Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
News

Journal perfessor multigeek's Journal: Let's Have Some Sympathy for the Homophobes 27

This week's Boondocks is doing a solid job of handling what I'm having trouble understanding.

Sometimes my friends have to remind me that my life, my mind, my approach are not typical. Okay, point taken.

Boondocks is reminding me just how ingrained homophobia is for many people. I admit that perhaps I was due for a reminder. I have been very publicly disgusted with and expressing my loathing for people here and elsewhere who are allowing homophobia to stand in the way of their reason.
Without question I would never have been anywhere near as enraged at Mr. Intel and others if their Freudian slips hadn't kept showing. Comparing gay marriage to rape and murder, all the other things that, again, I have discussed at length already.
As part of a TV-free household I haven't heard the debate on the tube but my friends tell me that there such behavior is all over the place. Supposedly rational "political experts" insisting that gay marriage is just one arbitrarily chosen weakening of the law. "Why not beastiality?" They say, "Why not pedophilia?".

It is important that those of us who *have* gotten our clue that we breath deeply when we read or hear such dreck and remember the terrified, conditioned part of the people saying this. The part of their minds that has been hammered over and over again to believe that anything even related to same sex love or sex is "unnatural". That it is "sin".

Maybe, like the grandfather on Boondocks, some of them are actually trying to make sense out of this and the offensive things they say and write are the signs not of their certainty but of their progress away from prejudice.

I certainly hope so.

I'm going to make a conscious effort in the coming months to remember what it was like when I was a kid, in fact, even when I was in my early twenties, and I still was prisoner of the same fears that are now crippling them.

After all, one of the most amazing men I have ever known (well, on the sexy guy front) approached me in college. Gently, considerately, welcomingly. And even though we were friends, even though I knew him to be kind and funny and smart and pretty much a real catch (various women on campus certainly never tired of saying so) I recoiled in ill-concealed disgust.
My reason said yes. My reflexes said no.
In retrospect I can even say that I was attracted to him. In a repressed, "that wouldn't happen to me, I don't see what everybody keeps yammering about, I don't know what you're talking about" kinda way.

I had the fantasy of many a person offered to me, the guy who could jump off his roaring motorcycle (any of three he owned), put his muscular arm around my shoulder, and say something deadly funny about early Roman philosophy (or, for that matter, engine repair, or for that matter, trust administration, or . . .). And I, with my oh-so-hippie experiences, my Upper West Side tolerant upbringing, pulled back in what I know was visible discomfort.

So I'm going to try hard to keep those memories firmly in the foreground the next time I contemptuously (contemptably as well, perhaps?) insult somebody for their inability to meet the rest us on our high tower of reasoned sanity. It's worth remembering just how long it took many of us to climb that tower and just how many rocks we dropped on others on the way up.

Rustin
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Let's Have Some Sympathy for the Homophobes

Comments Filter:
  • It would be far too easy to make a flippant comment like 'Rustin's a fag', giggle, and move on.

    In discussions and situations like this, I try to remember a few of the lessons of my parents. You can never allow yourself to drop to the other guy's level. If available, you must always take the high road. That's why I'll pull out of most of these discussions, and merely observe. I don't get anywhere, they don't get anywhere. But I'll continue with people like Eugene. I frequently disagree with him, but I find
    • It would be far too easy to make a flippant comment like 'Rustin's a fag'. . .
      So, do you think that this blows my chances with Daoine? ;->

      Fight the battles that are winnable, Don Quixote.
      I'm trying. I sincerely am. But, man, the temptations are so strong. ("Don't go into the light . . . ")

      Rustin
  • by Planesdragon ( 210349 ) <slashdot@@@castlesteelstone...us> on Wednesday March 10, 2004 @02:41PM (#8523333) Homepage Journal
    Well? Why is gay marriage different from pedophillia, or bigamy? It's hardly irrational to ask what the basis for the new rule should be if we're removing the basis for the old one.

    I don't really want an answer, I just want to point out that not everyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong is ignorant, irrational, or a "homophobe." Heck, name-calling might be the only way we have left to point out the ignorant and irrational among us.

    At the risk of invoking Godwin: there were rational, logical, and compassionate people making decisions in the Nazi party. They were wrong in their basic learnings, but this is a failing of education more than moral or intellectual defect.

    Thankfully, no public figure wants to kill anyone. (Both Saddam and Osama were given plenty of chances to cooperate or surrender.) So we're left with a bunch of smart, rational people with differnet assumptions, arguing over how the country should work.

    • Well? Why is gay marriage different from pedophillia, or bigamy? It's hardly irrational to ask what the basis for the new rule should be if we're removing the basis for the old one.

