Homophobophobia

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Brian
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 1:18 am UTC
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Homophobophobia

Postby Brian » Wed Aug 08, 2007 9:31 pm UTC

I was watching my favorite movie the other night, V for Vendetta, while curled up on the couch. Having not watched a movie with my parents in a while, my mother picked it out at the rental place by my request after asking what some of my favorites were. First of all, the movie is fantastic. Everything seemed polished and crisp and flowing, even on my parents' enormous HDTV. The acting is top-notch and the plot and setting are very creative and fresh. If you haven't seen it, go rent it now.

Back to the story. Later in the movie, there are a few flashbacks, explaining the life and love between two lesbians. It went into fair detail, showed them kissing various times and generally being in love. Now, after a couple minutes of this, my dad blurted out, "When did this turn into a gay promotion film?" to which I snapped back, "SHHH!!! Calm down." I found myself completely disgusted by his outburst of homophobia, but slowly forgot as the movie continued and closed.

But this got me thinking... Is treating people with less regard because they adamantly (and perhaps illogically) treat others with less regard valid? Should I value someone less because they refuse to value everyone equally? If so, where is the line? Should others disregard me because I disregard people that disregard others?

The movie (without revealing too much of the plot) is about freedom of life. Freedom of expression, or at least freedom of ideas. Is enforcing tolerance really the same as enforcing freedom?

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Wed Aug 08, 2007 9:34 pm UTC

But this got me thinking... Is treating people with less regard because they adamately (and perhaps illogically) treat others with less regard valid?


Yes. To do less is to make their viewpoints acceptable.

You don't have the right to hurt or imprison them over it.

But if you're being a douche, and I call you a douche, that doesn't make me also a douche.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Postby 22/7 » Wed Aug 08, 2007 9:53 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
But this got me thinking... Is treating people with less regard because they adamately (and perhaps illogically) treat others with less regard valid?


Yes. To do less is to make their viewpoints acceptable.

You don't have the right to hurt or imprison them over it.

But if you're being a douche, and I call you a douche, that doesn't make me also a douche.


I would tend to agree, though you have to be careful when putting this into practice, as many people who are guilty of this would probably disagree with Belial and call you a () back. Of course, they're doing this because you're calling them on their ()-iness, and that will probably make them insecure and they are probably going to lash out at you for it.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

pingu
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:02 am UTC

Postby pingu » Wed Aug 08, 2007 9:56 pm UTC

Tolerance.

The word itself makes me shudder. I prefer "acceptance" (although you could make a point that it is just as bad, I guess).

I tolerate my coworkers terrible behaviour. I accept my friend Mark, who happens to be gay.

I'm siding with Belial. When people are wrong about certain things, assuming you have the ability to do so, you should point it out.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:53 pm UTC

pingu wrote:Tolerance.

The word itself makes me shudder. I prefer "acceptance" (although you could make a point that it is just as bad, I guess).


Yeah, it's true, the word itself implies "This is bad, but I guess I'll put up with it."

I think it was Joey Coumeau who proposed the "my other pro-tolerance bumper sticker is also condescending" sticker.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
bonder
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:41 am UTC
Location: /home/bonder
Contact:

Postby bonder » Thu Aug 09, 2007 1:46 am UTC

My dad claims to be accepting of homosexuality, i.e. he says that he thinks gay marriage should be legal. But, he did mention that he didn't want to see images of homosexuals kissing, etc. in the media. I pointed out that he doesn't care about heterosexual images in the media so he was holding a double standard. It seems to me that he's got an attitude towards homosexuality similar to Hermes's attitude towards Bender's religion: "Bender, I respect your religion to the extent the law requires..."
I've never made anyone's life easier and you know it.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Postby zenten » Thu Aug 09, 2007 3:21 am UTC

bonder wrote:My dad claims to be accepting of homosexuality, i.e. he says that he thinks gay marriage should be legal. But, he did mention that he didn't want to see images of homosexuals kissing, etc. in the media. I pointed out that he doesn't care about heterosexual images in the media so he was holding a double standard. It seems to me that he's got an attitude towards homosexuality similar to Hermes's attitude towards Bender's religion: "Bender, I respect your religion to the extent the law requires..."


I dunno, I think scat play should be legal, but I don't want to see it on TV.

User avatar
VannA
White
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:57 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby VannA » Thu Aug 09, 2007 3:29 am UTC

Interesting thing to bring up, really.

I can't honestly say that I would respect scat play.

