Homophobia

: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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

Does being Gay need to be explained away or is it of so little consequense that it really doesn't matter.

---

No, it doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

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.

---

Really? Do they?

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'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

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.

---

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 henners88

Its a difficult one this and not one that can be easily explained. I think Spafranco's intentions are very different to how his wording has been greeted here.

---

I agree, and wonder whether a bit of a language barrier has come into play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Really? Do they?

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'.

---

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:

---

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...'

---

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:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

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.

---

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 donKey jote

The thoughts you convey with expressions like "very serious biological anomaly" or "biological mishap they have to endure".
Save me the theatrical outrage and show me where these expressions are written in the medical and scientific communities when describing homosexuality.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spafranco

Yesterday morning we(other forum members) had decided that it was best to close off the thread. You do not seem to think so.

---

What's such a decision got to do with you — or, indeed, any other forum members other than the moderators?

There is no need to close this thread at all. It's generally been extremely civilised and very interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

There is no need to close this thread at all. It's generally been extremely civilised and very interesting.

---

...and as long as it stays that way none will close it :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spafranco

"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?



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.

---

I can't help you with the posts and to be honest have not followed all the thread, but I did see your links to medical reports. Who cares what was thought back in 1973? One link to a paper from 1944? Ever heard of the Tuskegee Airmen? You know around the same time the US Government commissioned a report that concluded 'Negros lack the ability to fight in war', right sure we should swallow that sort of nonsense too because it was in a report.

I treat all reports medical or otherwise with the utmost skepticism, two reason, who commissioned it (and therefore paid for the research and the authors mortgage)? And why?

I find your presentation and standing by of these so called reports rather distasteful to be honest. As I mentioned some of these so called 'experts' fail to even break the link between gender and sexuality in there 'masterpieces' (i.e. think gay men have feminine or male brains doh!) - you need to step back a little and look again with new eyes at what you are presenting in my very humble personal opinion, before calling for the thread to be closed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spafranco

What other explanation could there be for the armed forces of our nation only recently allow homosexuals to openly serve?

---

that part of your nation or the armed forces had some sort of collective hang-up when it comes to homosexuality ? :p

openly serve? as opposed to "covert" operations? :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

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.

---

this is what I believe :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

What's such a decision got to do with you — or, indeed, any other forum members other than the moderators?

There is no need to close this thread at all. It's generally been extremely civilised and very interesting.

---

Where is all this aggression coming from? A simple statement. Did you post the same to the person that asked for this to occur? Why was that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donKey jote

this is what I believe :)

---

Please supply me with the post # contained in my previous question to you. Much obliged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spafranco

I have supplied you with numerous medical opinions, papers and conclusions ...

---

Except you haven't ! :p

Again, you have not supplied anything to support your (I assume personal, subjective) view of homosexuality as a very serious anomaly or a mishap.

very serious / mishap

very serious / mishap

and one last time:very serious / mishap

Got it ? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spafranco

Please supply me with the post # contained in my previous question to you. Much obliged.

---

lost the search button? It's hard to tell which of your posts you mean, as you appear to have mangled the quotes :)

... 221 was an example of you being avidly aggressive, no matter what the context was :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sprocket

I can't help you with the posts and to be honest have not followed all the thread, but I did see your links to medical reports. Who cares what was thought back in 1973? One link to a paper from 1944? Ever heard of the Tuskegee Airmen? You know around the same time the US Government commissioned a report that concluded 'Negros lack the ability to fight in war', right sure we should swallow that sort of nonsense too because it was in a report.

I treat all reports medical or otherwise with the utmost skepticism, two reason, who commissioned it (and therefore paid for the research and the authors mortgage)? And why?

I find your presentation and standing by of these so called reports rather distasteful to be honest. As I mentioned some of these so called 'experts' fail to even break the link between gender and sexuality in there 'masterpieces' (i.e. think gay men have feminine or male brains doh!) - you need to step back a little and look again with new eyes at what you are presenting in my very humble personal opinion, before calling for the thread to be closed.

