Homophobia

[Nocturne]

@Nocturne You haven't thought this one through at all, have you?

So by your logic, anyone can go on about killing someone's dog for fun, plan to do it, and I should just "mind my own business" because I should keep my disagreements to myself? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

We're all adults who should know the difference between right from wrong. Granted, some people like to add their own definitions to the terms, but the point is having a voice and utilizing its ability to disrupt a disruption.

I think you need to think it through. You really are comparing things that dont relate at all. Since when has disagreeing with homosexuality mean they want to go around and kill people who are? Your average person doesnt think like that. You completely took the point I made, completely interpreted it wrong, and twisted it to meet some emotional charged agenda you have.

You're assuming everything you say is absolutely correct and no one can have a different opinion than you. The exact persona of being close minded.

 

[Shu]

If you're stating that as fact I'd like to see some proof. In my opinion there's far more to suggest people are a product of their environment and upbringing both personality wise and sexuality wise, rather than born into a category. I feel as if this very possible misconception of people being born with a predetermined sexuality is undermining the whole tolerance campaign. It's patronising. If it's not a choice then fine but if it is a choice then good for you for making that choice, there's no reason to feel ashamed if you believe it's the correct choice for you.

So you made a choice? You have had feelings of going either way, and you chose to be straight then? I assume this only because you are trying to back up your opinion here.

Earlier in your post you stated you didn't want to turn this into a religious debate despite having dragged the subject in yourself and a few paragraphs later you've gone on to bring it back up again. Just to quickly clarify "most" Christians don't live in the Bible Belt of America. "Most" Christians don't live in America.

I didn't imply any tone of negativity, but I guess you wanted it? I said Christians in the Bible Belt. I didn't say "all" Christians. Please re-read, let me know if you need help. Both gays and non christians are largely judged in the Bible Belt of the US. The inability to hold office or to even hold a job for more than a few months while being a known gay or non christian is a bit appalling.

1) No alcohol on Sundays (because that makes sense).
2) Birth Control Ban almost occurred.
3) Lack of separation of Church and State in many laws, in which is by all means un-constitutional.
4) The third salvation pamphlet put on my door this quarter of the year.

It's a bubble.

Secular free minds or sexual preference has no indication of a bad person period.

--

Back on topic though about choice.

I doubt any heterosexual man has looked at their own genitals and said.. MMMMMMM or a man and been like.. yummy. No offense - we smell, we are hairy, we make bodily noises when no one looks or amongst other guy friends, we have deformed skin for a tool to have sex and piss with. I don't want to even encroach on the conversation outlets we speak about when women are not around.

Furthermore, about the only thing that defines a "good" looking man is a slim figure (arse, stomach, legs) and/or "pretty" (feminine) or "masculine" (ex. facial hair) face/hair. So.. I still don't see how it's a choice.

 

[Catnip]

I think you need to think it through. You really are comparing things that dont relate at all. Since when has disagreeing with homosexuality mean they want to go around and kill people who are? Your average person doesnt think like that. You completely took the point I made, completely interpreted it wrong, and twisted it to meet some emotional charged agenda you have.

You're assuming everything you say is absolutely correct and no one can have a different opinion than you. The exact persona of being close minded.

I agree with your statement on the persona of a closed mind. In fact, I think you're sporting it quite well.

You couldn't have misunderstood what I meant this much. I used an example that doesn't relate to homosexuality, or disagreeing with it at all, as you've noticed, yet managed to completely miss the fact that it was intentional. I used a ridiculous example out of hopes that you'd see how silly your previous post was.

I see what you're saying, but I don't agree with it. You're basically telling me to keep quiet, and shitting on me for refusing to do so.

Yes, there are people who do preach against homosexuality because they think it's wrong - well, I'm going to preach for it because I don't think there's anything wrong there. I'm going to voice my opinions and stand for what I think is right. I might even be so passionate that I'd demand change. Same as them? Yes, in that sense, but no more.

That's what an argument is, and you seem to be missing the point of it.

 

[Nocturne]

I agree with your statement on the persona of a closed mind. In fact, I think you're sporting it quite well.

You couldn't have misunderstood what I meant this much. I used an example that doesn't relate to homosexuality, or disagreeing with it at all, as you've noticed, yet managed to completely miss the fact that it was intentional. I used a ridiculous example out of hopes that you'd see how silly your previous post was.

I see what you're saying, but I don't agree with it. You're basically telling me to keep quiet, and shitting on me for refusing to do so.

Yes, there are people who do preach against homosexuality because they think it's wrong - well, I'm going to preach for it because I don't think there's anything wrong there. I'm going to voice my opinions and stand for what I think is right. I might even be so passionate that I'd demand change. Same as them? Yes, in that sense, but no more.