I will tolerate it, the hell away from me.. In fact, any sexual practice that deals in waste matter is anethema to me. I don't care if *they* do it.. but, while I'd not particularly care about people shagging in public, I would be disturbed by scat play in public.

I think, in the end, the vast amount of my own sexual tolerances are surrounding power, be it the wilful abuse of, or the desire to be wilfully abused.

Light BDSM, even bloodplay, don't bother me too much.. but somebody who is in a situation I would not want to be in.. creeps me out.

In the end, of course, its hard to argue a decent reason for this.. which is why I eventually tolerate (With all the condecension behind that word) people who don't accept more mainstream practices. Heh.
Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy.

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Postby cephalopod9 » Thu Aug 09, 2007 5:35 am UTC

I'd say it'd be pretty backwards to set out to treat people the way they treat others, for various reasons. That's probably not what you're getting at.

Forcing people to behave decently is good because it prevents them from oppressing, tormenting or otherwise making the lives of other people less pleasant. However, trying to control people's ideas and opinions is oppression itself. That is, I would tolerate someone's choice to dislike or disaprove of a particular lifestyle/way of being/whatever, but I would never support a choice to harm someone because of their lifestyle or such, or teaching hate, saying things that would cause people to come to harm.

I can live with people thinking and saying "I don't want to see homosexual kissing", but not "we need to keep homosexuals from kissing in public". Not to discourage attepts to educate or inform.

The question I'm equally lost on, is how to react to stupidity from people one respects.

o.t., Was the movie good compared to the comic book? I read the comic, and I think the movie would make me mad for stupid reasons.
Image

User avatar
bonder
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:41 am UTC
Location: /home/bonder
Contact:

Postby bonder » Thu Aug 09, 2007 5:49 am UTC

My point was about the double standard. Obviously people are ok with heterosexual images in the media, but if we want to say that homosexuality is a lifestyle equal with heterosexuality, then there shouldn't be a problem with these images in the media. Also, if you say you are accepting of homosexuality but that homosexual images shouldn't be in the media (note, this is different from "I don't want to see these images"), how accepting are you really? Also, my dad mentioned something in passing about how he didn't think that homosexuals should teach kids, and that sounds pretty homophobic to me.
I've never made anyone's life easier and you know it.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Postby Gelsamel » Thu Aug 09, 2007 8:23 am UTC

Should your tolerate the intolerant? Yes. Do you have to like them? No.

If you don't like X people so be it. But if you discriminate against X then prepared to be sued.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

Meowsma
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:53 pm UTC

Re: Homophobophobia

Postby Meowsma » Thu Aug 09, 2007 8:35 am UTC

Brian wrote:But this got me thinking... Is treating people with less regard because they adamately (and perhaps illogically) treat others with less regard valid? Should I value someone less because they refuse to value everyone equally? If so, where is the line? Should others disregard me because I disregard people that disregard others?


Is this not the same as weighing two opinions?

You "value" homosexuality (to use awkwardly simple terms; bear with me) while your father does not. Who is right? You can try to weigh the values against the contemporary social norms, but on the grand scale, neither is intrinsically right.

As such, it boils down to a difference in personal preference, and any intolerance toward the other is neither greater nor lesser.

Such a stance has some wide-reaching implications, but they all boil down to the same thing.

--Meowsma

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Postby zenten » Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:35 am UTC

bonder wrote:My point was about the double standard. Obviously people are ok with heterosexual images in the media, but if we want to say that homosexuality is a lifestyle equal with heterosexuality, then there shouldn't be a problem with these images in the media. Also, if you say you are accepting of homosexuality but that homosexual images shouldn't be in the media (note, this is different from "I don't want to see these images"), how accepting are you really? Also, my dad mentioned something in passing about how he didn't think that homosexuals should teach kids, and that sounds pretty homophobic to me.


It's not the same thing at all. People can't control what they like and dislike, they can only control what they do about them. Although the teaching kids thing does fit under the later.

User avatar
Brian
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 1:18 am UTC
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Postby Brian » Thu Aug 09, 2007 6:36 pm UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:I can live with people thinking and saying "I don't want to see homosexual kissing", but not "we need to keep homosexuals from kissing in public". Not to discourage attepts to educate or inform.
I think that this is about as fair of a conclusion we can come to. On an arguably similar point, one could relate the homosexual-rights movement to any of the other movements rights in the last hundred years. Women's rights, racial minority rights, etc. The problem with these, as other xkcdians have hinted/joked towards, is that they went a bit too far. What if someone said in public, "I don't want to see women in the workplace." Would that still be as tolerable as "I don't want to see homosexuals kissing"? Doubtful, but according to your agument (which I agree with), people have the right to express (and not enforce) their opinion.

cephalopod9 wrote:o.t., Was the movie good compared to the comic book? I read the comic, and I think the movie would make me mad for stupid reasons.


