Are Homos Fordapobic?????????
- Thread starter LancsLad
- Start date
i would call them alot of terms, but calling them anything relating to a phobia? fuck no. People with actual phobias go to extreme measures to avoid that fear. where as people who cant tolerate gayness in public would most likely say something or create a confrontation.
I'm not at all sure this is true. I suppose it all hinges upon "can't tolerate" does that term mean: "dislike," or perhaps "strongly dislike" or does it mean "hatred for?" Obviously if it means "hatred for" then you are probably correct, however, if it means the first two then probably they would keep their thoughts to themselves.
I remember sitting in a crowded movie theatre once. I can't remember what movie it was, but the plot involved the main characters pairing up and having sex. People loved the lesbian scene when the two female leads got it on. However, then the plot started working towards pairing off the two male leads, and when it became clear that scene was coming up a fairly large number of people got up and left the theatre. I would call that a phobia.
Most men who are bigoted towards homosexuals have no fear of female homosexuality, at least not when it's romanticised. It's only male homosexuality that they have a phobia of... isn't that obvious?
Then there's all the people with the unreasonable fear that if their children see any gay imagery whatsoever that their children will turn gay. I'd call that a phobia as well.
Do you not think that those people who cannot tolerate gayness in public and do something are acting out of fear? I think when it comes to discrimination against any group, there's generally a bit of fear-of-other fueling the hatred.
And I don't want to see public displays of interracial affection. It's sick, unnatural, and not the way I was brought up. Just because they pay taxes and participate in the political process the same way as I do, that does not give them the right to publicly show affection for one another the same way me and my white girl can. Don't they have special bars or sections of the city where they can practice their perverted intermingling? How dare they?
See what I did there?
Phrased that way yes.
If you were simply against public displays of sex that's a different matter, however you choose to select a specific group of people based on your phrasing.
So what, there is a huge difference between not likeing/disapproving and acts of violence.
Well I'm sure you will criticize, and I can criticize you for criticising.
Basically yes, if X says that they don't like seeing Gay men making out in public I really doubt that anybody with any official status is going to take action, nor if a private person tried to bring a civil action they would succeed.
That said, If one shouts a homophobic slur that is not violence, and it may not be criminal but almost certainly the "state" will take some civil rights action against you.
Well sure obviously I agree that government should not be locking people up or fining them unless they've actually broken the law. On the other hand a public official could, and should, denounce bigotry, even where it's not criminal, and where no other action is available beyond a public tongue lashing. I think you under-estimate the value of a good public tongue lashing in these cases! Good upstanding citizens plainly too have a responsibility to denounce and confront bigotry where they find it, even when it's not risen to the level of criminality.
My point is that when you see bigotry you don't need to, and shouldn't have to, wait until it's illegal bigotry or otherwise criminal before you confront it. In fact, I don't even think sanctions are the most effective way to confront bigotry: The best way to counter a bad idea is with a better idea.
