Homophobia

Nothing seems to rile up the masses more than these two topics. As a result you can only talk about either in here. this forum will not be moderated, however if it gets really ugly you can report a post

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
Sir Purrcival
Superstar
Posts: 2305
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 3:36 pm
Location: Port Moody - BC

Re: Homophobia

Post by Sir Purrcival » Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:04 am

And yet people still get married. I'm not sure where I see this sanctity in marriage, nail in the coffin concept..

What is it about one couples relationship that has any bearing on another couples? The sanctity is in the quality of the relationship, not in some ever changing religious based ideal of what that relationship should look like. As you have alluded Gerry, there are probably far more examples of hetero couples damaging the "sanctity of marriage" with their conduct than anything that the gay community has done. All I really hear from that community is that they want to be able to live their lives with the same dignity that others do and share the same benefits as other couples do. The term marriage is not religious property and nothing going on today is going to kill the idea of marriage. It is just an example of where terminology has adapted to be more reflective of the current state of society. And like it or not, there is nothing here today that wasn't yesterday, last year or 2000 years ago. We are simply getting to place where it is more generally accepted and recognized.
Lest We Forget!

Dave in Korea
Starter
Posts: 467
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:32 am
Location: Yongin

Re: Homophobia

Post by Dave in Korea » Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:13 am

Sir Purrcival wrote:This thread really seems like a very thinly veiled attempt to bring up a topic in another way that has already been beat to death.

Do you want some agreement that the term Homophobia is often misapplied and used to make sweeping generalizations about people who don't like the homosexual lifestyle. Ok. You've got it. No surprises here! There are lots of terms that are used to apply to groups or things that strictly speaking are incorrect. Ever called an ear swab a "Qtip"? "Qtip" is a brand name not the item itself. Same with Kleenix. Not every tissue is made by Kleenix but the term has become virtually synonymous with all types of tissues. We call such things generalizations and our world is full of them. It doesn't change a thing in terms of peoples behaviour. Whether you like it or not, when someone calls someone else a homophobe, it is generally understood that this is a person who doesn't like homosexuality. The whys and wherefores are largely immaterial. I have never once seen somebody mistake this label as meaning somebody is literally phobic of the act.

You are very open about your feelings on the subject and you are entitled to them but really, lets not try to disguise this thread as some kind of umbrage at the misuse of the English language. We'd be here for 100 lifetimes. The point is granted. Peoples reactions to your stance on the issue will remain regardless of how you label it.
Is no one else going to take up the cause for the misuse of English with Q-tips? I mean, I've looked very closely at the tips of these ear swabs . . . and there's never ever been a Q anywhere in sight. :wink:

Much the same with homophobia and xenophobia . . . most people accused of being homo- and/or xenophobes don't actually going running away from gays and/or foreigners in fear like arachnophobes do from spiders. However, the inexplicable and irrational dislike/disgust makes it similar enough to not require splitting of linguistic hairs . . . at least IMHO.
Dream out loud.

User avatar
Sir Purrcival
Superstar
Posts: 2305
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 3:36 pm
Location: Port Moody - BC

Re: Homophobia

Post by Sir Purrcival » Fri Jun 13, 2008 8:35 am

Here we go, I have come up with new more correct term for those who have negative thoughts and feelings about homosexuality.

You are no longer homophobic. You are

"Homohostile"

And the earth continues to turn, people go on with their lives....hmm doesn't seem to be much of a difference.

Maybe I should try and get the rights and sell them to CTV. :tease:
Lest We Forget!

User avatar
Hoof
All Star
Posts: 861
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:28 am
Favourite Team: Calgary Stampeders
Location: Cowtown

Re: Homophobia

Post by Hoof » Sat Jun 14, 2008 6:08 am

It looks like we have a few 'White Owl' smokers on the board.

'Homohostile'? Nice try. You can smoke outside of the closet now because, apparently, it's OK.


Hoof
GO TURD!!

