:laugh:
Printable View
:laugh:
I think half the problem stems from people trying to 'explain' away Homosexuality as something you are born with like a birthmark or 11 toes. It automatically gives people a hook to hang their hat on because being Gay can now be classed as 'explainable'.
Does being Gay need to be explained away or is it of so little consequense that it really doesn't matter. I think the Gay community shares some of the blame as thay pontificate that being Gay is not a choice but a 'condition' you're born with. I think this is what SpaFranco is getting hung up on.
If being Gay is a condition from birth, then so is being straight. Homosexual or Hetrosexual doesn't need to be explained away. Neither is some disease. It's just the way people are and has no bearing on who people are or how they behave.
Now, if I'm right and understand correctly, some people get irritated by how some people in the gay community behave. We have probably all known people in the Gay community that are OTT and in your face with it. I don't appreciate that sort of behavior just as I don't appreciate loud, aggressive straight people with overt displays of sexuality or what can be described as intimidating behaviour.
The problem is that if someone feels intimidated by what, for want of a better description, I would call loutish chavy behaviour, very few people would criticise them but if someone feels intimidated or uncomfortable by people being overtly or flamboyantly camp and gay in their face, then they are branded homophobic, whereas they just feel uncomfortable with a type of behaviour and not the sexuality of the individuals themselves.
No, it doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Really? Do they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
To me, this is an example of the assumption being made that all members of a particular group think the same way. As a gay person, I assume you would consider me part of the 'gay community', whatever that means, yet I don't feel I need to share any blame for anything. And I have never once met a gay person who has described being homosexual as a 'condition'.
The trouble is that, like it or not, such criticism of gay people does often stem from an underlying homophobia. I don't personally like any exaggerated behaviour, or what I consider to be some of the more boorish traits of any type of individual, but this doesn't mean to say there aren't those whose views have a different basis. It's like people saying, 'I'm not racist, but...'Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
I agree, and wonder whether a bit of a language barrier has come into play.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
I think personally words like condition and abnormality in medical reports are all part of the problem. It is a perfectly natural variation within the whole of society not some form of explainable mishap. This leads to the derogatory 'well it isn't their fault' but still seems to convey some sense of inferiority, as if gay people are somehow not entirely healthy and have some form of medical condition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
There may be some underlying biological factor or 'explanation' or common traits, but it is like writing medical reports on whether or not someone decides to buy a white car instead of red one.
I tend to agree though who actually cares why? It is easier to just accept people have different sexuality as a natural variation within the population and the issues tend to go away. It doesn't matter in the least that gay people happened to be a minority rather than majority, it is still perfectly 'normal' that the variation occurs. Explanations in medical journals by someone trying to make a name for themselves won't change a thing.
I've seen reports that gay men are overly feminine in brain structure and others that say the are overly male - it is just this sort of nonsense that doesn't help at all, the individual is just 'who they are' end of story and they should be allowed to be just that without bigotry. It takes far more balls in life to be who you actually are than conform to some predetermined 'ideal' set by society at the end of the day.
Sorry, I wasn't specific enough. I meant some members of the Gay community. I wasn't trying to imply, at all, that everyone is like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Of course, some people are Homophobic but just like in the section you commented on where I clarified I was talking about some elements, I'm sure you mean that just like you, other people find some behaviour distastefull but can get branded Homophobic where they aren't. Of course, there are also quite a lot of Homophobes out there but that's not really what we were talking about.Quote:
The trouble is that, like it or not, such criticism of gay people does often stem from an underlying homophobia. I don't personally like any exaggerated behaviour, or what I consider to be some of the more boorish traits of any type of individual, but this doesn't mean to say there aren't those whose views have a different basis. It's like people saying, 'I'm not racist, but...'
I know, because I realise you don't think that way, but this is a trap into which a lot of people — whether unwittingly or not — fall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Currently it is often asserted, and perhaps popularly believed, that the traditional evaluation of homosexuality as an anomalous condition has been proved wrong by scientificDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" (Encarta Multimedia Encyclopedia, CD-ROM 1998 edition: under "Homosexuality"). Ecclesiastical jurisprudence cannot remain indifferent to these great changes, being bound rather to examine what theoretical or practical effect they may have on the canonical appreciation of homosexuality, in particular with regard to capacity for valid marital consent. advance. One reads for instance: "As a result of scientific discussion, the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 eliminated homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by donKey jote
Instead of assuming "theatrical outrage directed to me maybe you should read just part of this. In fact you will see that until 1973 it was considered a mental disease.
What other explanation could there be for the armed forces of our nation only recently allow homosexuals to openly serve?
"Very serious" is not fact, it's a subjective qualification - your own interpretation. "Mishap" is also arguable, don't you think?
Clearly you feel no bigotry towards gay people. Your intentions are good and you don't need to keep repeating how much you love and respect your gay family member. Nobody is asking you to. To be honest I couldn't care less how he may or may not feel when you label him as having a very serious anomaly or pity him for having to endure his mishap, or whether or not you are capable of self-reflection when these terms are questioned.
p.s. Avidly aggressive? Look in the mirror?[/QUOTE]
p.s. Avidly aggressive? Look in the mirror? http://www.motorsportforums.com/imag...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Spafranco http://www.motorsportforums.com/imag...post-right.png
... sad indication of what society can breed.
The irony is that you are a sad uneducated neanderthal knuckle dragger that is more dangerous to society than the people you so cruelly dislike.
Please give me the post number and the context with which this was written.
I have supplied you with numerous medical opinions, papers and conclusions yet you still want to drag this out and directly at me.
Yesterday morning we(other forum members) had decided that it was best to close off the thread. You do not seem to think so.
Once again, I would appreciate it if you would supply me the post number for the above comment. Context is important.
What's such a decision got to do with you — or, indeed, any other forum members other than the moderators?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
There is no need to close this thread at all. It's generally been extremely civilised and very interesting.