Rent it. Now. I watched the "making of" in the bonus features and it said that it had to cut out/change bits of the comic to make it flow in a reasonable amount of time. However, it didn't feel choppy and parts didn't feel missing at all. They did a really good job of it. Like I said, my favorite movie to date.

Meowsma wrote:You "value" homosexuality (to use awkwardly simple terms; bear with me) while your father does not. Who is right? You can try to weigh the values against the contemporary social norms, but on the grand scale, neither is intrinsically right.


Well, here's the deal. I don't value homosexuality. I am opposed to it, but you'd never know unless you asked. This is because I do value other peoples' rights. I value other things that also contribute slightly, like experimentation, truth, etc. Pissing people off and claiming the right to deny them of their ability to think independently is beyond the influence or power I am willing to act like I posess.

Therefore I will specifically attempt not to offend minorities or people with different lifestyles and beliefs than my own because I expect the same from them.

All in all, I don't think it was improper for my dad to express his dislike for that particular scene in the movie, but the way he went about it was certainly unjustified.

User avatar
bbctol
Super Deluxe Forum Title of DESTINYâ„¢
Posts: 3137
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:27 pm UTC
Location: The Twilight Zone
Contact:

Postby bbctol » Thu Aug 09, 2007 7:55 pm UTC

Here's my stance on homophobophobia. If you are prejudiced against homophobes because they are homophobes, (which presumably you are, why else would you be prejudiced against homophobes) then that's fine, you're entitled to your beliefs and I support them. This is different from being prejudiced against homosexuals because you think they carry plague. In homophobophobia, you don't like someone for what they've shown themselves to be, in racism/sexism/whateverism, you're prejudiced against someone because you assume that since they are black/gay/female/whatever, they are in a gang/infected with AIDS/weak/whatever, an unfounded prejudice.

In other words, if he's a douche, feel free to tell him so.

User avatar
mrguy753
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:35 am UTC

Postby mrguy753 » Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:12 pm UTC

Brian wrote:All in all, I don't think it was improper for my dad to express his dislike for that particular scene in the movie, but the way he went about it was certainly unjustified.


And here is the key! In many situations, it is not what you say that may offend someone (though it most definitley can be), it's how you say it. If you treat people with respect, even if there is a disagreement, you will most likely get the same in return, and everything will be okay.

Unless the other person is a giant douchenozzle. Then you just ignore him/her.
I sing anyway.

Meowsma
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:53 pm UTC

Postby Meowsma » Fri Aug 10, 2007 12:45 am UTC

bbctol wrote:In homophobophobia, you don't like someone for what they've shown themselves to be, in racism/sexism/whateverism, you're prejudiced against someone because you assume that since they are black/gay/female/whatever, they are in a gang/infected with AIDS/weak/whatever, an unfounded prejudice.

In other words, if he's a douche, feel free to tell him so.


Wait, is it prejudicial (a judgment based solely on a classification and not on experience with the person) or is it based on "what they've shown themselves to be"? Talking about "homophobophobia" is talking about predisposed judgment, prejudices, and no matter what the subject of their ire is, it's still prejudicial; when you talk about "what they've shown themselves to be", you've left the topic and are considering personal judgments, not prejudices.

And since when do you get to declare which prejudices are founded or unfounded? Why is one inherently more okay than another? Disliking someone because of one of their beliefs and someone else because of their skin color is still a judgment passed on very limited information.

--Meowsma

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Fri Aug 10, 2007 12:51 am UTC

And since when do you get to declare which prejudices are founded or unfounded? Why is one inherently more okay than another?


Because one of them is stupid, and the other is based on the other person buying into a completely stupid idea.

In more explanatory terms: One of them is based on a factor which tells you nothing about the person (skin colour, sexuality), and is therefore an unfounded, stupid prejudice; the other is based on a factor which tells you rather a lot (that the person is prone to holding stupid prejudices).
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Meowsma
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:53 pm UTC

Postby Meowsma » Fri Aug 10, 2007 12:53 am UTC

Belial wrote:Because one of them is stupid, and the other is based on the other person buying into a completely stupid idea.


Well, that sounds like a completely un-arbitrary judgment. I guess that settles that.

EDIT (since you augmented your post):
In more explanatory terms: One of them is based on a factor which tells you nothing about the person (skin colour, sexuality), and is therefore an unfounded, stupid prejudice; the other is based on a factor which tells you rather a lot (that the person is prone to holding stupid prejudices).


