[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, if you used the label, it’s open to discussion.[/quote]
Oh by all means, I’m just saying the definition of the word is fairly loose. I believe it came about because most homophobes are indeed afraid of “catching” the gay. Possibly an AIDS thing, I don’t know.
I like how the spell check for “homophobes” suggests “homophones”.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Way back in high school I knew guys who were queer stompers. I never went along and most of the time they were cool but they’d tell stories about finding some gay guy and pounding the shit out of him. One of these guys was later caught setting fire to bums. The cops saw him squirting lighter fluid on a bum and at first thought he was pissing on the guy. For all I know, the dude is still in prison.
I knew some crazy motherfuckers growing up. Glad I stayed sane!! ;D[/quote]
Did you call the police? Being the morally upright person you are, I’m sure you notified the proper authorities about the crimes you knew were being committed.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Well, if you used the label, it’s open to discussion.
Oh by all means, I’m just saying the definition of the word is fairly loose. I believe it came about because most homophobes are indeed afraid of “catching” the gay. Possibly an AIDS thing, I don’t know.
I like how the spell check for “homophobes” suggests “homophones”.[/quote]
But what’s a “homophobe?” Someone who finds homosexuality as perverted as two lovers rubbing shit on each other? Or, is it narrowly targeted at those who won’t allow a marriage between two men to be recognized by the state? And by the way, why does it have to be two homosexual males?
In my mind there should be a distinction between private and public or individual and state on this topic.
In fact … there are a lot of issues that get confused in this regard.
What I mean is … on a personal level the gay (or ghey? what is it with that spelling?) lifestyle poses no threat to me or mine … any more than a whole range of other lifestyles are really none of my business. But on a societal level I think you’re kidding yourselves if you think that it isn’t detrimental.
So I’m all for tolerance of gay people as individuals … but when the government as spokesmen for what’s best for society starts singling out homosexuality for special treatment and thereby encouraging more of it … I think it’s nuts.
We choose to give marriage special incentives because we recognize families and children as essential. The egalitarian idea that this therefore means we HAVE to also encourage homosexuality at the same time in order to be fair strikes me as absurd.
I don’t think the govt should pass laws against gays … it should simply remain neutral. In other words … society has a right to encourage children.
Frankly on the whole nurture vs. nature front, it seems to me there is clearly a percentage (who knows what percentage?) of guys living that lifestyle who could go either way. We’ve all met the gay guys who are extremely effeminate (is that homophobic?) and I’m persuaded that that is nature at work and I suspect they are not making a choice.
But I do think if you make something acceptable and even encourage it you’re going to get more of it. And beyond the fact that the US is the only western democracy that still has a positive birthrate and we need kids … the fact is that the gay lifestyle by any measure is a living hell so why would we encourage it at all.
Also … to the original question, In my observation those dudes who’ve I observed over the years to get some kind of satisfaction out of pointing out a gay guy … or making fun of a gay guy or bullying a gay guy (although I’ve never actually seen that last one for myself) clearly have some other issues going on.
They’re either over compensating or they’re the same guys who’d enjoy pulling the wings off flies and beating up the smallest kid in class.
Almost every buddy of mine I’ve ever known has done some ribbing in this area. When I was a kid … any wimpy action was greeted with a “way to go faggot” or the equivalent … and let’s face it … it is funny. But I don’t recall anyone ever doing it in the presence of someone we thought was actually gay … in other words in a cruel way …
And that’s all I got to say on that topic … I hope …
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What’s with the use of “Homophobia?” Does that include people who aren’t afraid of homosexuals, yet find them perverted? I mean, I think those who participate in scat play are engaged in a revolting sexual lifestyle. Does that make me a fecalphiliacaphobe?
Yes. Yes it does. Are you going to deny them their right to shit on each other? If not, than no one gives a shit.
Plenty of people find homosexuality disturbing, yet they don’t give a shit if gays get married, adopt kids, or have sex with each other. They’re homophobes, but they’re tolerant homophobes.
Tolerance isn’t liking of encouraging something, it’s tolerating it.
But Homophobia means one fears homosexuals. Sort of like arachnophobia, where one would literally run and scream if confronted with a spider. Or, Claustrophobia, where one will NOT ride an elevator, possibly even if it was the only exit out of a burning building.
So “Homophobia” comes off as an pretty bad misuse of words. I’ve yet to meet someone opposed to male on male marriage, who would break into a sweat, and run from a store, because a flaming homosexual was heard lisping at the register.
And, I definetly think “tolerant homophobe” is silly. Anyone else object to Phobias being so dumbed down, that people use the term to shut up the other side in an arguement? “Hey you Democratophobe!” “You Christianophobe!” “You Iraq warophobe (muhaha)!”
