Category: Let's talk
HERE'S DEFINITELY an EXTREMELY HOT TOPIC: today, while in a group, THIS was the question that was raised: "What's the difference between one who's homopheobic, anti-homosexuality, and just an out-and-out gay-basher?"
I will attempt to answer in the order as such: a "HOMOPHEOBE," which one that's HOMOPHEOBIC is often referred to as, is one, who's DEFINITELY HETEROSEXUAL, that's PARANOIED of one who's HOMOSEXUAL, to the point of not even wanting to be in the VERY SAME AREA with him; OBVIOUSLY, this is an UNHEALTHY state, JUST AS IT WOULD BE for a HOMOSEXUAL, who could be HETEROPHEOBIC. GAY-BASHING, of course, means to ATTACK one for being homosexual; THAT, IN-AND-OF ITSELF, is just DOWNWRONG WRONG. Now, one, such as MYSELF, who's ANTI-HOMOSEXUALITY, is just SIMPLY one that TOTALLY DISAPPROOVES of the HOMOSEXUAL LIFE-STYLE, but YET, has ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with associating with ANY OF THOSE who are homosexual.--TO BE CONTINUED
I think you and I are in the same category. I think of this lifestyle as abnormal, only makes up a tiny percentage of the population, but there is much about the human condition that is sometimes abnormal, for example behaviors like gluttony, so I really try to be a live and let live sort of person. If I dislike a person it has to be for a reason other than being gay. I am turned off, for example, by sneaky meanness & hypocrisy, whether they be from a straight or gay person.
I disagree with both of you, and think it's very normal. Just because it's not you, and you may not agree with it, doesn't mean it should be lumped into the so-called "abnormal" category. What is "normal" anyway? Having said that, I definitely appreciate the fact that you aren't bashing homosexuals. That says a lot, I think.
I agree with Jess. I think it's closed minded to say it's "not normal".
Homophobe: one who has a paranoid, almost obsessive fear of anything to do with homosexuality.
Anti-homosexual: a vague term stating that you are against homosexuality, not what part of that spectrum of dislike you are on.
Gay-basher: someone who simply takes delight in hurting people, and finds gays good targets.
Like it or not, a scary amount of human beings are sadists, psychologically or physically. Watching people hurt and suffer is fun to quite a lot of people. With all the uproar over homosexuality, we give many people an opportunity to do what they like best: cause pain.
Sadly, I agree with the previous post completely.
People shy away from the "abnormal" label because "abnormal" is bad. It isn't, it's just not normal.
If 95% of people had blonde hair, you'd be abnormal as a redhead, but that simply means you're not the majority. The same goes for homosexuality, or even bisexuality for that matter. It is abnormal only in the sense that it's representative of a minority of all living things, to my knowledge, and is, in itself, not conducive to the furthering of a species. Homosexual animals of any kind cannot mate and thus cannot perpetuate the species.
I, personally, have absolutely zero problem with homosexuality or bisexuality or anything of the sort. Some people choose it, but mostly I think homosexuality chooses people...which is to say that we are born a certain way and mostly can't help it. I have no patience for people who want to hurt others for their sexual preference, and the "I don't approve" mentality equally upsets me. Who is anyone to approve (or not approve) of a lifestyle that is not their own? The strongest thing I'll say, and indeed the strongest thing to which any self-respecting human being is entitled in my own opinion, is that lifestyle x (whatever x happens to be) is not something I have chosen, or would choose. I will not say that I "don't approve" and will not say it "isn't right", and I won't wave the "not normal" flag as a way to put distance between myself and those of our human community who are homosexual. This is ultimately not much different than segregation based on race.
What is approve or disapprove anyway? And what good is it to disapprove of something you don't like, don't understand and probably don't even have to contend much with?
By definition, homosexuals are an extreme minority within the population of any species, though our species isn't exclusive in having homosexual members.
It's easy for me to disapprove of baked winter squash: No matter how they said I would learn to like it, I don't. But it would make positively no logical sense whatsoever for me to first disapprove of others eating it, and second enjoying it. And what would that accomplish, except for making me come out to be a complete goof?
There is real psychological evidence - nonreligious, real science, - that there are those who for whatever reason can undergo therapy or whatever, to change from gay to straight. Who could 'disapprove' of them doing that, if they're feeling 'trapped' that way? I know people who have actually changed their biology hardware to become another gender, so why not the software? That's the unique quality of being human, we have the capacity to change some rather extraordinary things about ourselves if we find it advantageous.
If I could gain sight, I'd no doubt take it, not because of supposed pressure from those who have a problem with being blind, but because it would be advantageous. One could argue, no offense implied, evolutionarily advantageous. There'd be a lot more I could do, or at least do more quickly, than I can now.
