Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 11
ali smack

why is homophobia commonplace?

421 posts in this topic

I would think prejudice is something that will eventually be bred out to be quite honest, and I think that is already beginning. We still have the small groups of KKK and the like hiding in the shadows, and the gay community will always have the opposition, but I do feel that with so many questioning religion these days, which even 30 years ago was considered unethical and barbaric, that people are coming into a new age, one where hiding behind innocence and ignorance is no longer an excuse. In our cases, we were certainly influenced by elders, however, I do feel every person has that twitch of rebel inside of them that makes one want to search out answers for themselves. As the myths of afterlife and heaven and such begin to slip away, the hole is filled with a greater understanding, which at time is a little depressing, but hard hitting. We are not going to see loved ones when we die, we turn to dust, so people are becoming more and more interested in making today count, heck 50 is the new 30 these days. I saw a Miss 50's swimsuit comp on the net, and great scott, was I impressed. People are living and working longer, we only have one life, and some are starting to take it seriously.

I thik your right that prejudice will be bred out. I think that's why racism is frequently bought up, because that's a prejudice that pretty much everyone had not too long ago and now it's just unthinkable.

You know, that was incredibly well put and I agree so much with it. (Well, apart from the afterlife thing because I'd like to believe there's something just not tied to a religion.) But really, that was very well said :tu: I do think you're right and we are moving into a better time. What was unthinkable is now commona nd I think that trend will continue.

I quite like it, feel free to use that LOL.

Heheh I'll keep that in mind.

I think the way that rights have been approached over a period of decades has helped soften the blow. Social order is important or we will have chaos I feel. I do not think the last couple of decades of movements pushing forward have been in vain, I think they have softened some very stony ground.

You're right. I think we have come a very long way over this period. But I think we're at a point now where we have to say 'ok we have to do this' and ignore the detrators and their ludicrous arguements. I think social order is important but using it as an excuse to keep dragging it out isn't doing anyone any favors.

Well done, you got the point 100%!! That is indeed how I was portraying my personal view of what a "man" and a "woman" looks like to me in general. Not every woman looks like a young Susan Sarandon (that pic might not do anything for you, but listen to her smouldering voice in The Rocky Horror Picture Show and get back to me would ya! :w00t: ) and not every man looks like the cast from dumb and dumber, but when I look at sexes, that is what I see, and why I think the claim that 50% of people will be gay in the future was highly exaggerated. I do feel that whatever the figure is now (I think we discussed something like 8 to 12% once, but it was agreed that was really a stab in the dark) is what it will remain. It might go up a couple of percent as people "come out of the closet" but that's about it. I do not see a huge shift into gay relationships. Heck, I prefer to have a beer with my mates than my missus, but I would dead set throw up if I had to kiss one of them for a bet or something. I could not bring myself to do it. Like eating a big lump of raw liver or something. To me there has to be some sort of physical attraction for sex to happen, I do not think 50% of people are that sexually flexible.

Wow that's her? She looks so different! You know I got send Rocky Horror by a friend awhile back and I've not found the time to actually watch it yet. I'll have to find where it is and have a watch (though if pictures are anything to go by I think I may end up distracted by things other than her voice v:P)

Anyway, onto the main part of the comment.

I agree, saying 50% of people will be gay in the future seems highly exagerated (unless a lot of people die which seems unlikely). I agree the figure we have may go up as people feel more comfortable but not going up by that much.

I agree, there has to be some sort of attraction for sex to happen. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I think, however that people need to start using the same sort of thinking they do with other people. Like if you saw a straight guy kissing a girl you didn't find attractive, you'd not throw a fit over it and I think that's the right attitude to have and what people need to start applying to gay people. I mea it just comes off as rude and stupid you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is homophobia so commonplace?

because being straight is the norm.

Why in our society is homosexuality hated and frowned upon. The same with Bisexuality regarding men.

But lesbianism and Bisexuality regarding women is thought as fine.

Because the world is still a patriarchal place.

