[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Brokeback Mountain was a box office success. Middle America supported it overwhelmingly. Surely that’s enough, isn’t it? Does everyone have to agree with everything? Many gays call heterosexuals “breeders,” a term that definitely implies revulsion. But so what?
I pointed that out as part of a larger whole.
Lets say a relatively small number of people protested Brokeback Mountain.
And a small number of people have ever attacked someone for being gay.
And a small number of people protest with “God Hates Fags” signs.
Now assuming that there isnt 100% crossover (that its not the same people doing all those things), can we agree that it MAY add up to a relatively significant number of people who have actively gone out of their way with anti-gay demonstrations?[/quote]
Matthew Shepard died a long time ago. It was tragic, but how many young men have been beaten to death since then?
As for the other stuff, I would imagine that there is a great deal of crossover. If you’re energetic enough to carry signs protesting a movie, you’re in the minority. Chances are you’re the same energetic freak running around looking for anti-gay demonstrations.
Didn’t Mick just call you a girl (“she”)? Yes, he did. I’m not writhing in misery over it. Even though he used my people to slander you. Others cannot make you feel inferior without your consent.
[quote]How many people do you know who had fears of admitting to their friends and/or family that they were straight? Or been brought up in a religion that teaches that being straight is evil, and straight people are doomed to eternal damnation?
[/quote]
Who wants to admit to his or her family that they’re having sex at all?? My friend calls her pregnant sister “Jane, that big sex-haver.” It cracks us up. We’re just playing, of course, but still, it wouldn’t be funny if sex wasn’t still such a loaded issue in our society.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Brokeback Mountain was a box office success. Middle America supported it overwhelmingly. Surely that’s enough, isn’t it? Does everyone have to agree with everything? Many gays call heterosexuals “breeders,” a term that definitely implies revulsion. But so what?
I pointed that out as part of a larger whole.
Lets say a relatively small number of people protested Brokeback Mountain.
And a small number of people have ever attacked someone for being gay.
And a small number of people protest with “God Hates Fags” signs.
Now assuming that there isnt 100% crossover (that its not the same people doing all those things), can we agree that it MAY add up to a relatively significant number of people who have actively gone out of their way with anti-gay demonstrations?
Matthew Shepard died a long time ago. It was tragic, but how many young men have been beaten to death since then?
As for the other stuff, I would imagine that there is a great deal of crossover. If you’re energetic enough to carry signs protesting a movie, you’re in the minority. Chances are you’re the same energetic freak running around looking for anti-gay demonstrations.
The difference between “fag” and “breeder” lies in the fact that both live in the same heterosexual accepting, gay unaccepting society. How often do you hear people called breeder? Now, how often do you hear people called “fag” or “faggot”? How often do you hear the term “gay” being used negatively even when the issue of actual sexuality never comes up (“Paying taxes is fucking gay!”)?
Didn’t Mick just call you a girl (“she”)? Yes, he did. I’m not writhing in misery over it. Even though he used my people to slander you. Others cannot make you feel inferior without your consent.
How many people do you know who had fears of admitting to their friends and/or family that they were straight? Or been brought up in a religion that teaches that being straight is evil, and straight people are doomed to eternal damnation?
Who wants to admit to his or her family that they’re having sex at all?? My friend calls her pregnant sister “Jane, that big sex-haver.” It cracks us up. We’re just playing, of course, but still, it wouldn’t be funny if sex wasn’t still such a loaded issue in our society.
[/quote]
Emily, I agree with you that things should be equal between people of different sexualities.
But trying to claim that heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same worries over “admitting to having sex at all” is flatly wrong.
What I’m gathering from you is that you dont see why gays feel the need to have parades and other forms of “gay pride”.
[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
In the same way, I think gay pride is only a direct result of a homophobic society.
[/quote]
I disagree. It may have started that way. Now, it has become just a cry for attention.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
If gays could live normal lives, if they could talk about their partners or hold hands or kiss in public, if they could get married, etc, then they wouldnt identify themselves as “gays” as much as they do. They wouldnt feel the need for “gay pride” because they wouldnt have the idea of “gay shame” pushed upon them. If the whole “we really dont care” thing were actually true, they really wouldnt care either.