Gerry
Champion
Posts: 3725
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 4:47 pm
Location: Surrey, BC

Re: Homophobia

Post by Gerry » Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:05 am

Sir Purrcival wrote:And yet people still get married. I'm not sure where I see this sanctity in marriage, nail in the coffin concept..

What is it about one couples relationship that has any bearing on another couples? The sanctity is in the quality of the relationship, not in some ever changing religious based ideal of what that relationship should look like.
I disagree. Perhaps I was not clear enough in talking about the sanctity of marriage. I mean the sanctity of the institution of marriage. Marriage as an institution is more than any individual marriage. A true marriage is an ideal, something to aspire to, perhaps never to be attained, but giving us an idea of what the basis of a relationship and a family should be so as give us something to strive for. In my community (the people I grew up with, my extended family back for generations) marriage is a formal life-long commitment between a man and a woman, made public in church and supported and recognized by the state. The state, because it saw the advantage of marriage to a civil and orderly society, gave marriage certain economic and social advantages. Marriage includes children as a natural extension of that union. Indeed, children may be considered to be the reason for the institution in the first place.

Marriage IS a religious institution. It is also a civil one. You can change the definition of something all you like to make it more inclusive or reflective of a changing society, but in the end you will have fundamentally changed that which you are describing and you risk losing its meaning and benefit.
As you have alluded Gerry, there are probably far more examples of hetero couples damaging the "sanctity of marriage" with their conduct than anything that the gay community has done.
Just because one group has done something wrong, does not mean that another should seek to do further damage and formalize it as well. Easy divorce, common-law marriages, marriages of convenience, all detract from the idea of an ideal marriage. They devalue the institution of marriage. Homosexual "marriage" is indeed the biggest, most foul nail in the coffin.
All I really hear from that community is that they want to be able to live their lives with the same dignity that others do and share the same benefits as other couples do.
"That community" is not as homogeneous as you seem to imply. The annual displays they put on in Vancouver do not show me that dignity is something they're interested in. They talk about love and commitment and respect (and for some that may be indeed what they want) yet for the most part their lifestyle is promiscuous, relationships are fleeting, and children that they do produce outside of their main sexual interest are secondary to their baser instincts. I have no problem that in a modern secular society the state may create a legal framework for people who want the economic benefits of marriage. Call it a civil union, whatever. But it is not marriage. You can call it that. You can call a dog a pig as well. You can change the definition, but you will lose the clarity for having a definition in the first place.
The term marriage is not religious property
...if you can't see that it is, this conversation goes nowhere. Of course it is religious, even if not all married couples are religious.
..and nothing going on today is going to kill the idea of marriage.
Wrong. It won't kill marriage, but it will further erode the idea of marriage.
It is just an example of where terminology has adapted to be more reflective of the current state of society. And like it or not, there is nothing here today that wasn't yesterday, last year or 2000 years ago. We are simply getting to place where it is more generally accepted and recognized.
That's a hell of an idea, SP. Things have been going on for hundreds and thousands of years, so let's formalize it. Men have cheated on their wives for years, let's make it acceptable, for example. Really? What next? Polygamy?

The fact that I seem to have to try to explain this is making me ill, so I'll go mow the lawn now.

User avatar
Sir Purrcival
Superstar
Posts: 2305
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 3:36 pm
Location: Port Moody - BC

Re: Homophobia

Post by Sir Purrcival » Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:32 am

Hoof wrote:It looks like we have a few 'White Owl' smokers on the board.

'Homohostile'? Nice try. You can smoke outside of the closet now because, apparently, it's OK.


Hoof
What, have you forgotten so quickly the genesis of this thread? Homophobia is not correct so lets call it something else. Don't like Homohostile, ok, come up with your own label. Please your own sensibilities. As I recall, yours was one of the first posts in this thread agreeing with the original subject matter.
Lest We Forget!

User avatar
Sir Purrcival
Superstar
Posts: 2305
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 3:36 pm
Location: Port Moody - BC

Re: Homophobia

Post by Sir Purrcival » Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:36 am

Gerry wrote:
Sir Purrcival wrote:And yet people still get married. I'm not sure where I see this sanctity in marriage, nail in the coffin concept..

