NationStates Jolt Archive

The purpose of sexual intercourse is to have cute children to love and care for. The fucking faggots and lesbians only care about the pleasure of sex.

ummmmm - when the Mystical Skeptic is fucking He's pretty much focused on the pleasure of sex also - that or baseball. Does that mean I'm gay?

It's not the same obviously. But the way it is used, in this case calling someone a homophobe because he thinks penis' are ugly, should be treated in almost the same way. This complete rejection of logic stops any constructive debate and gives someone an illegitimate moral high ground, thus any subsequent argument he makes is not taken seriously as it is only used to further justify his "homophobia".The reason that he was called a homophobe was that he (initially) said men and then gay men - as though gay men are not men.
I wouldn't say that that was an instance of homophobia, it was more of a mistake, although his attempt to justify anti-gay sentiment would be evidence of homophobia.

Well, why not? Would you rather see the world overpopulated by the Chinese, or the Americans? Who cares?

The world is going to get overpopulated, one way or another. If you had to choose one way for the entire rest of the world to live tomorrow, whose path would you choose? America's, or China's?Yeah, because America and China will still be on the same paths for an indeterminate amount of time. :rolleyes:

The reason that he was called a homophobe was that he (initially) said men and then gay men - as though gay men are not men.
I wouldn't say that that was an instance of homophobia, it was more of a mistake, although his attempt to justify anti-gay sentiment would be evidence of homophobia.



Maybe I didn'tread far enough but I di0nd't see anything like that.. I just saw Fassigen repeatedly sticking his fingers in his ears and refusing to accept that MS might actually not have been writing anything anti-gay.

He even conceded that his initial phrasing could come off badly:

Fair enough. I could ask for that change - but methinks you are reading far too much into it.

I don't think MS was being homophobic. I think Fassigen was just looking for a fight and overreacted to this and wouldn't let it go. At that point, the whole conversation lost its meaning.

Maybe I didn'tread far enough but I di0nd't see anything like that.. I just saw Fassigen repeatedly sticking his fingers in his ears and refusing to accept that MS might actually not have been writing anything anti-gay.

He even conceded that his initial phrasing could come off badly:

I don't think MS was being homophobic. I think Fassigen was just looking for a fight and overreacted to this and wouldn't let it go. At that point, the whole conversation lost its meaning.As far as that goes, I agree that it was merely his initial phrasing that came off badly.

and what happens if you end up with ugly children?

You leave them outside on rocks in the middle of winter.

and what happens if you end up with ugly children?

then you hate and neglect and abuse them of course.

I'm just replying so I can search for this thread easier

I have put considerable thought and consideration to this during some of my prime beer-drinking moments. I was at Hooter's yesterday - pondering the complex interpersonal dynamics which cause (edit: added) straight, anglo saxon, tall, blue collar, moderately overweight, non-smoking, Christian but not churchgoing, (end edit) men (who wear bluejeans) to be biased against against women and gay men. (between swigs and jiggles) Somewhere around my third or fourth pitcher it hit me;

The reason why is because naked men are funny-looking.

Now I'm serious - hear me out. Think about the last few movies you've seen; the majority of times when a naked woman is shown or implied it is meant to be erotic. arousing. titillating. yummy!

Now - with very few exception whenever a movie shows or implies a naked MAN it is humorous. Laughable. Comic relief. Ha!

So that is my purely non-scientific anecdotal proof that naked men are funny-looking. Argue all you want but you have to admit there is a reasonable cause to consider it to be an irrefutable precedent setting fact. Maybe.

Now - when anyone looks at a man with desire men thinks - "WTF? men are funny-looking naked. There must be something seriously wrong with anyone who would gets aroused by something that funny looking!

So men treat women and gay men as though there were something wrong with them. Like they are all rabid fans of professional bowling or something. It just ain't right. It does not compute.

When men are fortunate enough to BE the object of affection they do not complain; it is a means to an ends. However - at the end of the day no matter how much a man may respect and/or love the woman and women around him - he has to think to himself - "WTF? How can they like THAT?" even (and most often ESPECIALLY) when it pertains to himself.