      I think that their message is that homosexuality has more in common with regular marriages [a "couple", consenting adults, etc.]. That's probably why they get so upset once you start lumping it all in together with things that hurt animals, children, & women [rape]. I think that if you want to lump it in like that, & I su

      • There is no one rational conclusion to these arguments, eugene. There are a whole bunch of them--and we need to argue for the right one.

        I have a question for you, though. From a christian point of view, which is the preferrable state--homosexuals having sex and unable to enter into a legal bond, or homosexuals bound to each other in an institution similar to how men and women are bound?

        • I have a question for you, though. From a christian point of view, which is the preferrable state--homosexuals having sex and unable to enter into a legal bond, or homosexuals bound to each other in an institution similar to how men and women are bound?
          Definitely the former, & not the latter. Why?
          • Definitely the former, & not the latter. Why?

            Hey, that's my question.

            Why is it WORSE for them to live in a state that all but mandates them to be promiscuous, thus compounding their sins, rather than being in a state that limits their deviance and, therefore, their sin.

            A similiar question: is it better for a normal* couple to marry and then divorce, or never marry and "just live together"?

            (*: Note to the lurkers: homosexuals are, always have been, and always will be a minority. I don't hold anythi
            • Why is it WORSE for them to live in a state that all but mandates them to be promiscuous, thus compounding their sins, rather than being in a state that limits their deviance and, therefore, their sin.

              You're making less sense now. Do you or do you not want the government to acknowledge the relationship?

              A similiar question: is it better for a normal* couple to marry and then divorce, or never marry and "just live together"?

              You're comparing apples to organges. There are Old Testament laws to work around divor

              • There are Old Testament laws to work around divorce, but common law relationships.
                I meant to say, "...but not common law relationships.".
              • You're making less sense now. Do you or do you not want the government to acknowledge the relationship?

                IMO, if the government permits a relationship to happen, it should give that relationship the force of law.

                I find it curious that that you say that it's a good idea to have homosexuals unable to form permanent legally binding unions when we legally allow (and even protect) homosexuality.

                The only logical course of action for the government, IMO, is to form a legally binding construct to discourage the
                • I find it curious that that you say that it's a good idea to have homosexuals unable to form permanent legally binding unions when we legally allow (and even protect) homosexuality.

                  I don't think that homosexuality should be legally allowed or protected. I'm trying to reduce as much of it as possible.

                  The only logical course of action for the government, IMO, is to form a legally binding construct to discourage the rampant promiscuity that is so horribly common* among homosexuals.

                  I consider promiscuity to be

                  • Allrighty then.

                    I don't think that homosexuality should be legally allowed or protected. I'm trying to reduce as much of it as possible.

                    Might I suggest an alternate plan of action, instead of opposing every "pro-gay" law?

                    1: Get homosexuals legally pairbonded.
                    2: Outlaw sex (hetero or homo) outside of a pairbond.
                    3: Watch homosexuality dramatically reduce.

                    The end result (3) is what you want, but (1) and (2) are moral and ethical rules that you cannot be easily critizied for, and are much more agnostically
                    • Might I suggest an alternate plan of action, instead of opposing every "pro-gay" law?

                      You could suggest, but I'm still not interested. From what I understand of human nature, legalising something doesn't make it go away. I don't believe that our job is to reduce it. I believe that our job is to get rid of it when we see it. Period.

                      I don't want to legalise anything that's bad.

                      I'm not trying to sound like a zealot, but you keep suggesting things that go against what I want. It's like legalising racism to red

                    • It's like legalising racism to reduce it. No, no, no!

                      Affirmative Action.

                      If the program weren't racist, it'd be tied to a multitude of factors of "class"--parent's income, mean income of place of residence, etc.--but instead its tied to predominent genetic origin.

                      And it does have the end result of reducing racism, by forcing both sides to work together.

                      I don't believe that our job is to reduce it. I believe that our job is to get rid of it when we see it. Period.

                      Two points about this.

                      1: Congradulat
                    • Congratulations. You finally came to the conclusion that I'm a zealot, even though I've been trying to tell everybody that for quite some time now.

                      Think about it this way. We shouldn't care so much about what's illegal or what's legal, but what happens. If we legalize drugs, even though they're bad, we can take the money out of the drug trade, regulate the industry, and wean the public from our national addiction. It worked for alcoholism after Prohibition.

                      Legalizing immorality never helped @ all. You'd be

                    • Last say? Ok, I've got the best one.

                      The Bible rarely tells us to concern ourselves with what happens.