[/quote]
I think that it is that way, for the most part. Hell, it is even that way in some parts of East Texas.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I think Chewie’s position is entirely reasonable. He seems to be asking simply that he not be required to celebrate something he doesn’t like and doesn’t care about. That seems fair.
[/quote]
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Oh, right, Emily also got “You want to see a Nazi parade!”
Almost forgot about that one.[/quote]
I meant to say earlier…the Nazi parade thing was in response to my comment that I think parades are nice, and people should be able to throw them for any reason or none.
It was a fair question, I think, given what I’d said.
“Answering what turned out to be a bogus report of a man behaving erratically with a gun, Deputy Joseph Quinn arrived at an apartment building east of Houston about 10:30 p.m. and met Roger Nance, 41, who had phoned in the complaint, authorities said.”
This isn’t what you said, the police weren’t called for a violation of the anti-sodomy statute or because someone was being a homosexual, they were called for a weapons charge.
It is what I said, a “you read it on the internet”. It didn’t happen in your neighborhood or quite probably even your state but you act as though homophobia is something homosexuals experience everyday and live in constant fear of when, in fact, the police the police are more likely to kick down your door on accident than because you’re gay.
As with the failure of Bush’s Anti-Gay Marriage Bill, this shouldn’t be and isn’t an example of homophobia. The “victim” spent a night in jail, the person who called the police spent two weeks for filing a false report.
[quote]Strawman. My message was never “They should have to change their signs”. My message was “The fact that they carry such signs is an example of homophobia in the United States.”
You’re starting to sound like Mick.
No, I dont think they should be forced to change their signs, BUT THAT WASNT THE FUCKING POINT. THE POINT WAS PEOPLE SHOULDNT CLAIM THAT “WE DONT REALLY CARE” WHEN PEOPLE ARE GOING AROUND WITH GOD HATES FAGS SIGNS.
God dammit why do I have to spell this shit out for you people?[/quote]
Okay, you’re right, homophobia exists at pretty much the same levels as anti-semitism (according to the UCR). Pretty much the only way homosexuals will be able to live without fear of any persecution is if the government were to somehow wrest control of peoples’ minds and stamp out free speech.
A white homosexual man is just as likely to be a victim of a hate crime because he’s white as he is because he’s a gay man. Once again, you’ve proven me to be a fool ignorant to the plight of homosexuals.
You’re doing a pretty good job of proving my point. Much the same way dads everywhere aren’t decrying the use of the term “motherfucker” and black people the use of the term “coon”, people don’t generally care about the use of the term gay as a derisive modifier. Especially since the whimsical/trivial/superficial/pointless definition is the classical meaning.
Everyone except vocal homosexuals and you.
So, what should be an example as the system working on behalf of homosexuals is really an example of how it’s working against them? You’re portraying marginal homophobic behavior as rampant.
And either you’re saying something should be done about it (regardless of free speech and regardless of other equally rampant and egregious ‘offenses’ against other groups) or you’re babbling.
[quote]The guys who killed Matthew Shepard?
Would you mind coming up with 78 more names?
I’m sure it wouldnt be that hard.[/quote]
Then you wouldn’t mind producing them. For every person killed in last 20 yrs. for being gay, you can find at least two killed for being Jewish or Christian and about 7 for being black.
It’s not proof. You’re cherry-picking marginal and insignificant data portray a group or collective behavior. When, in fact, the only reason that behavior occurs in those number is because of those peoples’ rights to free speech and thought. I doesn’t show that we care, it shows that the only way we could care more is to obliterate any dissenters indiscriminately.
This is what I’m talking about trampling the idea of rights. It’s not about whether they do, or whether they actually can, it’s about whether they perceive they can. It’s not about rights, it’s about perceived rights.
You misunderstood. I am married. Prior to being married, I, legally, couldn’t marry a man. After being married, I still can’t marry a man or a woman. As a heterosexual, I have never been more free than any homosexual and, at this point, I am arguably less free.
[quote]Trust me, you do it more than you realize. Its something that we, as heterosexuals, take for granted. Seriously, give it a try. Its a lot harder than you’d imagine.
And thats not even considering the reasoning behind it; removing the photos of your wife from your desk because you’re conducting a minor social experiment is one thing… knowing that you could never have pictures of your lover/partner at your desk because it would cause your coworkers to think very differently of you is another thing entirely.[/quote]
Once again, you can’t even guarantee that it’s highly likely that something actually criminal will befall me. All you can do is ask my trust about vague assertions of some actual or perceived lack comfortability. Moreover, you can do this with an sizable lack of knowledge about my lifestyle and workplace.