This also explains why men typically do not discriminate against lesbians - because they like naked women too and agree that naked men are funny-looking. (not to mention the opportunity - no matter how minute - of them making a man sandwich out of him someday...)

So the solution is for men to realize that yes - women really are weird for liking us. We ARE funny-looking naked - and we are fortunate that women love us anyway. We shouldn't treat them like oddities for liking something so weird - we should treat them like goddesses who grace us with their perfection and tolerate our flaws with amazing patience and - for whatever reason - even appreciate some of them.

-M.S.

--Next weeks pondering; why women don't ever ask YOU to pull THEIR finger.

Interesting point. I think you are on to something.

Buuuuuuuurp!

Huh? You say something?

She said you were a waste of time, and I for one agree.

I have put considerable thought and consideration to this during some of my prime beer-drinking moments. I was at Hooter's yesterday - pondering the complex interpersonal dynamics which cause (edit: added) straight, anglo saxon, tall, blue collar, moderately overweight, non-smoking, Christian but not churchgoing, (end edit) men (who wear bluejeans) to be biased against against women and gay men. (between swigs and jiggles) Somewhere around my third or fourth pitcher it hit me;

The reason why is because naked men are funny-looking.

Now I'm serious - hear me out. Think about the last few movies you've seen; the majority of times when a naked woman is shown or implied it is meant to be erotic. arousing. titillating. yummy!

Now - with very few exception whenever a movie shows or implies a naked MAN it is humorous. Laughable. Comic relief. Ha!

So that is my purely non-scientific anecdotal proof that naked men are funny-looking. Argue all you want but you have to admit there is a reasonable cause to consider it to be an irrefutable precedent setting fact. Maybe.

Now - when anyone looks at a man with desire men thinks - "WTF? men are funny-looking naked. There must be something seriously wrong with anyone who would gets aroused by something that funny looking!

So men treat women and gay men as though there were something wrong with them. Like they are all rabid fans of professional bowling or something. It just ain't right. It does not compute.

When men are fortunate enough to BE the object of affection they do not complain; it is a means to an ends. However - at the end of the day no matter how much a man may respect and/or love the woman and women around him - he has to think to himself - "WTF? How can they like THAT?" even (and most often ESPECIALLY) when it pertains to himself.

This also explains why men typically do not discriminate against lesbians - because they like naked women too and agree that naked men are funny-looking. (not to mention the opportunity - no matter how minute - of them making a man sandwich out of him someday...)

So the solution is for men to realize that yes - women really are weird for liking us. We ARE funny-looking naked - and we are fortunate that women love us anyway. We shouldn't treat them like oddities for liking something so weird - we should treat them like goddesses who grace us with their perfection and tolerate our flaws with amazing patience and - for whatever reason - even appreciate some of them.

-M.S.

--Next weeks pondering; why women don't ever ask YOU to pull THEIR finger.
You are funny looking naked.


Speak for yourself.

You are funny looking naked.





I don't have to be naked for that!

The reason that he was called a homophobe was that he (initially) said men and then gay men - as though gay men are not men.
I wouldn't say that that was an instance of homophobia, it was more of a mistake, although his attempt to justify anti-gay sentiment would be evidence of homophobia.

Who cares?

Yeah, because America and China will still be on the same paths for an indeterminate amount of time. :rolleyes:

You still stuck on hate speech? I've asked you nicely to cease. That you are not using it to describe me does not make it any less offensive.

Though I will admit there really is no easy single term for someone who does not approve of homosexual behavior. Anti-gay is not so offensive - though it sounds as if you could combine that with proto-gay to get a nuclear reaction. I sure as hell would not use 'moral majority'. Gag! Homophobic is - as I shared before - not only offensive it is inaccurate as there is no real phobia - it just makes the person saying it sound uneducated. I did kinda like Fass's term herterocentrist. I think that is accurate, inoffensive and descriptive - though admittedly bad for creating bumper-sticker slogans.

