Category: Let's talk
Not long ago, I was in a group discussion on a particular phone system that I won't name, and it JUST SO HAPPENED that someone in the group had mentioned that he was approached by another male, who BOLDLY asked him for his name and OTHER contact info, and was showering him with complements on how well-dressed he was, to which, he politely thanked him, but respectfully declined to give the approacher what he asked for, and when he was asked WHY, he said that he ONLY divulges his info to WOMEN. ALTERNATELY, he WAS WILLING to give him a DIRECT NUMBER to a COMPLETELY-ANNONYMOUS MESSAGE box, if he wanted to be PLOTONIC FRIENDS, ONLY, but the approacher became offended, and called him a "HOMOPHOBE" for SIMPLY having been rejected.
ANOTHER time before THAT, I, MYSELF, was on my way to a particular location, and sitting next to me was a woman who, SUDDENLY asked me how I felt that the US SUPREME COURT should decide in the "SAME-SEX-MARRIAGE" case (OBVIOUSLY, this was PRIOR to FRIDAY, JUNE 26), and I respectfully responded, by saying that GOD'S ONLY PYRAMETER for MARRIAGE is between two of the OPPOSITE sex. "That's YOUR opinion," she retorted. MY response to THAT was: "By WHO'S AUTHORITY is this MY OPINION? I never said that it was," to which, she got up, stormed off, SCREAMINGLY calling ME a "HOMOPHOBE." How is it possible for US, the guy who rejected the other guy's forward advances, and MYSELF, for answering the woman's question, as well as questioning her response to my answer, to be the "PHOBES," when THEY were the ones, behaving like "PHOBES (HETEROPHOBES, if you will), THEMSELVES, when THEY didn't get what they were after?
We all get rejected from time to time. It's how we deal with it that matters. I can kind of see to a small point why the gay guy got offended, but only with the wording of the man being approached. Let's say the approacher was a perspective employer. Would the approached man say, "Sorry, but you're a man, and I only give my info to women, so I'll have to turn down your offer of any possible jobs you have for me."
Of course not. The rejection might have possibly been taken better if the approached guy has simply said that he was straight and he wasn't interested. Somehow I doubt it though. Those up in your face insecure people like that do tend to get really mad when they get rejected, taking their frustration out on those who have rejected them. It's just that the homophobe insult is popular right now. Straight guys do this stuff to women all the time. She won't put out for him, so she's probably just a fuckin' dike anyway, right? what's the real difference? But no, I don't think it makes him a homophobe for letting the guy know he wasn't interested. However, it does need to be pointed out that people can say one thing and do another. ever had a woman give you mixed signals? If so, you know how frustrating it can be. A lot of guys will scream really loud about being straight, but they will play with other men privately, as long as they're secure in the knowledge that no one will ever find out. This type of stuff does a great disservice to all parties.
It doesn't make the guy homophobic. He just doesn't swing that way. No big deal.
The guy doing the rejecting could have just politely said "no thanks".
Maybe I'm just used to deception, but I can't help but wonder about the rejector, only because he offered to give the guy a number to a mailbox where they could be friends, (sort of hinting around at a secret.) If the rejected guy was already insecure and used to being shunned, it's very likely that he could have taken it as a sign that this guy might do some playing on the downlow. That might just be my perception. I have a rather clouded view, since I'm used to the guys who want to play when they get horny enough, but once they've cum, they'll say something like, "Now get outa here, faggot." Perhaps the rejected guy picked up on that as well. But to me, if the guy said no, then he meant no, (whether he really did mean it or not.)
Speaking for MYSELF, I happen to know guys that are into the same-sex behavior, and BECAUSE of such, even though it wouldn't divulge my TRUE number, REGARDLESS of HOW ANNONYMOUS, I CERTAINLY wouldn't give them even THAT contact, because like Anthony SAID, and I DEFINITELY AGREE with, ALTHOUGH the "REJECTOR" knew that he wasn't EVER going to indulge the DISGRUNTLED SEEKER, it COULD/WOULD/DOES open that "MIXED-MESSAGES" door. HERE, as a PERFECT example, if a guy (whether or not if I know if he's into the same-sex behavior) sends me a QN, without ANY RESPONSE, WHATSOEVER, I IMMEDIATELY click "IGNORE" to ALL future QN'S. There's ABSOLUTELY NO NEED for me to "ASK/TELL/DEMAND/WHATEVER" him to stop QN'ING me, since I'd stop him, MYSELF, and NOT ONLY are his QN'S blocked, but his PRIVATE-SENT MESSAGES, as WELL. He's ONLY ALLOWED to message on ANY/ALL of my BOARD TOPICS, as well as respond to any of my GRAFFITI posts, which I hadn't posted any of THOSE in SO LONG!