That still doesn't at all take into account why anyone holds those prejudices. You're arbitrarily declaring their prejudices stupid without any basis, which is prejudicial.

On top of that, both prejudices tell you the same thing: that the person in question belongs to a group whom he or she is predisposed to dislike. You can't honestly tell me that knowing how someone stands on one issue (without bothering to understand why he or she holds that stance) can give you a good measure of the quality of that person to the point that your judgment would not be considered prejudice.

--Meowsma

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Fri Aug 10, 2007 1:06 am UTC

On top of that, both prejudices tell you the same thing: that the person in question belongs to a group whom he or she is predisposed to dislike. You can't honestly tell me that knowing how someone stands on one issue (without bothering to understand why he or she holds that stance) can give you a good measure of the quality of that person to the point that your judgment would not be considered prejudice.


Not really. One of them is a sexuality, which has, *at best*, a weak influence on their character. The other is a *character trait*.

Which do you think is better for making character judgements?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
VannA
White
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:57 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby VannA » Fri Aug 10, 2007 1:23 am UTC

Meowsma wrote:You can't honestly tell me that knowing how someone stands on one issue (without bothering to understand why he or she holds that stance) can give you a good measure of the quality of that person to the point that your judgment would not be considered prejudice.


Er...

Repeat Sexual Abuses, Murderers and Rapists?

People who support the act of taking a Catamite? (Ancient Greeks)
People who forward their own importance over anybody elses? (La Veyonists, etc)

There are many, many, many valid character traits to inspire prejudice.
Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy.

Meowsma
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 9:53 pm UTC

Postby Meowsma » Fri Aug 10, 2007 1:28 am UTC

Belial wrote:
On top of that, both prejudices tell you the same thing: that the person in question belongs to a group whom he or she is predisposed to dislike. You can't honestly tell me that knowing how someone stands on one issue (without bothering to understand why he or she holds that stance) can give you a good measure of the quality of that person to the point that your judgment would not be considered prejudice.


Not really. One of them is a sexuality, which has, *at best*, a weak influence on their character. The other is a *character trait*.


That doesn't discount what I said. Both still tell you that the person in question belongs to a group whom he or she is predisposed to dislike.

And again, it doesn't matter how much influence one has on a person's character. Firstly, there's absolutely no way to absolutely determine that or even get a sizable percentage of certainty. You're pulling arbitrary decisions from thin air again. Secondly (more importantly), knowing how one person stands on one issue without understanding reasoning is by no means enough to make a sound judgment on a person. It's still prejudicial.

I feel like I've just repeated myself, but, then again, I can't figure out to what your "Not really" referred, since that would be agreeing to my second sentence and the rest of your post doesn't have anything to do with my first sentence.

Which do you think is better for making character judgements?


Neither. They're equally bad measures, and that's even granting that the latter is a slightly better judgment. When comparing 10^-5 to 2X10^-5 with respect to unity, though, neither is significant.

EDIT:
VannA wrote:Er...

Repeat Sexual Abuses, Murderers and Rapists?

There are many, many, many valid character traits to inspire prejudice.


Actions versus opinions. Being prejudiced against a murderer because he's killed people is very different from being prejudiced against someone because he dislikes homosexuals. Like I said earlier, judging someone on the basis of one opinion that they held isn't enough to claim that you're not being prejudiced. Judging someone because they've raped and killed is much more reasonable.

--Meowsma

User avatar
VannA
White
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:57 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby VannA » Fri Aug 10, 2007 1:39 am UTC

Er..

Espousing an opinion is an action, last time I checked.

It is not as destructive an action, but it is every bit as much an insight into another person's character, as watching them commit a more physical action is.
Last edited by VannA on Fri Aug 10, 2007 3:51 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Fri Aug 10, 2007 2:41 am UTC

Furthermore, I don't see how one of their stated values doesn't give you a better handle on their character and values than their sexual orientation.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Postby zenten » Fri Aug 10, 2007 2:45 am UTC

VannA wrote:Er..

Espousing an opinion is an action, last time I checked.

It is not as destructive an action, but it is everbit as much an insight into a nother person's character, as watching them is.


Yes, it's called not covering up your beliefs, and is generally considered a good thing, if done at the appropriate time and place.

User avatar
bonder
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:41 am UTC
Location: /home/bonder
Contact:

Postby bonder » Fri Aug 10, 2007 5:47 am UTC

Belial wrote:Furthermore, I don't see how one of their stated values doesn't give you a better handle on their character and values than their sexual orientation.