Edit: Does this mean if I oppose two heterosexual male long term roommates “marrying” (hey, they’re committed life long bachelors as far as women go, so why not?)for the benefits, I’m a heterophobe?![/quote]
Arguing semantics. Lovely.
Homophobia is commonly used as a term to describe people who are uncomfortable thinking about or interacting with homosexuals. Fair usage means its word roots are irrelevant in this case, just like how one can say ‘irregardless’ the same way one uses ‘regardless.’ People have done it so much that its not considered incorrect usage anymore.
[quote]flyboy51v wrote:
In my mind there should be a distinction between private and public or individual and state on this topic.
In fact … there are a lot of issues that get confused in this regard.
What I mean is … on a personal level the gay (or ghey? what is it with that spelling?) lifestyle poses no threat to me or mine … any more than a whole range of other lifestyles are really none of my business. But on a societal level I think you’re kidding yourselves if you think that it isn’t detrimental.
So I’m all for tolerance of gay people as individuals … but when the government as spokesmen for what’s best for society starts singling out homosexuality for special treatment and thereby encouraging more of it … I think it’s nuts.
We choose to give marriage special incentives because we recognize families and children as essential. The egalitarian idea that this therefore means we HAVE to also encourage homosexuality at the same time in order to be fair strikes me as absurd.
I don’t think the govt should pass laws against gays … it should simply remain neutral. In other words … society has a right to encourage children.
Frankly on the whole nurture vs. nature front, it seems to me there is clearly a percentage (who knows what percentage?) of guys living that lifestyle who could go either way. We’ve all met the gay guys who are extremely effeminate (is that homophobic?) and I’m persuaded that that is nature at work and I suspect they are not making a choice.
But I do think if you make something acceptable and even encourage it you’re going to get more of it. And beyond the fact that the US is the only western democracy that still has a positive birthrate and we need kids … the fact is that the gay lifestyle by any measure is a living hell so why would we encourage it at all.
Also … to the original question, In my observation those dudes who’ve I observed over the years to get some kind of satisfaction out of pointing out a gay guy … or making fun of a gay guy or bullying a gay guy (although I’ve never actually seen that last one for myself) clearly have some other issues going on.
They’re either over compensating or they’re the same guys who’d enjoy pulling the wings off flies and beating up the smallest kid in class.
Almost every buddy of mine I’ve ever known has done some ribbing in this area. When I was a kid … any wimpy action was greeted with a “way to go faggot” or the equivalent … and let’s face it … it is funny. But I don’t recall anyone ever doing it in the presence of someone we thought was actually gay … in other words in a cruel way …
And that’s all I got to say on that topic … I hope …
[/quote]
Rationality on these boards? What’s the world coming to? ;D
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What’s with the use of “Homophobia?” Does that include people who aren’t afraid of homosexuals, yet find them perverted? I mean, I think those who participate in scat play are engaged in a revolting sexual lifestyle. Does that make me a fecalphiliacaphobe?
Yes. Yes it does. Are you going to deny them their right to shit on each other? If not, than no one gives a shit.
Plenty of people find homosexuality disturbing, yet they don’t give a shit if gays get married, adopt kids, or have sex with each other. They’re homophobes, but they’re tolerant homophobes.
Tolerance isn’t liking of encouraging something, it’s tolerating it.
But Homophobia means one fears homosexuals. Sort of like arachnophobia, where one would literally run and scream if confronted with a spider. Or, Claustrophobia, where one will NOT ride an elevator, possibly even if it was the only exit out of a burning building.
So “Homophobia” comes off as an pretty bad misuse of words. I’ve yet to meet someone opposed to male on male marriage, who would break into a sweat, and run from a store, because a flaming homosexual was heard lisping at the register.
And, I definetly think “tolerant homophobe” is silly. Anyone else object to Phobias being so dumbed down, that people use the term to shut up the other side in an arguement? “Hey you Democratophobe!” “You Christianophobe!” “You Iraq warophobe (muhaha)!”
Edit: Does this mean if I oppose two heterosexual male long term roommates “marrying” (hey, they’re committed life long bachelors as far as women go, so why not?)for the benefits, I’m a heterophobe?!
Arguing semantics. Lovely.
Homophobia is commonly used as a term to describe people who are uncomfortable thinking about or interacting with homosexuals. Fair usage means its word roots are irrelevant in this case, just like how one can say ‘irregardless’ the same way one uses ‘regardless.’ People have done it so much that its not considered incorrect usage anymore.[/quote]
Common or not, it’s ignorant. Phobias are real disorders, with very real consequences for the sufferer.