Ugh. Depressing how this has evolved. Shit like this is why so many people out there still hold "heterosexist" (who the fuck invented this word?) views. As a reaction to something they see as utterly revolting - shown in such a manner, only makes things worse.

Compare it to say, reactionaries in politics.

(who the fuck invented this word?)

Fassigen

She said you were a waste of time, and I for one agree.

Yeah - but she sounds hot - I should buy her a drink.


Buuuuuuuurp!

Whoa! I could taste chili that time!

"heterosexist"! That was the word! Dang me to lazy click on the 'back' button and too impatient to wait for jolt ........ to ..........................download.

Heterocentrist? What does that mean?

Yeah - but she sounds hot - I should buy her a drink.


Buuuuuuuurp!

Whoa! I could taste chili that time!

I'm impressed. Someone on this forum actually made me crack up about something. :D

You know, by the same logic, I could use "homosexist" and "homocentrist"...however wrong that sounds...

Fassigen

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosexism

and what happens if you end up with ugly children?

Bloody hell I hope I never have an ugly or stupid child. Terribly materialistic and all that, but I would be so irritated.

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosexism

Who do you think wrote the entire page?

Click Stand;12984185']Who do you think wrote the entire page?

And all the 573,000 results (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=heterosexism&btnG=Search) from a Google search?

"Heterosexism" really isn't a particularly obscure term, at least not relative to the subject.

Heterocentrist? What does that mean?

Well, apparently - unlike Fass - I really DID make that up - so I supposed it can mean whatever I feel like making it mean.

My first thought is to make a a concoction including rum...

but instead I think I will llet it mean the perception that heterosexual behavior is the 'center' of the universe around which all things orbit...


like rum.

You know, by the same logic, I could use "homosexist" and "homocentrist"...however wrong that sounds...

About as wrong as "heterophobic" would sound, eh? - hence my point.

I really DID make that up

Nope.

Translation: OH NOEZ YELLOW PERIL

Yes, I've defied your request, and I don't care. China, or India for that matter, is not formulating an evil plot to take over the world with their massive population. Although you may be right, since it's not like they have a one child policy or anything like that...

Besides, that makes no sense. The world is already overpopulated, but funnily enough, it can get more overpopulated. Your average Chinese or Indian couple is not going to think "hmm, the Americans are having less children, so there's more room for ours!" and decide to reproduce more. Even the governments wouldn't think that way.



Actually, yes, Oh Noez, Yellow Peril.

See, this is the lovely thing about so many liberal ideologues.

They love it when everyone ELSE has to live with their fucking ideologies.

The Chinese do not have free speech. The Chinese do not have political freedoms. The Chinese are still routinely sent to re-education camps.

The Chinese certainly do have a one child system. For now. It's not like they need to compete at this point.

Americans do.

Chinese Power is what it is BECAUSE they have so many people. I mean the government is clusterfucked, backward, and deceitful, they can barely rule the people they have. Yet still they are rapidly becoming the worlds superpower.

Why?

Because of the number of people they have.

Why do you think homosexuality is a "sin"? Because the people who called it sinful wiped out the people who practiced it. Why? Because they could. Because there were more of them.

About as wrong as "heterophobic" would sound, eh? - hence my point.

You know, that just gave me an amazing idea. The chance I get, I'll call into the Michael Savage show and mention it. :D

You still stuck on hate speech? I've asked you nicely to cease. That you are not using it to describe me does not make it any less offensive. Since I haven't used any hate speech, it's rather difficult to cease doing something I'm not doing.

Though I will admit there really is no easy single term for someone who does not approve of homosexual behavior. Anti-gay is not so offensive - though it sounds as if you could combine that with proto-gay to get a nuclear reaction.Anti-gay is synonomous with homophobic. They can be used interchangably.

Homophobic is - as I shared before - not only offensive it is inaccurate as there is no real phobia - it just makes the person saying it sound uneducated.Since phobia means "fear of or aversion to", homophobia is accurate since homophobes have an aversion to homosexuals.