                      If you think that, I think you're either not reading the Bible, or you're not thinking when you do. The Word had a vast number of reasons for living as Jesus Christ, but in some ways the single most important one was that the rules do not matter, only what is actually done.
      • I think that their message is that homosexuality has more in common with regular marriages [a "couple", consenting adults, etc.]. That's probably why they get so upset once you start lumping it all in together with things that hurt animals, children, & women [rape].
        Excellent. You nailed it.

        I think that if you want to lump it in like that, & I support you if you do, then you have to do it in the context of classifying these actions according to their punishment.
        HUH?

        Okay, now I'm utterly confused
        • Okay, now I'm utterly confused. What is the logic of that? How does ranking things by "punishment" help make sense of things? Punishment by whom? Where? Can you even explain to me the current "punishment" for two people of the same sex getting married?

          Oh, I guess I forgot to explain. By "punishment", I'm referring to all the Old Testament laws about stoning people for various reasons. I honestly thought that most Christians based their views on this. I guess not. I think that I might do a journal entry on t

          • I insist that we do lunch if I'm ever in NY.
            Of course. I'm still hoping to help move this whole circle of us out beyond /. in the coming years.
            So, yeah, if *any* of you folks ever want to get together and lift a pint/down a meal, well, you know where to find me (which this coming Saturday will be at the L Magazine's Caustic silliness, hint, hint).

            Rustin
    • Well? Why is gay marriage different from pedophillia, or bigamy?
      I'll reduce my response to one word.

      Consent.

      At the risk of invoking Godwin: there were rational, logical, and compassionate people making decisions in the Nazi party. They were wrong in their basic learnings, but this is a failing of education more than moral or intellectual defect.
      Actually, no. That is a widespread myth. Read up on it and you'll find that the support for the most imfamous Nazi policies was nowhere near as widespread as m
      • I'll reduce my response to one word.

        Consent.


        Good answer, but it only works for the "trucker-style" bigamy. Should we allow consentual multi-party unions?

        Actually, no. That is a widespread myth. Read up on it and you'll find that the support for the most infamous Nazi policies was nowhere near as widespread as most people believe.

        I didn't say that the support was widespread. I said that there were rational people in charge or partially in charge of the most infamous Nazi policies.

        Rational people c
        • "Trucker-style bigamy", huh? That's a new one on me.

          Should we allow consentual multi-party unions?
          As far as I'm concerned, I'ld say yes. My problem with those on a legal rather than pesonal level is that such a shift would massively increase the cost of things like health insurance that covered partners. I would consider this to be skating the edge of an "uncompensated taking". Kinda like the rules that declared half the mud puddles in America to be "wetlands".
          As I explained in detail in one of the earl
          • "Trucker-style bigamy", huh? That's a new one on me.

            I think there's a country song about it. One wife and family at one end of the route, a second wife and family at the other end.

            Sorry to be so insistant, but can you point to one example?

            No. I'll look into it and see what I can find, though. (My suspicions are the folk who claimed "I'm just following orders.")

            Was there an "anyway" lurking at the end of that sentence? Are you perhaps suggesting that continuing to engage in debate with, say, an ex
            • A cool military-style patch with lady liberty on a motorcycle charging a windmill...
              You do realize, don't you, that with all the motorcycle enthusiasts around here (George H., Ritchie, Bellus Quies, etc.) there would end up being debate about just what this motorcyle would look like, what angle, whether it should be cherry or beat up . . .

              Geeks ;->

              I really like the idea though. Gimmee another year or two and maybe I'll start selling them on my site. Everybody who has ever posted four or more times o
  • if only to annoy those who value their marriage as a promise "between a man and a woman," but I was wondering if you had ever considered the almost direct opposite or your view?

    The only place I've seen a good summary of what I would consider the opposite of "your view"(I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, or anyone elses) is in the Unabomber's Manifesto [panix.com], specifically the parts on Modern Leftism and Feelings of Inferiority which I linked to.

    Ted's mental state notwithstanding, what do you think abou
    • I'm jumping between a couple of your journals and different comments. . .sorry about the confusion.

      By "your view" I'm refering to the chronic, systematic lying that you observe when people try to pass off views that arise from religion as coming from pure reason. I'm pretty sure you said something like that somewhere. . .can't find it. . .no time. . .work's over!!!
    • Any post that manages to not only refer to the Unabomber's manifesto, but to do so on a site hosted by good old Panix is starting out in my good graces.

      For better or worse, I have strong feelings on many things but I think I am unusually low by now in repressed feelings of any sort.

      Frankly, I consider those who are entirely heterosexual or homosexual equally inferior. I have trouble accepting that anybody actually means it when they say that they simply don't understand being able to be attracted to half

"You know, we've won awards for this crap." -- David Letterman

Working...