a question i have for both gay people and homophobes?

[shootthebandit]

A lot of discussion on here is about homosexuality so i thought id chip in with a question

Why take offense (or offend others) about being gay? I know its a kind of sweeping partially rhetoric question but heres my example.

I am happy to be straight? Yes. Would i be offended if someone made fun of me because of this? Certainly not. If society didnt accept me for being straight would i care? No, fuck society

I know its kind of a stupid point and im detracting from the serious issue that homosexuals are persecuted. obviously i can sypathise with you but would be entirely stupid to try and empathise with you which wasnt what i was trying to achieve above. The questions above that i asked myself were there purely to trivialise the whole debate.

My main question is this: why does this thread even exist? Well because i made it dumbass. No what im trying to point out is that we should live in a world where we shouldnt have to deal with this shit. I thought we'd grown up after the whole black thing in the 20th century.

To paraphrase Martin luther king jr:

I have a dream that one day we will be judged soley on the content of our character

It seems to me that we as a society should stop pointing the finger at homosexuality and instead point it at the horrible face of homophobes for these are the ones who deserved to be judged. In fact we should all listen to the wise words of slightly out of context misquoted martin luther king and move away from our pre-programmed convention of judging people because of there appearance or lifestyle choice and when theres a lot of assholes out there who go unjudged

Captcha: yadda yadda yadda. Even the captcha knows ive been ranting for too long

 

[Johnny Impact]

People have the right to be offended. However much I may question the ways some people choose to employ that right, I would never try to take it away from them. The space in our heads belongs to us and we may keep whatever we want there.

It's the violence and persecution that need to stop. Yeah, I know, one leads to the other. Except 99 times out of 100, it doesn't. For every person who commits violence against gays, there are a hundred who dislike gays but would never actually do anything beyond bitching to their friends.

People don't need to be free of offense. They need to know where the line is. Most people already do. It's the ones who don't who are the problem.

 

[Bellvedere]

I'm neither a homophone or a homosexual but I thought I could offer some perspective.

Let me first caveat this by saying that in no way do I think that homophobia is in anyway an acceptable belief, and based purely on logical and rational thinking, the fact that it doesn't negatively affect anyone, as the OP has stated, means that it really shouldn't be an issue at all.

The problem is that no one is entirely rational or logical. It's easy to understand the logical argument behind tolerance for something that you support but people don't make up their minds about something because of rational or logical reasoning. Far more commonly what happens is that we determine how we feel about an issue first then we come up with the reasons that we hold those views.

Let us use as an example a hypothetical situation where there is an incestuous couple, brother and sister. In this hypothetical they have genuine love for each other, they have a happy, healthy relationship and they won't produce children together (they use protection). Logically, in the real world, incest is wrong because it increases the chances of genetic defects in offspring the longer its practised and because incestuous relationships are generally borne out the desire to control family members leading to abusive and psychologically damaging relationships.

Even though in this hypothetical what makes incest wrong has been ruled out, for most people, a relationship between siblings still feels wrong. Sure you might think about it and see that in this very specific situation it is logically okay though the idea of siblings together might still feel gross. That or you've been desensitized to incest. Whether you would act on something feeling wrong is another issue though (and is often influenced by mob mentality).

Now obviously homosexuality is nothing like incest, we don't have to say hypothetically anything. Healthy, happy homosexual relationships are the norm, just like healthy, happy hetrosexual relationships but we can still use the above hypothetical to understand how homophobes feel about homosexuality and the challenges associated with the rational argument for what's right vs your gut feeling of what's right.

Historically, prejudice against homosexuals may have originated due to their inability to produce offspring (seems that was kinda a big deal in ye olden times), or because they're different or something else, though whatever the reasons it isn't really relevant in todays society. Despite whatever logic behind homophobia that once existed being inconsequential now, it's developed into deeply held cultural belief for some people, shared between peer groups for so long that homosexuality feeling wrong is so deeply ingrained that logical arguments don't really carry any weight.

