Why Is It Okay To Hate Openly Gay People?

Cielingcat · Post by **Cielingcat** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:45 pm

So I've been on the internet a long time. And one thing I've noticed is constant throughout it-men are able to say that they hate flamboyant gay men for no reason and they not only get away with it, but they are congratulated on it. Beyond that, even, the targets of their ire are blamed for holding back the gay rights movement, and probably for causing global warming too.

Why is it okay for people to hate people for harmlessly expressing themselves, and why does no one ever call these people on their bigotry?

I mean I understand where it comes from-the people who benefit from the status quo are perfectly fine with accepting other people into their benefits, as long as nothing changes. As long as the gays don't get to marry, or act out, or be anything other than perfectly docile, wannabe straight people, the people in power are content to allow them to live, most of the time.

But why is this okay?

Why do people think they're being accepting by saying "you can do whatever you want, as long as I don't have to see it"? Why do people think this is being generous, of all things?

Personally, I blame the culture of compromise in every form of political and social debate in America.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:57 pm

Cielingcat wrote:Why is it okay for people to hate people for harmlessly expressing themselves, and why does no one ever call these people on their bigotry?

It has nothing to do with just "gay" or any other specific idea. It is simple fact down to two words. Status quo.

Anything that changes the status quo upsets some people, and as such they fight against it.

Blacks are free, some don't like that.

Women can vote, some don't like that.

People are just trying to stay in their controlling comfort zone, where they rule over others, and just cannot accept other people have rights as well.

That is basically what USA has always been, as well many other countries that were once founded on religion based rule.

Until all the retards* on this planet decide to accept other people as being humans and having rights of their own, there will continue to be bigotry towards any and every thing imaginable.

*By choice of inaction to educate oneself, or become enlightened, rather than the slang use of the term associated with those born with a disability.

Murtak · Post by **Murtak** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:09 pm

I don't know if this is what you mean - here in Germany there are some celebrities who are basically doing nothing but yelling "look at me, I'm gay! Yay me!". Worse, they assume it is ok to treat others like shit because they have at some point in time been treated like shit. I hate those people (the latter more than the former, obviously).

Gays in general? Go right ahead. Well-dressed / flamboyant men? Sure. Some well-dressed asshole not shutting up, constantly telling me how fabulous he is? Hate those. Not anymore though than, say, Emos telling me how much they are hurting.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:17 pm

I have to agree it's the status quo.

That, and it's one of the few areas where people can use religion to try to justify their hatred. They can do this to the point of appearing virtuous for sticking by their convictions, all without really examining their religion to see if it's how they're really supposed to be acting.

"Old testament: gays are evil. New testament: love everyone equally. Let's see, the old testament came first, right?"

I think that's really all it is. A lot of people were raised to believe that any level of compromise is a bad thing and is totally unacceptable. So, it's no wonder that people feel they're being very permissive if they say gays can do what they want so long as they don't have to see it. By comparision, they're being much more permissive and they don't see the flaw in their thinking.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:48 pm

There are some things in nature that are constant and which are almost impossible to control, even though some people think they can. Thus the more you tighten up the reigns on the “politically correct” the more it comes out in those areas not covered by the politically correct and the more it comes out indirectly to those for other various reasons the notion of “politically correct” doesn’t apply.

I do want to point out that is wrong, absolutely wrong to hate anyone for no reason, and being somehow proud for hating gay men (or anyone really) is just flat out wrong. I would be glad to call anyone out on it.

So having said that, I have to ask what is “flamboyant” in the context of this post. I say this because sometimes being flamboyant (given to show or ostentation) can often be an “in your face attitude” designed to issue a flight or fight response in some. It may not be intentional; merely breaking some unwritten social taboo might be enough to get people to issue their emotional fight response, along with the inevitable ability of people to self delude themselves into thinking that their actions are always right.

To consider this in the opposite direction, consider how many people have been proud to say that they hate Sara Palin for no reason and get away with it in their community. Is she flamboyant? Does she push buttons (whether on purpose or by accident) of other people? (Does that excuse anything? HELL NO!)

Sometimes you have to be flamboyant; sometimes you have to push buttons. It’s the only way to get real change. I would prefer that in doing so you stay focused on your cause and not simply promote bashing of a different sort in a different direction. That sort of flamboyancy is not in your cause’s best interest and only serves to dilute the message.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:03 pm

tzor wrote:So having said that, I have to ask what is “flamboyant” in the context of this post.

This?

The can-can dancers as well as Boy George as compared to the others....

Captain Jack Sparrow as compared to Elizabeth Swan when first met....