I'd probably catch some 'disapproval' for that, too ...
Just want to thank Gregg, Iyana and Leo for such excelent posts.
As a Christian, I've read in the Bible that homosexuality is something that God does not condone. Does he love the person anyway? Absolutely! He also says that we should love thy neighbor as thyself. That means love them as they are and let God judge them. I have gay friends and love them simply as the people that they are. Them being gay is simply something I accept. I don't particularly agree with that lifestyle, but I will never ever hurt or shame them because of that. I chose to be with someone of a different race. Some would disagree with that and they might try to pull something out of thei ear to prove that my choice was wrong or shameful. As long as you keep your opinions and nasty attitude to yourself, we're cool...and I imagine it's the same for those of any lifestyle.
I respect those who disagree, as long as you keep it an opinion.
Some choose to make homosexuality a lifestyle by flawnting themselves or making it very obvious that they are such. I myself do not make it a lifestyle rather it's just a preference. I do nto flawnt myself nor do I push myself on other people me being who I am is no one else's business but my own, and it fools people when I say i am gay. Homosexuality should be any factor in who your friends are. It is one thing to not really care for the lifestyle, but to not approve is closed minded.
The last post was very well said. Dislike it if you want, but don't disapprove. We are allowed to dislike a certain lifestyle just as we might dislike lemons or thunderstorms or mud. It's no one's fault, and all one need do is remember that those who embody said lifestyle, if you don't like it, might take it personally if you say so or make it known. Mud and lemons don't take things to heart.
ACTUALLY, there IS a DIFFERENCE between "DISAPPROVING" and "CONDEMNING," which SIMPLY MEANS that JUST BECAUSE one may DISAPPROVE of HOMOSEXUALITY, for example, NEVER, EVER MEANS that one CONDEMNS the HOMOSEXUAL. For instance, let's say that I told you that I don't approve of drinking alcohol (that's not TRUE, but ANYWAY ...), which would ONLY MEAN that if YOU drank, and WE were the VERY BEST of FRIENDS, or EVEN IF we WEREN'T, but it was JUST a MATTER of "doing unto YOU what I would want done unto ME," I wouldn't be CONDEMNING you, AT ALL, if you were to ask ME to buy you a drink, and I refused, CARINGLY, if there's ever such a word, based upon MORAL principles that I would be governed by, and not YOU, necessarily. Well, it's the VERY SAME SCENARIO: if you were gay, and I'm your friend, relative, etc., and you asked me to dance with you, and we're the same sex, I would say something like: "Well, I would rather dance with the OPPOSITE SEX, but I hope you'll find someone who IS the same sex, that wouldn't mind, AT ALL, dancing with you."
To me, that doesn't really hold water. You don't have a moral right to disapprove of something that might not be a person's free choice. You can dislike its results, can dislike the choice itself if it goes against your principles, but disapproval is a very light form of moral condemnation in cases like this. It seems to come up mostly with regard to homosexuality, and even though I'm not gay it really really ticks me off. I won't get specifically into -why it does, but suffice to say that I utterly loathe it when anyone at all tells me that one lifestyle, choice or persuasion is somehow less than another. No doctrine, group or individual has the right to engage in what ultimately amounts to gentle moral apartheid.
I believe that anyone is allowed to disapprove of whatever they like. However, they better be ready to accept that many people may disapprove of their disapproval.
Tolerance is not the embracing of something, it's the acceptance and putting-up with of something. I tolerate screaming children, for example, because it would 1) be illegal for me to kill them and 2) would result in me getting yelled at by their parents should I suggest they take their runts out of the public eye until they've calmed down.
Disapprove of whatever you want. So long as you're willing to tolerate it and not make someone else's life more annoying with your opinion, godspeed.
Why should it matter to you how others live their lives, so long as they don't harm you in doing so? Refusing to take part in such activities may be neither disapproving, nor condemning them; rather, you choose not to participate because of your personal preferences. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. However, by complaining, or openly opposing this lifestyle, you're indirectly becoming involved. If you don't like it, don't participate. Shouldn't it be left at that?
Being homosexual or bisexual is abnormal, just as being left-handed or a siamese twin.
I don't have a problem with homosexuals. However, two people of the same sex being together in a sexual manner disgusts me, but so do some people's sexual fetishes.
"normal" is such a relative term. How is it fair to call a lifestyle that isn't your own "abnormal" just because it isn't your own?
As stated before, normalcy is not a social stigma, it's a matter of majority. People automatically assume abnormal is bad just because it's not normal. It isn't, though...society just wants you to think it is. This is why we're taught the same things and have certain beliefs instilled in us by the culture we drink in through the media and such. Social norms today say that women should be thin, so when a woman isn't thin she's often upset and thinks she needs to lose weight; this happens even if she isn't actually larger, and happens so often that it saddens me...but now I'm getting off topic.
