a question i have for both gay people and homophobes?

[SadisticFire]

You know, I've never really understood the word "homophobe" or "homophobia."

I mean, the literal meaning is someone who has a strong and irrational fear of gay people right? But how many "homophobes" are actually literally afraid of gays? The entire word seems like a misnomer.

Yeah I think a lot of people could be just using the term wrong. You don't say "Africanphobe" "Blackphobe"(Both of which makes me snicker) for people that are racist, we call them racist. I'm usually quick to try and correct people to use something more descriptive. I have a couple friends that are actual homophobe. Great people, they tried to change their opinions. They did, but still is uneasy around me now, and a few others. Then there's just (Ima invent a new word that will not catch on) sexualists.(which is apparently a word)
Most people hate different people.

"Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: to kill him, so we don't have to learn his language or his new way of looking at things."

--Zapp Brannigan, Futurama. Extra points* if you nail down the episode

Offnote, that artfully crafted ad is super invasive. Not only does it expand itself if I even hover over it for a tick, it takes up 25% of this chat box.

*extra points are not guaranteed

 

[SnowWookie]

I see, so swearing on a bible in court or having "In God We Trust" printed on currency or any other mention of god/religion enshrined in law is religious dominance?

Saying that religion should have a place in law is hardly saying it should be a dominant force. It's not an idea I agree with but it's an idea and it's hardly the worst one out there.

It's a terrible idea. The law should apply equally to all people regardless of their belief system or lack thereof. Once you enshrine any religious practice in law, you are by definition treating some people as more important than others.

As for the whole "word redefinition" argument...

If I asked you to describe "bright darkness", you would struggle. Darkness cannot be bright, so bright darkness is an oxymoron.

Now if I asked you to describe "gay marriage", you would know exactly what I'm talking about.

The word marriage does not only mean man and woman. Hell, the word can be and has been used to describe a wine well matched with a meal, an actor with a role or even a sporting duo who play well together.

So yeah, "gay marriage" is an easily understood term and one that's already a legal reality in many parts of the world.

 

[Naleh]

I assume OP is a fit straight white able-bodied non-transgendered man from a relatively secure economic class (wow that's a mouthful), so he doesn't have first-hand experience with this kind of life. (I'm all of those categories too, but I've spoken a lot with people who aren't, so.)

"Not giving a fuck" is easy against an occasional insult. It's not so easy when practically your entire society is geared towards making you an outsider. You never get any representation in the media -- it's like every character on TV and in books is a foreigner to you. When people like you do get mentioned, it's at best as the butt of a joke, at worst as something explicitly called out as villainous, and over a few decades those messages seep into anyone's subconscious: "you're not a hero, you're not even an average joe, you're a joke, an absurdity, a mistake, a crime, something which doesn't belong, you don't deserve to be here". This is extremely psychologically damaging. Gay people are especially prone to depression, self-harm and suicide.

But that's almost a side issue. OP seems to forget that discrimination has non-social effects, too.

Like any other minority -- and like women -- gay people face systematic discrimination. They're often assumed not to exist (if something is offered to "couples" it's usually prepared for a man and a woman). In many places gay people lack fundamental rights such as marriage. They get lower pay. They get worse healthcare. They get physically attacked and killed. They're more likely to be convicted of crime. They are more likely to have their children taken away from them, if they're even allowed to have children in the first place. Many careers are closed to them (for example, gay male teachers are automatically assumed to be pedophiles). And so on.

 

[michael87cn]

People who say they aren't bothered by what others say and think of them lie to themselves.

There's also no such thing as thick skin, only good acting skills.

Human beings are EXTREMELY social creatures. We base EVERYTHING about ourselves based on what OTHER humans do, say, think, look like, etc.

We are all masters of MIMICRY. And that means at our very core, when we are rejected by others we are hurt. Its undeniable, except to yourself, but that is indeed a fallacy that is regrettable.

Accept it, move on, become stronger, better, smarter for it.

 

[Gormech]

At its core, the reason for homophobia as taboo is this.
Members of a species tend to want their genes to be the ones that pass on from generation to generation.
In the short term, seeing others turning homosexual would be a good thing as it would reduce competition.
The problem is that the person's offspring will likely be influenced in one way or another in their life, possibly becoming homosexual as well.
This would mean the possible loss of a genetic route.
The same could be said for a lot of religious movements but basically ...

People see it as a threat. True or not, things that are unusual tend to trigger a self-defense mechanism.

I know that some homosexual groups do adopt or have a surrogate mate for the purpose of reproduction but the percentage rate at which this happens (from personal viewing of the area I live in, no garuntees) seems to be a lot lower than that of when it's just the boy meets girl, marrage, baby, repeat thing.