There's also religion which is a very real and very relevant source to draw arguments from for many people. While many churches accept homosexuality to varying degrees, there's still plenty that don't. Even churches that do condone homosexuality have followers that don't because they are unable to overcome these ingrained cultural biases (I'm sure there are cases of the other way round too - this isn't an attack on anyone religious, just stating that the view of da person's church is still a relevant issue compared to old issues that have been passed down like in the example above). One of my cousins has a partner that is deeply religious and is associated with one of the Christian churches (I'm not actually sure which one) that does accept homosexuality. He(is a massive knob) was once telling me and other family members how his church did condone homosexuality but that he, personally, couldn't because to him it was wrong (as if that were a normal and not incredibly offensive thing to say).

Anyway, this whole thing is not to say that we should be more tolerant of homophobes or anything like that, just that the reasons that these prejudices exist is not all that perplexing.

 

[manic_depressive13]

So what you're saying is homophobia shouldn't be an issue? Well duh. But it is. Incidentally "the whole black thing" didn't end in the 20th century. Racism is still a huge problem that we need to overcome.

 

[Timotei]

Incidentally "the whole black thing" didn't end in the 20th century. Racism is still a huge problem that we need to overcome.

True, but it became unacceptable to be racist. And now that bigotry isn't an accepted part of our every day life, it means it can now be dealt with slowly and gradually.

If someone were to say "Those damn filthy coloreds out to go back to the cotton fields where they belong", 50 years ago, depending on what part of the US he was in, his viewpoint would have been treated as legitimate and like-minded to those around him. Yet nowadays someone saying the same thing would be ostracized and viewed as some aging, bigoted dinosaur no longer fit to be in our world. These people no longer wield the influence they had a half a century ago, and with that they realize they are becoming a dying breed in a world where their children are going to school with children of other ethnicity, or even mixed races and realizing at a young age that what their parents say is total bullshit. Racism isn't dead, but it's dying faster than you can think. The spike of racism in culture nowadays is just the death rattles of a system of ideals before it fades away.

And now that homophobia is coming under the same attack, it won't be long before the bible-thumping loons of today become the ostracized bigots of tomorrow from the rest of society. Human progress will continue to march on no matter how hard some will try to stop it. If there's anything our understanding of the universe tells us, it's that nothing lasts forever.

 

[TaboriHK]

The majority always feels like they can tell the world "fuck off", because they're the majority and they have no idea what kind of isolation entails being a minority.

 

[TaboriHK]

If someone were to say "Those damn filthy coloreds out to go back to the cotton fields where they belong", 50 years ago, depending on what part of the US he was in, his viewpoint would have been treated as legitimate and like-minded to those around him. Yet nowadays someone saying the same thing would be ostracized and viewed as some aging, bigoted dinosaur no longer fit to be in our world. These people no longer wield the influence they had a half a century ago, and with that they realize they are becoming a dying breed in a world where their children are going to school with children of other ethnicity, or even mixed races and realizing at a young age that what their parents say is total bullshit. Racism isn't dead, but it's dying faster than you can think. The spike of racism in culture nowadays is just the death rattles of a system of ideals before it fades away.

No, racists just hide their racism now. The problem is nowhere near almost gone. Racism is just as present as it ever was, just in a more subtle presentation.

 

[Thaluikhain]

No, racists just hide their racism now. The problem is nowhere near almost gone. Racism is just as present as it ever was, just in a more subtle presentation.

Exactly...well, there's been some genuine progress, but the problem hasn't gone away by a long shot. People like to point out extreme and obvious examples of racism, because it is convenient to do so, which is fair enough, but that can imply you have to be extremely and obviously racist for it to be a problem, which isn't the case.

It's the violence and persecution that need to stop. Yeah, I know, one leads to the other. Except 99 times out of 100, it doesn't. For every person who commits violence against gays, there are a hundred who dislike gays but would never actually do anything beyond bitching to their friends.

And that one person that commits a violent act knows that there are 99 people who are sympathetic to some degree. Were that not the case, that one person may think twice about doing it.