People flinch from "that's not normal" because there's an automatic "and that's a bad thing" attached to it. Being gay is abnormal because the grand majority of the human race is heterosexual and because being homosexual will not perpetuate the species. That's it.
I am not sure about the ultra thin woman stereotype. It's the sort of thing everyone says, but I am not so sure.
For sure some women (and men too for that matter) need to lose some serious weight in this society, and we are not talking stick figure look either, but that's beside the point.
I find quite a few people equate being gay with being something special and be all in your face about it (not referring to their genetals, thankfully), and I don't think that is right either. The Gay Pride Parade and gay guys who have to start talking with a horrible lithp and dress up in pink stalkings everywhere.
I am not saying it applied to all gay people, but this annoys me, being gay makes them nothing special to me, only makes them have some sexual preferences I do not understand, which is something I have no problem with whatsoever.
Just be normal, don't think being gay makes you more special and don't talk about bleaching your butt in every day coversation, and I wish you all the best luck with your lovelife and in all other things, and I am perfectly happy with, and for you.
Well, naturally, if you act normal, people are more likely to treat you as such. Blindness shouldn't be anything special, but it is if you make it so. Having said that, I can see how the constant criticism would bring on things such as "gay pride", and that sort of thing. I don't have a problem with these things in the least, and encourage them to continue, but at the same time, I can see how the "in your face" kind of behavior would annoy some people.
Functionally speaking, there's very little difference between gay pride and street-preaching. Both serve little purpose but are, at least in part, brought on by a form of oppression; it's a reaction that seems to say, "The heck with you...I'll do what I want and this is how I show it". Both have the potential to upset people because it can get very in-your-face and can thusly be found quite offensive. It amuses me a little to realize that some of the people who'd shout that gay pride, and homosexuality itself, is a sinful abomination, are all too happy to mount a soapbox in the name of whichever fervour they favour. Sorry, folks, but they're the same thing.
I'm not accusing anyone in this topic of being such a person, mind you. It just struck me that some people find the...more flagrant sides of homosexuality offensive but wouldn't be offended by a similarly aggressive display of some other denomination.
It kind of bugs me to be around flaming gays. I am not one and to me is kind of overexaggeration and really isn't necessary. It would be like saying me being blind you disapprove of. I'm stilla minority, and could be kin to saying, "no I dont' want you to hold my arm, find someone else that will". Being gay might be a minority, but calling it abnormal really is not the right word. Why people continually make a huge ass stink about it is beyond me but whatever. As I said before, it's just a preference, though some choose to flawnt it. Thats uncalled for in my book, but you know, whatever, I don't disapprove of it at all, I just choose not to be around it. And why should one who is gay really have any effect on a friendship. Say if you had a friend of several years, and you gave him a hug goodbye or something like that and he didn't know you were gay, but later you told him. And say he didn't like gays. Assuming you acted straight not flawnt in the least, that just proves my point that no one needs to know you are gay and that hugging a gay person is just fine. It also builds trust in that your friend then would know that you don't mean to encourage any sexual moves on you. Well at least I'd never do that to any of my friends anyway. Calling it absnormal to me implies it's some sort of disease. For god sakes it's just a preference.
And a preference some people can't help, at that. Most of these questions of propriety oughtn't even cross the mind, as far as I'm concerned.
I'm just as apt to be put off by flagrant homosexuality as I am by flagrant religiousness or any other sort of zeal.
When I was much younger, I did my best to keep my sexual preference secret. When I was a teenager, I wanted to be liked, to be popular. I've had a few friends over the years who were great friends, until they found out, and then they deserted me faster than you could snap your fingers. Now that I'm 39, I simply find it easier to let people know soon in to the friendship, rather than getting attached to someone only to have them treat me like a stranger when they find out. maybe it's a sort of weeding out process. And maybe 10 years from now, I'll see this as a totally wrong approach, but this is where I currently am.
Don't be ashamed of it. If people are so shallow that they can't continue being your friend because of it, that's their loss, and they were never a true friend anyway. As long as you respect the fact that they very well may not share that preference, then why not be friends?
For the simple reason that I don't want to be misled by the belief that someone is my friend, only to find out that they weren't when my preference comes out. I'd just rather weed those people out before hand. I thought I was clear on that. Not sure how to better explain my position. I had a couple of male friends who I felt very close to, but they were under the false impression that I was straight. Once they found out differently, it was all over. I don't want to go through that again. I wasn't the one who ended the friendships. If it had been up to me, we would still be friends. And no, I'm not ashamed of who I am or what I like.
