Additionally, to dovetail onto my last question, are "anti gay" and "homophobic" different states of being?
For example, could I be pro gay rights, but still be afraid of homos? Conversely, is it possible for me to be unafraid of fudge packers, but not want
them to get married?
What are you thoughts?
[edit on 21-8-2010 by MMPI2]
Anti-gay homophobes - what country would you choose?, page 12
privacy
reply posted on 22-8-2010 @ 10:51 AM by halfoldman
reply to post by MMPI2
Interesting question.
I'd say that homophobia varies in strength and intent.
Conversely there's also a term "homosexualist" that fundamentalists like to use. A "homosexualist" to them can be gay or straight:
I'd say that homophobia is more the personal revulsion that some people feel when they see same-sex loving touching or kissing. Especially men find this difficult when they see it amongst other men, but not women.
Anti-gay is a political choice and position, which may or may not grow out of homophobia.
Perhaps it's a bit like racists who can tolerate black people, but not what they percieve as "black behaviour".
I'd say when you use slurs like "fudge-packers" in a public forum you're probably both homophobic and anti-gay.
I should add that many people would not encourage violence against gays, but simlpy see it as "sinful". However their discource may certainly implicitly encourage anti-gay violence.
Interesting question.
I'd say that homophobia varies in strength and intent.
Conversely there's also a term "homosexualist" that fundamentalists like to use. A "homosexualist" to them can be gay or straight:
Homosexualist: A person who, depite whether he parctices homosexual acts or not, promotes the notion of homosexuality as a moral and social equivelant to heterosexuality as a basis for social policy and laws. Many heterosexual people are therefore homosexualists. Many self-described homosexuals are not homosexualists. (Source: "The Pink Agenda: Sexual Revolution in SA: The ruin of the family". Christine McCafferty and Peter Hammond, Africa Christian Action, 2001. P. xix.)
I'd say that homophobia is more the personal revulsion that some people feel when they see same-sex loving touching or kissing. Especially men find this difficult when they see it amongst other men, but not women.
Anti-gay is a political choice and position, which may or may not grow out of homophobia.
Perhaps it's a bit like racists who can tolerate black people, but not what they percieve as "black behaviour".
I'd say when you use slurs like "fudge-packers" in a public forum you're probably both homophobic and anti-gay.
I should add that many people would not encourage violence against gays, but simlpy see it as "sinful". However their discource may certainly implicitly encourage anti-gay violence.
reply posted on 22-8-2010 @ 11:52 AM by halfoldman
reply to post by halfoldman
I'd also say that anti-gay homophobes can moderate their opinions when they make an effort and come into contact with gay spaces and people.
Many are quite surprised that nobody tries to "convert them" in a gay space or bar.
So I know people who were anti-gay, but are no longer.
However, they may still be homophobic in that they flinch at same-sex-kissing, and don't want to be touched by other men. But that homophobia is neglible and functional.
Stong heterosexist positions argue that a straight man can never be gay friendly, without being gay himself. This is wrong.
The real phobia for me is that people feel some unconscious terror that if they don't police their sexual space they will succumb to homosexuality.
They may begin to question: "These people look like me, and aren't so different, so could I be one of them? What actually divides me from them?"
The obvious markers that divide the self from the other that we have with race or gender may be blurred. However, that terror is temporary and unfounded.
What is also true is that gays have become pawns in wider gender debates. In academia, for example, the social constructionists might argue that all gender roles are fluid and constructed by culture. This line of theorizing has grown from radical forms of feminism.
I've seen straight people become gay-friendly but retain some internal homophobia. I've also seen people turn virulently anti-gay when they've converted to certain religions.
Homosexuality may also be linked to the rise in paganism, liberal theology and feminism. So, from an anti-gay political position individual homosexuals are less important that broad movements which undermine what they percive as "traditional society". Therefore, it's very important for them to link homosexuality to other social problems, or what they percieve as social problems - academic atheism, feminism and paganism (even Satanism).
Individual homophobes are hardly that advanced or alarmist.
With them it's mostly assertions of juvenile understandings of masculinity, and in-group behaviour. Outside their group they may not even be homophobic. Nevertheless, their incidental violence and abuse can be quite devastating. They are really the dumb "foot-soldeirs" that more advanced anti-gays want to influence to do the dirty work, and they rarely realize how manipulated they are.