That's what an argument is, and you seem to be missing the point of it.

It was a pointless example to make. Presenting a "ridiculous" example doesn't doesnt mean it was a good example to use, especially when it's so extreme, it doesnt even relate to what I was saying.

So I'm the one being close minded for saying both sides need to stop acting like children and accept that both points of view are equally correct? I think you are missing what close minded means. Demanding change over someones thoughts on the matter isn't needed. Acceptance on a large scale is what's needed. People act like everyone has to accept one view point as the only correct answer, when life isn't that simple. People should be able to live their life according to the beliefs they hold, especially if their views aren't physically hurting anyone.

 

[Catnip]

It was a pointless example to make. Presenting a "ridiculous" example doesn't doesnt mean it was a good example to use, especially when it's so extreme, it doesnt even relate to what I was saying.

So I'm the one being close minded for saying both sides need to stop acting like children and accept that both points of view are equally correct? I think you are missing what close minded means. Demanding change over someones thoughts on the matter isn't needed. Acceptance on a large scale is what's needed. People act like everyone has to accept one view point as the only correct answer, when life isn't that simple. People should be able to live their life according to the beliefs they hold, especially if their views aren't physically hurting anyone.

...Extremity was the point. I'm just going to accept the fact that it completely swooshed over your head. Moving on.

Ha. Equally correct? Is that what you're going to call it in this reply? I'm glad you're able to spot what everyone looks like from the outside, but all of this information you're telling me is nothing new. This whole argument is complete garbage, all because you made your own decision as to whether or not my mind is closed based on one, small reply. Let me copy and paste something for you.

Yes, there are people who do preach against homosexuality because they think it's wrong - well, I'm going to preach for it because I don't think there's anything wrong there. I'm going to voice my opinions and stand for what I think is right. I might even be so passionate that I'd demand change. Same as them? Yes, in that sense, but no more.

It's having a fucking voice. That's what I'm doing. I'm using it. Like everyone else in this entire thread. What's closed-minded is that you expect me to do so in a way that only you consider necessary.

This discussion is over.

 

[Harlequin]

So you made a choice? You have had feelings of going either way, and you chose to be straight then? I assume this only because you are trying to back up your opinion here.

That's not what I was saying, in fact I didn't actually say people weren't born that way only that I believed there was far more to suggest they developed into the people they are. Like those lifers in prison raping guys, it starts off as a weapon of dominance in many cases and after a while develops into a sexual attraction. It's not an ideal comparison but it's a possible example of homosexuality developing as a product of circumstance, or it could indeed have been dormant in that male but chances are he would have felt it before then.

I didn't imply any tone of negativity, but I guess you wanted it? I said Christians in the Bible Belt. I didn't say "all" Christians. Please re-read, let me know if you need help.

Shu! I'm gonna need some help re-reading your post! You haven't used the word "all" that's true but then I didn't say you did. You phrased your sentence:

most Christians would chastise me for thanks to being in the Bible Belt."

You didn't say most Christians in the Bible Belt would chastise you, you said most Christians would chastise you thanks to being the the Bible Belt. The first sentence is far clearer than the second. The second sentence looks like you're saying they're chastising you for making those remarks because you happen to be in the Bible Belt. Why would I want negativity? All I wanted was clarity which I stated in the post you quoted.

Both gays and non christians are largely judged in the Bible Belt of the US. The inability to hold office or to even hold a job for more than a few months while being a known gay or non christian is a bit appalling.

1) No alcohol on Sundays (because that makes sense).
2) Birth Control Ban almost occurred.
3) Lack of separation of Church and State in many laws, in which is by all means un-constitutional.
4) The third salvation pamphlet put on my door this quarter of the year.

Well yeah it's absurd but what does what you've listed have to do with sexual orientation?

And I don't understand why you've highlighted the mistakes of generalising throughout this thread and yet you go on to make a sweeping generalisation of men being smelly, hairy, etc...

 

[Ness]

Hello.

I want to address a few of the issues brought up and try to make a few cogent points. I don't feel like multi-quoting, so I'll just organize by topic:

Relativism

Just to be clear, this is the attitude that "if you think it's okay, then it's okay". I was having trouble categorizing the Nocturne vs. Catnip argument and this seems to be the most common thread.

I am in agreement with the general idea between the Catnip post that started it all...with the exception of the use of the phrase "robot sheep" (I find the implied arrogance there to be annoying). It is my opinion that people have the right to make the choices that they want in terms of, well, anything...be it sexual preference or a person's choice to eat pizza cold. One of the cornerstones of modern society is (or at least should be) a person's basic right to make whatever choices that they want, as long as those choices don't infringe on other people's rights, e.g. murder. This viewpoint is generally called "tolerance" and embodies the relativistic attitude that most people ascribe to.