Anyway, those 99 homophobes not actually physically attacking gay people...do they vote? Do they decide who to hire or fire or promote? Do they have any other power they can abuse?

 

[MagunBFP]

Anyway, those 99 homophobes not actually physically attacking gay people...do they vote? Do they decide who to hire or fire or promote? Do they have any other power they can abuse?

Define abuse of power. Deciding to use your power (what ever it is) in a manner that supports your beliefs regardless of the popularity of your beliefs?

100 years ago hiring a black person or a female over a white man would have been an abuse of power. These days it's considered to be affirmative action. People are just entitled to their views on homosexuality as they are on religion or evolution.

 

[Silvanus]

Define abuse of power. Deciding to use your power (what ever it is) in a manner that supports your beliefs regardless of the popularity of your beliefs?

100 years ago hiring a black person or a female over a white man would have been an abuse of power. These days it's considered to be affirmative action. People are just entitled to their views on homosexuality as they are on religion or evolution.

Isn't an individual entitled to be considered (for a job or position) on equal criteria as others?

I'd say that consideration trumps the employer's right to prejudice.

I may have misunderstood, here.

 

[Heronblade]

Define abuse of power. Deciding to use your power (what ever it is) in a manner that supports your beliefs regardless of the popularity of your beliefs?

100 years ago hiring a black person or a female over a white man would have been an abuse of power. These days it's considered to be affirmative action. People are just entitled to their views on homosexuality as they are on religion or evolution.

Isn't an individual entitled to be considered (for a job or position) on equal criteria as others?

I'd say that consideration trumps the employer's right to prejudice.

I may have misunderstood, here.

You're judging a past event by modern ethics. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, so long as you keep it in perspective. The action Magun describes would indeed have been a blatant abuse of power. One made for what most of us would consider an excellent cause, but still an abuse.

EDIT: on second thought, even for the sake of keeping matters in perspective, I'm not going to support an argument that gives bigots a loophole to jump through. Carry on

 

[Jeffrey Scronce]

I may be misunderstanding your question but I'm going to guess you're really asking why we get so gosh-darned whiny when mainstream media portrays us in a negative light. The reason is that media portrayals actually affect how we are treated in the real world. If a person's only source of information about gay people, genderqueer people or trans people is through what they see on the television then that's the only context they have to make decisions about how they feel about us. When that portrayal is overwhelmingly negative that bleeds over into the assumptions people make about what kind of rights you should have or how active a participant you should be in mainstream culture.

Also, mad love for Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. People tend to interpret his meaning as "jump on in the melting pot" though and I think that's wrong. People shouldn't have to abandon their culture, shared history or their personality in order to be accepted.

 

[krazykidd]

Homophobes aren't all offended . While i am not homophobic , gay people do make me uncomfortable . Do i hate them? No . Do i believe they have the right to be gay ? Yes . Will i treat a person diffferently because they are gay? No. However , i am uncomfortable when they are around .

Do not mistake that for me saying they should act differently around me. Me being uncomfortable is my problem that i have to live with, my burden to bare , not theirs .

 

[Jeffrey Scronce]

Homophobes aren't all offended . While i am not homophobic , gay people do make me uncomfortable . Do i hate them? No . Do i believe they have the right to be gay ? Yes . Will i treat a person diffferently because they are gay? No. However , i am uncomfortable when they are around .

Do not mistake that for me saying they should act differently around me. Me being uncomfortable is my problem that i have to live with, my burden to bare , not theirs .

Out of curiosity, why do you feel uncomfortable? Do you feel equally uncomfortable around all homosexuals? Do you feel the same about lesbians as you do about gay men? About transgendered? Is it a specific personality type? I understand if you don't want to have this conversation.

 

[tzimize]

So what you're saying is homophobia shouldn't be an issue? Well duh. But it is. Incidentally "the whole black thing" didn't end in the 20th century. Racism is still a huge problem that we need to overcome.