And, even accepting the term, it would have as much meaning as calling someone a scatplayophobe or a vomitsexphobe.
I don’t hate gays, It’s not homosexuality that makes me uncomfortable, it’s feminine behavior from straight or gay guys and even then it just pisses me off, I don’t really “hate”, but men not acting like men does bug me, lisping on purpose pisses me off too but that’s not necesarilly a gay or straight trait.
Angry at men lesbians piss me off, one’s that aren’t assholes are the same as everyone else to me. I think mariage is between a man and a woman, but having a legal union between gays with the same benfits doesn’t bother or affect me at all. Live and let live.
I think gays should just go back to Africa if they don’t like it here. Wait…sorry wrong thread.
JK. JK.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Common or not, it’s ignorant. Phobias are real disorders, with very real consequences for the sufferer.
[/quote]
Thanks, captain psychology!
As debatable as any term can be, homophobia is the term used in the scientific literature - even the CDC seems to see no problem using it (as proven in many threads before).
‘Phobic’ isn’t only a psychiatric or medical term, it is also being used to denote a strong aversion. Like eg. xenophobia - which normally doesn’t describe a pathological fear either. There is hydrophobia in chemistry, etc.
So, besides the fact that it may indeed indicate a deep-seated fear (materialising in worrying about the effect the ‘gay agenda’ may have while sitting in your living room) motivating people to display homophobia, the term is linguistically genuine, accepted and not misplaced.
Trying to abolish it seems to me to be just another move towards political correctness.
Makkkun
[quote]makkun wrote:
‘Phobic’ isn’t only a psychiatric or medical term, it is also being used to denote a strong aversion. Like eg. xenophobia - which normally doesn’t describe a pathological fear either. There is hydrophobia in chemistry, etc.
Makkkun[/quote]
Ah, xenophobia, the other badly misused word. Like I said, homophobia has about as much meaning as calling someone a vomitsexphobic. a furryphobe, or fecalphiliacophobe. Maybe homosexual males are vaginaphobic?
And no, Political Correctness doesn’t call one to question the term’s use. In fact, the term’s use is driven by PC.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[…]
Ah, xenophobia, the other badly misused word. Like I said, homophobia has about as much meaning as calling someone a vomitsexphobic. a furryphobe, or fecalphiliacophobe. Maybe homosexual males are vaginaphobic?[/quote]
Nonetheless, xenophobia is a proper word with a proper use. That people may misuse it doesn’t say anything that it’s not an appropriate term with a clearly defined meaning. Etymologically, phobia includes aversion, which perfectly fits the xeno- as well as the homo- varieties. Ignoring that may feel attractive, but doesn’t add to the discussion.
I’ve attached a list of medically defined phobias for your pleasure. My favourite in the context of this discussion is logophobia (words). 
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O87-phobiasandphobicstimuli.html
Political correctness comes down to questioning the use of terms people feel uncomfortable with - trying to further a change of societal views on certain issues by changing language. Using that on an accepted, legitimate and semantically correct term like homophobia is just that. Maybe coming from a different angle than the usual PC supporters - but using the same method.
Makkun
[quote]makkun wrote:
Sloth wrote:
[…]
Ah, xenophobia, the other badly misused word. Like I said, homophobia has about as much meaning as calling someone a vomitsexphobic. a furryphobe, or fecalphiliacophobe. Maybe homosexual males are vaginaphobic?
Nonetheless, xenophobia is a proper word with a proper use. That people may misuse it doesn’t say anything that it’s not an appropriate term with a clearly defined meaning. Etymologically, phobia includes aversion, which perfectly fits the xeno- as well as the homo- varieties. Ignoring that may feel attractive, but doesn’t add to the discussion.
I’ve attached a list of medically defined phobias for your pleasure. My favourite in the context of this discussion is logophobia (words).
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O87-phobiasandphobicstimuli.html
And no, Political Correctness doesn’t call one to question the term’s use. In fact, the term’s use is driven by PC.
Political correctness comes down to questioning the use of terms people feel uncomfortable with - trying to further a change of societal views on certain issues by changing language. Using that on an accepted, legitimate and semantically correct term like homophobia is just that. Maybe coming from a different angle than the usual PC supporters - but using the same method.