However, I think that Nocturne brings up a great point in calling out most people for what I call false tolerance. If a person truly believes the mantra of "whatever you think is okay", then they are in no position to ever criticize anyone else's viewpoints. Unfortunately, you need look no further than this very "debate" forum to see piles of arguments following the general structure of "I am right and you are both wrong AND stupid". So many people demand "tolerance" but are completely intolerant of the views of others, which is a contradictory mindset.

Ultimately, you cannot demand members of society to conform to your views if your views are backed up by "everyone can do what they want". There is a difference between you having a stance on an issue and insisting through your arguments that everyone else is obligated to take that same stance.

In essence, I reserve the right to dislike whoever I want, including homosexuals. (Have fun with that one.)

Choice vs. Genetics

I believe that, just like cold pizza, homosexuality is a choice.

Furthermore, I believe that the burden of proof lies squarely with those who make claims about some sort of genetic predisposition towards sexual preference. The evidence at this point suggests that one's sexual preference is a choice that they make...mostly because plenty of people's preferences are constantly shifting. Given the amount of work that has been put into mapping the human genome, I am surprised that no one has help up some sort of "gay gene"...unless it doesn't exist.

Honestly, I think the "they are born this way" argument is an attempt to absolve people of some strange sort of blame. For instance: "they can't help being gay". This statement implies that there is something wrong with being a homosexual (which, as stated previously, is up to the individual to decide) and the fact that it is just a by-product of genetics and/or chemical reactions prevents them for being responsible for their choices.

When it comes to the determination of things that people like, be it sexual partners or the temperature of pizza, I do believe that it is a simple matter of choice.

Religion

I think religion plays a vital part in this debate because the dislike of homosexuality has religion at its core. The reason that the general public perceives heterosexuality as "normal" and homosexuality as "abnormal" (say what you like, this is generally accurate) is a long-standing stigma on the practice which has its basis in religion. I won't say much more on this, because I don't really think that this is a point that needs to be belabored.

 

[moogling]

Get serious!! People have sexual preferences and as many people on this very forum repeatedly suggested and came to an agreement on a few months ago in some thread about sexual attraction (found it: http://www.finalfantasyforums.net/threads/53457-Something-About-Sex), males' sexual arousal is supposedly heavily influenced by visual stimuli. Now think of the personal reaction a straight male will have to two men kissing in public. My reaction is a genuine revulsion whenever I see that and honestly, when I see two (albeit hot) ladies kiss, a slight arousal. No one's opinion of what I think is going to force me to try to change that particular feeling I have towards it and quite frankly I feel as if any attempt to change how I think about it would fly in the face of the very spirit of tolerance they're trying to incite in me.

maybe you missed this part Friend:

"HOWEVER!!! i think what's happening here is getting "i'm not attracted to ______" mixed up with "i fucking hate ______". it's okay to not be attracted to something. you don't particularly enjoy seeing two men kissing because you're not attracted to men. you probably do enjoy seeing lesbians kissing because you're attracted to women. (i can't say i'm comfortable with this as it's clearly fetishization which is also a huge problem but i'm certain it's the truth in this case)"

though tbh if you're truly disgusted by it then let's get real now pal. there is a problem there. i'm not repulsed by two women making out and i'm not a lesbian.

may or may not get to the other replies bc wow ignoring the other half of my post entirely

 

[Harlequin]

maybe you missed this part Friend:

"HOWEVER!!! i think what's happening here is getting "i'm not attracted to ______" mixed up with "i fucking hate ______". it's okay to not be attracted to something. you don't particularly enjoy seeing two men kissing because you're not attracted to men. you probably do enjoy seeing lesbians kissing because you're attracted to women. (i can't say i'm comfortable with this as it's clearly fetishization which is also a huge problem but i'm certain it's the truth in this case)"

though tbh if you're truly disgusted by it then let's get real now pal. there is a problem there. i'm not repulsed by two women making out and i'm not a lesbian.

may or may not get to the other replies bc wow ignoring the other half of my post entirely

Ah ok my mistake. But I still don't understand why you'd have a problem with fetishization surely it's a part of people's sexuality?

Not only that but you've said read the rest as it addresses the point I made but then you say in this post that there is something wrong with how I think about it, which is why I made the point I did in the first place. I don't see how my personal preferences should be altered to accommodate other people whether they're straight, gay, etc. Especially when how I think and feel has no impact on their personal freedoms.

 

[The Master]

Do you think I chose to be gay? Do you think I chose to be tormented in school for liking guys? Who would chose to do that?

In cases, it IS a matter of choice, but generalizing Homosexuality as a choice is just like saying every straight guy CHOSE to be sexually attracted to women. That's ridiculous. I could CHOSE to have sex with a woman, but that doesn't mean I'm sexually attracted to them. There's a difference between sexual attraction and acting upon having sex with someone. I hope this makes sense...

