Anti-gay homophobes - what country would you choose?

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]

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:

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 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]

Perfect place to live if you were homophobic would be in San Francisco. That way you could change your unfounded phobic into a real fear…


I say this in jest since this is one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever seen and to see so many replies it is astounding thjat people have put that much effort into it.

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.

This is interesting, but it seems to get very complicated and somewhat confusing.

I like to see two (or three or four) attractive women having sex, but seeing or even hearing about two men kiss is extremely aversive to me. To further complicate the issue, thinking about two old butchy looking broads kissing or having sex is almost worse that the guys kissing or having sex.

I guess I am homophobic, but I think we would have to subdivide the phobia I suffer into "andro-homophobia" and "gero-gynohomophobia". My excitement at watching a pile of good looking women kiss and go at it should probably be called "lesbophilia."

I am more libertarian in the sociopolitical sense, so I think I would probably fall into letting homos do whatever they want...adopt kids, intermarry, share benefits, etc. Thus, I am not sure I would characterize myself as 'anti-gay.'

This is thought provoking. Thanks for your insights.

Originally posted by MMPI2

I guess I am homophobic,

When you see or are near a gay person do you break out in uncontrollable fear? Do you manifest uncontrollable physical reaction like sweat, shaking, fight or flight response? Does the idea of gays prevent you from living a normal lifestyle? Are gays a constant preoccupation that you have though out the day and night?

Or do you just disagree with their lifestyle and find it extremely undesirable and maybe disgusting when you see behavior that goes against what you desire?

I would be rather disgusted thinking sexually about my 90 year old grandmother, but it doesn’t mean I have a phobia about it or her. I care deeply for many male friends but to think about them in a sexual manner I would be rather disgusted once again. I’m sure much of this is hardwired into me by evolution to promote the species forward.


[edit on 22-8-2010 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Schrödinger
Fair enough, I always provoke when I say that, so you could say I was expecting that! But my point is simply that if we all where gay, you wouldn't be here today! In that sense (in a community and society sense) I think it is egoistical!

There is nothing wrong with their "hardware".

Many a gay man has had children with a woman.

You do an injustice to women. All women. I would suspect that a women, involved in the act of insemination, would be just "pleased as punch" to know that her momentary partner is fantasizing about his gay lover while doing the deed.

Yep every woman would just love that.

As a side comment, I don't care what anyone does behind closed doors. You can roll over with Rover as far as I'm concerned. But I have taken offense to my local newspaper, The Los Angeles Times and the/their gay activists, as they have shoved the gay issue down our throats for many years. Every damn day!!!!! When 70% of Californians voted against legalizing Gay Marriage, The Times criticized us on a daily basis on how intolerant and ignorant the average person was that voted for the proposition.

The peoples vote is then challenged by gay activists and when the proposition is submitted to the courts, A GAY JUDGE rules against the will of the people, and The Times tries to tell its readers how righteous and courageous the ruling was, like we're some kind of idiots. The gay activist's chime in just like you and other on this thread.

As I said before, do as you please behind closed doors, but just because you feel it is ok for you, don't make the assumption that those that disagree with your lifestyle, are evil, intolerant, dastardly homophobes. Because we are not.

SOME OF US ARE SICK OF HAVING IT STUCK IN OUR FACES AND SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS!!!

Talk about the tail wagging the dog.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Oldnslo]

Originally posted by Oldnslo

You do an injustice to women. All women. I would suspect that a women, involved in the act of insemination, would be just "pleased as punch" to know that her momentary partner is fantasizing about his gay lover while doing the deed.

Yep every woman would just love that.

Human is Human.

Sorry - but I don't have your hangups.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Oldnslo

You do an injustice to women. All women. I would suspect that a women, involved in the act of insemination, would be just "pleased as punch" to know that her momentary partner is fantasizing about his gay lover while doing the deed.

Yep every woman would just love that.

Human is Human.

Sorry - but I don't have your hangups.