I doubt it, I’m not the one inflating marginal crimes and statistics to represent “us”.
Okay, thanks. I’ve found studies in every direction, but they all seem too propagandized to be taken seriously. I thought there might be a “final word” on the matter that you would know about.[/quote]
I think we’re still a long way from the first word.
[quote]Your mention earlier in the thread that some of my data seemed anti-male made me wonder, as I have in the past, if some women choose lesbianism as a reaction to negative experiences with men, and if so, what percentage of them. I don’t think I’ve even run into a man who’s become homosexual after a bad relationship with a woman, but I feel that I have run into the reverse.
However, my experience with male homosexuals is limited, so maybe I just haven’t run into them, or haven’t been intimate enough with them (in, you know, the platonic sense) that they’d share their past relationship miseries.[/quote]
Anecdotally, I’ve known one that I would describe as having mother issues and another that I would describe as having vaginophobia (which I would only consider “wrong” in that it isn’t normal sexual behavior for men). I couldn’t be more specific as they don’t pry into my personal life and I return the favor.
Unfortunately, the cards are stacked against you. Men who suffer domestic abuse are enormous under-reporters. I’d say that the prevalence/severity of this might surprise you, but I’m not CappedandPlanIt. I think men can, do, and should tolerate it or at the very least, there’s not an intolerable injustice going on.
Homosexuals don’t have the same rights as someone in a normal male/female relationship.[/quote]
I disagree. A gay man and women living together for a protracted period of time are subject to the same “common law marriage” statutes as a straight man and woman. A gay man/woman is free to marry someone of the opposite sex and barred from same sex marriage just like a straight man/woman is.
Most remaining anti-sodomy statutes (e.g. UCMJ) pertain to any sodomy regardless of orientation. IMO, the reason gay rights are a myth is because;
Unlike emancipation and women’s suffrage, while a homosexual may not be able to alter his sexual orientation, hiding/altering the perception of his/her orientation in either direction is quite easy. Completely corroding the idea of an inalienable right.
Unlike emancipation and women’s suffrage, proponents of gay rights seek to exceed, expand, or distinguish from “straight rights”. Women weren’t asking to for a female vote or slaves asking for free black speech. They were seeking rights deemed intrinsic to humanity by the constitution. Gays seek rights deemed intrinsic (see above) to homosexuals by themselves.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Emily, I agree with you that things should be equal between people of different sexualities. [/quote]
But CappedAndPlanIt, you seem to be saying that you want preferred treatment. Kid gloves.
Too, you’re generalizing to all straight people everywhere when you talk about the difficulties faced by gays (here I’m using the term to represent all homosexuals), which is hypocrisy when at the same time you insist that people be treated as the individuals they are.
Identity politics are ultimately unworkable for anything more than the most surface of discussions. Don’t you see that you’re talking about the .01% of straights who carry signs that say “die fags,” while Mick is talking about the .01% of gays who french kiss in public?
I think you’re forgetting that identity causes all sorts of problems. I’m able to drive my Audi to my little corner of the ghetto and park it at work without any worry about harassment because they know me there, but I would hesitate to park two blocks away and get out and wander around. Because at that point my individualism would be subsumed by my outward characteristics.
Poor kids hate rich kids, blacks hate whites, fundamentalist Christians hate goths and Jews and liberals and Catholics, Mexicans hate blacks, liberals hate Christians and big business…it goes on and on and on. But those are groups. It doesn’t say anything about the individuals within the groups. Most of those individuals hate no one.
[quote]But trying to claim that heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same worries over “admitting to having sex at all” is flatly wrong.
[/quote]
I believe I’m right, and further, I think I have more experience in this area than you do, and my experience is current. I counsel teenagers, both individually and in groups, both gay and straight, and I can tell you that many kids of both orientations feel a great deal of anxiety over the matter.
Pregnant teen girls still start crying when they think about telling their parents that they’re in trouble. Why? Because sex is fraught. Sometimes parents reject kids who aren’t behaving as they want them to. Gay and straight.
Of course, I know…and you do, too, right?..that pregnant teens and gay kids coming out at home have in common that their parents are going to have to deal with shattered dreams on top of the sex issue. In both cases, futures are dramatically altered.