 

[Harlequin]

I don't believe it's a choice in the same way one would choose what to have for breakfast, but more of a conditioning. The same way people are conditioned into becoming violent or docile, outgoing or shy. I wholeheartedly believe everyone's sexuality is conditioned.

 

[Ness]

Do you think I chose to be gay?

Yes. As stated above, I don't think it's as simple as selecting a breakfast food. However, it is still a sexual preference and all preferences tend to be choices at the core. What determines the choice and how obtuse the choice is are other issues entirely.

Again, the problem for me is the absence of proof. Someone saying "I did not choose" is certainly not scientifically rigorous (which should be the only acceptable standard in this regard).

Do you think I chose to be tormented in school for liking guys? Who would chose to do that?

No, but this question doesn't follow from the first. Your high school peers are responsible for their own actions. Again, this does not serve as rigorous proof.

 

[The Master]

Again, the problem for me is the absence of proof. Someone saying "I did not choose" is certainly not scientifically rigorous (which should be the only acceptable standard in this regard).

Their is no proof either way. You can either chose to believe me or not. At this point it sounds like a battle of belief (like whether God exists or not) there is no hardcore proof.

 

[moogling]

Ah ok my mistake. But I still don't understand why you'd have a problem with fetishization surely it's a part of people's sexuality?

Not only that but you've said read the rest as it addresses the point I made but then you say in this post that there is something wrong with how I think about it, which is why I made the point I did in the first place. I don't see how my personal preferences should be altered to accommodate other people whether they're straight, gay, etc. Especially when how I think and feel has no impact on their personal freedoms.

no of course your preferences shouldn't be altered. being accepting of something is entirely separate from being attracted to it. i guess that's where everything gets confused here. my point is that you don't need to fake liking something, and you can think whatever you want to think about it, but you don't need to openly confront someone about it or make it known that you are disgusted by it. the line is probably at "they should not be allowed to do this in public because i do not like it".

and if you are disgusted by something and make it known, be ready for whatever backlash of names people will call you. i just don't get why people act like "MY OPINION" and then get offended when they face the repercussions from the people who they originally offended with that "opinion". that's my main thing with this thread.

about fetishization, yes it's all great but in certain situations like fetishizing a person's sexuality, it's repulsive. i remember a story about a guy asking for someone's number and when she said she wasn't interested in men he said "it's okay, i'm into that."

 

[The Welsh Paddy]

What I don't understand is why a lot of gay men and women feel the need to be accepted by everyone. Christ, people dislike each other for countless reasons, let alone just because of a person's sexuality. And then for some reason you have all these gay people who feel like they should look and act the part? I mean, why? They complain about people not liking them for being gay, but a good few of them can just be loud, annoying and very "in your face" about their sexuality and a lot of people don't appreciate that, even from straight people.

Note that I am not speaking about the gay population as a whole. As is the case with almost anything, the minority can reflect very badly on the whole.

I don't have any problem with the fact that some people are gay. I have a bunch of friends who are openly gay or lesbian, and they just act like it's the most normal thing ever. And I respect that a lot. They're aware that people dislike them for being gay, but they don't let that keep them down. They don't go trying to make people accept them for who they are. People will only accept you if they want to.

If people dislike gay people, then so what? Just get on with it. I've heard of one or two incidents where local businesses have refused to serve people because they are gay. If that's down to the person who owns the business, then he/she has every right to refuse custom to them. If I was refused to drink at a bar, or stay at a hotel, for any reason, I would probably be somewhat offended, but I wouldn't make a big deal about it. Sure, I could go raising hell about it in the media, and force them to change their policy, but then I still wouldn't want to stay there because they're pretty much forced into allowing me to stay there. They wouldn't appreciate it, nor would they even want me there and how could I enjoy staying in that kind of place? It's a completely different matter, however, if that was all down to an employee working there. If an employee wouldn't serve me for whatever reason, I would take it up with the manager.

My point is that a lot of gay people seem to be trying to force the world to accept them for who they are, and that's just not going to happen. Sure, a majority may come 'round to accept them, but there are always going to be people who hate them. It happens to everyone, for any number of reasons such as race, religion, even very simple things such as personal tastes. If I tried mixing in with a bunch of metal heads and proceeded to state that I like listening to... Let's say, One Direction or something. How do you think the majority of them will react? They'd probably look at me like I have a plague or something.

 

[Dragon Mage]

I am talking about a man who clearly wants to be a woman, aka drag, aka acts and dresses and feels like they are a woman, and clearly admit to wanting to be a woman. So no, this has nothing to do with being a social condition. You are describing alpha male vs effeminate male syndrome. This has nothing to do with being gay at all.