Makkun[/quote]
I know what they are, hence my arguement. And, I seriously doubt this thread was narrowly aimed at true phobics. I’m not putting forth a PC arguement, I’m simply pointing out the wrongness of using the term. Trying to shut up the opposition by dropping the overplayed “homophobe” card…now that’s PC, and predictable. Like I’ve said, what’s next, we all start calling each other “taxphobes,” “taxcutphobes” “religionphobes,” “secularphobes,” “pro-choicephobes,” “pro-lifephobes,” “entitlement programphopes,” etc., etc.? It’s cheap and PC. Leave the diagnosing up to professionals and stop crying wolf.
For example. Why can’t I stand the really “gay” gays? Yes, because of how they act. That’s homophobic? Am I emophobic too, because I can’t stand they way they act? Phobic doesn’t mean dislike.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I knew some crazy motherfuckers growing up. Glad I stayed sane!! ;D
That is most definitely up for debate.
You seem to be very fired up by this thread, bro. Is there something you’re not telling us? I know English majors are kinda famous for certain ‘inclinations’, like having their lover whisper poetry in their pinkshell of an ear, from behind.
I guess I can understand you being upset by my attack on your lifestyle.
Now you’re calling me gay??? Hahahahahha What a cunt you are.
I get more pussy on a Tuesday than you’ve seen in your entire fuckin’ life jerkoff. You don’t have to be gay to despise racist, homophobic piece of shit like yourself… you just have to have a sense of justice. Which, obviously, you have no concept of.[/quote]
You just graduated and you’re forgetting punctuation and how to properly construct sentences. Shameful…
You have to admit that you’ve gotten pretty worked up over a thread discussing gay issues. And Bruce at the garden center doesn’t count as pussy, even if you have a little tryst on Tuesdays.
How the fuck is it PC that we would rather use the term “homophobia” than say “those who are ignorant and intolerant of homosexuals” every time?
It’s lazy and a matter of convinience, not political correctness. If anything, by telling someone NOT to use the term homophobic, you are being politically correct.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
How the fuck is it PC that we would rather use the term “homophobia” than say “those who are ignorant and intolerant of homosexuals” every time?
It’s lazy and a matter of convinience, not political correctness. If anything, by telling someone NOT to use the term homophobic, you are being politically correct.[/quote]
Your post is one big contradiction. So because someone sees homosexuality as deviant, you drop a diagnoses of “phobia” on them. Ah, but no, I’m being PC. Riiiight. I guess I’m furryphobic too! Look, we can all make an internet diagnosis! Anyone else vomitsex phobic?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
How the fuck is it PC that we would rather use the term “homophobia” than say “those who are ignorant and intolerant of homosexuals” every time?
It’s lazy and a matter of convinience, not political correctness. If anything, by telling someone NOT to use the term homophobic, you are being politically correct.[/quote]
There are all sorts of phobias, yet no one expects these to be a matter of free will. Having a fear of heights or crowds is not a matter of choice.
In essence, the word ‘homophobia’ means to fear gays. That’s very different than disliking gays or discriminating against them.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
makkun wrote:
Sloth wrote:
[…]
I know what they are, hence my arguement. And, I seriously doubt this thread was narrowly aimed at true phobics. I’m not putting forth a PC arguement, I’m simply pointing out the wrongness of using the term. Trying to shut up the opposition by dropping the overplayed “homophobe” card…now that’s PC, and predictable. Like I’ve said, what’s next, we all start calling each other “taxphobes,” “taxcutphobes” “religionphobes,” “secularphobes,” “pro-choicephobes,” “pro-lifephobes,” “entitlement programphopes,” etc., etc.? It’s cheap and PC. Leave the diagnosing up to professionals and stop crying wolf.[/quote]
I can’t really answer this, as you choose to ignore the semantic meaning and appropriate usage of the term in its correct context. Homophobic does not only denote a phobia in the medical sense - narrowing it down to that may seem convenient, but it still misses the point. Sorry, I can’t change your language’s terms and their correct use for you - so I can’t really comment further on this point.
In some contexts phobic indicates aversion, not psychological fear - but in some cases indeed people seem to fear homosexual behaviour though. The more conspiracy theories I read wrt the ‘gay agenda’ the more I am willing to entertain the thought that there is indeed a pathological basis for homophobia in many cases. But - who am I to argue that? The term as it stands is sufficient and is being used even by the CDC, so it’ll be good enough for me.
I don’t know why you can’t stand certain people or groups - it is normally something in yourself, and only you will have the answer why they bother you so much. I wouldn’t be so disrespectful to suggest fear as a basis.
Makkun
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
How the fuck is it PC that we would rather use the term “homophobia” than say “those who are ignorant and intolerant of homosexuals” every time?
It’s lazy and a matter of convinience, not political correctness. If anything, by telling someone NOT to use the term homophobic, you are being politically correct.[/quote]
Nice to see someone agree.
Makkun