No more can mom and dad imagine that things will follow a traditional course. Teen moms will have economic difficulty, trouble making a good match for marriage, and so on. Gay kids won’t marry and produce grandchildren.
But nonetheless, a lot of it is simply about sex in my opinion. The pregnant girl who has an abortion will still experience a changed relationship to her family. She had sex. She let them down. The gay kids are having sex in a way that’s aversive to their straight parents.
“Answering what turned out to be a bogus report of a man behaving erratically with a gun, Deputy Joseph Quinn arrived at an apartment building east of Houston about 10:30 p.m. and met Roger Nance, 41, who had phoned in the complaint, authorities said.”
This isn’t what you said, the police weren’t called for a violation of the anti-sodomy statute or because someone was being a homosexual, they were called for a weapons charge.
[/quote]
Read the fucking paragraph again. BOGUS report of a man behaving erratically with a gun. Do you know what BOGUS means? It means fake, or false, or dishonest, or untrue.
Or are you now going to say it was a coincidence that someone used a BOGUS report to get a cop into a building with two people having consentual sex so those two people could be arrested? Durrrh.
You’re suggesting that homosexuals do not experience homobhobia every day? Walk around a mall holding a guys hand. Then see how much you experience.
Oh wait, thats playing the sympathy card.
Or, ya know, the reality card. Depends on if you have the luxury of covering your ears and screaming I DONT HAVE TO CARE I DONT CARE I’M RIGHT!"
Ah, I see, the “It could be worse, so we shouldnt care” angle. Nice
When did I say anything that could be even misinterpreted as that?
Heres a clue, genius: I didnt.
I already explained my stance on what I think is wrong and what I think should be illegal. You are, again, trying to build a strawman with your ridiculous “YOU’RE A BIGOT BECAUSE YOU’RE BIGOTED AGAINST BIGOTS!” 2+2=22 logic.
False. I dont have the time right now, but I’ll look it up and post links to the actual data.
Does common use of “gay” as a derisive modifier indicate or reflect homophobia in American society? Yes or no.
I’m portraying homophobic behavior as homobhobic behavior. You’re trying to justify/ignore it because not enough people were homophobic enough to support it.
Wooo woooo. Here comes the clue train, last stop is you:
I’ll explain this, again:
Someone said “We really dont care”
I interpreted that as “Generally our society does not care about homosexuals or homosexuality.”
So I listed a number of examples that prove otherwise.
Now you’re trying to build strawmen in accusing me of trying to strip peoples free speech (nonsense) or that “SOMETHING MUST BE DONE” (nonsense), and now, I have to suggest that something be done.
Ok. Heres what should be done:
People should not claim that homophobia is not clearly present in American society when it very clearly is.
Happy?
Are you justifying those deaths? If so, you are truly a sick fuck.
I gave examples of specific people expressing outright homophobia (the people who picket with GHF signs) AND examples of “common” homophobia (using “gay” to mean bad or calling someone a “faggot” to insult them).
But, of course, when I give specific examples, they’re too specific, when I give general examples, they’re too general.
Go figure, right?
The only reason I call niggers niggers is cause I got free speech!!!
Right?
And, btw, that behavoir does show that people care. You are now just pounding your foot and insisting that it doesnt.
How many times do I have to explain this?
I think its wrong that they would deal with such discrimination. But I’m not advocating giving homosexuals a dirty look to be illegal.
I brought up the fact that they cannot as an example of the homophobia in our society, which you continue to downplay or deny altogether.
“I dont know what Jimmy is talkin about, trying to marry a nigger. What do you mean he aint got the same rights I do? I cant marry a nigger and neither can he! Thats fair!”
Right?
The point is that people have the natural right to enter into a contract with another person.
I’m not going to explain the specifics, I’m gonna be stupid and assume that you can infer things like “consenting” person and “does not harm any nonconsenting others”, etc.
To say that “this couple can get married” but “this couple cannot” is state-sponsored discrimination. It is wrong and should be changed.
I love it. “I cant marry a man and neither can he! Its fair! 2+2=22!!”
“They dont suffer ENOUGH for it to be a problem!”
Ignorant.
Then why not man up and actually do it?
Oh wait, you’re an ignorant little child who refuses to face reality, and you need to put your widdle blanket over your head and swear that, since you cant see somethin, it aint there!