What is it about one couples relationship that has any bearing on another couples? The sanctity is in the quality of the relationship, not in some ever changing religious based ideal of what that relationship should look like.
I disagree. Perhaps I was not clear enough in talking about the sanctity of marriage. I mean the sanctity of the institution of marriage. Marriage as an institution is more than any individual marriage. A true marriage is an ideal, something to aspire to, perhaps never to be attained, but giving us an idea of what the basis of a relationship and a family should be so as give us something to strive for. In my community (the people I grew up with, my extended family http://13thman.com/cheers/posting.php?m ... 9&p=696139#
:whs:back for generations) marriage is a formal life-long commitment between a man and a woman, made public in church and supported and recognized by the state. The state, because it saw the advantage of marriage to a civil and orderly society, gave marriage certain economic and social advantages. Marriage includes children as a natural extension of that union. Indeed, children may be considered to be the reason for the institution in the first place.

Marriage IS a religious institution. It is also a civil one. You can change the definition of something all you like to make it more inclusive or reflective of a changing society, but in the end you will have fundamentally changed that which you are describing and you risk losing its meaning and benefit.
As you have alluded Gerry, there are probably far more examples of hetero couples damaging the "sanctity of marriage" with their conduct than anything that the gay community has done.
Just because one group has done something wrong, does not mean that another should seek to do further damage and formalize it as well. Easy divorce, common-law marriages, marriages of convenience, all detract from the idea of an ideal marriage. They devalue the institution of marriage. Homosexual "marriage" is indeed the biggest, most foul nail in the coffin.
All I really hear from that community is that they want to be able to live their lives with the same dignity that others do and share the same benefits as other couples do.
"That community" is not as homogeneous as you seem to imply. The annual displays they put on in Vancouver do not show me that dignity is something they're interested in. They talk about love and commitment and respect (and for some that may be indeed what they want) yet for the most part their lifestyle is promiscuous, relationships are fleeting, and children that they do produce outside of their main sexual interest are secondary to their baser instincts. I have no problem that in a modern secular society the state may create a legal framework for people who want the economic benefits of marriage. Call it a civil union, whatever. But it is not marriage. You can call it that. You can call a dog a pig as well. You can change the definition, but you will lose the clarity for having a definition in the first place.
The term marriage is not religious property
...if you can't see that it is, this conversation goes nowhere. Of course it is religious, even if not all married couples are religious.
..and nothing going on today is going to kill the idea of marriage.
Wrong. It won't kill marriage, but it will further erode the idea of marriage.
It is just an example of where terminology has adapted to be more reflective of the current state of society. And like it or not, there is nothing here today that wasn't yesterday, last year or 2000 years ago. We are simply getting to place where it is more generally accepted and recognized.
That's a hell of an idea, SP. Things have been going on for hundreds and thousands of years, so let's formalize it. Men have cheated on their wives for years, let's make it acceptable, for example. Really? What next? Polygamy?

The fact that I seem to have to try to explain this is making me ill, so I'll go mow the lawn now.

Wow, lots to respond to and I am not motivated to write a book.

The last first.
The fact that I seem to have to try to explain this is making me ill, so I'll go mow the lawn now.
Lame, just lame. I expect better of you Gerry.

Marriage is not the sole institution of any religion. The moment the state created, recognized and performed civil "marriages" decided that irrevocably. As such, religious bodies do not control the definitions or practises of marriage with the exception of within their own Church structures. They are now also governed by civil law which will hopefully, eventually put an end to some of the "religious" practises the likes of which see in Bountiful, BC. Marriage is ultimately now subject to state control and it decides who can and cannot perform "legal marriages" and what they consist of. Not individual churches or church bodies. Churches have internal doctrine which may further restrict and define but they don't make Provincial policy. The fact that policy hasn't been imposed on individual religious bodies is reflective of our value for religious freedom, not religious exemption from state control.
That's a hell of an idea, SP. Things have been going on for hundreds and thousands of years, so let's formalize it. Men have cheated on their wives for years, let's make it acceptable, for example. Really? What next? Polygamy?