 

[Gormech]

At its core, the reason for homophobia as taboo is this.
Members of a species tend to want their genes to be the ones that pass on from generation to generation.
In the short term, seeing others turning homosexual would be a good thing as it would reduce competition.
The problem is that the person's offspring will likely be influenced in one way or another in their life, possibly becoming homosexual as well.
This would mean the possible loss of a genetic route.
The same could be said for a lot of religious movements but basically ...

People see it as a threat. True or not, things that are unusual tend to trigger a self-defense mechanism.

I know that some homosexual groups do adopt or have a surrogate mate for the purpose of reproduction but the percentage rate at which this happens (from personal viewing of the area I live in, no garuntees) seems to be a lot lower than that of when it's just the boy meets girl, marrage, baby, repeat thing.

Do you have any evidence this is the case or is it pure speculation? Unfortunately it seems a lot of people confuse 'scientific' sounding reasoning for actual evidence. That does not seem like a very testable hypothesis there.

It is speculation. The only information that I have to work with is cultural analysis and mild attempts and linking the average person's mentality to what's left of our species' instincts.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It is bad. Your never going to admit it though.

Forcing a culture to change itself to accommodate you is horrendous.

I say it exactly like that, because I have had discussions with people who fully support gay marriage and hate religion. I asked them "What if we find a compromise. What if under the government it is all civil unions, hetero, homo, etc."

"NO. We HAVE to have marriage or your a bigot"

The definition of marriage is not discriminatory, it is a definition that fits. Many people who are pro-gay marriage have made it discriminatory by forcing it to be what they want, like a child who cant have a toy that another is playing with.

Oh, and now that you think you know me by reading all that, I am pro-gay civil union with equal benefits. The only thing is, I fully respect religious culture, their traditions, their ideals.

As much as I'm wary of such comparisons:

Inter-racial marriages were illegal in parts of the Western world within living memory. That is, marriage was defined in a way that excluded people of different ethnicities. Hell, go back a bit further and citizenship was defined in ways that excluded various ethnic groups.

Was it wrong that marriage was redefined to allow interacial couples to marry? Was it wrong to redefine citizenship to allow other ethnic groups to be citizens?

 

[Naleh]

At its core, the reason for homophobia as taboo is this.
Members of a species tend to want their genes to be the ones that pass on from generation to generation.
In the short term, seeing others turning homosexual would be a good thing as it would reduce competition.
The problem is that the person's offspring will likely be influenced in one way or another in their life, possibly becoming homosexual as well.
This would mean the possible loss of a genetic route.
The same could be said for a lot of religious movements but basically ...

People see it as a threat. True or not, things that are unusual tend to trigger a self-defense mechanism.

I know that some homosexual groups do adopt or have a surrogate mate for the purpose of reproduction but the percentage rate at which this happens (from personal viewing of the area I live in, no garuntees) seems to be a lot lower than that of when it's just the boy meets girl, marrage, baby, repeat thing.

Do you have any evidence this is the case or is it pure speculation? Unfortunately it seems a lot of people confuse 'scientific' sounding reasoning for actual evidence. That does not seem like a very testable hypothesis there.

It is speculation. The only information that I have to work with is cultural analysis and mild attempts and linking the average person's mentality to what's left of our species' instincts.

Instincts (other than tribalism and "fear of the unknown") are unlikely to come into it. Homophobia is a characteristic of modern Western / Asian / Middle Eastern society. Many cultures from other parts of the world aren't homophobic, or weren't before being Westernized. The ancient world wasn't homophobic. Animals aren't homophobic.

Homosexuality isn't "contagious". There being gay people around does not make a child turn gay. I mean, there being mostly straight people around hasn't successfully turned all children straight, has it?

There are no shortage of gay parents (through surrogacy, adoption, or children from a previous relationship). There has actually been research suggesting that gay people are better parents than straight people on average -- it was suggested that the performance of straight parents was dragged down by the ones who were accidental parents and never wanted to be. So if our instincts were trying to encourage anything other than sheer numbers, they would be fine with homosexuality, which strengthens society overall.

It doesn't seem like our instincts are trying to encourage sheer numbers, anyway, based on the way birth rates plummet once female rights, education, and birth control are available. And given the threats of overpopulation, there's no rational reason for wanting to encourage numbers.

-----

Mind you, I don't think any of that is the right way to approach the issue in the first place.

Maybe if we were playing an RTS and we were trying to develop the optimum civilisation to beat the other players, debates like the above one would be relevant.

But this is the real world. Gay people exist. They're not going to go away. They are human beings, they are people just like you and I, and the axis of the discussion should be about them and their experiences and their human rights. Not conjecture about breeding strategies.

 

[Something Amyss]

Or rather then adding another change because of the "flavour of the month" was missing from Marriage Version 24, we could scrap it and start from scratch with a completely secular definition that could be as all encompassing as we wanted. Leave marriage to the gods and start with secular life bonds or something.

Ignoring, of course, the notion of it being a holy institution being a false one and ignoring the precedent that using a different word doesn't stop the protests.

