYONE a racist or a homophobe then the word literally loses its meaning.

Matt
04-02-2010, 04:01 PM
There, I simplified it for you.

First time I've ever been able to make it all the way through a PennyQuilts post. http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/5908/thumpsup.gif

PennyQuilts
04-02-2010, 04:15 PM
First time I've ever been able to make it all the way through a PennyQuilts post. http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/5908/thumpsup.gif

Yeah, there's a surprise. I'll admit, reading comprehension and at least a minimal attention span helps.

Matt
04-02-2010, 04:18 PM
Yeah, there's a surprise. I'll admit, reading comprehension and at least a minimal attention span helps.

Helps put people to sleep, maybe. http://i46.tinypic.com/atpyir.gif

(Hey, that's the second one I've been able to get through! What in the world is going on here?!)

Double Edge
04-02-2010, 06:22 PM
Morality

Let me see if I have this right, if you don't like black people it is probably because you were taught to BELIEVE SOMETHING and that's not okay.

But if you don't like gay people it's probably because you were taught to BELIEVE SOMETHING and that IS okay...

Got it.

Double Edge
04-02-2010, 06:45 PM
On morality...


CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANITY, TRADITION, AND MIXED RACE MARRIAGES

For the longest time, unquestionable religious traditions and conventions supported Anti-Amalgamation laws criminalizing interracial marriages. According to the religious doctrine underlying these prohibitions, marriages between whites and races of color were against God's natural order and were immoral. To these same religious fundamentalists, abolition and women's suffrage were attacks on God's natural order.

MISCEGENY (http://community-2.webtv.net/WesternMind/MISCEGENY/index.html)

PennyQuilts
04-02-2010, 06:47 PM
Double Edge, what are you so mad about?????

Double Edge
04-02-2010, 07:08 PM
Besides general ignorance and bigotry, not much. It's Friday night, the weather is great and my cat is sitting next to me purring. Who can be mad with all that going on?

gmwise
04-02-2010, 10:52 PM
On morality...


CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANITY, TRADITION, AND MIXED RACE MARRIAGES

For the longest time, unquestionable religious traditions and conventions supported Anti-Amalgamation laws criminalizing interracial marriages. According to the religious doctrine underlying these prohibitions, marriages between whites and races of color were against God's natural order and were immoral. To these same religious fundamentalists, abolition and women's suffrage were attacks on God's natural order.

MISCEGENY (http://community-2.webtv.net/WesternMind/MISCEGENY/index.html)

EXCELLENT definition of the PAST and outdated stupidity.

Bunty
04-03-2010, 12:27 AM
I wonder if some towns in Oklahoma are so homophobic or anti-gay that even girls dancing in twos in a bar just doesn't happen? Upon first thought to me girls who do that are simply trying to let loose and have an good time with friends while possibly tryiing to get across that they wish a guy would ask them to dance.

Hammondjam
04-03-2010, 06:57 AM
I wonder if some towns in Oklahoma are so homophobic or anti-gay that even girls dancing in twos in a bar just doesn't happen? Upon first thought to me girls who do that are simply trying to let loose and have an good time with friends while possibly tryiing to get across that they wish a guy would ask them to dance.

I'll bet that many bars across Oklahoma would welcome the thought of two girls dancing but, at the same time, throw a major hissy if two guys were to do the same thing. There's a lot of straight guys that would yell F****** Fa**0tz but will gladly and comfortably watch hardcore adult movies that have girl on girl action in them.

In my middle aged lifetime I've known a wide variety of people. One thing that I've noticed about the subject of homosexuality is that straight males will talk about gay males A LOT and complete with detailed descriptions of all the different sex acts they can think of. These same straight males also seem to have a high opinion of themselves because they just KNOW that gay guys WANT THEM! Out of all the gay people that I know and have known, only about 1% have made their sex life a topic of conversation. It's not fear of not being accepted that prevents most from disclosing their most private interactions, it's class and maturity.

I saw the above post that compared racism to intolerance of gays. They both have a common root. Stereotyping. When we make "across the board" judgements about a large group of people like they all think and act the same way, we are using a very lazy, fearmongering manner of thinking.

BTW, does anyone else notice that when two diverse schools of thought argue on politics or social issues, the words "spew" and "hate" and "Nazi" often rear their ugly and much used heads?

Joe Daddy
04-03-2010, 07:42 AM
One of the best posts on this subject yet. Thank you for using common sense and reason.


In my younger years, I definitely said some things re: gays I'm not awfully proud of now, but that's growing up in Oklahoma, or truthfully, that's growing up in most of the U.S.. Until you get to a certain age, you just don't question many of the cultural realities you were brought up in.

For some of you older folks, I'm sure that concept rings fairly true where it comes to racial equality in the U.S. If you were born in the 40s, 50s or before, I'll betcha at one time, you, nor the adults around you thought twice about dropping an n-bomb or calling a grown black man "boy." That doesn't excuse bad behavior, but it does explain it. You can't judge someone without understanding their cultural background.

I think the biggest thing to really change how I felt re: most gay issues was the basic moral tenant I've gradually adopted that my right to swing my fist ends at everyone else's nose.

Examining things like gay equality under the law, I really don't see how them swinging their fists (in a manner of speaking) even gets close to my nose or anyone else's. If we're talking about preserving traditional moral values, first we have to ask are those values actually moral or anachronistic? I think the later. Then we have to really think about what purpose they serve. None as far as I can tell.

Therefore, I can see no moral or legal reason to object to homosexuality or homosexuals' full participation in society.

Joe Daddy
04-03-2010, 07:44 AM
Excellent analogy!!:congrats:


The real argument here is choice. Do you choose to be gay? Every gay person I have ever known would say no, science is saying no. In both cases people are stating that they dislike someone based on something that is an inherent part of their being, something they have no control over, something that they were born with.

Let’s rewrite your own paragraph:


Just because someone wants to claim morality as the basis for their being “offended” by gays doesn’t make it less wrong. The fact that most people are wrong on this issue doesn’t make them less wrong. It just makes it easier and more socially acceptable for them to claim they aren’t wrong, when they are.

skyrick
04-03-2010, 09:02 AM
there, i simplified it for you.

lol!

Bunty
04-03-2010, 10:57 AM
In my middle aged lifetime I've known a wide variety of people. One thing that I've noticed about the subject of homosexuality is that straight males will talk about gay males A LOT and complete with detailed descriptions of all the different sex acts they can think of. These same straight males also seem to have a high opinion of themselves because they just KNOW that gay guys WANT THEM! Out of all the gay people that I know and have known, only about 1% have made their sex life a topic of conversation. It's not fear of not being accepted that prevents most from disclosing their most private interactions, it's class and maturity.

lol, strange, Now surely these conceited straight guys also had a high enough opinion of themselves to just know that hot women wanted them also.

gmwise
04-03-2010, 11:00 AM
dont count on it...

PennyQuilts
04-03-2010, 11:28 AM
lol, strange, Now surely these conceited straight guys also had a high enough opinion of themselves to just know that hot women wanted them also.

Most men I know assume all the women want them. It took me awhile to figure that out and it explained a lot of strange behavior on their part. Oh well, I guess that attitude gets more flowers pollinated.

Eep
04-07-2010, 01:26 PM
Myth of the 'gay lifestyle' justifies bias (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/06/granderson.gay.lifestyle/index.html?hpt=C2) - LZ Granderson

gmwise
04-07-2010, 07:58 PM
The article mirrors real life.