We have Polygamy in BC and that special form of "religion" has approved that practise. It has also come under increase scrutiny, criticism and pressure from civil authority to end the practise. I believe it is only a matter of time before civil action is taken to end it officially. It has taken a long time to get to this point but it is coming. Society at large has to have definitions that differ from that of religious bodies. That is the only way to try and represent all the members of that society.

You concede there is a civil institution to marriage but you then suggest that there is no right to define what that means except along religious lines. Eroding the institution of Marriage? Whose institution? The churches? They can freely decide who they will marry and who they won't but where is the basis for defining civil unions through those ideals? Civil unions that have been called "marriages" for as long as I have been alive. The time to argue semantics has long passed on that one. Should have been done when the laws were written.

As for formalizing things. Yes sometimes it is necessary. How many institutions like eductaion for example have been formalized. Dozens, the laws and practises have changed with the times. Education is now mandatory. It has gone for as long as humans have existed but now it is a recognized and protected under law. Not all things require protection or enshrinement but lets get real, life is what life is. Certain things exist in our world, always have and always will. Some instances will require society to adjust its rules and definitions, some won't. They will always engender controversy either way.

You have a particular POV on what something means. Others have different POV. Who is more correct? I guess I just don't subscribe to the idea that gay married couples are undermining the concept of marriage. I find it quite easy to stretch my conception of the term to include gay couples. Obviously you do not find it so simple. Guess that what makes each of us unique.

I know we will never agree but I hope that never means we can't debate topics without resorting to comments like :puke:
Lest We Forget!

User avatar
Hoof
All Star
Posts: 861
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:28 am
Favourite Team: Calgary Stampeders
Location: Cowtown

Re: Homophobia

Post by Hoof » Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:55 am

Sir Purrcival wrote:
Gerry wrote:
Sir Purrcival wrote:And yet people still get married. I'm not sure where I see this sanctity in marriage, nail in the coffin concept..

What is it about one couples relationship that has any bearing on another couples? The sanctity is in the quality of the relationship, not in some ever changing religious based ideal of what that relationship should look like.
I disagree. Perhaps I was not clear enough in talking about the sanctity of marriage. I mean the sanctity of the institution of marriage. Marriage as an institution is more than any individual marriage. A true marriage is an ideal, something to aspire to, perhaps never to be attained, but giving us an idea of what the basis of a relationship and a family should be so as give us something to strive for. In my community (the people I grew up with, my extended family http://13thman.com/cheers/posting.php?m ... 9&p=696139#
:whs:back for generations) marriage is a formal life-long commitment between a man and a woman, made public in church and supported and recognized by the state. The state, because it saw the advantage of marriage to a civil and orderly society, gave marriage certain economic and social advantages. Marriage includes children as a natural extension of that union. Indeed, children may be considered to be the reason for the institution in the first place.

Marriage IS a religious institution. It is also a civil one. You can change the definition of something all you like to make it more inclusive or reflective of a changing society, but in the end you will have fundamentally changed that which you are describing and you risk losing its meaning and benefit.
As you have alluded Gerry, there are probably far more examples of hetero couples damaging the "sanctity of marriage" with their conduct than anything that the gay community has done.
Just because one group has done something wrong, does not mean that another should seek to do further damage and formalize it as well. Easy divorce, common-law marriages, marriages of convenience, all detract from the idea of an ideal marriage. They devalue the institution of marriage. Homosexual "marriage" is indeed the biggest, most foul nail in the coffin.
All I really hear from that community is that they want to be able to live their lives with the same dignity that others do and share the same benefits as other couples do.
"That community" is not as homogeneous as you seem to imply. The annual displays they put on in Vancouver do not show me that dignity is something they're interested in. They talk about love and commitment and respect (and for some that may be indeed what they want) yet for the most part their lifestyle is promiscuous, relationships are fleeting, and children that they do produce outside of their main sexual interest are secondary to their baser instincts. I have no problem that in a modern secular society the state may create a legal framework for people who want the economic benefits of marriage. Call it a civil union, whatever. But it is not marriage. You can call it that. You can call a dog a pig as well. You can change the definition, but you will lose the clarity for having a definition in the first place.
The term marriage is not religious property
...if you can't see that it is, this conversation goes nowhere. Of course it is religious, even if not all married couples are religious.
..and nothing going on today is going to kill the idea of marriage.
Wrong. It won't kill marriage, but it will further erode the idea of marriage.
It is just an example of where terminology has adapted to be more reflective of the current state of society. And like it or not, there is nothing here today that wasn't yesterday, last year or 2000 years ago. We are simply getting to place where it is more generally accepted and recognized.
That's a hell of an idea, SP. Things have been going on for hundreds and thousands of years, so let's formalize it. Men have cheated on their wives for years, let's make it acceptable, for example. Really? What next? Polygamy?