Oh. Well, that isn't homosexual than, that is transsexual. Something entirely different. I was talking specifically within the frame of a very effeminate gay man, and, to quote Ohri, the 'diva' like ones. I was merely trying to illustrate why these particular gay people may be disliked without disliking ALL gay people, on behalf of Ohri here.

In light of this, I still think my point stands that straight men have been socially conditioned to such a degree that they act awkwardly around openly gay men. Like Harlequin said, it's called 'gay baiting' and it goes for women too.

"If you don't chase skirts, you're gay." Male example.
"If you ride motorcycles, you're a lesbian." Female example.

It's a well-documented phenomenon and we even learned about this in my college class. So, while it may not be a huge factor, it is certainly contributing to the reactions you've described -- so long as those reactions are toward all gay people and not JUST transsexuals.

I'm trying to re-read anywhere where I might have been misunderstood, but not sure what bashing guys in general has anything to do with it. Manly men aren't bad, as long as thy don't self assert themself and tell non alpha males how they should be. If there weren't alpha males.. life would be indistinguishable. There needs to be a balance. Though beating your chest, and thrusting.. that's a bit.. extreme.

Oh no no no no, don't get me wrong. I'm not bashing men in any way, merely the way society has told them how they should act. Because it's ridiculous. All those examples I listed is a rough example of how men are conditioned to act, just like how women are conditioned to act like wilting wallflowers. Neither is good and both are harmful. I was just trying to illustrate that this is how men are told they SHOULD act -- so when they are 'confronted' with a gay man, a person who flies in the face of everything they are told they should be, they don't know how to act. Think of it like culture clash, because that's essentially what it is.

A straight man is told, from day one, how he should act, what things are indicative of his 'straightness.' A gay man is told the same thing (because nine out of ten, a gay man doesn't know he's gay when he's only 2 years old.) However, as both these men grow and mature and learn about themselves, the gay man finds that he must go against the social expectations of him -- to use my earlier criteria, he doesn't chase skirts or 'prove' his masculinity by bragging about his conquests. He must defy what society has said 'this is what makes a man a man' by his very nature that he didn't choose. So, when an openly gay man is with a straight man, how does the straight man talk to him? How does he react? What does he say? He doesn't know. Because the two have almost no common ground on basis of gender. One fits all the expectations society has placed on him and the other actually goes against them. Put all these things together and boom -- you've got straight men acting awkward around gay men.

Now please keep in mind that this is a VERY simplified example I'm using here just to portray how -- because of negative social conditioning -- straight men would not know how to talk or act around gay men. There's a lot of factors that I'm not taking into account here like personal beliefs and religious inclinations. But now, when you say that you've seen straight men act like they didn't know how to talk to or act around gay men, this example can show you how negative social conditioning can contribute to such reactions. Granted it is not THE ONLY reason, but a large one, I think. If kids were socialized to not NEED to be so aggressive about 'proving' their masculinity and orientation, you'd see a much different reaction when they were older.

Oh and the 'chest beating, hip thrusting' was merely me using hyperbole for emphasis. xD I didn't mean it literally.

I can agree with this. It's purely society driven. It has nothing to do with psychology unless brain washed to believe in it. It's just what "people" in general are "used to". They rather everyone confide to their pretty little molds, than be different and out there. Jealousy in the root of the problem, and or remaining "comfortable" (aka boring as crap).

Well remember, 'social conditioning' can be considered a form of brain-washing when you think about it. The only difference is that brain-washing takes place quickly, over weeks or months, but society has been indirectly informing you how to act and look and think since you were born. In a way, society dictates how we think, in some ways this is good, but in other ways this is bad. The goal is to weed out the bad, but it is a very SLOW process; but progress has been made. But I'm glad we agree on this.

I disagree. Gay men can be as closed minded about other subjects if not more so, just as heterosexual men. It does not matter if you are straight or gay, but about the experience and wisdom you have gained in your life. They are as equally opinionated and biased as heterosexual men, just about different subjects. Some gay men, still believe in Jesus Christ and the ability to go to Heaven. In my opinion this is hilarious considering due to Old Testament verses, they will never get into Heaven as long as they "act" on their sin. This isn't a religious debate, so straying from that subject.

Oh no question, I have no quarrel with you about this. Like I explained earlier, I was merely making an extremely simplified example to make a quick explanation. If I tried to factor in personal beliefs, political opinions, and so on and so on, I'd get no where! XD

As for religion, I agree, let's not stray there, but I will say this: Religion is personal. Whether or not others think you should believe doesn't change what you believe. That is all.