The guy could have just said "no thank you." Very true;no need for rudeness. Maybe the rejecter is actually gay and just wasn't interested in the guy hitting on him. Just another spin on the whole thing.
Consider the source. My money would be placed squarely on the original
poster not telling, or not knowing the whole story. I've known several instances
of christians saying wildly homophobic things, and not understanding why they
were disliked afterward. I'd be willing to bet that we aren't getting the whole
story here. Its possible I'm wrong, but in both cases, I doubt it. Especially in the
second story. Like I said, consider the source.
Lets say the story is so.
If you aren't going to give a person your number, why give them any at all?
Anthony's correct.
Yes, that is a good point.
The point that I'M making, SILVERLIGHTNING, as well as EVERYONE ELSE, is: calling US "HOMOPHOBES," instead of "SAME-SEX-INTOLERANT," when it's not US that hold "HETEROSEXUAL PRIDE" PARADES, EQUAL-RIGHTS PROTESTS, in confusion of how we identify, GENDERWISE, and so on, contains JUST as MUCH WATER as a sieve. "PHOBE," like "PHOBIC," derividives of "PHOBIA," which describes INTENSE FEAR OF, CERTAINLY DOESN'T equal INTOLERANCE. INTOLERANCE of OTHERS, which THAT'S wrong, CERTAINLY DOESN'T equal INTOLERANCE of BEHAVIOR, because the BEHAVIOR'S not the PERSON, NEITHER is the PERSON the BEHAVIOR. GOD CERTAINLY LOVES, UNCONDITIONALLY, the LGBTQ-BEHAVING PERSON, just as EQUALLY INTENSE as HE HATES, UNCONDITIONALLY, the LGBTQ BEHAVIOR. Is THAT WILD ENOUGH for you?
So you have a problem with the word homophobe? I can understand that. It's just a label; are people out there really afraid of gay people? If so, wow! I've personally never had a fear of a certain group...strange.
But is God's hatred of the homosexual lifestyle equal to his hatred of something like thievery, adultery and murder? Why is it that some sins are more sinful than others, or is that just the spin put on it by man?
My god the following, the lady riding alongside you should have not gone off and labeled you a homophobe. If she didn’t like you’re answer perhaps she should not have asked you. Not agreeing with your opinion on a hot button issue like gay marriage does not entitle anyone to label you a homophobe. Your point of view is based solely on religious dogma.
Instead of getting upset she might have inquired about your stance?
Perhaps could have asked, why just a man and a woman? Why not two men or two women? Furthermore, I say keep the term marriage.
Give me the rights afforded to straight married couples in deciding all medical treatments both physical and mental. Allow me the right to see my partner in the hospital. Allow me to be present, and have a say so in the funeral arrangements. Give me any and all financials burdens, benefits, and responsibilities too. Why not? Heterosexual people enjoy these rights. We don’t care if heterosexuals want to reserve the word,”marriage” for them. Hell, the glbt community can coin such fabulist creative and fierce term just for us. Just don’t prohibit us from being involved in any and all decision making when it comes to the person we chose to spend our lives with. Don’t keep us away from our sick partners, from their funerals, nor deny us all the rights and privileges offered to heterosexual marriages because we are gays or lesbians.