Few will understand the experience of being gay, or a minority in a hetero-normative society. Few will therefore understand that an assertion of public space in designated instances is important, because the fear is, if we give that up then how far will we retreat? Next thing they will meddle in our private homes and lives again, if we don't draw the line somewhere public.
And I think it's with that public line and push-and-pull around it where most of the disagreements arise.
[edit on 22-8-2010 by halfoldman]
[edit on 22-8-2010 by halfoldman]
I'd also say that anti-gay homophobes can moderate their opinions when they make an effort and come into contact with gay spaces and people.
Many are quite surprised that nobody tries to "convert them" in a gay space or bar.
So I know people who were anti-gay, but are no longer.
However, they may still be homophobic in that they flinch at same-sex-kissing, and don't want to be touched by other men. But that homophobia is neglible and functional.
Stong heterosexist positions argue that a straight man can never be gay friendly, without being gay himself. This is wrong.
The real phobia for me is that people feel some unconscious terror that if they don't police their sexual space they will succumb to homosexuality.
They may begin to question: "These people look like me, and aren't so different, so could I be one of them? What actually divides me from them?"
The obvious markers that divide the self from the other that we have with race or gender may be blurred. However, that terror is temporary and unfounded.
What is also true is that gays have become pawns in wider gender debates. In academia, for example, the social constructionists might argue that all gender roles are fluid and constructed by culture. This line of theorizing has grown from radical forms of feminism.
I've seen straight people become gay-friendly but retain some internal homophobia. I've also seen people turn virulently anti-gay when they've converted to certain religions.
Homosexuality may also be linked to the rise in paganism, liberal theology and feminism. So, from an anti-gay political position individual homosexuals are less important that broad movements which undermine what they percive as "traditional society". Therefore, it's very important for them to link homosexuality to other social problems, or what they percieve as social problems - academic atheism, feminism and paganism (even Satanism).
Individual homophobes are hardly that advanced or alarmist.
With them it's mostly assertions of juvenile understandings of masculinity, and in-group behaviour. Outside their group they may not even be homophobic. Nevertheless, their incidental violence and abuse can be quite devastating. They are really the dumb "foot-soldeirs" that more advanced anti-gays want to influence to do the dirty work, and they rarely realize how manipulated they are.
Few will understand the experience of being gay, or a minority in a hetero-normative society. Few will therefore understand that an assertion of public space in designated instances is important, because the fear is, if we give that up then how far will we retreat? Next thing they will meddle in our private homes and lives again, if we don't draw the line somewhere public.
And I think it's with that public line and push-and-pull around it where most of the disagreements arise.
[edit on 22-8-2010 by halfoldman]
[edit on 22-8-2010 by halfoldman]
reply posted on 23-8-2010 @ 10:16 AM by halfoldman
reply to post by MMPI2
It is interesting indeed.
I'd say literally "homophobia" exists in every person to a degree. It's about the marker between private and public and especially around the body.
As a poster mentioned much earlier, two men holding hands would be one of the behaviours found disgusting by some Western conservatives.
However, in many African and Arab countries that is not even considered homosexual. So the anthropology of space, and how the genders are to properly relate to each other does vary between cultures.
Gays may also be phobic of certain same-sex contact. They may not like the physical wrestling and aggressive touching between men in contact sports. And few gay people would want every male to invade their sexual space - so yes, varying from person to person, gays too are homophobic.
Because of cultural differences, some Africans are still unclear of what a homosexual actually is. Gay sex was very private. In Uganda they were shown corprophillic porn in church to facilitate homophobia, and the fundamentalists made it a public issue.
So homophobia against gays and gay sex is just one of its forms, and probably its strongest.
If one joins certain religious groups, one is expected to follow anti-gay homophobic theories as an "absolute truth claim", just as one is expected to believe that other faiths are wrong. I think if fundamentalists like Hammond and MCafferty above distinguish between gays and "homosexualists" then it would be important to look closer at the various anti-gay positions.
It is interesting indeed.
I'd say literally "homophobia" exists in every person to a degree. It's about the marker between private and public and especially around the body.