Sexually one may consider it disgusting, as Ohri here explained. Where as showing bias towards heterosexuality in public. That's the part I don't get. The most homophobic people I know actually turned around to be a homosexual. They are fearing that they are becoming something that they were told they would be in Hell, or Parents would send them to a psychologist, or even worst.. electroshock therapy. So that's the flu symptom I speak of. Sexually some narrow minded arse holes, feel that being around that type of sexual talk, that they might "choose to be gay". Again, gay is not a choice, you are either born that way, or else.

Sure, sexually one may consider it so, but my immediate question is "Why does anyone else's sex life concern you?" That's my take on it but yeah. Anyway, my whole point was to show that socially, straight men don't know how to act toward gay men. It isn't so much because theyare gay but because society hasn't taught straight men what they should do around gay men -- there's no fallback, no script they can rely upon. When two guys meet they size each other up, do that should-bump hug they do and give a manly handshake. When a gay man and a straight man meet, they....what? The straight man doesn't know because he's been taught that to be 'gay' you are everything a straight man isn't so the straight man doesn't know how he should approach the gay man. That's all I was trying to explain.

Also, I understand what you mean a little better now, about the 'flu reaction'. As for that, I can't explain. It's just personal superstition and insecurity, that's the best guess I can make. A person like that, that is afraid of their friends thinking they are 'gay' will do anything to prove they are not, even doing something like diving into an empty pool. It has nothing to do with proving orientation and everything to do with avoiding the stigma. Simple as that. There's no easy way to explain this or rationalize it since there is no rationality in it. It's merely something that we, as a collective society, must work to discourage and banish the need for.

I think that's a bit draconian. I see most "sensitive" men have relationships, where most manly men.. are in it for the feeling and or social bragging rights. Though I do see women are more attractive to Confident men though. So if you are always down on yourself, and or have a negative attitude about yourself, the woman might already have one about herself. When those stigma's clash.. it's a turn off. No one, man or woman, wants a cry baby all the time, or someone they have to nurse psychologically.

I don't disagree with you on any point but... perhaps I'm not seeing how this is relevant to social conditioning? Sorry, I'm confused! Please clarify? Or you can just say "nevermind" if it wasn't anything really important. xD

And why is that? Do you prefer masculine women?

Um.... sorry, what does that have to do with the conversation? xD My explanation came later in my post, I don't think this comment was made after fully reading everything I'd put down.

You are generalizing though. This is one feminine gay man. This is not all.

That's like me saying all Pretty/Hot women are independent and strong. That's like me saying all strippers have daddy problems. That's like me saying all over confident political woman are lesbians, due to the masculinity she has to assert.

That's like me saying fairer women are more likely to be over critical douche bags about female models and will only settle for a dumb, sensitive man - as to have little face to face conflict, and to be praised every day for their wit and beauty.

That's like me saying.. any girl that wears a coach bag, a burberry coat, gucci sun glasses, or loui vuitton shoes.. is a gold digging ho-bag who is only going to settle for someone easy she can divorce if things get tough.

These are all generalizations.

*headdesk*

Okay, I was making a very specific, narrow, SINGULAR example. I NEVER said all gay men were like this; in fact, I even distinguished this example from the REST of the gay community. I get the feeling you didn't read my post very thoroughly.

Anyway, I was merely going off of what Ohri had said that he didn't like the 'diva like, feminine gays, the kind that snap their fingers in your face.' To that end, I made an example of ONE gay person that is how he describes, which fits the overblown gay stereotype to a T. I did this JUST to address why Ohri-Jin (and others) may not like these very specific kinds of gay people for certain reasons; which I then went on to describe.

To summarize:

1. They really do make the rest of the gay community look bad, especially for folks' first impression.
2. They wear their orientation so loudly it almost feels confrontational, like they are daring you to make a comment about it. You actually start to fear setting off a landmine in the conversation and trust me, this can really stress you out! I've experienced this.
3. It FEELS like an act, because they fit the stereotype so perfectly and the thing about stereotypes is that they are never true. But people like this, the kinds that Ohri says he doesn't feel comfortable around, go out of their way to fit to the stereotype. So who are you really seeing, the person or the stereotype? It's shaky ground for a conversation.
4. The whole act is simply not needed, we don't need to know your orientation because ultimately, it doesn't concern us. So it isn't necessary to wear it like a shield. Just... not needed.

Only these few gay people that act like this (admittedly, very rare, not even Jacqui had met a person like this and the ones I met were at the same place, the world's largest craft show) and for the reasons above, Ohri and I and probably many others find them tiring and a little irritating at times. Because it's a very loud, borderline confrontational, and aggressive and needless way to wear one's orientation. Like I said, I've met gay people who hate 'flamers' like this stereotypical example I've described, because for all the progress the gay movement makes, it's bad impressions like this one person can make that set them ALL back two steps.