The fact that I seem to have to try to explain this is making me ill, so I'll go mow the lawn now.

Wow, lots to respond to and I am not motivated to write a book.

The last first.
The fact that I seem to have to try to explain this is making me ill, so I'll go mow the lawn now.
Lame, just lame. I expect better of you Gerry.

Marriage is not the sole institution of any religion. The moment the state created, recognized and performed civil "marriages" decided that irrevocably. As such, religious bodies do not control the definitions or practises of marriage with the exception of within their own Church structures. They are now also governed by civil law which will hopefully, eventually put an end to some of the "religious" practises the likes of which see in Bountiful, BC. Marriage is ultimately now subject to state control and it decides who can and cannot perform "legal marriages" and what they consist of. Not individual churches or church bodies. Churches have internal doctrine which may further restrict and define but they don't make Provincial policy. The fact that policy hasn't been imposed on individual religious bodies is reflective of our value for religious freedom, not religious exemption from state control.
That's a hell of an idea, SP. Things have been going on for hundreds and thousands of years, so let's formalize it. Men have cheated on their wives for years, let's make it acceptable, for example. Really? What next? Polygamy?


We have Polygamy in BC and that special form of "religion" has approved that practise. It has also come under increase scrutiny, criticism and pressure from civil authority to end the practise. I believe it is only a matter of time before civil action is taken to end it officially. It has taken a long time to get to this point but it is coming. Society at large has to have definitions that differ from that of religious bodies. That is the only way to try and represent all the members of that society.

You concede there is a civil institution to marriage but you then suggest that there is no right to define what that means except along religious lines. Eroding the institution of Marriage? Whose institution? The churches? They can freely decide who they will marry and who they won't but where is the basis for defining civil unions through those ideals? Civil unions that have been called "marriages" for as long as I have been alive. The time to argue semantics has long passed on that one. Should have been done when the laws were written.

As for formalizing things. Yes sometimes it is necessary. How many institutions like eductaion for example have been formalized. Dozens, the laws and practises have changed with the times. Education is now mandatory. It has gone for as long as humans have existed but now it is a recognized and protected under law. Not all things require protection or enshrinement but lets get real, life is what life is. Certain things exist in our world, always have and always will. Some instances will require society to adjust its rules and definitions, some won't. They will always engender controversy either way.

You have a particular POV on what something means. Others have different POV. Who is more correct? I guess I just don't subscribe to the idea that gay married couples are undermining the concept of marriage. I find it quite easy to stretch my conception of the term to include gay couples. Obviously you do not find it so simple. Guess that what makes each of us unique.

I know we will never agree but I hope that never means we can't debate topics without resorting to comments like :puke:
Will you ever get that taste out of your mouth, Sir Purr?


Hoof
GO TURD!!

Gerry
Champion
Posts: 3725
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 4:47 pm
Location: Surrey, BC

Re: Homophobia

Post by Gerry » Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:33 pm

Sir Purrcival wrote:
Gerry wrote:
Sir Purrcival wrote:

Wow, lots to respond to and I am not motivated to write a book.