As a poster mentioned much earlier, two men holding hands would be one of the behaviours found disgusting by some Western conservatives.
However, in many African and Arab countries that is not even considered homosexual. So the anthropology of space, and how the genders are to properly relate to each other does vary between cultures.
Gays may also be phobic of certain same-sex contact. They may not like the physical wrestling and aggressive touching between men in contact sports. And few gay people would want every male to invade their sexual space - so yes, varying from person to person, gays too are homophobic.
Because of cultural differences, some Africans are still unclear of what a homosexual actually is. Gay sex was very private. In Uganda they were shown corprophillic porn in church to facilitate homophobia, and the fundamentalists made it a public issue.
So homophobia against gays and gay sex is just one of its forms, and probably its strongest.
If one joins certain religious groups, one is expected to follow anti-gay homophobic theories as an "absolute truth claim", just as one is expected to believe that other faiths are wrong. I think if fundamentalists like Hammond and MCafferty above distinguish between gays and "homosexualists" then it would be important to look closer at the various anti-gay positions.
reply posted on 23-8-2010 @ 10:42 AM by halfoldman
reply to post by Oldnslo
Thanks for pointing me to the LA Times. I'll definately have a look.
What I find more mysterious is why you expose yourself to media that upsets you "every damn day"?
And if you don't care what gays do in private then why should it matter whether they are doing it as a married couple or not? It shouldn't then even be a public issue.
While I would never call any person "evil" or "intolerant", especially when I don't know them and they don't know me, I can certainly apply it to certain books, websites, and public theories. One does get the feeling however that some people are waiting to be offended (and I suppose that goes for activists on both side of the fence).
We've had gay marriage rights for a while. However nobody can be forced to marry a gay couple. The majority would probably have disagreed, but minority rights are enshrined in our constitution. So while the black majority may also be against white landownership or minority language rights, those rights have to be protected (and everybody is a ethnic, religious minority in some sense). There are also plans to extend rights for traditional African marriages, and Muslim and Hindu marriages. So that's what was decided here.
And it hasn't made much impact at all. Even the normally sensationalist media hasn't been very interested. Considering the controversy before the time, it's actually a bit of an anti-climax.
Thanks for pointing me to the LA Times. I'll definately have a look.
What I find more mysterious is why you expose yourself to media that upsets you "every damn day"?
And if you don't care what gays do in private then why should it matter whether they are doing it as a married couple or not? It shouldn't then even be a public issue.
While I would never call any person "evil" or "intolerant", especially when I don't know them and they don't know me, I can certainly apply it to certain books, websites, and public theories. One does get the feeling however that some people are waiting to be offended (and I suppose that goes for activists on both side of the fence).
We've had gay marriage rights for a while. However nobody can be forced to marry a gay couple. The majority would probably have disagreed, but minority rights are enshrined in our constitution. So while the black majority may also be against white landownership or minority language rights, those rights have to be protected (and everybody is a ethnic, religious minority in some sense). There are also plans to extend rights for traditional African marriages, and Muslim and Hindu marriages. So that's what was decided here.
And it hasn't made much impact at all. Even the normally sensationalist media hasn't been very interested. Considering the controversy before the time, it's actually a bit of an anti-climax.
reply posted on 23-8-2010 @ 10:43 AM by clever024
reply to post by halfoldman
someone got an O-ring blown out over my comment. I wish there were more gay men truthfully, more cooter for me! in all honesty though, i got nothing against fudgepackers, as long as they keep it in the bedroom and not wear there sexuality like "Hi, I'm steve and I'm queer" I don't walk up to people and say "HI, I'm Kevin and I got a 12 inch pecker", and if I did I'm sure more than once I would be slapped, that or I'd be swallowed.
someone got an O-ring blown out over my comment. I wish there were more gay men truthfully, more cooter for me! in all honesty though, i got nothing against fudgepackers, as long as they keep it in the bedroom and not wear there sexuality like "Hi, I'm steve and I'm queer" I don't walk up to people and say "HI, I'm Kevin and I got a 12 inch pecker", and if I did I'm sure more than once I would be slapped, that or I'd be swallowed.
reply posted on 23-8-2010 @ 10:58 AM by MMPI2
Originally posted by clever024
reply to post by halfoldman
someone got an O-ring blown out over my comment. I wish there were more gay men truthfully, more cooter for me! in all honesty though, i got nothing against fudgepackers, as long as they keep it in the bedroom and not wear there sexuality like "Hi, I'm steve and I'm queer" I don't walk up to people and say "HI, I'm Kevin and I got a 12 inch pecker", and if I did I'm sure more than once I would be slapped, that or I'd be swallowed.