---

Another one picking on one individual to make themselves see in unadulterated unison with some of the other forum members.
Tuskegee Airmen? What in all that is rational have these men got to do with the conversation save for the fact that they were courageous individuals?

You mention studies and medical papers as though they were written by a bunch of uneducated morons not capable of a thought. So with your reasoning you have cast the efforts of Pasteur , Fleming, Bernard, Alzheimer and a myriad of others.
So, in your case you deem it as significant that anything believed in prior to your decided time period is of no significance and everything else is within your frame of time is correct. Slippery slope.

Oh, and by the way, the last of the Tuskegee airmen died.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sprocket

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.

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.

---

My my, now we have someone who comes in and lays semantics. "A perfectly natural variation within society" variation/anomaly?

I reiterate that I am and do not have any issues with people who state they are homosexual. I do object to those who dismiss what was asked for because an article, one of thousands available using the word anomaly. That some of these written in 1944 does not negate what I stated when I said that homosexuality was considered an anomaly.
What you are doing is trying to insert language that you feel comfortable with. Dementia, a symptom of Alzheimer's was never used until it became known as a more serious illness.
Homosexual people suffer enough without you trying to push the reason it occurs under the carpet. People are born male and female for a reason. Reproduction.Why are people attracted to the same sex? That is a serious question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spafranco

Another one picking on one individual to make themselves see in unadulterated unison with some of the other forum members.

---

Where is all this aggression coming from? :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spafranco

Another one picking on one individual to make themselves see in unadulterated unison with some of the other forum members.
Tuskegee Airmen? What in all that is rational have these men got to do with the conversation save for the fact that they were courageous individuals?

You mention studies and medical papers as though they were written by a bunch of uneducated morons not capable of a thought. So with your reasoning you have cast the efforts of Pasteur , Fleming, Bernard, Alzheimer and a myriad of others.
So, in your case you deem it as significant that anything believed in prior to your decided time period is of no significance and everything else is within your frame of time is correct. Slippery slope.

---

Quite what this has to do with the subject in hand I don't know.

Your contributions to this thread I find rather odd. On the one hand you claim to have no problem with gay people, and I believe you. On the other you post all this stuff about homosexuals having 'very serious anomalies'. Now you're ranting about, for example, me being 'aggressive', which is blatantly nonsense. I've been very polite to you throughout. Might I again suggest that there's a bit of a language barrier here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spafranco

That is a serious question.

---

Why? Why does it matter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spafranco

Where is all this aggression coming from? A simple statement. Did you post the same to the person that asked for this to occur? Why was that?

---

You are not a moderator. The fact that you thought the thread should be closed is completely irrelevant. Surely you must see that?

Neither are you ;) So less personal stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

Neither are you ;) So less personal stuff.

---

I happen to find it rather 'personal' to be told I have a 'serious anomaly'.

Well you do don't you. Your just as anomalous as many here :laugh: .

I feel so sad that you have to endure such a mishap. :p
OT btw... has anyone seen Glaui recently? :andrea:

He's here all the time!!

I can't find him, or was he you? :p

....whatever?! :dozey: :andrea:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roamy

Holy Butt Plug - Close this thread

---

So DonKeyote, seems that you should be reprimanded. Oh, and please, if you are unable to direct me to the post and the context with which it was written I would kindly ask that you refrain from your sarcastic comments.
As an aunt of mine in Hull England states," sarcasm is the lowest form of wit".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I happen to find it rather 'personal' to be told I have a 'serious anomaly'.

---

Was it me that stated that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

You are not a moderator. The fact that you thought the thread should be closed is completely irrelevant. Surely you must see that?

---

No, I am not a moderator. If you read the post by Roamy and the "like" by DonKeyote then you may direct your angst towards them and not me.