Homo/bisexality is against the norm (being straight). This makes homo/bisexuality a shameful and degrading act. Thus it's more shameful and degrading when done by the superior sex (males) than when done by the inferior sex (females). Also, all homosexual males are stereotyped as tender and soft in their feelings which are qualities associated with the weak sex (females) unlike the strong sex (males) which exhibits better judgment and thinking abilities making it a tough sex.

I guess the answer is: stereotyping

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to largely take them at their word.

One example I like to use is college scholarships. Suppose a gay rights group gets together and creates a 20,000 dollars a year scholarship. How do you ensure it goes to a gay student?

With sexuality, why do you need proof?

Gay is a protected class. Straight is not. The protected class should have some way to be identified.

Should they not recieve protections?

I said they should. The difference would be that in the case of those who tested positive, they would likely be protected quicker and any legalities would be covered automatically, whereas in the non-tested they would probably have more of a wait in all cases and more paperwork.

A person's sexuality isn't visible, so you could argue that it's hard to pursue as a hostile workplace thing regardless of if there's a genetic marker or not., because you can't tell if a person is gay or not visually either way.

That is true.....

You want gay people to choose to be hetrosexual. But why? Does that belief make you feel good? Superior? Do you want everyone else to be just like you?

Like goodconversations just posted, straight is "Normal" because it is the majority. I never said I wanted homosexuals to become heterosexuals. I'm saying that if they wanted to act "Normal" they have that ability. Simple as that. You are the one saying that to even SUGGEST gays might chose to act straight for ANY reason is an attack on gays.

I'll ask you a simple question. Did you choose to be straight?

I Chose to live a straight lifestyle. But, have always been attracted to women.

I think you're right, that they are people that'll go against any weakness and difference. But the problem is that the human race as a whole is full of difference and people have to realise they're in a real world and such difference exist.

I think that's one of the things I have a problem with your 'normal' attitude, because it comes off as being of the mentality that 'gay people are different than me, but they could choose to be the same as me'. It's not the kind of attitude you'd find acceptable if it was direct it at any of those other groups (or many others) yet it's acceptable there.

Every group of people is frightened of any other different group of people. It must be instinctive to distrust those you don't readily understand. If aliens ever do come to Earth, they will have a hard time of living here with us.

It is not acceptable to direct that attitude at any group other then the Majority group. In the USA it is OK to be bias against Whites, Christians and Males. Because that is where the majority of power lies.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One example I like to use is college scholarships. Suppose a gay rights group gets together and creates a 20,000 dollars a year scholarship. How do you ensure it goes to a gay student?

Obviously, they would have some criterea, but again it comes down to how would exactly can you tell? Does a gay person have to be in a relationship to 'prove' their gayness? In which case isn't that thusly disciriminating against gay people that aren't because of relationship status? Proving your sexuality is a very sticky area.

Gay is a protected class. Straight is not. The protected class should have some way to be identified.

Ah yes, like the little pink trianles a certain group used in the 40's to identify gay people?

I said they should. The difference would be that in the case of those who tested positive, they would likely be protected quicker and any legalities would be covered automatically, whereas in the non-tested they would probably have more of a wait in all cases and more paperwork.

Of course the relies on a genetic link to be found and be of a high enough percentage to warrant it being used in such a way. And even then there'd likely still be leeway and technicalities.

To top it off I somehow doubt gay people would want to be tested in such a manner in the first place.

That is true.....

Exactly.

Like goodconversations just posted, straight is "Normal" because it is the majority. I never said I wanted homosexuals to become heterosexuals. I'm saying that if they wanted to act "Normal" they have that ability. Simple as that. You are the one saying that to even SUGGEST gays might chose to act straight for ANY reason is an attack on gays.

That's because it is isn't it? You want one group to act 'normal' to what? Satisfy yourself? Why should people act like the majority?

As I have said repeatedly. Normal doesn't exist and everyone is different in a variety of ways. Why is it that this is a difference that seems to be one that you're ok with eliminating?