Or do we? Hehe. Just run with it for a second.

The world is incredibly complex, and so are people. It seems to be accepted by the majority of "intellectuals" that all men are created equal etc. But are they? I'm not saying they aren't. I'm saying they might not be.

People are different, and similar. We all have a heart, and a brain etc. But some have white skin, others brown. Some have yellow hair, others black. Some have brown eyes, others blue. Some people on earth, are better at running long distances than others (because of evolution). Some are better in math than others (because of a lot of reasons I guess, genes, upbringing etc).

If we accept that people are different...then maybe they are not worth as much either. Morally everyone is worth the same...but morals are a fickle thing, and not absolute at all. I find it interesting to think about the fact that societies on earth today might not be where they are by chance. And by chance I mean luck of the draw of natural resources etc.

Maybe some races/tribes were simply better. Evolved more/faster.

We dont (usually) look at animals as our equals. Now, I'm not saying that humans are as different to each other as different species of animals, but the thought is intriguing to me. What if we actually ARENT created equal. What if some ethnicities actually ARE inferior.

I dont really think so. Not really, and morally speaking the respect I have for my fellow man is based on stuff that has nothing to do with color or country, but the thought is interesting to me. There is so much I dont know, about how everything works and how everything affects everything else. For all I know, some ethnicities might actually BE a lot "better" than others. And in that case...racism would be sort of legit.

I've rambled enough now.

Considering gays, I really dont have much to say. I dont mind who people fuck, as long as its consensual.

 

[Angelous Wang]

Why take offense (or offend others) about being gay?

Religion, up until Christianity and Islam were born humans happily went around buggering whomever they hell they wanted.

The Greeks and Romans their gods had no rules on this stuff and you can see lots of examples of homosexuality in the ruins of their art and cultures.

Then Christianity and Islam took over putting in strict no-gays rules, and homophobia was born.

 

[Jeffrey Scronce]

Stuff.

1. What is "better"? Not only are you talking in value judgements, you're talking about conditional value judgements.

2. If you want to be disgustingly reductionist about it, all ethnicities are equally valuable because diversity is essential to survival. Diversity is a cauldron for new ideas, skills, mutations ect. and these are vital for an ever-changing world.

3. Race is a cultural construct. Biologically there is no hard line; human variation is a continuum. Race is how people are lumped together for a given culture and isn't consistent across cultures.

 

[tzimize]

1:

Stuff.

1. What is "better"? Not only are you talking in value judgements, you're talking about conditional value judgements.

2. If you want to be disgustingly reductionist about it, all ethnicities are equally valuable because diversity is essential to survival. Diversity is a cauldron for new ideas, skills, mutations ect. and these are vital for an ever-changing world.

3. Race is a cultural construct. Biologically there is no hard line; human variation is a continuum. Race is how people are lumped together for a given culture and isn't consistent across cultures.

1: Good point. Its more or less impossible to define better, but one could say more important to society for example. And if I were to point out the difference of blacks in prison compared to whites (USA), one could get closer to defining a value of human beings. Of course, the reasons for there being so many blacks in prison are many, intertwined and complicated and has little to do with the color of ones skin specifically. But it would be interesting nonetheless if it had something to do with genetics/evolution.

2. True. However diversity is also balanced by how much "good" those deviants bring to the table. Diversity is not good in and of itself (maybe genetically, to resist diseases etc, but not necessarily to society as such). If (note I DO say if) some ethnicities are bringing less to the table than others (for example so many blacks being in prison and thus putting a strain on society both morally and economically), society might be better of without them at all. I'm not advocating genocide, I just find it interesting to think about. Particularly since I dont know the answer

3. True I guess. But there are still differences in people living in different parts of the world. Because of evolution. I merely find it interesting to speculate in whether some ethnicities are actually less able to exist successfully in "modern society" because of evolution as well.

This is completely off-topic though, and I'll take my ramblings with me now. I didnt mean to step on someones toes if I did, I just find it healthy and interesting to exchange thoughts.