Here's how I look at a couple of things touched on in this topic.
Disapproval. I can disapprove of just about anything anybody does I suppose, but when I look at it, it's not worth the time or energy, especially if your goal is to change a person's thinking or behavior. I figure unless people are emotionally connected to me somehow and respect my opinion, they will not listen to me and will continue doing exactly what they were doing. If I'm disapproving just for my own feeling of satisfaction for doing it or to feel morally superior, ugh, that still doesn't feel worth the bother either. I have more amusing stuff to do than that.
OK, this whole bit about normal and abnormal. You can say what you will, but many people are what I call worshippers at the church of normal. They're convinced that anything that is normal is always good all the time and that which is abnormal is all bad, all the time, and probably merely for not being normal. When this term is used, especially by people who look at themselves as representing what is normal, to be normal is to be some sort of bearer of a standard, the elite, the preferred, the people everyone should look up to and want to be like. Abnormal people are less than human, freaks, mutants, creatures to be pittied and scorned. and should not have the same rights or treatment that normals are given. Me, I'm not hung up on what is normal and what is not. Folks are folks to me, gay or straight.
I look at the whole "normal" vs "abnormal" description not as a license to mistreat another person, but on a probability & statistics sort of way: of two possible outcomes, which one is more likely? In the case of homo or heterosexual human beings, more people are heterosexual. Homosexual is a possibility, but is it the majority, or the norm? I don't think so...
My line of work, some tests have a "positive" or "negative" possibility for results, and depending on the test, "Negative" is likely to be the norm. On a pregnancy test, since most women don't spend a majority of their lives pregnant, "positive" is the abnormnal. Same with the use of "abnormal" with straight or gay. I don't think it's as widespread as some make it out to be, aka "the norm", but I consider it a personal matter and treat people the same straight or gay.
If you want to get really technical, very few people, if anyone is "normal", because almost everyone has a characteristic, whether physical or emotional, shared by few others. If all you have to do to be "abnormal" is to be part of a minority, then I'm abnormal, and proud of it.
It goes the other way too though: Sometimes people think merely being abnormal, or minority, makes them cool, special, flag barers for a new age of awesome. I guess that comes back to the gay being cool attitude that I disapprove of (and any kind of zeal indeed).
I find it is ok to identify yourself by a hobby or deed, I am a swimmer, I graduate from university, I work at x, but merely characterize yourself by a characteristic you did not actively work to achieve somehow seems more annoying to me "I am blind, I am gay, I am straight, I have red hair). I realize this is not really logical, as being gay, well, it does not take work to be gay, but it takes work and courage to deal with the consequences of one's bodily desires so I happily contradict myself right there.
It's weird, but I cannot imagine feeling any differently about a friend if he were gay. I have a lot of female friends and, surprise, I have not slept with all of them .. not even a tenth of them, I think in fact only one "long term friend" .. so assuming that my first gay friend would want to do me first chance he gets, seems a little unrealistic.
Being a swimmer and sleeping in the same room as a bunch of guys, or one guy, and showering with them on a daily basis pretty much gives any opportunity for gay attraction and acting on it, and, indeed, one guy from our old swim club turned out gay, which is cool for him. He never hit on me .. and I am not sure whether to be offended, lol.
Spongebob was talking about characteristics, not people.
When I lived in Florida I had a house with some abnormal characteristics, for Florida: It was a totally wood-framed house, in other words buffet du jour for termites.
That didn't make me, my house, the taxes I paid on it, or the yard abnormal.
The combined characteristic of being both wood-framed and in Florida was abnormal, even though were it located up here in Oregon it would be completely normal, aka many houses are wood-framed.
So spongebob was only referring to a characteristic.
Apparently, even among the blind, it is an abnormal characteristic to have literally no optic nerves - which is what I have. The medical words for it 'congenital agenesis of the optic nerve' are only a description, one doctor told me, it's not a name like many conditions are, like RP. So few have it, it's not in their books: basically the hardware is just missing.
In saying that characteristic is peculiar to a very minute segment of the population, nobody is saying that *I* am abnormal: only that characteristic, by numbers, happens to be.
You are right of course: as human beings we need not behave as wolves, or sharks, or many other animals who expel members from their community on the basis of color or any other physical characteristic that is peculiar to a very small population. People who do are acting like animals, and people who don't are acting like humans.
One really good reason I could never join a back to nature movement ... but that's a subject for another board.
No one characteristic defines us anyway: the whole is mathematically greater than the sum of its parts anyway.
I'm abnormal:
blind
pagan
bi
oh look, three things right there...
someone going to lock me up? I'm just saturated with abnormality...