I did kinda like Fass's term herterocentrist. I think that is accurate, inoffensive and descriptive - though admittedly bad for creating bumper-sticker slogans.Heterosexism is something different than homophobia. Homophobes are heterosexist, but it's possible to be heterosexist without being homophobic.

You leave them outside on rocks in the middle of winter.
good point.
But what I was referring to is, if the purpose of having sex (apparently) is to have cute children then what of ugly children?
Does that mean you have enjoyed the sex too much?
or not enough?
Or does this mean you're not doing it right?
which hole is it? I mean, I've heard women have 7 but only 4 of them can be used for such practises. Are ugly children from using one of the 3 holes you're not meant to?

Such things confuse liddul ol' me.

Since I haven't used any hate speech, it's rather difficult to cease doing something I'm not doing.

Anti-gay is synonomous with homophobic. They can be used interchangably.

Since phobia means "fear of or aversion to", homophobia is accurate since homophobes have an aversion to homosexuals.

Heterosexism is something different than homophobia. Homophobes are heterosexist, but it's possible to be heterosexist without being homophobic.

You use the word homophobic as a derogative term intended not to describe but provoke. Anti-gay is synonymous with homophobic just as homosexual is synonymous with faggot. It does not make it acceptable or any less provoative. If you expect to win people over to your side of any argument you will need to expand your tactics beyond name-calling. Otherwise you demonstrate that you are just as small-minded as the rednecks who call people faggots.

You continue to use offensive language in spite of having been politely asked to cease. You are a hypocrite and a bigot - no better than the klan. You defend your use of offensive language like a rap artist tries to rationalize his use of the 'n' word. - just because 'everyone' does it will not make it right.

Damn right.

This world is full of bigots. Take the US government for one example, or the mainstream media.

good point.
But what I was referring to is, if the purpose of having sex (apparently) is to have cute children then what of ugly children?
Does that mean you have enjoyed the sex too much?
or not enough?
Or does this mean you're not doing it right?
which hole is it? I mean, I've heard women have 7 but only 4 of them can be used for such practises. Are ugly children from using one of the 3 holes you're not meant to?

Such things confuse liddul ol' me.

4?

O_o

...which one am I missing?

4?

O_o

...which one am I missing?

I really, really don't want to know.

You use the word homophobic as a derogative term intended not to describe but provoke. Anti-gay is synonymous with homophobic just as homosexual is synonymous with faggot. It does not make it acceptable or any less provoative. If you expect to win people over to your side of any argument you will need to expand your tactics beyond name-calling. Otherwise you demonstrate that you are just as small-minded as the rednecks who call people faggots.

You continue to use offensive language in spite of having been politely asked to cease. You are a hypocrite and a bigot - no better than the klan. You defend your use of offensive language like a rap artist tries to rationalize his use of the 'n' word. - just because 'everyone' does it will not make it right.

What the hell?

How is anti-gay less offensive than homophobic?

What the hell?

How is anti-gay less offensive than homophobic?

I think he's making the point that neither term is being used descriptively, but rather, derisively.

It's what happens when a person, who may harbor no ill will toward homosexuals at all, has a dissenting opinion on some matter of interest to the gay community, and gets labeled using those terms simply because of that disagreement. In such a case, either term could be considered highly insulting. Furthermore, I suspect that in such cases those using those terms often know perfectly well that they don't h onestly apply in a meaningful way, but are seeking to use them to cause hurt.

I think he's making the point that neither term is being used descriptively, but rather, derisively.

It's what happens when a person, who may harbor no ill will toward homosexuals at all, has a dissenting opinion on some matter of interest to the gay community, and gets labeled using those terms simply because of that disagreement. In such a case, either term could be considered highly insulting. Furthermore, I suspect that in such cases those using those terms often know perfectly well that they don't h onestly apply in a meaningful way, but are seeking to use them to cause hurt.

Could be, but I interpreted it as I did due to his comparison of 'homophobic' and 'anti-gay' to 'homosexual' and 'faggot'.