I agree. When someone is prejudiced against homosexuals, he or she dislikes a group of people based only upon the fact that these people are attracted to other people of the same gender and they may choose to have sex with these people. Sexual orientation tells you nothing beyond that. When I find that someone is homophobic, I feel like I do get more information about the person than I would from simply knowing his or her sexual orientation. I can see that this person dislikes a group of people based purely on their sexual orientation, which does not indicate anything as to their moral character or political beliefs etc. This tells me that the homophobe will make judgments about an entire group based upon very limited information: the homophobe cannot know a majority of the homosexual community (I think that most homophobes have never taken the time to get to know any homosexuals). From this, it is no surprise to find out if the homophobe is prejudiced against any other group: if he or she can judge one group on limited information, why not others? This is all information that i have gathered about a person's character from finding out only that he or she is a homophobe. That is why I think homophobia is a better indicator of someone's character than homosexuality.
I've never made anyone's life easier and you know it.

Dark Ragnarok
Posts: 1406
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 9:12 pm UTC

Postby Dark Ragnarok » Fri Aug 10, 2007 6:15 am UTC

I agree with Belial, with a small note. For some reason or another, i have a horridly hard time 'judging' people solidly. At least with a negative connotation. I may say someone is stupid when they are in fact stupid, but i won't look at them less if the present other good qualities so that their flaw isn't an overbearing asset. I could delve into this more, but point in case, i want to see the whole picture before i let a major flaw rule the polarity of my opinion.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Postby zenten » Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:47 am UTC

Are we talking about people who think homosexual relations are icky, but know logically there's no reason to think that, and possibly feel guilty about feeling that way?

User avatar
Brian
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 1:18 am UTC
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Postby Brian » Fri Aug 10, 2007 6:10 pm UTC

zenten wrote:Are we talking about people who think homosexual relations are icky, but know logically there's no reason to think that, and possibly feel guilty about feeling that way?

The way you worded this is kind of what I was getting at in the first place. Was your using the word "icky" really justified? All it really served to do is insult intelligence. Analyzing the psychology of people who's opinions you disagree with isn't the best way to go about finding a peaceful way to coexist.

To answer your question: no. We're talking about people who believe that others have rights but choose not to participate. Unless we are going to put people with different beliefs in the same category as five-year-olds who think something is bad because it's "icky".

User avatar
tessuraea
Not Phallic Enough
Posts: 556
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:46 am UTC

Postby tessuraea » Fri Aug 10, 2007 6:26 pm UTC

I sum this one up as the difference between disliking someone based on who they are versus disliking someone based on what they do.

If you just flat-out dislike homosexuals and homosexuality, you're hating people for what they are. Trust me, you have no idea what they do--and everything they do, non-homosexuals do too, with very minor differences for anatomy's sake.

So that's disliking a group of people based on your own misconceptions about them... and not about what they do or don't do.

But if someone takes an action--and speech is an action--that you dislike, then you can certainly dislike that person based on their action. You choose what to do and what to say. If someone chooses to say things I find heinous, I will choose to dislike that person, and likely lose a fair amount of respect for them.

Make sense to anyone?

I know someone's going to say "well, homosexuality is a choice too," but again, I direct you to the word "action." Homosexuality is not an action. It's a state of being.

Saying assholish things about homosexuals is an action, not--thankfully--a state of being.
This is not a reference to anyone's junk.

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Postby cephalopod9 » Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:29 am UTC

I think it's important not to discourage people from sharint their veiws. Particularly ones that might be tied to their understanding and feelings. I think, as with many things, the key point is education. Mutual 'blocking out' isn't helping things. Regaurdless of the validity of either point, telling someone they're wrong isn't enough. Letting someone know that you can't respect a particular veiw of theirs can be what keeps them from advancing past them. Of course, you shouldn't agree with things just to avoid confrontation, so it's a balance. I think asking questions works well.

(off topic again: did they do well with V's voice?)
Image

narduar
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:03 am UTC
Contact:

Postby narduar » Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:59 am UTC

zenten wrote:
bonder wrote:My dad claims to be accepting of homosexuality, i.e. he says that he thinks gay marriage should be legal. But, he did mention that he didn't want to see images of homosexuals kissing, etc. in the media. I pointed out that he doesn't care about heterosexual images in the media so he was holding a double standard. It seems to me that he's got an attitude towards homosexuality similar to Hermes's attitude towards Bender's religion: "Bender, I respect your religion to the extent the law requires..."