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:03 pm

I do want to make one minor point, because it annoys the crap out of me. The “Old Testament” argument against homosexuality is a bullshit argument. You can’t pick and choose which parts of the Law you want to follow; it’s a package deal. If you do go with the codes of Leviticus you also have to go with all the “abominations” that include having heterosexual relations with a woman in her period and using primitive methods of birth control (like “coitus interruptus”). In the later case, the Old Testament talks about a man who is killed by God for doing this with his dead brother’s wife; note that this, like the case of Sodom is not as much about a specific act but the breaking of a nomadic requirement. In the case of Onan, this was the duty to provide an heir for his dead brother. In the case of Sodom, this was the solemn duty of hospitality which is why the story is prefaced with the example of hospitality of Abraham who in turn is promised that his wife will bear a child by the angelic messingers.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:20 pm

tzor wrote:I do want to make one minor point, because it annoys the crap out of me. The “Old Testament” argument against homosexuality is a bullshit argument. You can’t pick and choose which parts of the Law you want to follow; it’s a package deal.

Oh, I agree. It's just too many people don't look at it that way. That's a fun one to try and explain to someone who's utterly convinced their right (and righteous even).

Wyzzard · Post by **Wyzzard** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:47 pm

It's just homophoebia as usual.

The only difference is that nowadays you can't just say you hate someone purely because he's "gay", "black", "jew" or some other idiosyncratic shit.
So really, the whole "but it's because of how he acts" is just a bullshit excuse to make it seem like people actually have a legitimate reason to hate other people for absolutely no reason at all.

And so, cumwads from all over the globe get together over the internet and join a metaphysical circle so they can fellate each other over how cunningly disguised their trite ideas are.

As for the homophobia itself? Well, I suppose it's just leftover animal nature to be wary of the unknown.

Being afraid of the strange, colourfull men is much like being afraid of clowns, it's just peoples primal fear going off when they see something they aren't used to; that's perfectly normal animal behavior.
Some people are just too retarded to realize on an intellectual level that the man in the tight pants obviously isn't packing a gun.

It's kind of embarrasing for the human race not to have mastered such a base instinct. But then, billions of people still think an unknowable beast is watching their every move and deciding how their lives will pan out.

Ofcourse, you could also go into how homophobes are men who are actually afraid of their own latent homosexuallity and are secretly aroused by the idea of being dominated by another man.
But whatever, I'll stop here. It's not like excuses for stupid people are in short supply anyway.

To sum it up: homophobia is not any more okay on-line than it is IRL, but you have to realize that human evolution have come a long way; so much so that even gormless people can use the internet now.

@Tzor: I wouldn't call Sara Palin flamboyant, for much the same reason i wouldn't call Keanu Reeves an actor. Palin is more loud than truly flamboyant.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 5:14 pm

While the topic has been mostly male attitude, there are homophobic women as well. You cannot really exclude them from the discussion, because women are online just as much as men are bashing gays/etc.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 5:30 pm

shadzar wrote:While the topic has been mostly male attitude, there are homophobic women as well. You cannot really exclude them from the discussion, because women are online just as much as men are bashing gays/etc.

It's not a male phenomenon. My cousin was visiting his grandma a few weeks ago and she told him that when she sees gays on TV, it "makes her sick". Of course, a lot of the women in that family are batshit crazy to begin with, so this is really just one symptom of something much, much worse...

Kobajagrande · Post by **Kobajagrande** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:17 pm

None of this "fear of change" bullshit.

The answer is simple. Two words: Christian morals.

People wrongly blame Christian churches for a lot of things yet not for this. Give the church its due.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:31 pm

Why blame lunatics for being lunatics? That is like blaming the gay for being gay.

So don't just use bigotry against the stupid Christians to excuse their bigotry against gays.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:32 pm

Although, while many Christians hold these morals in high regard, I'm not sure I could accurately call them "Christian" morals.

The actual teachings of Christ are about loving all people. Too many Christians forget that and justify their hatred because of one of many out-dated/culturally non-applicable rules.

I guess what I'm saying is many Christians do consider it to be Christian morals, but I'm not sure there's anything Christian about hating gay people just cuz.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:41 pm

Christianity...Old testament (Jewish bible....) New Testament...(Christ)

(Kind of like The Mask, and the the Son of the Mask, or King Kong, and Son of King Kong, or Godzilla and Son of Godzilla....)

Leviticus

So it is anything using the Book of Leviticus.

Kobajagrande · Post by **Kobajagrande** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:42 pm

shadzar wrote:Why blame lunatics for being lunatics? That is like blaming the gay for being gay.