You use the word homophobic as a derogative term intended not to describe but provoke. Anti-gay is synonymous with homophobic just as homosexual is synonymous with faggot. It does not make it acceptable or any less provoative. If you expect to win people over to your side of any argument you will need to expand your tactics beyond name-calling. Otherwise you demonstrate that you are just as small-minded as the rednecks who call people faggots.

You continue to use offensive language in spite of having been politely asked to cease. You are a hypocrite and a bigot - no better than the klan. You defend your use of offensive language like a rap artist tries to rationalize his use of the 'n' word. - just because 'everyone' does it will not make it right.

Yeah because using the term homophobic is on the level of burning crosses on someones yard, terrorizing their family, and helping organize lynchings :rolleyes:

Yeah because using the term homophobic is on the level of burning crosses on someones yard, terrorizing their family, and helping organize lynchings :rolleyes:

Give it time.

Look what happened to the guy on the cast of Grey's Anatomy. He said something taken as homophobic (maybe it was, we don't know) but as a result he had to go to "counselling" (reeducation?) and lost his job.

4?

O_o

...which one am I missing?
you not watched Family Guy? According to Quagmire it's just behind the knee.

Give it time.

Look what happened to the guy on the cast of Grey's Anatomy. He said something taken as homophobic (maybe it was, we don't know) but as a result he had to go to "counselling" (reeducation?) and lost his job.

I dont think it is particularly right but if thats all he had to go through I am not too sad for him

Give it time.

Look what happened to the guy on the cast of Grey's Anatomy. He said something taken as homophobic (maybe it was, we don't know) but as a result he had to go to "counselling" (reeducation?) and lost his job.
no.
If you read up about him, it's obvious he got the sack for being a loud-mouthed arsehole, not just a homophobe. That incident was more the final straw rather than an isolated occurrence.

you not watched Family Guy? According to Quagmire it's just behind the knee.

lawl

no.
If you read up about him, it's obvious he got the sack for being a loud-mouthed arsehole, not just a homophobe. That incident was more the final straw rather than an isolated occurrence.

I can't dispute that, but I still find it unsettling that they made him do the counseling thing before firing him. If firing was necessary, then better to just do it.

I dont think it is particularly right but if thats all he had to go through I am not too sad for him

Why?

(For the sake of argument let's say it was.)

Why was being forced to attend "therapy" then losing his job not enough punishment to satisfy you? Is making an anti-gay statement so grievous?

Whatever happened to sticks & stones? I get crap at work all the time for being a Mormon but I'm a big boy and don't need to gain validation by having anybody re-educated and fired.

Why?

(For the sake of argument let's say it was.)

Why was being forced to attend "therapy" then losing his job not enough punishment to satisfy you? Is making an anti-gay statement so grievous?

Whatever happened to sticks & stones? I get crap at work all the time for being a Mormon but I'm a big boy and don't need to gain validation by having anybody re-educated and fired.

Am I right in thinking that this "re-education" is more akin to sensitivity training people occasionally have to go through after being accused of sexual harassment?

Am I right in thinking that this "re-education" is more akin to sensitivity training people occasionally have to go through after being accused of sexual harassment?

That's not the way it was characterized in the news reports I heard. Typically sensitivity training is designed to enable the person to return to the workplace as well as cover the arse of the company against litigation. In the instance of this actor, it sounded a lot more like private counselling.

"Why straight men have a bias against women and gay men"

So, OP is stereotyping straight men as being guilty of stereotyping? How intelligent.

Why?

(For the sake of argument let's say it was.)

Why was being forced to attend "therapy" then losing his job not enough punishment to satisfy you? Is making an anti-gay statement so grievous?

Whatever happened to sticks & stones? I get crap at work all the time for being a Mormon but I'm a big boy and don't need to gain validation by having anybody re-educated and fired.

From everything I have heard about the guy he was an ass top to bottom and pushed the line over and over with his employer his loss of a job has less to do with his view on homosexuals as it does for him being not worth the trouble for the employer

That being said trying to compare sensitivity training to the shit that the Klan does or has done is ridiculous

If it were up to me no he would not have had to go through the training (what happened with his employer is their decision and one that they had the right to make SPECIALLY considering their entire income is really based off of public image)

And compared to what homosexuals currently have to go through in this country on a much more frequent scale it just does not even compare in my mind.

