| |
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Lee Meyer wrote:
> I just love this abuse of the term "homophobic" to anyone who disagrees with
> whatever homosexuals propose to do (and Alfred, this does not mean I am
> saying you a homosexual because I don't know and don't care). No other
> group exists - religious, racial, gender or otherwise - that wants to paint
> anyone who disagrees with them at any level, homophobic.
Of course not. If you disagree with women, you get labelled mysoginistic or
male-chauvanistic, not homophobic. That wouldn't make any sense at all.
Anyways, there is evidence that suggests that those who are rabidly homophobic
are actually denying their own homosexual thoughts, and trying to do so in ways
that prove to the world that it's not true (why else do you think that so many
gays have been brutally murdered for suggesting that their murderers might be
gay?).
> No other group gets or deserves such a carte blanche pass on anything they
> believe, espouse or desire to do.
No other group gets so little protection against discrimination. No other group
is so easily overlooked (intentionally or not) in everyday life. You can't walk
up to a black man and think, "This person is white," without knowing that you're
lying to yourself. Black people are black, and white people are white, but
straight is the assumed standard, so unless a person makes a point of telling
you their sexual orientation (either by stating it outright, or by making it
unignorably blatantly clear through Jack McFarland-esque behavior), it's very
easy to assume they're all straight.
> And by the way, for those of you who like political correctness, if someone
> actually WAS clinically homophobic, the types of sarcastic and biting
> responses that are posted back to these people show that you're not above
> demeaning someone who has a true pschological disorder - and how open-minded
> and compassionate does that make you?
I think it's safe to say that anyone who meets the clinical definition of
"homophobic" would be unable to participate in this discussion in anything
approaching a rational manner, so anyone who is able to present their views in a
well-formulated way is fair game, right?
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| Hello! (...) So why whould one (intentionally or not) _look_ at them? (...) There's no reason that I actually _think_ "this person is black" It's just how a person is, it's obvious, it's not a matter of must-think-about. I don't look at a random (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
207 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