The last first.
The fact that I seem to have to try to explain this is making me ill, so I'll go mow the lawn now.
Lame, just lame. I expect better of you Gerry.

I know we will never agree but I hope that never means we can't debate topics without resorting to comments like :puke:
I'll go "ditto" on your first line and as you can see I'm not going to quote your entire post. I did quote the "lame" comment however because it pisses me off that you are so condescending. You expect better of me, do you? I didn't use a little "puke" emoticon. I said that having to explain the importance and sanctity of marriage as if it was not universally understood (which it seems it is not) was making me ill. It was. And it still is.

As for the rest of your post, I believe that it was intended as a rebuttal to my post (the one you quoted), but I don't believe that you actually addressed any of the points I made. I don't mind carrying on the debate, but you should address the points you quote if you have a contrary opinion, as I did here.

User avatar
Sir Purrcival
Superstar
Posts: 2305
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 3:36 pm
Location: Port Moody - BC

Re: Homophobia

Post by Sir Purrcival » Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:11 pm

Gerry, it was not my intent to "piss you off" nor to be condescending. Quite the opposite. On this occasion, your ill comment seemed to me to be about drama, not what you were debating. My expectations of you are based on previous posts you have made. I tend to enjoy reading what you have to say even if I don't agree with it all of the time simply because you often make good points. You seem to have had a more literal intent when you made the ill remark than I recognized at the time. I misinterpreted what you were saying, nothing more.

As for the topic at hand, if you see nothing in what I said as having any relevance to what was being discussed then perhaps the gulf on this issue is just too large. I obviously don't get your perspective and guess you don't get mine. Perhaps it is better that we just leave it at that.
Lest We Forget!

User avatar
Hoof
All Star
Posts: 861
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:28 am
Favourite Team: Calgary Stampeders
Location: Cowtown

Re: Homophobia

Post by Hoof » Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:12 pm

Ok, break it up you 'homoheterophobicsexualhostiles'! A new CFL season is upon us and that's all that counts now. Maybe we'll resume this topic come December. Si?

GO STAMPS!


Hoof
GO TURD!!

jay64
Rookie
Posts: 192
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 3:18 pm
Location: Moose Jaw, SK

Re: Homophobia

Post by jay64 » Sun Jun 22, 2008 12:14 pm

Actually , FYB asked this question on the CFL.ca site and it sparked quite the debate, with accusations flying back and forth. You can make statements that can be construed as homophobic, but all he really needed to do was this:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homophobia

Gerry
Champion
Posts: 3725
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 4:47 pm
Location: Surrey, BC

Re: Homophobia

Post by Gerry » Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:05 pm

jay64 wrote:Actually , FYB asked this question on the CFL.ca site and it sparked quite the debate, with accusations flying back and forth. You can make statements that can be construed as homophobic, but all he really needed to do was this:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homophobia
Those are such loose definitions that they mean nothing. A phobia is a fear. Most people referred to as being homophobic do not fear homosexuals.

jay64
Rookie
Posts: 192
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 3:18 pm
Location: Moose Jaw, SK

Re: Homophobia

Post by jay64 » Sun Jul 06, 2008 7:53 am

Gerry wrote:
jay64 wrote:Actually , FYB asked this question on the CFL.ca site and it sparked quite the debate, with accusations flying back and forth. You can make statements that can be construed as homophobic, but all he really needed to do was this:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homophobia
Those are such loose definitions that they mean nothing. A phobia is a fear. Most people referred to as being homophobic do not fear homosexuals.

That's rich. So most who are labelled as mysognists don't fear women then? I would argue the opposite, that most who are labelled homophobic fear them on some level, and probably don't want to associate or be around them in general. Their fear is largely baseless to start with, because most gays and lesbians are people that don't fit the stereotype. I know about this because I've encountered many same sex oriented people in my adult life. I don't fear, and in most cases have a lot of respect for them, because they are for the most part, the nicest people you could hope to meet. I have another story to put this into some prespective for you.