Let's take another thing that's not normal. Creativity. Anyone with a natural artistic or musical ability is in the minority. Should we encourage them to act 'normal'? What about people that are naturally good with numbers or languages? Or how about something more noticable. Eye, hair and skin colour. We can very easily find out which one of those is the most 'normal', should there be an expectation that those with a 'abnormal' eye/hair/skin colour to conceal them?

And what about the myriad like and dislikes people have. Should people only like or dislike something because the majority does? Why should they?

My point is everyone has something that makes them not 'normal' and yet we don't beat that thing out of them or even suggest it. So yes, I take the suggestion as being an attack, because that's exactly what it is. The fact that it's something that can still be seen as not being an attack baffles me. If you said to a black person that they could choose to wear something to make their skin appear normal would you be surprised that it was labelled as an attack?

I Chose to live a straight lifestyle. But, have always been attracted to women.

What exactly is the 'straight lifestyle'?

Every group of people is frightened of any other different group of people. It must be instinctive to distrust those you don't readily understand. If aliens ever do come to Earth, they will have a hard time of living here with us.

It is not acceptable to direct that attitude at any group other then the Majority group. In the USA it is OK to be bias against Whites, Christians and Males. Because that is where the majority of power lies.

I'm hoping we're learning to get out of that. It's a habit that keeps being used as a fallback excuse. I hope aliens don't comeanytime soon because chances are some moron would evil try and kill them label them as the antichrist/demons or just in general act like idiotic *******s. Which is behaviour we shouldn't have excuses for in the first place and certainly not somethin that would be wise when dealing with an alien species who probably had the technology to erase us.

Perhaps. Obviously I can't really say specfics about the US (you're there 24/7 the most I've been there is two weeks when I was 11).

Edited by shadowhive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously, they would have some criterea, but again it comes down to how would exactly can you tell? Does a gay person have to be in a relationship to 'prove' their gayness? In which case isn't that thusly disciriminating against gay people that aren't because of relationship status? Proving your sexuality is a very sticky area.

I will admit that. It is a hard thing to prove if you want to keep your private life private.

Ah yes, like the little pink trianles a certain group used in the 40's to identify gay people?

That would be a down side of a Test. Gays would essentially be Registered, numbered and on a list.

To top it off I somehow doubt gay people would want to be tested in such a manner in the first place.

I bet you are right. I'd bet that mostly straight people would take the test to be sure they are not "secretly gay". (out of ignorance??)

Why should people act like the majority?

It is a basic human desire to be accepted... Some people want to belong to the Majority, because it is "safe".

So yes, I take the suggestion as being an attack, because that's exactly what it is. The fact that it's something that can still be seen as not being an attack baffles me. If you said to a black person that they could choose to wear something to make their skin appear normal would you be surprised that it was labelled as an attack?

I don't see those two situations as very similar. A better analogy in my mind would be suggesting to the black person, that if they wanted to be white, they could chose a long and potentially harmful treatment to do so. But simply suggesting something is a possibility is not an attack.

What exactly is the 'straight lifestyle'?

That is a good question. I suppose there is as many straight lifestyles as there are straight subcultures. Just as there are probably multiple gay subcultures.

I think "lifestyle" reflects what you Actually do in your life. If you are only in hetero relationships, you're living a hetero lifestyle. Regardless of if you are gay, transgender, straight, bisexual, etc... A bisexual person might live as one lifestyle then the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On another note:

1. Supreme Court hearing Gay Marriage arguements today and tomorrow. California Prop 8 and the "Defense of Marriage Act" are both under scrutiny.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-supreme-court-gay-marriage-20130326,0,727855.story

2. Those crazy French storming Paris to prevent gay marriage and gay adoption. Supposedly somewhere between 300,000 and a million people showed for the demonstration.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/world/europe/same-sex-marriage-opponents-march-in-france.html?_r=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will admit that. It is a hard thing to prove if you want to keep your private life private.

That's the point isn't it? Some people like having private lives and don't want to avertise them, so I don't see why they should be made to 'prove it'.

That would be a down side of a Test. Gays would essentially be Registered, numbered and on a list.

That, to me, sounds very much like a bad thing and I really don't see many people going for it for any reason. It sounds too much like being put on a sexual offender list.

I bet you are right. I'd bet that mostly straight people would take the test to be sure they are not "secretly gay". (out of ignorance??)

Somehow I doubt that straight people would take the test. After all taking it would be like admiting you're gay even if you weren't.

It is a basic human desire to be accepted... Some people want to belong to the Majority, because it is "safe".

I agree it's a basic desire to be accepted, but why should people only expect that if they're in the majority?

I don't see those two situations as very similar. A better analogy in my mind would be suggesting to the black person, that if they wanted to be white, they could chose a long and potentially harmful treatment to do so. But simply suggesting something is a possibility is not an attack.

I suppose it depends on why you are suggesting it. If you are saying someone could do it, as the possibility is there, that's one thing. However you're suggested that gay people should do it to 'be normal'. Which isn't just suggesting it, but also giving an intent.

I find it rather neat that you keep harpin on an on about people being 'normal' but any mention that normality is an illusion and (in most cases) far from the expectation, it gets ignored.

That is a good question. I suppose there is as many straight lifestyles as there are straight subcultures. Just as there are probably multiple gay subcultures.

I think "lifestyle" reflects what you Actually do in your life. If you are only in hetero relationships, you're living a hetero lifestyle. Regardless of if you are gay, transgender, straight, bisexual, etc... A bisexual person might live as one lifestyle then the other.

See that's why I find the suggestion of a 'gay lifestyle' odd because there's nothing really unifying. You could get 100 gay men and 100 straight men and seen if each group had a unifying lifestyle and you'd quickly find that sexual orientation is just one of those things that doesn't create anyform of lifestyle that all (or even the majority) of either group would share.

That seems like an awfully broad definition of what a lifestyle is.

I can say as bi myself that I don't live in one or the other. I don't wake up one day and think 'oh today's gonna be a straight day, tomorrow's gonna be a gay day'. I don't flip and flop like that, it's pretty constant. Now by that I don't mean it's an even 50/50, I'm aware my orientation is skewed more towards one of the gender than the other, but it pretty much stay's that level all the time. Being in a relationship doesn't really change the lifestyle I'm in.

On another note:

1. Supreme Court hearing Gay Marriage arguements today and tomorrow. California Prop 8 and the "Defense of Marriage Act" are both under scrutiny.

http://www.chicagotr...,0,727855.story

2. Those crazy French storming Paris to prevent gay marriage and gay adoption. Supposedly somewhere between 300,000 and a million people showed for the demonstration.

http://www.nytimes.c...rance.html?_r=0

Here's hoping they make the right choice. From what I've heard so far they've already poked holes in some of the anti-gay marriage arguements put before them.

The thing that annoys me most about those French protestors is that they didn't just storm Paris, they also stormed London. I just don't get what makes them think their 'concerns' are of interest to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would expect the Supreme Court in the US will move cautiously, opening the door, or at least preventing it from being closed, but not forcing the Federal government or private companies to give spousal rights to gay partners.

I have, however, seen comments to the effect that six members of the court are ready to issue a sweeping general equality ruling. They just may do it, or they may be cautious not wanting to cause a strong backlash.

In short, it depends on whether they do what is right or what is politically safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would expect the Supreme Court in the US will move cautiously, opening the door, or at least preventing it from being closed, but not forcing the Federal government or private companies to give spousal rights to gay partners.

I have, however, seen comments to the effect that six members of the court are ready to issue a sweeping general equality ruling. They just may do it, or they may be cautious not wanting to cause a strong backlash.

In short, it depends on whether they do what is right or what is politically safe.

Why would they care about political backlash? They are Judges for Life....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem with the 'cause of homosexuality' being found is twofold. First opponents would have your attitude, in that it wouldn't matter they'd still make it so it was a choice.

It can be a choice...not that it should make any difference.

http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/01/cynthia-nixon-gay-choice-christine-marinoni/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish people could just be who they are if they are not hurting anybody. Fat, thin, old, young, gay, straight, rich, poor, ad nauseam, ad infinitum. The main thing is to be kind.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can be a choice...not that it should make any difference.

http://radaronline.c...stine-marinoni/

Human sexuality is the capacity to have erotic experiences and responses.[1] Human sexuality can also refer to the way someone is sexually attracted to another person – which is determined by their sexual orientation – whether it is to the opposite sex (heterosexuality), to the same sex (homosexuality), having both these tendencies (bisexuality),[2] to all gender identities (pansexuality or bisexuality),[3] or not being attracted to anyone in a sexual manner (asexuality). Human sexuality impacts cultural, political, legal, and philosophical aspects of life. It can refer to issues of morality, ethics, theology, spirituality, or religion. Some cultures have been described as sexually repressive.

I think Cynthia Nixon is bisexual, which is a sexual expression that happens to be attracted to both sexes, so in that sense, yes, bisexuality lends to a choice between genders.

IMO care has to be used when one argues sexuality is a choice, it is not-- for the heterosexual or homosexual.

http://en.wikipedia....Human_sexuality

Edited by Sherapy
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Cynthia Nixon is bisexual, which is a sexual expression that happens to be attracted to both sexes, so in that sense, yes, bisexuality lends to a choice between genders.

Well, you would know more about her sexuality than she does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would they care about political backlash? They are Judges for Life....

They don't as individuals, obviously, but if you look at their history they often move politically. The Supreme Court has no army and no statute making power; it depends entirely on other institutions to get its will carried out. I rather hope I am wrong here and that they issue a sweeping edict ordering all states and the feds and all private companies to recognize gay marriages in their laws and benefits. That would put an end to it and the nation could go onto other things. It is where the world will end up sooner or later anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you would know more about her sexuality than she does.

I don't think a bisexual has any choice about it; they are a bisexual. They can and perhaps have a luxury denied others of passing on one side of their nature, but they have no more choice about what they are than anyone.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think a bisexual has any choice about it; they are a bisexual. They can and perhaps have a luxury denied others of passing on one side of their nature, but they have no more choice about what they are than anyone.

If you read the link, she clearly explains no one has the right to define her sexuality for her and I agree. I don't think you would define a person that has experimented once with same gender sex as bisexual. She does not consider herself bisexual, even though she has experimented more than once, and who is anyone to argue with her?

Edited by Michelle
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read the link, she clearly explains no one has the right to define her sexuality for her and I agree. I don't think you would define a person that has experimented once with same gender sex as bisexual. She does not consider herself bisexual, even though she has experimented more than once, and who is anyone to argue with her?

Reminds me of Joan Crawford's reported efforts to seduce Marilyn Monroe, but getting the response back that that was nice but she preferred men. (I have no idea whether this story has even a sliver of truth in it). We are what we are, no matter how much we might like to be something else. Some people are smart, some people are religious, some people are liberals and some of us little conservitives (the Gilbert and Sullivan patter song comes to mind), some people are sociopaths, some are saints. As a Buddhist I think maybe much of that comes from previous lives, much from what we inherit from our parents. How much of it comes from how we are brought up is problematic, but if you look around you carefully you realize not really all that much. We can and do slowly change what we are as we live by the decisions we make, but our basic nature is the product of a long, long history over which we can only hope to have some influence here and there.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you would know more about her sexuality than she does.

I agree that Cynthia has the sole right to decide how she is going to embrace, incorporate, and define her bisexuality.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that Cynthia has the sole right to decide how she is going to embrace, incorporate, and define her bisexuality.

Meow...you're showing your claws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is homophobia so commonplace?

Why in our society is homosexuality hated and frowned upon. The same with Bisexuality regarding men.

But lesbianism and Bisexuality regarding women is thought as fine.

Anyone know why this is the case?

It is commonplace because it is something that is taught to children, either thru religion, relatives, or friends. It was almost non existent in many non Abrahamic societies such as the native Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is commonplace because it is something that is taught to children, either thru religion, relatives, or friends. It was almost non existent in many non Abrahamic societies such as the native Americans.

I often wonder, when people make such a statement, what their source is. Do you have any links to prove such a claim when it comes to native Americans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 11

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.