No, it's DEFINITELY NOT that I, MYSELF, have a PROBLEM with the WORD, ITSELF, NOR do I have a PROBLEM with the CONTEXT that the word's USED in, ONLY BECAUSE neither the WORD, its MEANING, nor the BEHAVIOR, as DESCRIBED, has EVER presented itself as a PROBLEM to me, but INSTEAD, ANY/ALL of the ABOVE presents an "IDLE CURIOSITY," be that as it IS, although it IS TRUE that there ARE those who are heterosexuals, that ACTUALLY ARE AFRAID of those that behave same-sexually, I'M one who's NOT. Those that ARE, could be those that are DISRESPECTFUL, as well as RESPECTFUL, of those that same-sexually behave, which DOES narrow to the VERY FACT that JUST BECAUSE one happens to say offensive things against another, because of their same-sex BEHAVIOR, and they're NOT AFRAID of them, DOESN'T qualify them as a "HOMOPHOBE," but it DOES qualify them as INTOLERANT of the PERSON/PEOPLE who same-sex-behave, which THAT, and THAT, ONLY, is NOT how JESUS wants us to behave towards one another, AT ALL. One who's TRULY "HOMOPHOBIC, is one that IS afraid of those that express the BEHAVIOR, who can STILL be ABSOLUTELY RESPECTFUL to them, EVEN IF they're TOTALLY DISAPPROVING of ONLY the BEHAVIOR, summing it ALL UP to mean that "HOMOPHOBIA" isn't the OFFENSE, but the DEFENSE, just as ALL FEAR, REGARDLESS of its INTENSITY, is. The LIKELYHOOD of those that are TRULY HOMOPHOBIC SEEMS, although I'm not SURE of the ACTUAL STATUS QUO, LESS--perhaps FAR LESS than those that are intolerant of the behavior, ONLY, and/or the people with the behavior.
To answer YOUR question, Anthony, in GOD'S EYES, there's ABSOLUTELY NO SIN, WHATSOEVER, that's ANY MORE or LESS SINFUL than the OTHER, ONLY because ALL SIN is EQUALLY 0-TOLERATED by HIM. It's ONLY US, MANKIND, that would devise a "RATING SYSTEM," ESPECIALLY should we happen to think of OURSELVES as "NOT AS BAD as the NEXT, or ALL the REST.
Would have been the same if you got called fridget, or a bitch.
Just a put down. Nothing more.
Right, but is homophobe also used literally? Do Some people actually fear gay people?
Gay people have their pervs too. So, if someone was aproached by a homosexual perv, suspect they'd be scared of gay people, till they figured out that not everyone is going to start feeling you up.
Anyway, The creater of this topic is right. It's us, meaning man, that put more weight on one sin or the other.
I did have two not-so-nice encounters with lesbians. I don't hate them, but one was old, and seemed to me she was trying to aproach me, by actions.
The other hated us because we worked there for a fund raiser, and we needed accomodations. I think she felt like: Blind and disabled get their rights, and why not me? Kind of like a chip on the old shoulder. I think she in her mind had reason for anger. But, you don't run a company by being a rude person; gay straight, or bi.
I'm not scared of gays or lesbians. Just had a few run-ins. To even the balance, I know some really cool people who are lesbian or gay. And, they know how I personally feel. They don't hate me either.
Blessings,
Auntie me!
EXACTLY! I, MYSELF, don't fear those that same-sexually-behave, although I DO SET CERTAIN BOUNDARIES.
If you felt that people that were not political correct were stupid, you might use it as an insult.
Or, if this person were actually interested in the man and got mad, he'd call him this insult, just like a guy does a woman that turns him down. "bitch!"
It all just goes to show the strength that lies in words. Were it that we could live in a society where words have less power to harm than they do. As one who seems to say dumb things sometimes, I'd love that. But words also have the ability to heal and lift up as much as they put down. Homophobe, intolerant, love, acceptance, understand; each of these words caries power, and it is up to us how we wish to use them.
FIRST, it's "POLITICALLY CORRECTNESS" that we can CERTAINLY THANK for having met its goal of changing what was ONCE the UNITED STATES of AMERICA to "CURRENT-DAY BABYLON," and SECOND, NOT ONLY can words IMPACT at VARIOUS DEGREES, MAINLY, if not SOLELY, in the context of which they're USED, the AWARENESS of WHATEVER WORDS, THEIR MEANING, and like I said BEFORE, the CONTEXT, ALL CONTRIBUTE to either bring about GOOD or EVIL. If I'M called a "HOMOPHOBE," for example, it would be like one of my little four/five-year-old COUSINS, calling me a "BEANHEAD," or WHATEVER OTHER of that LAUGHABLE NATURE, as THEIR ATTEMPT to insult ME, the way they would SUCCESSFULLY do it, ANOTHER child that's within his/her age bracket--it has NO AFFECT, WHATSOEVER, ESPECIALLY since "HOMOPHOBE" is TOTALLY INACCURATE, but if I'm called "SAME-SEX-INTOLERANT," I wouldn't be insulted, EITHER, because not only is that a PERFECTLY ACCURATE description of my ATTITUDE, ONLY toward the BEHAVIOR, ITSELF, to say that I'm INTOLERANT of ANYONE, BECAUSE of SAME-SEX BEHAVIOR, would AGAIN be TOTALLY INACCURATE, because if I HAVE shown ANY ANIMOSITY toward those who've chosen to live the same-sex lifestyle, I DEFINITELY wanna ask GOD, as well as anyone that I've OFFENDED, to CERTAINLY FORGIVE me, because LIKE JESUS, I CERTAINLY wanna NOT condone the BEHAVIOR, SIMULTANEOUSLY with NOT condemning the "BEHAVER." It's ONLY THOSE that are ANGRY, because I DON'T condone what THEY would condone, who I DON'T condemn FOR it that are THEIR OWN problem, which is sad, of course.