Otherwise, great plan.

But it's still a goalpost shift, at the same time. Did you expect me to magically forget that you were asserting such a paper-thin notion about redefining marriage?

 

[Something Amyss]

Forcing a culture to change itself to accommodate you is horrendous.

The culture is already changing. We're just asking people to keep up.

 

[Psychobabble]

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

Yes! Yes this is exactly what we should do. Decry those who don't believe as we do. Harass them in the streets, in their homes, in their own minds. The concept of free speech and free thought be damned as it is our "deity of your choice" given right to judge them so.

Why we could hold torch-lit rallies where we expose and denounce these horrifyingly inhuman bigots. And perhaps as a political statement, burn huge piles of their licentious and hurtful literature. The works of Yahtzee Croshaw and Orson Scott Card spring to mind. It could be delightful.

Also I feel some kind of uniform and symbol is needed for this new enlightened movement. Anyone have any design ideas? Perhaps robes with hoods, or black leather with skulls and lightning bolts to show we mean business?


*record scratch*


Or maybe, just maybe, what we should actually all do is to realize that tolerance is a two way street, and that the first step a true bigot takes is to paint those he hates as subhuman and beyond worth.

Stick that in your smike and pope it.

 

[Psychobabble]

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

Yes! Yes this is exactly what we should do. Decry those who don't believe as we do. Harass them in the streets, in their homes, in their own minds. The concept of free speech and free thought be damned as it is our "deity of your choice" given right to judge them so.

Why we could hold torch-lit rallies where we expose and denounce these horrifyingly inhuman bigots. And perhaps as a political statement, burn huge piles of their licentious and hurtful literature. The works of Yahtzee Croshaw and Orson Scott Card spring to mind. It could be delightful.

Also I feel some kind of uniform and symbol is needed for this new enlightened movement. Anyone have any design ideas? Perhaps robes with hoods, or black leather with skulls and lightning bolts to show we mean business?


*record scratch*


Or maybe, just maybe, what we should actually all do is to realize that tolerance is a two way street, and that the first step a true bigot takes is to paint those he hates as subhuman and beyond worth.

Stick that in your smike and pope it.

Okay, so you don't believe in freedom of speech if it's against bigots is the message I'm seeing and like to blow it up to turn judgement against them for being bigots into harassment, mobs, etc.

I'm against bigotry in all it's poisonous and thought killing forms. Just because you find his ideas acceptable as they work against your chosen target of hate de jour does not make either of your own bigotries any more respectable.

 

[SlaveNumber23]

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.

I have the same views towards homosexuals as krazykidd and for me its the same reason I feel uncomfortable about eating seafood. I don't choose or reason to do it with myself and it can't be rationally explained, it just doesn't click right with my brain. Its like I subconsciously treat them as a different species, that might sound pretty offensive but I don't view them as lesser or greater than me or with any sort of prejudice, they just feel different somehow.

I don't hate homosexuals at all or feel negatively towards them in any way, I just feel slightly uncomfortable around them. I understand that I shouldn't feel uncomfortable but it happens anyway. It doesn't stop me from enjoying their company and making friends with them by the way, but the difference is noticeable. Hope this helps you at all!

 

[Silvanus]

I'm sure it was, it seems you're missing the point I was making. The fact is that we've changed and added to marriage repeatedly through it's history, it's barely even symbolically what it used to be. Rather then just keep adding to the patchwork of additions and addemdums that define marriage we should fix the whole damn thing. The problem is when there are people who don't care about anything not being included except for their own personal agendas and they insist that "insert flavour here" gets taken care of immediately and then eventually they'll support someone elses "harder" or "less important" flavour, such as is often the arguement when polygamy is brought into the marriage equality debate.

Hang on, so you're actually arguing that we should extend marriage to polygamous relationships and consensual incestuous ones as well?

In principle, I'm not against that. Those have issues unique to them, of course-- as far as I know, many polygamous relationships are unbalanced, and many incestuous ones are abusive or exploitative. There would have to be in-depth studies into whether allowing marriage for the above could amount to further mechanisms of abuse.

...So, hang on, you're not actually against gay people marrying; you just believe the change should go further?

So everyone in your town and county is always honest about their opinions? Then I envy you, we could all do with a little less bullshit and a lot more honesty. To be honest I don't know you from Bob, so telling me you're not being fashionable is relatively meaningless. Just like you could be thinking I'm a bigot because you don't agree with me... doesn't really make any difference.

What? No, I didn't say that. I said the majority is against gay marriage, and vocal about it. I never said "everyone is always honest about their opinions".

But, I severely doubt they're all just hiding pro-gay-marriage sympathies. That's pretty absurd.

 

[xmbts]

It's different when you're under pressure from a number of potential sources not the least of which being family, who aren't just telling you they have a problem but may even try to force you to be different.

Long story short you shouldn't have to put up with that.