And this post will be deleted/editied in 5...4...3...2...
reply posted on 23-8-2010 @ 07:10 PM by halfoldman
reply to post by clever024
What, a blow out over your flowery lingo?
No! And there you were being the perfect example of straight modesty in the face of the "wicked" gay movement.
I have the opposite experience. I'm usually asked if I'm gay and then if it's a heterosexual man they will anounce their straightness with great fanfare (assuming that gay guys are out to hit on them, just like they are probably out to find women).
But so what? Announcing an orientation is not the same as telling people what you do in bed or your...uh physical measurements.
I think it's better to play open cards from the beginning instead of being accused of dishonesty later.
We are not a society that bans public affection or innuendos of sexuality. When one sees "spring break" programs from the US it also doesn't appear very inhibited. So I'm not quite sure by what law or argument gay identity or affection can be selectively driven to the private. Perhaps one would then have to follow the examples of Muslim countries that ban all public displays of affection, or flauting semi-nudity (no more bikinis or thongs). Then one would have to ban all public discourse on homosexuality - both pro and anti - if one really wants no public visibility of homosexuality then it follows that everybody should shut up about it. No view of it should be "shoved down anybody's throat" (to use the colorful metaphor to describe the opinion one doesn't agree with).
However, that would be too draconian for most, and it would result in the unravelling of fundamental freedoms.
It can be a catch-22: if one comes out one is accused of sticking things in people's faces, if one doesn't one is seen as dishonest and that "gay guy who thinks he's in the closet".
While there is a conservative side to heterosexual society (as we've seen), there's also a liberal, almost sensationalist side to it as well, and some gay men are literally hounded out the closet by straight people.
The expectations of straight society can vary widely.
[edit on 23-8-2010 by halfoldman]
What, a blow out over your flowery lingo?
No! And there you were being the perfect example of straight modesty in the face of the "wicked" gay movement.
I have the opposite experience. I'm usually asked if I'm gay and then if it's a heterosexual man they will anounce their straightness with great fanfare (assuming that gay guys are out to hit on them, just like they are probably out to find women).
But so what? Announcing an orientation is not the same as telling people what you do in bed or your...uh physical measurements.
I think it's better to play open cards from the beginning instead of being accused of dishonesty later.
We are not a society that bans public affection or innuendos of sexuality. When one sees "spring break" programs from the US it also doesn't appear very inhibited. So I'm not quite sure by what law or argument gay identity or affection can be selectively driven to the private. Perhaps one would then have to follow the examples of Muslim countries that ban all public displays of affection, or flauting semi-nudity (no more bikinis or thongs). Then one would have to ban all public discourse on homosexuality - both pro and anti - if one really wants no public visibility of homosexuality then it follows that everybody should shut up about it. No view of it should be "shoved down anybody's throat" (to use the colorful metaphor to describe the opinion one doesn't agree with).
However, that would be too draconian for most, and it would result in the unravelling of fundamental freedoms.
It can be a catch-22: if one comes out one is accused of sticking things in people's faces, if one doesn't one is seen as dishonest and that "gay guy who thinks he's in the closet".
While there is a conservative side to heterosexual society (as we've seen), there's also a liberal, almost sensationalist side to it as well, and some gay men are literally hounded out the closet by straight people.
The expectations of straight society can vary widely.
[edit on 23-8-2010 by halfoldman]
reply posted on 24-8-2010 @ 09:49 AM by Oldnslo
Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by Oldnslo
Thanks for pointing me to the LA Times. I'll definately have a look.
What I find more mysterious is why you expose yourself to media that upsets you "every damn day"?
And if you don't care what gays do in private then why should it matter whether they are doing it as a married couple or not? It shouldn't then even be a public issue.
