Why Is It Okay To Hate Openly Gay People?

[Lago PARANOIA]

After spending some time with certain people, I'm entirely convinced that most instances of homophobia stem from sexism. I don't think one necessarily leads to the other (since the Greeks had some fucked-up views on women and it's sadly possible for someone to champion gender equality while still being an anti-gay bigot) but in most cases they seem really related.

Playing armchair psychologist, it seems that male homosexual relationships are viewed with contempt because a guy is assuming the 'female' role--which is an awful place to be in their minds. For example, the 'male' in said relationships are much less stigmatized than the 'female': in M/M rape scenarios the rapist is looked upon nowhere near as badly as the victim.

You can see sort of the effects of this mentality in society where there are apparently 'more' bisexual/lesbian women than bi/gay males. This may or may not be true, but I just bet it's because male homosexuality is sneered at a lot more than female ones.

Not to say that lesbians aren't stigmatized, because they are. Playing armchair psychologist some more, you'll notice that the 'butch' lesbian (I really, really hate that term, too) stereotype is a lot more reviled and mocked than the 'lipstick' lesbian, probably because it's viewed as a rejection of gender role. But then again, it's only natural for an 'inferior' role to aspire to be a 'superior' one; it's viewed as the worst sort of gender betrayal for someone who's already in the tops to want to go to the bottom.

Of course, I could be talking out of my ass, Ace Ventura style.

[Jilocasin]

Makes sense to me. Heh, I'm reminded of the sub-plot in Rescue Me where Jerry was kinda sorta okay with his son being gay as long as he believed he was never on the bottom.

Also as an aside, I'm pretty sure that people who otherwise wouldn't be are more comfortable around me because "they never would have guessed" that I'm gay. It's sort of interesting to experience.

[Cielingcat]

Actually what you just said is a viewpoint held by... well a lot of different people, from feminists to lgbt people of every variation.

I honestly don't really know what to say in response because everything I can think of is a variation of "yeah, you're totally right."

My favorite book on this subject is Julia Serano's Whipping Girl. It goes into detail about things like this, though it is very centered on trans issues and specifically trans women.

[Crissa]

It's actually a feminist point, Lago.

And yeah, it's really frikin' annoying.

-Crissa

[tzor]

I think it is a combination of factors, all sorts of bizarre prejudices and phobias all rolled up into one. Most of these associations are in the mind of the beholder, combined with phobias against violating some unknown rule and in the process loosing some kind of face or honor among ones peers. All of this changes like the wind and the seasons.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Do you think that science will advance faster to support peoples' fantasies of filtering homosexuality out of all future babies than the tolerance of homosexuality?

For example, 60 years from now there there will be almost no homo/bisexuals because of gene manipulation. Yay, nay?

[Neeeek]

Do you think that science will advance faster to support peoples' fantasies of filtering homosexuality out of all future babies than the tolerance of homosexuality?

For example, 60 years from now there there will be almost no homo/bisexuals because of gene manipulation. Yay, nay?

Um...no. Not even remotely plausible.

[Cielingcat]

We don't know if non-heterosexuality is even genetic. We know it's not a conscious thing, but we don't actually know why it happens.

So yeah, as Neeeek said, not even remotely plausible.

[Crissa]

Another example of it apparently being okay to open hate gay people.

At the same time, they're allowing an ad from Focus on the Family, an anti-homosexual, anti-transgender, anti-contraception, anti-abortion, anti-women's rights religious group.

This is, of course, the network that denied a normal advertisement from the UCC because it said 'they accept everyone'.

-Crissa

[CatharzGodfoot]

We don't know if non-heterosexuality is even genetic. We know it's not a conscious thing, but we don't actually know why it happens.

So yeah, as Neeeek said, not even remotely plausible.

Interesting fact: the more older brothers you have, the more likely you are to be gay. The older brothers are no more likely to be gay.

Doesn't say anything about other sexualities, but it's a pretty strong indicator that there are social pressures in favor of homosexuality, and that it is an evolved behavior (and advantageous to the species). Take that, assholes who say it's unnatural!

[Kaelik]

We don't know if non-heterosexuality is even genetic. We know it's not a conscious thing, but we don't actually know why it happens.