Ah, but it had much affect.
It affected you to the point you thought enough about it, to write about it and get others opinions.
It cuts close to your heart, either, because, you are, or you disliked the come on.
What you'd really like to get around to is
How could that homosexual have the balls to hit on me? Then on top of that, he called me a name?
Hhe was totally out of line and wrong. Right people?
I don't see why one should call the rejecter a homophobe.
Putting the shoe on the other foot:
Woman starts chatting it up with Leo after he and his band played at a club. She
happens to like the sort of high-velocity, fast-paced keyboard work that Leo
does (or did in those days), she's asking about effects, what's in the rack, etc.
Leo offers his number, she turns it down, says, "Nothing perosnal but I'm
Lesbian."
So? Can't be any of the traditional reasons like Leo isn't handsome enough (he's
very much an average), or isn't dashing like the lead guitarist, or isn't as quick
on the draw with comebacks, or there just isn't any chemistry. Nope, it's the
most simple rejection one could get: She doesn't swing that way.
And everyone is going to be totally accepting of her response, including Leo, by
the way.
Now, there's a bit of a double standard here, isn't there? So a guy isn't allowed
to say he's straight, but a woman can plainly state she's Lesbian?
It pains me to agree with Terrance even a little bit but you all made me do it
tehe.
Now what Anthony is describing is despicable, in my opinion, leading a gay guy
along, using him and then kicking him out like a used wad. That's just brutish,
and I don't have the words to describe it as anything other than that. That's
really sad.
But speaking as a straight guy who has been rejected far more often than
accepted (which is the norm), if she rejects me because I'm batting for the
other team, that's one of the easiest rejections to take ever. Again not like I
have played the field since being in a long-term relationship. But even so. Was it
wrong for me to politely reject an advance by a woman in recent months, by
saying I'm taken, bought and paid for, and showing the wedding ring? I don't
think so. And neither did she.
IMHO, if you're gay, say you're gay. If you're straight or bi, say as much.
Again I'm not talking out my ass here, I took such a rejection, and again that's
the easiest kind since it's not even personal. It was easy enough that we just
continued to talk for awhile, she continuing to be interested and wanting to look
at a few patches and some samples I'd done. I hope no Lesbians take this the
wrong way, but after that it was just like two dudes looking at stuff. The alleged
chemistry there must have been all in my own mind until she brought that up.
I just hate double standards. It's like the guys who say, "You don't know if
you're gay or not since you haven't met the right guy." That's as bad as what
some Lesbian professors used to tell us at college, they were told they couldn't
know they were Lesbian since they hadn't met the right man. Ok, empathy is
empathy, and I remember feeling bad for those ladies, and so did other guys I
know, when no professor or other authority was around, we all thought that
sucked. Same goes for us. I just have no real respect for double standards, not
ever.
I don't see the double standards.
I can plainy state I'm straight and it be accepted.
Gay men, or straight men seeking women seem to be the same in this regard.
Some are easier with rejection then others.
A woman saying she is lesbioncan get the response just the same if she tells this to the wrong guy.
Most guys feel they can change her with the right sex.
Same with some women as far as gay men go.
Sorry to say, but in my opinion, this comes down the the rejected intilect.
The double standard was described on this post. Nobody on here would have
even dared second guess the rejecter's motives if it had been a woman
rejecting. It's right here even in the first few posts.
Maybe I just habitually hang out with a different kind of guys, but I have only
heard of these guys in college textbooks, the ones who think they could change
a Lesbian into a straight. That is seen as boorish and offensive, an assessment I
agree with.
I do have to agree with the double standard thing. Tragic really.
Well, I can say I sure was hoping my love would turn a gay guy straight. Of course, I was head-over-heels for him. He'd never been anything but respectful to me, or anyone for that matter. I really was sad that I couldn't change him. He never found out, because, I was too embarrassed to admit my whole line of thought. But, I will base the idea of a man I'd love to marry, on Richard's respect for women.