I dunno, I think scat play should be legal, but I don't want to see it on TV.


There's a bit of a distinction, I think, between scat play - which is both a very explicit sexual act involving nudity *and* a very explicit bodily function involving nudity - and two people kissing.

Gay people don't do anything when they kiss that differs from straight people. You could get into a moral panic here and say that pretty soon we'll have to watch goats kissing children, but you could say that nightmare train started with letting straight people kiss in the first place.

I can understand if you don't like watching people shit while they fuck. I don't either. But - although if this is someone's deal, so be it - I do find it baffling when the determinant of whether a kiss is OK or not is the invisible genitals of the participants.

Khonsu
Posts: 877
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:55 am UTC

Postby Khonsu » Fri Aug 17, 2007 1:21 am UTC

EDITED FOR CLARITY.

cephalopod9 wrote:I think it's important not to discourage people from sharing their views. Particularly ones that might be tied to their understanding and feelings. I think, as with many things, the key point is education. Mutual 'blocking out' isn't helping things. Regardless of the validity of either point, telling someone they're wrong isn't enough. Letting someone know that you can't respect a particular veiw of theirs can be what keeps them from advancing past them. Of course, you shouldn't agree with things just to avoid confrontation, so it's a balance. I think asking questions works well.

(off topic again: did they do well with V's voice?)


I hate having that 'I'll ignore you, you ignore me' stuff. Never fixes anything.

One of my favorite things is to debate homosexuality and how it effects the entirety of a person with someone who is clearly a bigot (I don't mind if someone finds me appalling or disgusting or just plain hellbound. That's an evangelist's faith, and a single facet of myself isn't worth denouncing their entire faith. That'd be awful of me). A bigot, to me, is someone who takes not only their faith, or ick factor (some people, without being religious, are just very 'the natural way is the only way'), but starts judging ALL of me based on one part of me. If a person is just a very religious person and finds out I'm gay and says "You're going to hell." I just smile politely and say "Yes, I'm going to your hell. If you're a good person, we probably won't meet again in the afterlife. I'm glad you'll be happy." They usually are confused by this, but I honestly can't dislike someone if they feel they're justified by faith. I just can't.

The BEHAVIOR I can dislike. The sort of person who is like "YOU'RE GOING TO HELL AND IT'S MY JOB TO CHANGE YOU." are people I don't like. People who have beaten me in the past on the rumor I was gay (I didn't even know those rumors were true until years later!), or tried to convert me, or treated me like shit, or spread rumors about me? Those people I have every right to dislike.

I will try to explain how I feel homosexuality is, and that sex is just one facet of a relationship, and that as tessuraea said, that gay sex is no different from straight sex. Everything gay people, male and female, do is also a possible facet of straight sex. Even men getting fucked up the ass. It's called pegging. You should try it sometime. Feels great and relieves stress. Honestly, the ONLY difference between gays and straights is a part of a chromosome of their partner. Less than 98% of their DNA.

People get angry when I say this. They believe there's something eldritch about gay sex, like there's some runes and virginal blood involved that makes it feel 'normal.' I don't care what causes homosexuality--I CHOSE to act on how I felt. There are straight men who don't act on their urges (usually). They're called priests. I could be celibate. But that wouldn't make me magically straight. That would just make me really fucking cranky. Homosexuality is both a choice and something I honestly never wanted--just like a straight guy who, due to whatever faith he has, doesn't want to have straight sex until marriage. Did he choose to be straight? No, but he chooses to remain celibate.

I never chose that, thus, I have, with multiple women, and will continue to have, gay sexual relations (or at least queer, if you want to split hairs and say I'm not dating a 'real' woman, which I concede is a totally legit POV).

Hating me for something I merely chose to act on, and saying I should change my choice, and that I deserve to be marginalized? NOT. COOL. Saying that you don't like it? AWESOME. I hate Pearl Jam (except Do the Evolution, that's awesome). Some people would want to beat me for that. That's bad. Some people will just tactfully disagree and then hate me forever. Okay. Not nice, but okay.

People who tell me I don't deserve to do things legally, like raising a child, or teach children, or marry my lover, or see character similar to myself in the media. Those people piss me off. Yeah, I'm not into scat either, but it's an ENTIRELY sexual practice. Homosexuality can be portrayed on cable in a totally acceptable way (kissing or holding hands or speech). Scat is pretty much only a fetish for a possibly otherwise white-bread, down-home totally normal person. Thus, the scat to homosexuality media thing is, well, completely uneven.