While I would never call any person "evil" or "intolerant", especially when I don't know them and they don't know me, I can certainly apply it to certain books, websites, and public theories. One does get the feeling however that some people are waiting to be offended (and I suppose that goes for activists on both side of the fence).
We've had gay marriage rights for a while. However nobody can be forced to marry a gay couple. The majority would probably have disagreed, but minority rights are enshrined in our constitution. So while the black majority may also be against white landownership or minority language rights, those rights have to be protected (and everybody is a ethnic, religious minority in some sense). There are also plans to extend rights for traditional African marriages, and Muslim and Hindu marriages. So that's what was decided here.
And it hasn't made much impact at all. Even the normally sensationalist media hasn't been very interested. Considering the controversy before the time, it's actually a bit of an anti-climax.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against any kind of marriage between anyone for any reason. I just have a problem in the way it is being politically handled.
For many years here in California the pol's have used the "majority rules" as justification to enact many laws, just and unjust. But an Initiative passes by a super majority of the voters and the media and foes suddenly reject the majority rules routine of the past, stack the deck, to do an end around on the voters of California to get their way. I find it a bit hypocritical. Gays want to play by the rules when it works for them, but when the shoe is on the other foot, they want to change the rules to favor their agenda, so to speak. But that's just me.
I read The Los Angeles Times to keep up with the left's agenda, on which they spout on a daily basis. I watch Fox News to get the other end of the spectrum as hopefully the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
They all lie and deceive. You may not be intolerant and all that, but The Times has an editorial staff that is more than willing to label the opposition as evil, ignorant and intolerant.
My reading of The LA Times is more of keeping your friends close, and your enemy, closer.
[edit on 24-8-2010 by Oldnslo]
reply posted on 7-9-2010 @ 10:10 PM by Brood
Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by Annee
slowly getting rights by turning every straight person bisexual or gay/lesbian.
The new slogan for you people "convert the non-believers to further our goal for normalism".
Further and further humanity will destroy itself and then what????
truth hurts and nobody can handle it.
Are you afraid of being converted? Sometimes the gay people walk by and you're like "HOT DAMN, THAT WAS CLOSE, I ALMOST CAUGHT IT". You really have no brain whatsoever, sorry. I was patient with many of the other misled posters but you really..are just...dumb.
[edit on 7-9-2010 by Brood]
Lifting Secrecy on Information About Extraterrestrial Intelligence. The Clintons and Rockefellers.
Posted 13 days ago with 111 member flags
Posted 13 days ago with 111 member flags
New Plasma Battery Technology Probably Powering Stealth Sattelites
Posted 15 days ago with 17 member flags
Posted 15 days ago with 17 member flags
May 13th, 2012: One Week \'Till May 20th, 2012 - 222 Days \'Till December 21st
Posted 15 days ago with 13 member flags
Posted 15 days ago with 13 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
"CIA are drug smugglers." - Federal Judge Bonner, head of DEA- You don't get better proof than th
General Conspiracies: 11 hours ago, 27 flags
General Conspiracies: 11 hours ago, 27 flags
Quantum Gravity Model "Loads" "Programs" from NON-PHYSICAL DIMENSION with INVERTED PENTAGRAMS!
Science & Technology: 9 hours ago, 17 flags
Science & Technology: 9 hours ago, 17 flags
Defense Department Seeks Legal Authority to Deploy Reservists onto American Streets
Breaking Alternative News: 14 hours ago, 12 flags
Breaking Alternative News: 14 hours ago, 12 flags
Synchonicity of generations, had my mind blown away tonight by grandson.
The Gray Area: 12 hours ago, 10 flags
The Gray Area: 12 hours ago, 10 flags
Can anybody analyze this video - UFO hovering over houses 26-5-12?
Aliens and UFOs: 10 hours ago, 9 flags
Aliens and UFOs: 10 hours ago, 9 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Porn stars explain how they ended up with Bill Clinton in pictures Hillary eat your hear out!! W/pic
Politicians & People: 17 hours ago, 47 replies
Politicians & People: 17 hours ago, 47 replies
Defense Department Seeks Legal Authority to Deploy Reservists onto American Streets
Breaking Alternative News: 14 hours ago, 40 replies
Breaking Alternative News: 14 hours ago, 40 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.277 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.277 seconds