I have been ploite all through this and the only thing you fixate upon is when I was asked to provide a scientific paper which mentions anomaly I am set upon as though I was the person that wrote the paper.
There is selective umbrage by some posters. I have answered every question posed and I am not in any way rude to you. However, I do not see the same with one or two others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spafranco

Another one picking on one individual to make themselves see in unadulterated unison with some of the other forum members.
Tuskegee Airmen? What in all that is rational have these men got to do with the conversation save for the fact that they were courageous individuals?

You mention studies and medical papers as though they were written by a bunch of uneducated morons not capable of a thought. So with your reasoning you have cast the efforts of Pasteur , Fleming, Bernard, Alzheimer and a myriad of others.
So, in your case you deem it as significant that anything believed in prior to your decided time period is of no significance and everything else is within your frame of time is correct. Slippery slope.

Oh, and by the way, the last of the Tuskegee airmen died.

---

You clearly do not understand the story of the Tuskegee airmen at all. They remained non combatant throughout much of the war - due to a report written by apparently educated scientists.

When they were finally allowed to serve, they proved to be one of the most professional units in the U.S. Army Air Force.

The point is even those that write scientific reports are not free of their own bigotry and this becomes clearer the further you go back in time.

If you don't get the point, not much point explaining it. Though I rather think you just posted links to random articles and papers that happened to contain words such as 'abnormal' or 'condition' from the web to prove a point. I doubt if any gay person regards themselves or their lives as a mishap, even if you think of it that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sprocket

You clearly do not understand the story of the Tuskegee airmen at all. They remained non combatant throughout much of the war - due to a report written by apparently educated scientists.

When they were finally allowed to serve, they proved to be one of the most professional units in the U.S. Army Air Force.

The point is even those that write scientific reports are not free of their own bigotry and this becomes clearer the further you go back in time.

If you don't get the point, not much point explaining it. Though I rather think you just posted links to random articles and papers that happened to contain words such as 'abnormal' or 'condition' from the web to prove a point. I doubt if any gay person regards themselves or their lives as a mishap, even if you think of it that way.

---

First of all I am well informed as to who the Tuskegee airmen were. How you deemed that I do not, based upon a question and pointing out the fact that the last of these brave men died is rather ambitious of you.

Secondly, you have your opinion but you do not have the right to make character assassination judgements.

It seems as though you and a couple of others have one goal and that is to create an argument. Don't read my posts. Simple as that.

If you knew how carefully the language used in medical studies you would not make idiotic statements such as the one above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Why? Why does it matter?

---

If you as a gay man do not see how serious this whole topic is then you do not live in the US. Here it is important enough to win or lose elections based upon the stance of the party.
Just yesterday a member of the government, a republican and a vociferous campaigner against gay marriage and gays in the military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spafranco

Oh, and please, if you are unable to direct me to the post and the context with which it was written I would kindly ask that you refrain from your sarcastic comments.

---

what part of 221 in

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donKey jote

lost the search button? It's hard to tell which of your posts you mean, as you appear to have mangled the quotes :)

... 221 was an example of you being avidly aggressive, no matter what the context was :)

---

don't you understand?

whatever :dozey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spafranco

Secondly, you have your opinion but you do not have the right to make character assassination judgements.

It seems as though you and a couple of others have one goal and that is to create an argument. Don't read my posts. Simple as that.

If you knew how carefully the language used in medical studies you would not make idiotic statements such as the one above.

---

You know the saying... argue with a donkey and onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.

If I didn't feel like I was in a time-warp I'd say "welcome back loowi" and congratulate you on beating your previous post tally :wave:


whatever :dozey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spafranco

when I was asked to provide a scientific paper which mentions anomaly I am set upon

---

if anything, you were asked to provide a scientific paper mentioning very serious anomaly or mishap.

very serious / mishap

Whatever... no point going around and around in circles.

I've tried twice now to read the last few pages of this thread, but I can't! :erm: It's so uninteresting. :erm:

Could someone give me the gist, in 100 characters or fewer? :D

Some tit-for-tat affair, is it? :)