You are disliking something they enjoy though. How does it affect you? I think only a gay person can represent their views when it comes to this. It can give a bad stereo type to us, but who I am to judge?

Ah, if it's something they enjoy is to be debated. Remember what I said? It feels like an act. It screams 'act' to me, and even if you think about it logically, what are the chances of someone being born that lives 100% true to a negative stereotype -- especially considering that stereotypes are 1 grain truth mixed with a few metric tons of lies, myth, superstition and outright bullshit. For me, incredibly slim to none. So whether or not they ARE, genuinely, like this and enjoy it is very debatable and one I don't think we'll truly ascertain unless we interview such a person. However, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but let's just say I'm a very skeptical hippo.

As I said, I'm going off my own experiences, and those experiences told me that this person was going out of his way to act the part of a stereotypical gay man. I don't dislike THEM, I dislike the image and effect they are portraying. Because it isn't doing anybody good -- and like I said, it also feels confrontational. I don't go out of my way to show I have a boyfriend by giving him a lapdance at a bus stop -- but these gay people are making a point to show that they are gay and it feels like if you say the wrong thing, you'll set off a landmine and next thing you know, someone is screaming that you're a homophobe and everyone around you is going to jump down your throat. It's a scary thought. I'm not saying that these particular gay people are scary (lol), but that the consequences of making a tiny mistake and not even knowing about it ending in you getting labeled a homophobe is scary.

Refer to my post in reply to Lana, and you'll see why I think we should treat labeling anyone 'homophobe' very seriously.

I can quasi agree with you. I do not like being gay/being straight or black/white or a woman/man or chinese/japanese or .. etc give you any additional privilege. It should not exactly be recognized publicly as a "Hey look I'm...." Though gay parades.. to me are more of a gathering of oneness. Although I'm not gay, I can understand them, due to I meet with Secular movement councils in sort of the same manner, which most Christians would chastise me for thanks to being in the Bible Belt.

Excellent! Because I don't either. And you're spot on with the gay parades and whatnot, it really isn't all that different from a political convention. Also, good on you for not giving into peer pressure. *high fives*

I don't mind it.. as long as they keep their mouth on their own business. Aka drama free.

Yes, definitely agree with you there.

He used the word Sissy. So yes, that's a homophobic and or demeaning word. If he didn't mean it.. that's fine.. but it's an observation. I don't consider Ohri a bad person, he is just expressing his opinion here, nothing to get all in a hustle about.

Yes he did, but also look at what else he did: He came onto here and asked us, his community, "Does this make me a homophobe?"

He honestly didn't know. He wanted feeback. So personally, I'd look at his use of the word 'sissy' the way a child uses a swear word for the first time -- they don't know better. Clearly Ohri didn't think that this would automatically chalk him up as a 'homophobe' and throw him in the pot with the bible-thumpers and 'we-should-burn-all-homosexuals' people. So he doesn't know a lot about the gay community. Hell, he probably hasn't even met very many and the ones he did were the 'diva' like ones I've already addressed and they clearly made a bad impression on him and led him to think that gay people were sissies. So he made a poor assumption about all gay people. That's a forgivable mistake, in my book -- we're all guilty of making such mistakes in our lifetime.

So I do not think Ohri is a homophobe, merely not informed and victim of some poor first impressions. A true homophobe would've said a great deal worse and not retract ANY of it. We are all still learning and we should take that into account when someone says something that is untrue -- not automatically label them a homophobe.

xD And I'm sorry, you'll have to forgive me for getting a little passionate about labeling people homophobic or not. I've been tainted with that brush once and it was the worst experience of my life and continues to influence me to this day, four years later. That's all I wish to say about it.

Hayley Williams:

I believe what Ness means by it being a choice is that there's a lot of factors going into it and these build up over our lives that eventually end up producing a gay or straight person. The typical result is a straight person, but it also turns out a gay person now and then. Being born gay and choosing to be gay is like trying to define light as both a wave and a particle. You do both (choose and be born that way) in ways that lead to the final result. That's... a kinda bass-ackwards metaphor but let me explain!

You 'chose' to be gay in the same way you choose your favorite color. Both things change over time and both can't really be prescribed on any particular reason -- they just are. But you STILL pick out one color you like the most -- not because of it's meaning, or past associations, but because of its appeal, nothing more. It's difficult to describe, but you do -- in a way -- choose which gender you like better.

For example, I like men (yay!). I also appreciate feminine beauty as well (like, 'wow, she's pretty' when watching a movie or something); but I'm attracted to men. I COULD choose to expand on my appreciation of feminine aesthetics and say I'm bi or something, but I don't. I'm happy with just being attracted to men. So, because of my preferences, I choose to be straight. I could choose to not be straight but I have and I'm happy this way so I see no need to change it. My preferences have naturally led me to this choice.