At my job, there was one woman who was a chronic alcoholic, and the most miserable person I have ever met. She had maybe one or two people who could tolerate her-- and she had an absolute hate for one her co-workers, who just happened to be a lesbian. Granted, this person is a little off the wall, but she is generally a good worker. The alcoholic woman berated her constantly and just had it in for the co-worker-- up until last week , when store management finally had enough of this person. She was sent home and told she would be called when they needed her. Last week the store manager phoned her and asked her to come in to have a talk- but she said she was busy, so he asked her to come in the next day and she said she couldn't come in that day either, so she was fired. Her irrational fear clouded her judgement-- and she paid the price for it. The lesbian woman is that way because of horrific abuse by a male in her life- she doesnt trust men and prefers the company of a woman. I don't know her whole story, but from what I have gathered, she must have been abused at an early age and often by a man or men in her childhood. Its too bad that some cowards have nothing better to do than to abuse kids and screw them up for life.

The dictionary definition is very accurate, it may generalize, but speaking in generalities, a good portion of the public has homophobic tendencies- I see it quite often , and it truly amazes me how ignorant some people are on this issue.

Gerry
Champion
Posts: 3725
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 4:47 pm
Location: Surrey, BC

Re: Homophobia

Post by Gerry » Sun Jul 06, 2008 2:39 pm

jay64 wrote:
Gerry wrote:
jay64 wrote:Actually , FYB asked this question on the CFL.ca site and it sparked quite the debate, with accusations flying back and forth. You can make statements that can be construed as homophobic, but all he really needed to do was this:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homophobia
Those are such loose definitions that they mean nothing. A phobia is a fear. Most people referred to as being homophobic do not fear homosexuals.

That's rich. So most who are labelled as mysognists don't fear women then?
Aren't you confusing hate with fear? The two are not the same. They may both be present at the same time, but that would vary from person to person.
I would argue the opposite, that most who are labelled homophobic fear them on some level, and probably don't want to associate or be around them in general.
Again, you confuse fear with dislike. It is possible to dislike someone without fearing that person; in fact it is quite common.
Their fear is largely baseless to start with, because most gays and lesbians are people that don't fit the stereotype. I know about this because I've encountered many same sex oriented people in my adult life. I don't fear, and in most cases have a lot of respect for them, because they are for the most part, the nicest people you could hope to meet. I have another story to put this into some prespective for you.
Your first sentence in this paragraph renders the remainder meaningless. You assume a fear where, for the majority, it does not exist.
At my job, there was one woman who was a chronic alcoholic, and the most miserable person I have ever met. She had maybe one or two people who could tolerate her-- and she had an absolute hate for one her co-workers, who just happened to be a lesbian. Granted, this person is a little off the wall, but she is generally a good worker. The alcoholic woman berated her constantly and just had it in for the co-worker-- up until last week , when store management finally had enough of this person. She was sent home and told she would be called when they needed her. Last week the store manager phoned her and asked her to come in to have a talk- but she said she was busy, so he asked her to come in the next day and she said she couldn't come in that day either, so she was fired. Her irrational fear clouded her judgement-- and she paid the price for it. The lesbian woman is that way because of horrific abuse by a male in her life- she doesnt trust men and prefers the company of a woman. I don't know her whole story, but from what I have gathered, she must have been abused at an early age and often by a man or men in her childhood. Its too bad that some cowards have nothing better to do than to abuse kids and screw them up for life.
I'm not sure what your point is with this story, jay.
The dictionary definition is very accurate, it may generalize, but speaking in generalities, a good portion of the public has homophobic tendencies-
And I say that it is not accurate at all. A phobia is an intense fear of something. Consider every other phobia, such as a fear of heights, or spiders, etc. People become irrationally panic stricken at the presence of whatever triggers the particular phobia they suffer from. Many people do not like spiders, for instance, but they don't suffer from arachnophobia.
I see it quite often , and it truly amazes me how ignorant some people are on this issue.
So, anyone who makes a moral judgement that differs from yours is suffering from ignorance or a phobia, or both?

To quote you, "that's rich".

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest