Tuesday, 21 March 2006

I'm Not Homophobic But…


You can always spot a bigot with a heart and we all know one, the kind of person who says: "I don't have a problem with black people, I even have black friends but some of them are so lazy." or "Don'’t get me wrong, I don't have a problem with women but that feminism stuff goes too far." or "I have no problem with real immigrants coming here but most of them are scroungers." and anyone who has an issue with the paper tiger that is political correctness. Most of these attitudes are rooted in bigotry, ie: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions differing from his own and who obstinately sticks to the prejudice even when these prejudices are challenged or proven to be false.

"It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong."

Now, you may have noticed that the comments section to this thread has been hijacked with a tat for tatcenteredge, centred on my accusation to this bigot that he is a homophobe, because he believes that homosexuality is unnatural, a sin, disgusting and people who do it will burn in hell forever or some other such punishment for breaking God's laws.

So naturally, I said that he was a homophobe and expected him, like a good Christian, to bask in his hate and distaste of how millions of people express their love for one another and warm himself with the exalted place he would have in God's kingdom whilst all the fags burnt in hell 'cuz don't forget that God hates fags...


But instead, piqued that some one had outed him, he tried to argue that just because he thinks that homosexual acts are wrong that doesn't make him homophobic because homophobic means scared of homosexuality.

Bascially he wants his homophobic cake and eat it via semantic de-constructions and that's simply not on.

You see, when I encounter prejudice, either fuelled by religious or political beliefs, I like my bigots to wear it like a medal; I respect that, it means commitment to the cause. But strangely I encounter a lot of prejudiced people, who when confronted by their prejudice get all defensive: this bigot is one of those.

Homphobia is a fear and/or contempt for homosexuality and homosexuals, you can't say that you disapprove of homosexuality and then say you don't disapprove of homosexuals. The two go hand in hand.

30 comments:

  1. He really is a sick bigot. You should see his latest post claiming that the left want more Americans to die in Iraq in order to make political gains. He burshes it off in typically wingnut cowardly fashion by saying it's a joke. what a nutjob sick bigot.

    ReplyDelete
  2. that "are you a bigot" poster is really funny. I wish who ever made it would do spots on the radio like they do with drugs and alchol campaigns.

    --RC of strangeculture.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  3. bigotry has its foundations in our upbringing and our peer groups. The challenge is for us to have the intellectual honesty to know when a "prejudice" crosses the line to "unthinking bigotry" and to reexamine our values whent that happens

    ReplyDelete
  4. I reckok i am a bigot...That Political correctness wazzes me off quite a lot! but hey do i care?

    ReplyDelete
  5. True, I did This post about my own bigotry.

    Nobody is perfect...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Homophobia is not this person's main problem. That he's homophobic is secondary to the fact that, as a deconstruct of the homophobe post suggests, he struggles personally with homosexual thoughts and feelings.

    Rather than "fear or contempt," a phobia is better understood as a paranoid fear which generates contempt for one's own self. A self-loathing Jew usually proved much more hateful toward his own kind when the Nazis chose him as "capo" in the death camps.

    Likewise, training officers will often pick a mediocre candidate as squad leader, based on their perception that he hates seeing his shortcomings in those under him. "Chip on the shoulder" squad leaders are stereotypical, and typically overachieve in a vain attempt to convince "them" (we people of knowledge and authority) that they are not what they know themselves to be.

    In the same way, certain men who struggle with homosexual delights of the flesh will exhibit either exceedingly strong opposition to homosexuality, or will otherwise attempt to excel at something which both draws attention away from their latent homosexual tendencies, and leaves, at least in the eyes of the now self-deluded person, a "remarkable" impression so people will think well of them. Think of Roy Cohn.

    It becomes so important that people think highly of them, they often find it necessary to leave their vocations and pursue "authoritative" jobs, such as police, priest, judge, and the like. They often seek advanced degrees without exhibiting vocational conviction, again in an attempt to impress, and distract the whole world away from realising how gay they feel, and how much they hate themselves for feeling their natural urges.

    The self-loathing gay man usually rationalises his homophobia, to a point where even in contexts where he blatantly admits to being a homophobe, he denies he is homophobic.

    i.e.:
    1) All hatred of homsexuality is towards homosexual people.
    Sam's attitude is hatred of homosexuality.
    Therefore, Sam's attitude of hatred is towards homosexual people.

    Burden of proof: Prove that hatred of homosexuality is towards homosexual people.

    2) All hatred of homosexuality is bad
    Sam's hatred is hatred of homosexuality.
    Therefore, Sam's hatred is bad.

    Burden of proof: hatred of homosexuality is bad.

    3) All natural human actions are good.
    Homosexuality is a natural human action.
    Therefore, homosexuality is good.

    Burden of proof: Homosexuality is a natural human action.


    Not only is the "logic" bizarre and uneven in this manifesto, which reads like it was dictated to Rudolph Hess in 1924, but it clearly explains that the writer is a serious bigot and homophobe.

    The easiest way to illustrate this is to first analyse, then homogenise his homophobic "burdens of proof."

    1. Prove that hatred of homosexuality is [hatred] towards homosexual people.
    -The writer suffers from a delusion of grandeur, by assuming he speaks for the entire heterosexual community, by not instead saying "Prove that MY hatred of homosexuality is hatred towards homosexual people." Thus, proof #1 is established that the writer feels a need to be highly regarded.

    [Prove that] hatred of homosexuality is bad
    -Without citing any authoritative text, or otherwise having established homosexuality is not a natural occurence, the writer sashays right by their own burden of proof in establishing there is something wrong with homosexuality, in order to legitimise "MY OPEN CONTEMPT" (their words) for those who try to help homosexuals find acceptance and tolerance ("Hollowwood"). Thus, the writer commits an error of logical argument, and is guilty of creating a special set of rules in order to enforce their own argument.

    [Prove that] homosexuality is a natural human action.
    Kinsey, fuckhead. D'uh.

    Please note that my calling the writer "fuckhead" is completely subjective, and is not to suggest that he is "fucked" in the "head," or that he is not. I leave the decision up to the reader.

    Homogenising these twisted, homophobic lines of illogical thought, a clear pattern emerges which gives us an authoritative view of the writer. Much as Hitler was crazy, and should have been stopped before he got too far out the gate, a contextual look at the writer's "burdens" puts an impetus on we, the thinking community, to avoid giving the writer any credence.

    The key is in the last "proof," which denies that homosexuality occurs spontaneously in the population. To prove it is unnatural requires that all men who have had sexual fantasies of other men have been introduced into an alternative sexual lifestyle by outside forces. It must be impossible, therefore, for an uncoerced male to ever feel sexual attraction to other males.

    The standard of proving homosexuality IS natural is much easier, in that the assumption must be that it is possible for a male who is not indoctrinated by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance, to feel sexually attracted to another male. This can be expressed in a desire to have sex with, OR kiss, OR embrace, OR "be near" in a non-sexual context for any reason other than heterosexual fraternal company. It also does not demand that every homosexual be attracted to every male, or never attracted to females. The "burden of proof" is met, if once in human history, one male looked at his fellow man and thought, "I really think he's sexy."

    Like that's never happened?

    On one hand we have the possibility as the proof, which is so plain a child accepts it. On the other, the writer, under a contextual set of rules they have tampered with to support "hatred" (mentioned twice in their other "proofs") places a bar so high, chances of satisfying the intent is almost negligible.

    Thus, the sucker-punch in this homophobic argument has occurred BEFORE the bitch-slap. This demonstrates further that the writer is manipulative, and while clever, is probably not ethically disposed to qualify for doctoral certification. Under these borderline psychotic conditions, one would expect the writer to be tepid, if not cynical about their scholarly pursuits, and a quick glance at their bio demonstrates this completely.

    This is why, after one cancel's the repetitive statements out in the three "proofs," they are left with this one statement from the writer: "All hatred of...bad...homosexual people...is a natural human action."

    Without realising that one's intent cannot be hidden behind clever-sounding words, the homophobe has made himself clear.

    Conclusion:
    The writer has probably struggled with feelings of "being different" and homosexual their whole life. They probably have been persecuted, and long ago learned to bite, rather than kiss.

    It is also clear from the writer's disjointed, illogical ramblings that they are hanging onto their heterosexual persona by a thread. Irritation of the subject is probably not recommended, as people who are comfortable with their homosexuality will most likely become the targets of the writer's increasing "hatred" (their word) and possibly victims of the writer's violence.

    As a professional, I suggest cessation of contact with the subject, in order to allow natural life events to unfold. Should the subject succumb to their self-hatred and commit suicide, it will ultimately save another from that violence. If the subject seeks counselling, that should be a natural evolution of their own life. Mixing it up with the subject will only worsen the damage the children at school and abusive father figures have done.

    For balance, keep in mind that exchanging the word, "homosexual" in the writer's ramblings with "Christian" or "do-gooder goatfucking horse fucker," puts the shoe on the other foot, and might shake the subject into reason. All the same, self-hating bigots tend not to be reasonable, which is why, again, cessation of contact is advised.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Very well said, Daniel!