So, yes I think women can get it into our heads, that we can make someone straight. If I could've done it, I'd be married. And wouldn't have cared he was totally sighted.
And, I still care about him. To this day. So, I don't think it was a girly crush. That's enough honesty from this kid, for today.
Blessings,
Little Old Me!
ESPECIALLY to Forereel, JUST BECAUSE a SUBJECT'S happens to be BROUGHT UP, ISN'T ALWAYS due to any AFFECT; being called a "HOMOPHOBE" is the EXACT EQUIVALENT of one in a crowd, telling the CORNIEST JOKE, EVER IMAGINED, and then being the ONLY ONE, HYSTERICALLY LAUGHING at his/her own SUPPOSED JOKE, while EVERYBODY ELSE completely ignores him/her, attending to whatever they were doing, EVEN IF there JUST MIGHT be one OTHER WITHIN the crowd, out of IDLE CURIOSITY, capturing THAT PARTICULAR MOMENT on video, and later sharing it on "FACEBOOK," commenting on it, along with OTHERS--it's OBVIOUS that the one that videoed and shared WAS STRUCK, but ONLY by IDLE CURIOSITY. CERTAINLY, the AFFECT would've been that the OBSERVER might've either LAUGHED, as WELL, gotten OFFENDED, or ANY OTHER EMOTIONALLY-CENTERED RESPONSE, but since IDLE CURIOSITY is TOTALLY INDEPENDENT of ALL EMOTIONS, it's JUST THAT--COMPLETELY IDLE. SUCH explains the reason for THIS TOPIC. MY IDLE CURIOSITY, of course, is how "HOMOPHOBE," instead of "SAME-SEX-INTOLERANT," is used to describe one that's TOTALLY AGAINST the same-sex lifestyle, who's CERTAINLY NOT INTIMMIDATED, WHATSOEVER, by ANYONE that LIVES the lifestyle. An AFFECT is ONLY when EMOTIONS are involved, which explains the OBVIOUS DISTINCTION between CONCERN, which DOES involve whatever emotion/emotions, and CURIOSITY--IDLE, at BEST, which is COMPLETELY EMOTIONLESS, thus COMPLETELY NON-AFFECTIVE.
My apologies for the typo in the word "HAPPENS," when it SHOULD'VE been "HAPPENED," in my IMMEDIATE-PREVIOUS post.
So did you get the title "Homophobe Delusion" from Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion? Or was it John Loftus's book The Christian Delusion?
Just seemed a little close for coincidence.
Sarah, you were joking when you wrote that thing about turning a gay guy straight weren't you?
I knew I couldn't. But, I was in love with him. That, I was. But change someone? Nope. I can't, and I always knew that. Did I hope? Yes, I hoped. Did I want? I wanted. I wanted him for him, not for just a good screw. I was in love, and still really seriously would consider him, if he were straight, which he isn't. But, I knew I couldn't make him this or that. I was in love with a dream, and I knew that.
Blessings!
ACTUALLY, I DIDN'T--I was trying to think of a title that would be appropriate for this subject, and "THE HOMOPHOBE DILUSION" just happened to be chosen.
Affected is CURIOSITY in all caps, I'll note.
If I am *CURIOSITY* moved, I have been affected.
Well, like I said BEFORE, if you were AFFECTED, you would've had an EMOTIONAL REACTION--now, ALTHOUGH you CAN be BOTH CURIOUS AND AFFECTED, SIMULTANEOUSLY, it's ALWAYS that if it's JUST CURIOSITY, which would be IDLE CURIOSITY, it's COMPLETELY EMOTIONLESS--like a flashlight, without a battery. You can ALSO be AFFECTED, without CURIOSITY; BOTH are TOTALLY INDEPENDENT of each other.
No emotion, just interest.
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT about the "NO EMOTION" part; INTEREST, though, is just a BIT MORE INVOLVED, EVEN STILL without EMOTION, but MORE than just IDLE CURIOSITY.
Affected. Smile.
WELL, in YOUR case, then, if you ARE affected, not everyone IS, by the same matter.
Not me. I didn't post this. Smile.
Neither am I, even though I'M the one that posted this topic, and it's ONLY BECAUSE I, MYSELF, aren't experiencing ANY EMOTIONS, WHATSOEVER, from it, BUT PERHAPS, anyone that's READING this topic might be.