The L Word is on TV. It is totally okay to watch with kids if you're not raising them religiously (rated R movies show worse, and I saw tons of those before I was 15). It can be titillating, but so can the Victoria Secret's model show every year. That's on TV, too, on primetime no less! If there were scat porn on TV, it would be in porno sections labeled, so it's not like you'd be bombarded with it. Gay sex is shown on porno channels and is labeled, too. The L Word, or Will and Grace (which is just fucking dumb), or Queer Eye (which is fucking dumb but amusing), trailers for Brokeback Mountain, et al....that stuff isn't gay porn.

No one is seeing anything uncouth, or, for that matter, much different from the straight relationship outside of sex. Everyone cuddles. Everyone kisses. Everyone smacks butts. Everyone nibbles ears. Yeah, I don't like seeing two bears fucking each other covered in saran wrap. But I'm not going to get pissed off watching two guys kiss on TV because that's not two bears fucking wrapped in saran wrap. That's two guys kissing, just like a man and a woman kissing. Unless I have a deep fear or disgust of tongues, which men and women have, it shouldn't really bother me. Finding stuff that isn't sex but is homosexual disgusting and not wanting to see the entirity of the show or movie doesn't make sense to me. Watching assholish, evil, horrible characters like The Captain in Pan's Labyrinth upsets me because he's a very, very bad person. Who he fucks doesn't matter to me (though it is part of the plot, actually), as he is much, MUCH more than just your average straight guy.

I don't think many "I don't wanna see that!" on TV people are literary people, because they'd be able to understand ALL of the characters, gay and straight, then and maybe it wouldn't bother them. I don't wanna see The Captain torturing people, but there you go. It was in the movie. Should it NOT be in the movie? Hell no! It gave characterization. Sexuality is a part of character--without it, the character is somewhat empty. Just because you don't like torturous characters or gay characters doesn't change the fact that that's the character and the artistic work and you should STFU. I squirmed watching the torture in Pan's Labyrinth, but I wouldn't walk up to the ticket booth and scream at a poor popcorn jockey because it made me uncomfortable. If it was ever shown on TV, I wouldn't write angry letters. I'm way too desensitized to that.

Maybe if people who disliked the idea of two men or two women fucking saw it hinted at more, they'd be desensitized, too.

Unless you just hate gay people because they're gay and you don't want to accept that there is more to them than sex.

People who hate gays that they'd like to pretend they don't exist (you could also substitute 'good Muslims,' 'furries,' 'feminists,' et al for anything people would rather ignore than accept and stfu about) just make...no sense. It doesn't seem to me like a mature, adult reaction. But that's me. I also don't understand the view that because gay content is featured sometimes, that it's somehow a PSA "GAY IS GOOD. YOU KIDS SHOULD TRY IT. JESUS IS A DOUCHEBAG" because It's not like I'm EVER gonna see Portia di Rossi strip on a table at the Comedy Central Roast of Ellen Degeneres (which I would very much like to see, as Ellen deserves to be Roasted), just like I'm never gonna see Angelina Jolie strip for Brad Pitt at his Roast (which would be entertaining, too). It's not like if Angelina DID do that that it's saying "STRAIGHT IS GOOD. YOU KIDS SHOULD TRY IT." It's more like saying "Wow...Angelina has a GREAT BUTT. I wish this had instant replay."

Censors would shit if they saw tits on primetime, gay, straight, or bitch tits.

I may love women more than I love men, but that's not all of me, just as it's not all of Portia di Rossi. I've had acquaintances say "Oh me yarm, I hate her, I can't believe such a beautiful woman is with that DYKE." and I go "But Portia is a great actress and very charming and that's not all of what she is. She has a personality, you know. It's not like her ENTIRE BEING is based on Ellen's snatch."

Apparently once you're gay or have some sort of fetish, that's all you are. If that were the case, my entire body would be composed of fingers, a tongue, and a vagina. And I'd be really unhappy. And I couldn't talk. That would suck.


ALSO, YES, V IS PLAYED BY HUGO WEAVING (you never get to see his face, however because he remains 'an idea' in the movie). HIS VOICE IS AWESOME. Things were changed for logical, good reasons (a comic book isn't a movie, and so the stylistic changes were aware of that), though there was a slight twist on motive for V, which I wasn't entirely happy with, but it did make him a more sympathetic anti-hero, so it wasn't like it really bothered me. Comic V = sadistic but admirable bastard anti-hero bent on revolution to exact revenge; Movie V = sadistic for a reason, noble anti-hero bent on revenge for him and people like Valerie and Eric Finch who just happen to be gay, who is also a revolutionary. It wasn't entirely spot-on, but it was an entirely good adaptation and very, very good. I cried. A lot. But I left happy.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Postby Malice » Fri Aug 17, 2007 4:02 am UTC

An interesting question I've never seen addressed, as long as we're on the general subject of homophobia...