"Human is Human" You got to be kidding me.......this is the best you can do.

I like my hangups, worked hard to get 'em, and the last thing I want is yours or your lack of them.

"Human is Human"..........geez. Any woman I've been with would have kicked my ***sack up under my armpit for having thoughts about a gay lover, instead of her, while planting the seed.

Of course there are exceptions to everything rule.

Originally posted by Oldnslo


"Human is Human" You got to be kidding me.......this is the best you can do.

I like my hangups, worked hard to get 'em, and the last thing I want is yours or your lack of them.

"Human is Human"..........geez. Any woman I've been with would have kicked my ***sack up under my armpit for having thoughts about a gay lover, instead of her, while planting the seed.

Of course there are exceptions to everything rule.

Oh - I'm sorry. Do I think for myself and not feed your paranoia.

Tsk Tsk - - I suppose I should know better.

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.

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.

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.

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 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]

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]

I would live in Canada in hope of growing, while surrounded by people who are less ignorant.

(Sigh)...

It's a shame, I really thought this forum was here to promote mature discussion on controversial issues; This is simply the most uneducated, and dually off-topic string of replies I have ever seen on any online forum I've been on. Before this is deemed flaming -- bear with me -- as it is simply an attempt to educate some of the ignorant male minds of America, and if this is considered flaming, then 75% of these replies must be deemed prejudiced, hateful, and discriminatory; this post is to help you understand what gay people feel when you talk about the decisions that should be made about THEM in YOUR country.

At this point I would like to announce the presentation of this post so that this education process may be seen through a comparison that you can all relate to:

All heterosexuals will hereby be referred to as Straights rather than straight people, like how homosexuals are classified as Gays (capital G) on this forum, since it is much easier to think of these beings who have apparently become such a nuisance that they are no longer referred to as individuals, they are simply a group that we do not like and that is the level of respect they deserve.

I might use one instance I have to generalize the entire population of straights, and make that one thing I dislike about it encapsulate their entire personality.

I might begin to talk about issues that concern you straights, but as if you couldn't possibly be able to work a computer and read these things for yourselves to express a more accurate opinion on it than you.

On with the show...

The first reply to this thread accused the original poster that he was assuming all straights were homophobic, which was not even stated in the original post whatsoever... he just asked which country they would prefer living in if they were, but the r threw a tantrum worse than my niece would get away with.

Many replies from these straights have been that it is their OPINION that being gay is a choice. Every gay person I've spoken to tells me it is not. Straights may believe otherwise because many straights experience some sexual curiosity when they are younger; it is natural and most do not embrace it physically. That is completely different, many gay men have that experience with women. How can they possibly say that they know more about this than the gay people that are telling them otherwise? Do they argue with women about the amount of pain in pregnancy? No, they accept it as the truth because they have no personal experience of it. This is why straight men are the laughing stock of the gay community; they simply cannot accept a simple fact that is blatantly stated to them because they are too blinded by this lie that they have fabricated for themselves to make themselves feel better about their own sexual insecurities. Honestly, if they have functional analytical brains, they will never make such assumptions anyways. Would they ever choose to be gay? Gimme gay conversion! I'm ready to get bludgeoned throughout high school! I'm pumped to have none of my male friends ever fully trust me! I get off when people take the time to buy things to specifically throw at me and yell hateful words! If being gay was a choice, no men would be gay, ever. Straights are seemingly very arrogant beings in their natural habitat, which brings me to my next point..

A lot of them have claimed that an openly gay person is egoistical.. HAH! Gay guys barely have any self-esteem after those straights of the male gender are done with them, now they call them arrogant? They think that because gay people have accepted who they are and those straights simply can't, gay people are flawed? No, my friend, straights are just ignorant and judgmental, that is simply all there is to them.

..I hope this was a helpful simulation..
..Good luck growing up, folks..

P.S. homophobe is a WORD like MARRIAGE, get over it!

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]