Unlike those who use the logic of “I think being gay is wrong therefore it should be illegal”, I understand that there is a difference between what I think is wrong and what should be illegal.
I don’t think anyone said it should be illegal. As a group I think that we’re just tired of them pushing their sick agenda in our faces. If they want to be queer then go ahead and be queer. Why do we have to see them parading up and down the street groping each other?
So, please, stop accusing me of “trampling free speech” or any of that other nonsense, ok?
Stop trampling on people’s free speech.
[/quote]
Show one quote of mine where I “Trampled on peoples free speech”
Thats understandable. But the fact remains that there are many things that heterosexuals can do that would not be considered “flauting their sexuality” whereas a homosexual doing the same things WOULD be.
There’s a reason for that.
Homosexuals don’t have the same rights as someone in a normal male/female relationship.
And if you think I’m wrong then just look at marriage rights.
In most states homo’s don’t even have civil rights.
Your live in liberal la la land. Thankfully the rest of the country does not.[/quote]
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Emily, I agree with you that things should be equal between people of different sexualities.
But CappedAndPlanIt, you seem to be saying that you want preferred treatment. Kid gloves.
[/quote]
Cite. Quote. Copy and fucking paste ONE thing I said about homosexuals deserving special rights.
One thing.
Heres a clue, just to speed you along: You cannot, because I never did.
But have fun fucking trying.
So its a hypocracy to observe widespread homophobia in our society?
You’re joking, right?
ugh. Again, I give specific examples, and they are too specific.
Now, I’ll give a general example:
WHAT ABOUT THE 90% OF PEOPLE WHO USE THE TERM “FAG” AS AN INSULT OR USE THE WORD “GAY” DO DESCRIBE ANYTHING THEY DO NOT LIKE?
Oh wait. Thats a general example. Thats too general. That doesnt count either.
Right?
And then, Emily, how would you react if someone was talking about that neighborhood and said “We really dont care about whites around here”, when you’ve observed that, in fact, they do have a problem with whites around there?
Would you, maybe, I dunno, argue that they were wrong and that “they” really “do” “care about” whites around there?
Being a member of a group does not absolve you of personal responsibility.
They both have anxiety over the specific action of telling their parents that they have become sexually active.
When those little straight kids get through that, and a few years later go to a dinner with their parents and some of their parents friends, do you think they’ll worry about the topic of their sexuality coming up?
Hmmm. I wonder.
How many straight kids do you know who had their futures “dramatically altered” JUST FOR revealing that they were straight?
Not that they had sex.
Not that they were pregnant.
JUST that they were attracted to members of the opposite sex.
Gays face the same problems even if they aren’t having sex, though.
“I like a boy” causes just as many “shattered dreams” as “I had sex with a boy.”
Now try to argue that a boy going home and saying “I like this girl…” could possibly have the same effects.
I really hope you dont think you can argue that as being true.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
However, my experience with male homosexuals is limited, so maybe I just haven’t run into them, or haven’t been intimate enough with them (in, you know, the platonic sense) that they’d share their past relationship miseries.
Anecdotally, I’ve known one that I would describe as having mother issues and another that I would describe as having vaginophobia (which I would only consider “wrong” in that it isn’t normal sexual behavior for men). I couldn’t be more specific as they don’t pry into my personal life and I return the favor. [/quote]
If you find yourself in conversation with either of them again I’d really appreciate it if you could pry just a little bit more, okay?
[quote]Just an ongoing curiosity of mine.
Unfortunately, the cards are stacked against you. Men who suffer domestic abuse are enormous under-reporters. I’d say that the prevalence/severity of this might surprise you, but I’m not CappedandPlanIt. [/quote]
You’re right. I’m failing to take into account the difference in reported abuse, both spousal/partner and childhood. That does pretty much blow my theory.
You’ve lost me. Are you saying that men should tolerate abuse?
By the way, from a point made way upthread…I hold hands in public. I also pretty regularly stand with my back to my husband (leaning against) with his arms around me. I guess those are public displays. I’m okay with pretty much anyone doing the same, over the age of…um…15.
Although, the hand-holding thing…when my husband initiates this, which he frequently does, it may have more to do with my tendency to get distracted and a desire on his part to keep me moving in the right direction than a display of affection.