So yeah, as Neeeek said, not even remotely plausible.

Interesting fact: the more older brothers you have, the more likely you are to be gay. The older brothers are no more likely to be gay.

Doesn't say anything about other sexualities, but it's a pretty strong indicator that there are social pressures in favor of homosexuality, and that it is an evolved behavior (and advantageous to the species). Take that, assholes who say it's unnatural!

That doesn't necessarily indicate any social pressure.

A mother has more testosterone in her womb during second third ect, males than first male child.

I can easily see the adaptive benefits of your 7th and 8th male child are less likely to want female mates. But that doesn't indicate social, it could easily be entirely hormonal within the womb, IE early development turns out differently.

[Orion]

In fact, the way I heard it, the correlation is with how many men your mother has given birth to, NOT how many you're raised with, so it's probably biological rather than social.

[CatharzGodfoot]

In fact, the way I heard it, the correlation is with how many men your mother has given birth to, NOT how many you're raised with, so it's probably biological rather than social.

Yeah, sorry. I didn't mean that social pressure was being exerted on the individual men. I meant that there was some social pressure on natural selection.

[RobbyPants]

I was listening to NPR yesterday and they were discussing the potential of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. They had a guest on that was against the idea by merits of ruining group cohesion during a war. Maybe there's a point to all that, but it didn't make him sound any less bigoted.

He tried to make his claims sound logic-based, but he really never had any good answers for the host. He'd complain that things like group showers would get awkward if there were openly gay people in the military due to sexual tension, and she responded that there already are gay people taking showers with straight people. The only difference is you don't know who they are.

At best, this guy wants to believe what he already believes is right, and he wants to keep the military running smoothly. At worst, he's a bigot.

Interesting fact: the more older brothers you have, the more likely you are to be gay. The older brothers are no more likely to be gay.

Huh. Anecdotal evidence: my younger brother is gay. It must be true!

[Roy]

What I want to know is what's the big fucking deal about that? Seriously.

So gay people can't be open about their sexual preferences in the military. Ok. As far as I'm concerned, sexual preferences aren't something to be open about ANYWAYS be you straight, gay, or giant fucking frog. So I'm not sure what the fucking problem is at all.

And I have no problem whatsoever with gay people, I just don't get why keeping that sort of thing in the bedroom or whatever it is you happen to actually fuck people is a problem.

Or have people forgotten there are in fact females serving in the military that can be just as unnerved and demoralized by flagrant heterosexuality?

[RobbyPants]

It's not just that they can't be themselves. They can get discharged from the military if they are found out. That's the problem.

[Maj]

I'm all for making it not an automatic out if your sexual preferences are discovered, but I don't think that coming out will be anything that anyone wants to overtly do in the military any time soon.

I mean, if more than 70% of the women in the military have been victims of some sort of sexual assault (at the minimum), I can easily imagine that gays are going to face similar abuse.

[Kaelik]

I'm all for making it not an automatic out if your sexual preferences are discovered, but I don't think that coming out will be anything that anyone wants to overtly do in the military any time soon.

I mean, if more than 70% of the women in the military have been victims of some sort of sexual assault (at the minimum), I can easily imagine that gays are going to face similar abuse.

That may be, but so what? There is no legal punishment for being gay outside the military.

Some people are open, some are not. The fact that some people might be hurt if they come out is not in any even remote way even slightly suggestive that don't ask, don't tell should be on the books for even another second, and it has literally nothing to do with the topic.

[Crissa]

Maj:

That's why it's going to take a year to figure out how to create a system that doesn't enshrine special benefits and protects soldiers from institutional harm from both perceived and actual.

There's no particular reason we should accept that sort of abusive behavior like rape and bias in the military. It certainly does not look good to outsiders.

-Crissa

[shadzar]

I'm all for making it not an automatic out if your sexual preferences are discovered, but I don't think that coming out will be anything that anyone wants to overtly do in the military any time soon.

I mean, if more than 70% of the women in the military have been victims of some sort of sexual assault (at the minimum), I can easily imagine that gays are going to face similar abuse.

Yeah, because a straight man is going to want to sexually abuse a gay man, and a gay women will want to continue sexual abuse of women in the military?

Or just that gay men will come "out" and start sexually abusing the straight men that outnumber them?