So don't just use bigotry against the stupid Christians to excuse their bigotry against gays.

I am not bigoted against church/organized religion. Heck, even though I am an atheist, I can safely say I have more and deeper understanding of what religion is, and when and why it should be respected then most people who are religious because ''that's how it should be"", and most certainly more than all the "religion is evil and is to blame for all bad things in the world" people.

And I still say give the church its due here.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:51 pm

I just like using bigot in anything to do with Xtians. I wasn't implying you said it out of bigotry.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:54 pm

Actually, I suppose I should agree with you here. Giving the church its due does make sense. Whether or not Christian morals promote this level of hatred is irrelevant; the church (or many churches) promote it.

RiotGearEpsilon · Post by **RiotGearEpsilon** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 8:56 pm

As a man-fancier myself, I will say without apology that flamboyantly self-celebratory homosexuals are as aggravating as flamboyantly self-celebratory heterosexuals, i.e., very.

Calibron · Post by **Calibron** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:02 pm

One of the reasons, I am sure, is that the flaming or flamboyant behaviors are, by their nature, calling a great deal of attention to themselves; many ordinary people don't have strong feelings about gay issues and are content to let the cards fall where they will and let the more impassioned battle it out among themselves, but, as I mentioned before, those acting flamboyant are basically making spectacles of themselves and more or less forcing you to take notice of them, and, by association, the issues concerning them. People don't like this and thus conclude that they don't like these flaming flamboyant [EDITED].

Another possible point: This may not be true of many, though I suspect it is, but I find this brand of behavior damned annoying; but as Murtak mentioned early on, it's not particularly different from emos or "OGs", or any other particular behavior group many people don't like. I don't want to associate with any of these people that exhibit the aforementioned behaviors because I find them somewhere between annoying and offensive, but have nothing against the larger groups they purport to represent and wish them well and semi-actively push for equality for those groups that don't have it.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:19 pm

RiotGearEpsilon wrote:are as aggravating as flamboyantly self-celebratory heterosexuals, i.e., very.

Why do you hate America, RGE?

Is it our freedoms? Is it because Jesus loves us more?

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:23 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:
RiotGearEpsilon wrote:are as aggravating as flamboyantly self-celebratory heterosexuals, i.e., very.
Why do you hate America, RGE?

Is it our freedoms? Is it because Jesus loves us more?

Jesus doesn't rule over America, GoldmanSachs does.

The freedom to be unhealthy, the freedom to be jobless, the freedom to be homeless, the freedom to be abused and ignored by the very government set up to help "the People".

I have hated America ever since an actor was elected to run it. His piss-on-it economy (trickle-down) sent it into it's death spiral.

I am just waiting for my ticket on a shuttle to the moon based or Mars based habitats.

Gays welcome, politicians NOT.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:38 pm

RiotGearEpsilon wrote:As a man-fancier myself, I will say without apology that flamboyantly self-celebratory homosexuals are as aggravating as flamboyantly self-celebratory heterosexuals, i.e., very.

I agree there.

I have nothing against anyone for their whatever their sexual orientation may be.

However I consider the sort of "flaming" where I can tell someone is gay by the second syllable of their "Hel-lo" to be exceedingly rude in most circumstances. To my mind, it would be like me introducing myself as "Hi, I'M STRAIGHT!!!! and my name is Josh" - behavior appropriate for bars, wild parties, and raves only.

erik · Post by **erik** » Wed Nov 25, 2009 11:14 pm

shadzar wrote: I am just waiting for my ticket on a shuttle to the moon based or Mars based habitats.

Shit, is that all yer waiting for? I'll chip in.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Thu Nov 26, 2009 4:16 am

Cielingcat wrote:Why do people think they're being accepting by saying "you can do whatever you want, as long as I don't have to see it"?

Because it is? Part of accepting is enduring without protest or reaction. And when it comes to people who don't believe in the same things you do, you don't want them getting in your face and telling you to accept their beliefs.

I mean, I don't care whether a person bathes or not, but damn! Don't stand next to me.

Josh wrote:I agree there.

I have nothing against anyone for their whatever their sexual orientation may be.

However I consider the sort of "flaming" where I can tell someone is gay by the second syllable of their "Hel-lo" to be exceedingly rude in most circumstances.

I'm in this category. But I'll tolerate the flaming so long as I can go around singing Katy Perry's Ur So Gay as loud as I want.

The Gaming Den

Why Is It Okay To Hate Openly Gay People?

Why Is It Okay To Hate Openly Gay People?

Re: Why Is It Okay To Hate Openly Gay People?