And compared to what homosexuals currently have to go through in this country on a much more frequent scale it just does not even compare in my mind.

You think homosexuals are the only people discriminated against in the US? You need very much to open your eyes. Religious intolerance is rampant - you need only read this forum to see examples of hatred every day.

Regardless of that - even one occurrence of hate is too much regardless the nature of the victim. It certainly is not a valid justification to ignore it - or even cause more.


As far as anti-gay and homophobe. Anti-gay is not offensive but it is inaccurate - by it's definition anti-gay (anti=the opposite) would simply be an incorrect term for heterosexual. Homophobia as it is used is offensive as well as inaccurate. Wraping it up into a pseudo-science sounding term affords it no legitimacy. It is a nonsense term since the people assaulted with it do not feel any sort of fear about homosexual behavior. It is offensive not only for that but also because it has been specifically designed to denigrate people. That the person speaking it does not feel it is offensive does not mean it is not. How many southerners used the 'n' word without ever considering it offensive? How do you feel if you are called a derogatory name? There is nobody who wants to be called a 'faggot' and there is nobody who wants to be called a 'homophobe' - neither is likely to sway anyone to another viewpoint. Do gay people feel swayed when a person calls them a 'sinner?". Name calling is the league of small minds. Defending that league should be more embarrassing to all of you.

Homophobe clearly fits within the definition of hate speech. I am not only saddened here be the number of people trying to rationalize their use of this hate term - but also at how eager they are to denigrate people with name-calling rather than engage people with constructive discussion.

You use the word homophobic as a derogative term intended not to describe but provoke. Nope, homophobic is generally used to describe something.

If you expect to win people over to your side of any argument you will need to expand your tactics beyond name-calling.If I expect to win people over to my side I have to begin by describing what their side is and who they are. Using the word homophobic is the most accurate way of doing so.

You continue to use offensive language in spite of having been politely asked to cease. You continue to believe that 'homophobe' is offensive in spite of proof that it isn't.

I think he's making the point that neither term is being used descriptively, but rather, derisively.

It's what happens when a person, who may harbor no ill will toward homosexuals at all, has a dissenting opinion on some matter of interest to the gay community, and gets labeled using those terms simply because of that disagreement. In such a case, either term could be considered highly insulting. Furthermore, I suspect that in such cases those using those terms often know perfectly well that they don't h onestly apply in a meaningful way, but are seeking to use them to cause hurt.This isn't a problem with any meaning of the word 'homophobe', but rather with the misuse of the word.

Give it time.

Look what happened to the guy on the cast of Grey's Anatomy. He said something taken as homophobic (maybe it was, we don't know) but as a result he had to go to "counselling" (reeducation?) and lost his job.They simply chose to not renew his contract. He wasn't fired or anything.

As far as anti-gay and homophobe. Anti-gay is not offensive but it is inaccurate - by it's definition anti-gay (anti=the opposite) would simply be an incorrect term for heterosexual. Homophobia as it is used is offensive as well as inaccurate. Wraping it up into a pseudo-science sounding term affords it no legitimacy. It is a nonsense term since the people assaulted with it do not feel any sort of fear about homosexual behavior.Er...no. "Anti" means "in opposition to" not "the opposite of". "Phobia" is, as we already discussed, not limited to fear but also means "aversion to". Your lack of knowledge about etymology is perhaps why you have the misinformed opinion that "homophobic" is hate speech.

American Heritage Dictionary
an·ti (ān'tī, -tē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. an·tis
A person who is opposed to something, such as a group, policy, proposal, or practice.


American Heritage Dictionary
pho·bi·a (fō'bē-ə) Pronunciation Key
n.
A persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.
A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.

Do gay people feel swayed when a person calls them a 'sinner?".Yes, quite frequently, which is part of the reason why many gays live in denial.