    I think further to acknowledgement of bigotry more importantly what is needed in our society is an amount of empathy and human understanding between people as well as simple INTELLIGENCE to read subtext between the lines. It's become too easy these days to condemn a comedian like Sarah Silverman as bigoted when all she does is expose what she sees as the prejudice rampant in American society, and let someone the God Hates Fags stuff pass unnoticed because, oh, well, they're not going to change their opinions. Sad. (This is somehow tied into my MA research - the comedian stuff, I mean)... I think nowadays many people have such a chip on the shoulder they're unable to empathize with others.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree with everyone. Of course women should be allowed out of the kitchen to perform in lesbian sex videos. Or is that not what were saying?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why can't the public just live and let live without any hidden agenda and bigotry. It's infuriating at times.

    ReplyDelete
  10. If you were that right on, HG, you would be spending your time fighting the BNP in Loughton. Instead you waste your time berating idiots on the Internet. Stop wasting your time. You can't argue with an idiot, you always lose.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I didn't know you wanted me to wear a batch of my "bigotry." I thought that's why you think I'm bigoted. You're just so hard to please, Daniel.

    Homosexuality is a sin. There. I'll do it in all caps if you like: HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN. There...big badge, wearing it proud. Now, I bet you're glad.

    Phew! I get so worried as to what you people think of me.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Well, I know and like both Daniel and UL. (I'm just weird, I guess, since they're opposite ends of the spectrum) Each has their strong opinions and certain quirks, and I guess there was bound to be a dust-up. But...here's my two cents:

    I have friends who are homosexuals. According to my faith, it's a sin. But, it thankfully doesn't inflict harm on others that are unwilling participants. And, I should point out, other sins which are commonly practiced now are roughly equivalent: fornication between consenting non-married adults, for instance.

    But... if someone disapproves of homosexuality and fornication because it's against their religion, it doesn't mean that they're frightened, or phobic, of homosexuals and fornicators. So homophobic isn't the right designation. It simply isn't accurate.

    Now, bigot is the proper designation, but that doesn't take into account the reasons behind the beliefs. If you are to adamantly say certain behaviors are sinful based on your religious beliefs (remember the Muslims and some other faiths also condemn homosexuality and fornication) then I think you have the right to do so, because it's part of your belief system.

    You only lose that right when it impinged on others' rights to live a happy, unimpeded lifestyle (such as the Muslims forcing women to undergo genital mutilation so they won't be tempted to fornicate, or killing adulteresses, etc).

    However, UL isn't crying out for persecution of homosexuals (as they did in Nazi Germany). He's simply saying he believes that lifestyle to be wrong, and doesn't feel it should be legally sanctioned through marriage.

    So, have I confused the heck outta everyone and alienated you all?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Saur:

    Nope. Not with me. You clarity was matched by your elegance and eloquence. However, beware! Daniel will have to label you a homophobe if he is consistant. If not, then maybe this is just personal between him and me.

    Uh, Daniel? Do you want to weigh in?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mallory: sensible and right on the money as always.

    Barnze: you're not a bigot.

    Cranky: I'll read with interest, we all have out blindspots.

    Col.Dr: brilliant thesis

    Broderick: your research sounds interesting, more facts please!

    OMR: you got it baby!

    Sara: yes!

    Darren: you're right you sarky bastard.

    UL: thanks for accepting your bigotry, at ease soldier.

    Saur: I like the fact you have a wide pool of bloggers, it reflects well on you I think. As for religion being a justification for prejudice, sorry no, otherwise you could get away with all kinds of terror under the banner of religion. I think we have to accept that homophobia is part of many religions and as believers we make a decision whether to buy into the dogma.

    ReplyDelete
  15. methinks UL is a little attention whore and is sitting pat just to be the centre of attention.

    Ignore it, people, just another self-involved head case demanding to be worshipped as God herself.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I don't consider myself a bigot but I think some racial/gay/feminist jokes are funny. So sue me. I'm not perfect but I try not to profile others because of race or sexual orientation.

    Gay man are better at decorating than I am, though....can't deny it!

    ReplyDelete
  17. so, where do YOU draw the line? can i marry my brother? can i marry my horse?

    also, i liked the movie napoleon dynamite, and i call things retarded, just cause i want to, not because i'm a bigot.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Sure you can marry your brother. Or your horse. You forgot to mention "can I have a group marriage". Usually that gets mentioned in the "gay marriage is the thin edge of the wedge" argument. Only problem is that group marriage is legal in many places and so it marrying your brother (or at least your first cousin). Animals are generally owned by people, and as a slavery relationship it is not too different from some marriages anyway.

    My favorite gay joke: If you want to put a stop to homosexuals having sex, let them get married!

    The biggest problem with gay marriage is when it is implemented by changing the legal definition of the word marriage. Actual marriage is not the problem, because I have a choice in the matter. Presumed marriage is the problem. It means if I have a roommate, the government can declare us common law married and change the financial situation. Palimomy, support, loss of insurance or government benefits can all flow from being declared as common law married. Since discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal, they can't take that into account when you say "but we're not gay".