It's just like choosing my favorite color. I like blue; very pretty color blue and I have a lot of blue clothes. But my favorite is still purple. Why do I like purple? I have no idea -- I just do.

I'll go with you Hayley (if you don't mind): You like men. You also (if I may randomly theorize for a second) think women can be attractive, but not as much as you find men to be. Why? You just do. It has always been a natural preference. At no point in time have you ever woken up in the morning, yawned and said, "I think I'll be gay for the rest of my life!" No, that just doesn't happen, but you've always had this preference and when you were old enough, made the decision to be gay and NOT go out of your way to be straight, even though you could. You're natural preferences have led you this way all the time and you made the decision to align with them, not go against them -- even though you could.

That's how I think of it anyway, a kind of combination of both theories, but it makes sense when you think about it. Choice is like light: Both wave and particle.

 

[The Welsh Paddy]

Well I must say, that was a very interesting read. Only thing I'm inclined against is your statement about straight men not knowing how to act around gay men. Was this a statement represantative of your views of straight men as a whole? A minority? Or what?

I can't really say where I learnt how a man "should be". My dad was hardly around, and the only other adult men in my life were not very good role models. In fact, throughout my whole childhood, I rarely got a good impression of adults at all, except from old people strangely enough. As stated, I didn't get to see my dad very often, but my mum was the sort who always put herself first. Any men she got into a relationship with, I never had any respect for because they either just demanded it without any good reason, or they were just right scumbags. I had very few friends throughout highschool, and I didn't particularly get on with any of my teachers. They were the sort who turned a blind eye to bullying and everything. And, I can't really say mass media has had any effect on me, otherwise I would be trying to act like Goku from Dragonball Z, or Batman, or any of my other idols from books, films, cartoons and comics.

Due to all this, I felt a lot more comfortable around ladies. I found it very easy to be open with them, and supportive of them. That gradually changed through college as I got more male friends. Now I'm more comfortable around either.

I guess you can say all these things have had an affect on the way I am today, because they have. Except it's not been a case of "how a man should be", but more of a case of "how a man shouldn't be." Now, I'm straight. Got myself a wonderful fiance and we have a two-year-old little man. But I'm generally accepting of everything. I'm the sort of person who can get along with anyone, regardless of race, sexuality or religion. I'm very honest about how I feel about certain things, or certain people.

I'm not sure how any of this is relevant right now, but it all boils down to the fact that I just treat everyone the same way. I always treat people how I expect to be treated. With politeness, warmth and honesty. I've never been told to be this way with people, I learnt that for myself.

I'm sure many other people can say without a doubt they feel comfortable around people, regardless of sexuality, race, etc.

 

[The Master]

I'll go with you Hayley (if you don't mind): You like men. You also (if I may randomly theorize for a second) think women can be attractive, but not as much as you find men to be. Why? You just do. It has always been a natural preference. At no point in time have you ever woken up in the morning, yawned and said, "I think I'll be gay for the rest of my life!" No, that just doesn't happen, but you've always had this preference and when you were old enough, made the decision to be gay and NOT go out of your way to be straight, even though you could. You're natural preferences have led you this way all the time and you made the decision to align with them, not go against them -- even though you could.

That's how I think of it anyway, a kind of combination of both theories, but it makes sense when you think about it. Choice is like light: Both wave and particle.

*Slow claps in a non-sarcastic way* I think you hit the nail on the head about me
I wholeheartedly agree with this. Pretty much everything you said is a thousand percent accurate...
I guess I can understand now how it was a choice but in the same way it was something else...

EDIT: Also, my 200th post!

 

[Shinra Executive]

I don't believe that a homosexual couple can feel the same way that a heterosexual couple can. I just don't see it in them. What I see on the surface is a relationship, but what I see underneath is an incompleteness.

I believe that many other people see this as well, and with some, it can cause a dislike of homosexuals because it manifests in their mind as superficial or perhaps even ominous.

 

[The Welsh Paddy]

Interesting point of view, sir.

But why do you think this? I could understand your reasoning if this were directed towards these "divas" who enjoy making a big scene. They just give me the impression that they only like the drama that comes with being gay and rubbing it in everyone's faces. But, what about those who just be themselves, and don't put on a huge act?

I think man or woman are perfectly capable of falling in love with a person of the same gender. Raising a family isn't an issue, as they can adopt, or even go through surrogacy or IVF (although only one of them will be the biological father). And as far as I'm concerned, the ability to give birth to their own child is the only difference between a straight couple and a gay couple.

If they can trust each other, depend on each other, are utterly attracted to each other, care for each other and willing to stick by each other through thick and then and for better or worse, then I very much think that's a loving and wholesome relationship.