I think the only part about the military that matters should be in regards to a draft. Otherwise it is choice.

If a women doesn't want to sleep with men, then she should have her own barracks or whatever. Likewise a straight man not wanting to sleep with a gay man....

Some segregation is not a bad thing.

Otherwise then we are going into men in the military wanting to share barracks with women...then you have to wonder their motive, so why not do it the simple way.

Who gives a fuck about sexual orientation or sex, just split em up to prevent them from having sex or fear of having sex forced upon them, be they man/woman, straight/gay.

That is all it really matters in the long run. Just like a stupid ass soap opera...who is having sex with who, or trying to.

Note relations with NCOs are already frowned upon in most cases...just ban sex in the military.

[TOZ]

Yeah, because a straight man is going to want to sexually abuse a gay man, and a gay women will want to continue sexual abuse of women in the military?

Or just that gay men will come "out" and start sexually abusing the straight men that outnumber them?

Soldiers in infantry units are sexually assaulted on forward bases regularly. In case you didn't understand, infantry units are all male.

I think the only part about the military that matters should be in regards to a draft. Otherwise it is choice.

If a women doesn't want to sleep with men, then she should have her own barracks or whatever. Likewise a straight man not wanting to sleep with a gay man....

Some segregation is not a bad thing.

We are already segregated as much as possible. Separate barracks, separate toilet facilities, etc. One case involved a man waiting until his victim was coming back from the shower and ambushed him then. Again, both male.

Otherwise then we are going into men in the military wanting to share barracks with women...then you have to wonder their motive, so why not do it the simple way.

Who gives a fuck about sexual orientation or sex, just split em up to prevent them from having sex or fear of having sex forced upon them, be they man/woman, straight/gay.

Only we cannot split them up any more than we already have. Some platoons operate out of bases no more than 100 yards square. For 12 months.

That is all it really matters in the long run. Just like a stupid ass soap opera...who is having sex with who, or trying to.

Note relations with NCOs are already frowned upon in most cases...just ban sex in the military.

Sex is banned on all overseas tours. It still occurs, both consensual and non. This is why repealing the policy has to be handled somewhat delicately. If you've never served and been in the situation, you cannot possibly understand.

[Maj]

Yeah, because a straight man is going to want to sexually abuse a gay man

Please don't make the mistake of limiting sexual abuse to inserting a stick into a hole. Beating, kicking, mutilating, burning, and severing are all things that can happen to genitalia and count just as much.

[Ganbare Gincun]

Yeah, because a straight man is going to want to sexually abuse a gay man

Please don't make the mistake of limiting sexual abuse to inserting a stick into a hole. Beating, kicking, mutilating, burning, and severing are all things that can happen to genitalia and count just as much.

And you'd be surprised how many "straight" men - indeed, oftentimes the very same ones that are adamantly against allowing gay men into the military - are secretly homosexual themselves and are either 1) fucking men on the down low or 2) are self-loathing, hateful psychological wrecks that are just barely able to keep their natural sexual urges in check through macho posturing and exulting in meaningless aggression. If DADT is revoked, I would not be surprised at all if a few of the "straight" men from Group #2 try to rape and/or kill one of the openly gay men that they serve with.

But Maj is right. There will be a lot more torture and murder then outright rape. But we won't hear about it for years, I'm sure. Thanks, American Media!

[Josh_Kablack]

Here's the thing.

Don't ask, don't tell is a nightmare that should never have happened and I am all for repealing it as soon as possible.

Yet, due to current American military subculture, repealing it is going to cost a not insignificant amount of money, lives, and replacement floor buffers. Thus I am all for putting some thought into how to minimize those costs - because sadly one cannot change culture as easily as one can change a policy.

[shadzar]

Yeah, because a straight man is going to want to sexually abuse a gay man, and a gay women will want to continue sexual abuse of women in the military?

Or just that gay men will come "out" and start sexually abusing the straight men that outnumber them?

Soldiers in infantry units are sexually assaulted on forward bases regularly. In case you didn't understand, infantry units are all male.

I thought that was over with ancient Rome, cause it isn't like a prison or something....

It took some stupid prejudice about sexuality that people have (which created a need for this thread) for me to learn those two things.