    I'm sure they won't use that, just like they won't execute the man who changed his religion. But the laws will stay on the books and they won't restrict declared marriage. Government declared common law marriage should be restricted to providing for children of the marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  19. so, daniel, who died and made you the person who determines what other people should think, and believe? OMG you are so narcisistic, and arrogant, it spews forth from your fingers. While you slam on "homophobes" you name call by labeling people "bigots" just because they don't believe the same way as you. no one gave you the job of determining who is and who isn't a homophobe. in fact, why don't we make up a new word right now, to classify you. a Bigophobe. Someone who is so insecure and scared of their own identity, that they attack other peoples beliefs under the guise of "tolerance" some of the most intolerant people on this blogosphere are people like YOU. get over yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  20. As a general note, we are all bigoted to some degree or another, we all have our prejudice, the difference is whether we acknowledge it or leave it be. Best to challenge yourself really.

    Susie: you're being silly, stop it.

    Anon: you language illustrates you are blind to this situation and have either not read the context of this or are just being silly. Quite simply, UL used homophobic language and I outed him as such but he refused to accept his prejudice. Your arguement is as flawed as the one that states that people who call people racist are in fact oppressing those people. UL believes homosexuality is a sin, this is homophobia.

    A warning to anon: if you come here again and abuse me and use incoherent and frankly daft arguements and do not use your identity then your comments will be removed.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Say's it all Dan when someone feels the need to post stuff without an identity. The planet has some strange people walking it with some scary attitudes. Keep smiling mate;)

    ReplyDelete
  22. UL: as stated at the bottom of the St. Patricks day thread

    You have stateed that there is no candor in your statements. That is a lack of frankness in your statements.

    Then I shall make my first statements to you that do not try to give you the benefit of the doubt. That does not say "I think" or "I believe", those condescending things you abhor so much.


    You are insincere.

    You have no business commenting insincerely here.

    You are a troll with nothing useful to say.

    Go away.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Bud:

    1. I'm not going away.
    2. You're skilled at duplicity.
    3. Your problem with me is not my insincerity; it's just that I'm not interested in what you think and I tell you so. You can count on that being really sincere.

    ReplyDelete
  24. UL: the post in question by anon has remained, therefore, your post, where you reprint it and nothing, is of no use and thus is deleted.

    As with the other thread, the points have been made, avoid spamming my blog with comments that offer nothing else.

    ReplyDelete
  25. UL:
    Why do you come here then, if you are not in interested in what I think? Are you interested in what anyone thinks? Besides those who parrot your views. Was there any thinking on your part involved, in your conclusion that I am skilled in duplicity? You claimed that I made presumptions about you. Now you make presumptions about me.

    Daniel:
    I am starting to agree with you on this person. Like a building superintendent dealing with grafitti on the walls, you have to keep painting over it, eventually they will go away.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Why is homosexuality considered a sin anyway? if it's not hurting anyone, it's ok, right?
    Look at other Biblical sins - i'm not religious at all but at least there is some logic behind some (not all) biblical rules. Obviously murder is sinful, you deprive someone of their life and they can never get it back, plus you're depriving their friends and family of their loved one. Stealing is sinful, depriving someone of their belongings, obviously the victim doesn't like that. Adultery is sinful as it's abusing the trust of your partner, they won't like you seeing someone behind their back.
    So why is homosexuality "sinful"? If 2 gay adults have a loving relationship, like a heterosexual relationship, what's so wrong with that? it's consensual, it's their own business, and it isn't hurting anybody. What's the logic in saying that it is "wrong"?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hel fire:

    If you were to ask Daniel about what we bigots think, he/she/it/whatever/who cares would say we believe it is a sin because our God says so and hates all fags and wants to burn their sorry asses in hell forever. We bigots will have a place in heaven and be glad we were never gay. God really doesn't think this way, but we homophobes think God says this, so we spread our hate to innocent folks who want to do same gender anal intercourse without guilt. Besides, hel fire (the irony of it!), what does it matter what we homophobes think anyway? Just do what you do and make sure it doesn't hurt anyone. Look at how we wingnuts hurt others with our bigotry and hurtful language. Bastards, all of us. Damn us.

    I thought I'd help you out, Daniel, since I tire you out with my idiotic blogspamming.

    Hel fire, if you want to know, come to my blog and we'll talk more. I don't want my comments to coagulate this blog site like a bloodclot.

    Now it's like blog spam! >:P

    ReplyDelete

Please do not be under the misapprehension that this blog has a laissez-faire comments policy where commenters can get away with whatever they want to say on account of their ‘freedom of speech’.

Blurred Clarity has a stringent comments policy. So anything off-topic, diversionary, trollish, abusive, misogynist, racist, homophobic or xenophobic will be deleted.

Cheers duckies.