Can you dislike the "gay" image without being homophobic? The kind of thing you see on "Queer Eye", the fashion sense, the femininization, even (especially) the lisping...

I find all of that tremendously distasteful for some reason.

User avatar
ifeedlions
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 7:38 am UTC
Location: Wooster, OH
Contact:

Postby ifeedlions » Fri Aug 17, 2007 4:52 am UTC

@Malice: Yes, you can. It's an irritating personality quirk that has nothing to do with being gay... it's just demeaning to gay men in general that foppishness is associated so freely with homosexuality.

It may just be me, but as a man who likes other men, why would I want a man that acts like an idiot?
Let me fall out of the window, with confetti in my hair...

Khonsu
Posts: 877
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:55 am UTC

Postby Khonsu » Fri Aug 17, 2007 4:57 am UTC

I do, too. Negative stereotypes are definitely worse than positive ones (like Asians are good at math or Jews are really good businessmen--they still give a false sense of what those cultures value and such), even though both are harmful.

I'm not saying having a speech impediment like a lisp or being an effeminate man or butch woman is bad, but the common person sees it as uncomfortable and the fact that those guys might be playing it up for the camera makes me quite uncomfortable.

I really wish Normal, Ohio hadn't gotten canceled, it would do well if it were brought back. It was a TV show with John Goodman as a Red-blooded, All-American, white, middle-class dude's dude...who just happened to be gay.

It seemed like a great show even when I was little, but they cancelled it because HURF DURF "that is not an accurate representation of a gay man."

@ifeedlions: I don't know. I've always wondered that myself. I can get 'butch' labels because some women just aren't girly, just as some men aren't masculine, but the foppish thing seems WAY overdone half the time. I mean, I don't know many self-professed 'girlie girls' that even act that fucktarded. I mean, that's like Paris Hilton dumb. I've never met an actual gay man that made me feel like he hadn't two brain cells rubbed together. Sadly, I have to deal with the fact that Paris Hilton exists every fucking day...

Oh, that reminds me. I felt weird watching the L Word once and how this one girl (I never had more than cable back home, and now with my gf I have only basic cable so I never really watched it) treated her transman boyfriend. Everyone treated him as if he was a butch lesbian in denial. :< Anyone know what was going on? I saw it at a friend's house and I asked her to turn it off because it made me feel all sad.
Last edited by Khonsu on Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:00 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Fri Aug 17, 2007 4:59 am UTC

Eh. I just see it as very much like being "Goth" or being "Gangsta" or any other packaged set of image-traits. It has very little to do with anything inherent, and everything to do with the image and subculture you want to associate with.

People just seem to generalize that image (the mincing, lisping, limp-wristed one) and subculture to all homosexuality with some frequency. It is silly. Like assuming all black people dress in baggy clothes and listen to rap.
Last edited by Belial on Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:04 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Postby Malice » Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:00 am UTC

ifeedlions wrote:@Malice: Yes, you can. It's an irritating personality quirk that has nothing to do with being gay... it's just demeaning to gay men in general that foppishness is associated so freely with homosexuality.

It may just be me, but as a man who likes other men, why would I want a man that acts like an idiot?


Precisely! Manly men who want men want those men to be manly men! Or something like that.

Khonsu
Posts: 877
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:55 am UTC

Postby Khonsu » Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:01 am UTC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjZ0plrFIE4

RELEVANT.

GIRLS WHO ARE BOYS WHO LOVE BOYS TO BE GIRLS WHO DO GIRLS LIKE THEY'RE BOYS WHO DO BOYS LIKE THEIR GIRLS WHO DO GIRLS LIKE THEY'RE BOYS

ALWAYS
SHOULD BE
SOMEONE
YOU
REAAAALLYYYYYYYY LOOOOOOOOOOOOVE.

But boys should be boys and fuck boys who are boys if they really love them that way.

Also, Albarn (Blur, Gorillaz) <3

User avatar
ifeedlions
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 7:38 am UTC
Location: Wooster, OH
Contact:

Postby ifeedlions » Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:11 am UTC

I would quote Frank Barney here, not because of his importance in the field of educating and supporting gay/straight equality, but rather because I find his hints at mild antisemitism amusing. Hooray, tolerance.
Let me fall out of the window, with confetti in my hair...


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests