Homophobia here at DU.

[ThomCat]

A number of people have posted about how GLBT people are shutting down debate and excluding straight people from threads. Personally I don't see it. What I do keep seeing is,

1. We (GLBT people) are all too sensitive. We need to lighten up.
2. We should shut up and wait until after elections to speak up or we'll be responsible for the loss.
3. We should listen to our straight "allies" and let them tell us how to act.
4. We should let our straight "allies" tell us what's homophobic and what's not.
5. Homophobic people are really gay, so it's all our fault we're hated.
6. Our equal rights are just a "special interest."
7. We choose to be gay, and now we're just choosing to be difficult.
8. Straight men have some reason to fear being raped in communal showers by brawny gay men.
9. Every bad person in the news is secretly gay.

Did I miss any of the major themes?

[Sammy Pepys]

1. Where did #7 come from?

If that happened here that really pisses me off.

[ThomCat]

6. The claim that we choose to be gay

shows up regularly. Many people still believe this. And several times it's been in the context of discussions about choosing to get along. Apparently, we choose not to get along. x(

[DIKB]

168. Those that think it's a choice make me sick

My brother made no choice, he was very religious, and was trying to convince himself for a long time that he wasn't gay. However, you can't fight who you are, and eventually he came out.

I think it's the terms "came out" that confuse some people, as well as the "sin" issue. Religious people will never be convinced that being gay is natural because it is also a "sin." In their feeble little brains "You choose to sin, being gay is a sin, therefore you choose to be gay." There is only the acknowledgement to yourself of your true nature, and sharing it with others. These are the only choices involved.

Homosexuality is no more a sin, then having hazel eyes is.

[wryter2000]

371. Please don't lump all religious people together

The American Episcopal church is right now fighting its own parent church to do the right thing for Eugene Robinson and all of their parishioners.

I do wish people wouldn't lump all people of faith in with the Christo-fascist Zombie Brigade.

[LostinVA]

412. I agree with your point

And, it's something I don't do.

[DIKB]

452. I wish I knew how

to refer to them then. As it is reasonable, intelligent, even liberal people I know, who are religious, still have a hard time realizing that "homosexual sin" is B.S. (My personal opinion is that all sin is B.S.)

When I say religious, I intend for it to mean "people who adhere to religious doctrine." Homosexuality being a sin is more of a group-think mindset, whereas individually those people are more open to nuance and understanding. Until someone convinces me that they are an individual, I view them as just another one of the pack.

I applaud the efforts of the Episcopal church, however churches like that are few and far between, I live in the bible belt, and I don't know of any others.

[Irreverend IX]

187. I've never, ever seen someone claim that on DU.

If they did I assume the post was deleted and they were banned not long thereafter.

[ThomCat]

192. You are half correct.

The posts often get deleted, but the people who say it rarely ever get tombstoned.

[NashVegas]

361. I, Too, Have Never Seen Anyone On DU Say That

I wouldn't expect anyone who would write such a thing to be tombstoned, eventually. Sometimes it takes a few months.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. being straight, I may be dense on the issue

but, frankly, I don't notice any homophobia here. TO the contrary, this site is comfy BECAUSE we don't have bigots, racists, homophobes or other Freeper types.

now, if it exists, and I am an unwilling participant, simply because I am not sensitive enough to what some might consider homophobic, well, I have a lot to learn.

[LostinVA]

29. OMFG -- are you being sarcastic?

Seriously, not flaming, because the homophobia here often just REEKS.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

55. no sarcasm.

it might be the threads follow. It might be not visiting that forum every day. But, honestly, outside of this place, there is a hell of a lot more in society.

[LostinVA]

65. Two things about that

1.) This is a Progressive message board -- there should eb ZERO TOLERANCE for ANY homophobia. No wiggle room.

2.) I d o NOT live in a progressive state. However, I have lived here for seven years and have NEVER ONCE been the target of a homophobic comment or action. I rarely even overhear comments in public spaces that can be construed as homophobic. I see more homophobia in GD in ONE DAY than I've seen in SEVEN YEARS in a red state.

That is a fact, not an opinion.

I actually expect it IRL, and rarely encounter it. I don't expect it here, and daily encounter it. You may not see it, but we do. It's often directly said to us.

[foreigncorrespondent]

71. That is because...

...a lot of straight people right here at DU and in the real world walk around with blinders on. You are obviously one of them, and do not see it when we complain about it. That isn't an insult either, it is just the truth.

People in the real world don't see homophobia either. My sister has a friend whose husband happens to be very homophobic. He knows about me yet every time I visit my sister (she lives four hours away) and she invites them over for a barbie, sure enough at some point during the course of the evening he will get homophobic. My sister doesn't see it.

I can tell you to take a walk in our shoes for a bit, but even that won't show you much, because you really aren't gay. It would be like telling a racist to take a walk in the shoes of an African American for a while. If they racist happens to be a white racist it won't work, because no matter what, he/she cannot change the colour of his/her skin. And you can't change your sexuality at a whim, just like I can't.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

252. i am not sure it is possible to walk in another group's shoes, although

some have tried.

When I studied in the USSR, it was the reverse. An American student walking the streets of Moscow, Kiev, Vilnius and RIga? I was so obvious (not just the clothes, but the attitude) that it was as though I was on stage at all times, and everyone, not just the KGB handlers they had following each student, was watching.

You make it seem as though it is my fault somehow, that I don't notice, nor see homophobia at DU. How can that be? I am a product of my personal environment, and in my non-DU environment, I run into many gays, in all walks of life. I see how bigots treat them and have even litigated the issue in an employment case. I do not see, or have not noticed, such animosity here. Along the same line I also represent another group easily as harassed in this modern civilized era as gays. Muslims. You have no clue about the sideways comments I hear repeatedly. And you know what? It makes me feel great to help people in need, in litigation, especially when the worst scum in society try to piss on them and deny them their rights.

I suspect that if it does exist (homophobia), and clearly some posters think it does, (So who am I to argue with their beliefs and reactions?) I don't notice it because

a) what strikes one person as homophobic may not strike another.
b) some people are super-sensitive and are looking for a fight, imagining homophobia where none exists
c) I don't spend much time on the gay and lesbian threads, because I prefer hillary and bush bashing, with condi a close third.
d) being hetero, I simply cannot recognize it in the same light.

I don't call it walking around with blinders, in fact that IS an insult. My preferences, biases, tastes, and concentration of attention are my own, and they are not in any way gay bashing, nor intolerant. By claiming that following my interests (which do not go as far as Anna Nicole) are somehow improper, boy, that is really going out on a limb.

[ThomCat]

254. It is always possible to try.

I'm a huge cheerleader for supporting other branches of the civil rights movement. We cross boundaries all the time. I will fight racism where ever I see it. I fight sexism where ever I see it. I'll never be anything other than a white man, but I can see and understand enough to stand with other people and support their equality. Straight people can do this too, but it does require some contact with GLBT people, a lot of empathy, and a lot of listening.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

259. one of many reasons why I am at DU. what you sed. nt

[Drum]

372. Well-put, ThomCat!

:thumbsup:

[Morgana LaFey]

374. It may not be your fault, but it IS your responsibility

It's your responsibility as a progressive or liberal or even "conservative" on the left side of the political spectrum to (a) KNOW what is and is not homophobia (that probably requires some reading or some nice heart-to-heart talks or studious application of your empathetic attention right here at DU), and (b) recognize it when it happens and (c) challenge it when you see it happening. "Silence condones."

At this point you're stuck in "it ain't my fault" and "poor me" and "you're too sensitive" and various other excuses and cop out.

This is an area where if you're not part of the solution (of making the world a hate-free place), then you're definitely part of the problem.

And the very same goes for sexism and misogyny, which are also rampant right here at DU, and racism too (and ditto re the rampant parts).

SUMMARY: IF YOU DON'T GET IT (about ANY form of oppression), it's your responsibility to find a way to learn enough so that you DO get it, and can go on to help educate others.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

384. Morgana, thank you for many, many good points. but,

I try to be a mover and shaker on my own terms, on my own quest and with my own vision of what strikes me as so fundementally critical to our survival, that if I followed your interesting recommendations, i suspect that I would be incapable of doing what comes naturally to me.

SUMMARY: you cannot dictate your terms of your eden to others, even if a lot of it makes sense. It is my responsibility to learn, weigh, decide and apply my ethics and morals to any situation. To accuse me of being stuck in "it ain't my fault" and "poor me" and "you're too sensitive" is silly, really, and it is obvious that your preconceptions and biases blind you from who I really am. So, ergo, you are as biased as you accuse me of being.

the rest of your argument reminds me unpleasantly of one George W. bush, and for you to even attempt such an argument should make you look at a mirror and wonder quite a bit about your intended message. Either I am with you or I am part of the problem? give me a fucking break. or not. But, if you like being just like george, I suspect that your results will end up no better than George's in Iraq. Because you CHOSE THE WRONG BATTLE!

[Morgana LaFey]

398. I'm sorry, I stand by my words

I try to be a mover and shaker on my own terms, on my own quest and with my own vision of what strikes me as so fundementally critical to our survival, that if I followed your interesting recommendations, i suspect that I would be incapable of doing what comes naturally to me.

One of the more clever excuses I've ever seen. It's the "there are so many MORE IMPORANT things" excuse, though.

You do have the time, and the ability to learn what you need to about the various flavors of oppression, and you DO have the moral obligation to do so as well. Else your moving and shaking will be far less effective, less morally relevent and rooted, and no doubt less long-lasting than it otherwise could.

and it is obvious that your preconceptions and biases blind you from who I really am. So, ergo, you are as biased as you accuse me of being.

nooo, don't think so. If I don't know who "you really are," I can't imagine ANY job or role or even person that I could find out you are that would make a difference. You are hanging onto your bigotry and trying desperately to find a moral reason to do so, and there is none.

the rest of your argument reminds me unpleasantly of one George W. bush,

Oh please. I didn't say "You're either with us or against us," I said: SILENCE CONDONES, dammit. What a shame you can't see the difference. And it IS your responsiblity if you give a fig about the world (and I presume you do, even if your estimation of your contribution seems somewhat inflated from my position), to participate in helping undo the racism, sexism and homophobia which make wars possible. If you stubbornly refuse, you ARE part of the problem because: First, you yourself are actively spewing and supporting bigotry hatred and when you're not: SILENCE CONDONES.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

441. you are very sorry indeed to stand by these words:

either I accept EVERY SINGLE DETAIL that you think is appropriate, or I am a bigot.



b u l l s h i t


and shame on you. SHAME on you as big as the crap that Bush pushed on us claiming that we are either with him or the enemy. SHAME ON YOU for using his arugment for your own arguments. for those arguments are flawed from the start. And if you cannot see that, then I am wasting my time.

[Solly Mack]

3. On now, you're just "taking it the wrong way" - it's "how you're hearing it"

and not "how they're saying it"

[ThomCat]

8. HA! Good catch.

10. Yes, we choose to find offense where none was intended.

[Solly Mack]

272. "Real" men wouldn't take offense, doncha know

and "real" women wouldn't take offense either

and if you were really "tolerant" you'd tolerate my right to subject you to my bigotry

but since you don't tolerate my right to subject you to my bigotry, you're not tolerant.

[GOTV]

281. Is that absolutely impossible?

Is there zero chance that any GLBT person might misconstrue a comment or gesture and see homophobia where none exists?

[ThomCat]

When that happens

we tend to argue among ourselves, just like any other group of people. And chances are you won't hear much about it.

But if a group of us agree that somethign is offensive, you can be pretty sure there are valid reasons why we all see it and agree on it.

[Solly Mack]

289. Sure, it's possible but that's a much used excuse bigots use to

blame the victim...it's not us...it's you

Misunderstandings are possible and do happen but there is an obvious difference between misunderstanding and deliberate offense and willful ignorance.

misunderstanding seeks to understand

deliberate offense and willful ignorance never does

[cali]

4. Ugh.

I think you've covered them all. And you and I have had our disagreements, but I do not notice gay people on DU trying to shut straights out of the conversation.

[ThomCat]

11. You an I only tend to disagree on one issue.

And we'll fight bitterly on that one issue. But elsewhere we tend to agree. :hi:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. we throw hissyfits and eat our own.

[ThomCat]

12. Ah, that's right.

11. We only allow one opinion, and we'll supposedly attack even other GLBT people who dare to have a conflicting opinion.

[skipos]

7. Link? Where are you seeing this? nt

[Meat Stew]

30. Yea...where are you seeing this

How bout some links

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Meat Stew]

51. I'm sorry

if I have offended you in discussion as it was not my intention. I have no idea where I offended or upset you but whatever it was it seems as though I must have said something horrible for you to be this upset. Please accept my apology and then tell me what I did.

[sniffa]

38. you couLd start here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=search_advanced&select_forum=0&search_archives=yes

type in "meat stew"

[foreigncorrespondent]

79. Mate...

...don't get us to do your homework for you. I suggest donating some money so you can access to the search feature then begin searching. Go right back in the archives, because homophobia has been here since DU conception. Only now it is a hell of a lot worse than it once was. DU used to be tolerable, now it is a cesspool of hate.

[Meat Stew]

95. Cesspool of hate?

Why do you post here if you feel that way? Personally I don't see the hate...if I did I wouldn't visit...if you are seeing hate then you might want to consider a less hateful site to visit and participate on. I would.

[ThomCat]

110. Wonderful...

"If you don't like it, leave." Which implies, of course, "There's nothing wrong here, so just go away."

We're democrats too, and we won't be driven away. We'll stick up for ourselves and fight for our place at the table. And if that bruises some straight egos, so be it.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[foreigncorrespondent]

118. With an attitude like that...

If not then fuck off...I don't really care what you do

... you really won't make many friends here. Enjoy your very lived time on DU.

[Meat Stew]

125. Sorry but

I have said my opinion...it wasn't out of line...I don't believe I have done wrong...

[foreigncorrespondent]

133. Like I said elsewhere in this thread...

....lots of straights walk with blinders.

[JackBeck]

123. I suggest you read DU's rules, newbie.

Not to mention, when you join a progressive website, it's kind of understood that homophobia should be non-existent.

[Meat Stew]

129. I'm not a homophobe

so what have I done?


How did I break the rules?


Please tell me

[JackBeck]

148. Never said you were a homophobe.

But telling someone to "fuck off" is against DU rules.

[foreigncorrespondent]

116. You are just too special, Thom.

:loveya:

[ThomCat]

302. Thank you!

:hug:

[foreigncorrespondent]

111. Excuse me?

When you have been here as long as I have and faced as many flames as I have, you might have a different opinion. I don't just post here at DU, but I do check in here, because of the fact I have been here for so long, and built up many strong relationships. Unfortunately you can't meet my partner though because she has had enough and rarely visits or chats here. Like many other GOOD people, who have left because of the hatred they found here.

On top of that, I suggest searching on your own name. You haven't been so clean in all of this, since joining. You are in part responsible for this thread today.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[foreigncorrespondent]

136. LOL

You crack me up. But alas I don't have time for little games right now.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

150. Who is this "we" that you are threatening FC with?

:rofl:

[LostinVA]

155. The Meat Stew Police

Someone needs to read the rules.

[Name removed]

157. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Marie26]

329. Fox security? nt

[swimboy]

171. "We will have to come down on you like a hail storm"

I'm really not a post-count snob, but I make it that you have been a member of DU for something like 48 hours. Who have you rallied to come down on people like a hail storm???

I really would like to know.

Yes. I really would.

[Meat Stew]

176. .

It was meant to be humorous in an over dramatic DU threatening way...

[donco6]

381. Meat Stew meets Worm Food. C Ya! n/t

[lukasahero]

448. And it's about damned time, isn't it?

Good grief, how many posts was this guy allowed to accumulate before getting a marker dropped on his head?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

39. It's been obvious since the NJ ruling.

If he linked to specific threads and posts, he'd be breaking DU rules.

[LostinVA]

53. Yup -- and people would know that if they read the damn rules

Like they're supposed to when they register here.

[JackBeck]

56. I fought so hard to get DUers to understand that Menendez wasn't going

to lose the election because of the gay marriage ruling.

Many replied that they would apologize if they were wrong.

Haven't received on stinkin' apology.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

63. I love people from the Midwest telling us how NJ politics are. I haven't gotten an apology either.

Let's face it. It'll never happen.

[wryter2000]

373. Oh, gawd, I remember that one

There was a lot of "excuse us, but would you mind putting your own personal freedom and safety on hold so we can have an election?"

Most of the rest of the crap I see is of the "lighten up" variety. It's done on women's issues a lot, too. I usually find that GLBT folks understand how crappy that is and say something.

[BOSSHOG]

9. I disagree with

your nine examples and don't believe any of them. I've found the waters muddied (often by me) when it comes to showing and discussing examples of conservative hypocrisy relative to gay activities (foley, haggard and the plethora of other holier then thou's who engage secretly in gay activity.) Their hypocrisy is my issue, not gays; however that message is often the one not heard in the gay community. If it weren't for evil, hateful bastards in the christian community and others in their camp, there would be no reason for gays to be in the closet.

I suggest if gays can't marry or can't join the military why should they pay taxes.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

23. Well, every single one of his examples has taken place repeatedly on DU.

:shrug:

[LostinVA]

32. How can you disagree with FACTS?

These aren't Thom's OPINIONS.

I think saying gay men's penises taste like shit is homophobic. I think posters (PLURAL) going on and on about how gay men might rape you in a locker room shower if you're smaller than them homophobic. And, that was in ONE thread YESTERDAY.

Ugh.

Try not paying your taxes and see what happens, 'kay?

Jesus.

[BOSSHOG]

46. Obviously I've failed at semantics

My disagreement means I don't think any of them are true, however you are making a great case for number one. I see gays as law abiding, tax paying productive citizens and during my 50 plus years on this planet have never had any issue to, from or with a gay person.

My proposal - if gays can't marry then they should be exempt from paying income taxes. The constitution is a shield for all citizens, not a weapon to be used by those who hate in the name of Christ to amend and take away liberties from others.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[foreigncorrespondent]

84. Just ignore him LVA...

..just another cop out, ya know?

[LostinVA]

97. You're right, mate

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

54. So I suppose you had your blinders on with the NJ ruling.

Since there were THREADS with the subject line of: "Love ya gays, but ya cost us the election."

If you can't see that, then how could you be expected to see anything else?

[Beelzebud]

58. So since those threads did exist, that means we all agree with them?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

61. Thom's post is based on ACTUAL posts by DUers. I'm not saying you agree with them.

I'm saying you can't say that you don't believe GLBT DUers are told that shit.

[lukasahero]

64. Do you really think paying taxes is the big issue gays are concerned with?

WTF cares if they don't have to pay taxes if they are not, indeed, fucking equal? Do you even understand what you are suggesting as a "work around" to placate gay people? Sorry but equality means a hell of a lot more than whether or not one has to pay frickin' taxes. Sheesh.

[LostinVA]

69. Thanks, lukasahero

:pals:

[lukasahero]

101. ...

I hate this shit. And I cannot believe people are so averse to examining their own behavior to learn and understand how their words and actions hurt others so they can STOP DOING IT. It's astounding to me that it doesn't seem to matter to them until it's their feelings that are hurt.

:pals: back at ya'.

[LostinVA]

115. ...

I hate it, too. And cannot understand this attitude. It's especially prevalent on DU concerning sexism, homophobia, and racism.

You know, I grew up in a very racist area, and was a very racist teenager. To my shame, I even used racist language. I went to college, saw what an idiot I was, and changed my views and behavior. If a sheltered 18-year-old kid can do it, an educated adult sure as hell can.

[LeftishBrit]

151. I interpreted this as a variation on the Founding Fathers' saying "No taxation without

representation!"

I.e. that if a government doesn't treat gays (or any other group) as equal citizens, it doesn't deserve their taxes.

I obviously can't speak for Bosshog, but I don't think he was actually saying that a tax reduction would *justify* not treating gay people as equal citizens.

And by the way, yes, I have noticed comments on DU at times that appeared to be homophobic.

[ThomCat]

159. The problem would be,

we'd be accepting a deal. We agree not to pay taxes and they agree to continue not representing us. That doesn't help anyone.

Like it or not, we're here and we belong here. We need to fight for equality, not some type of legalized seperatism.

[LeftishBrit]

167. No, at least the way I saw it was that not paying taxes was more like a strike or boycott

That if all gays suddenly stopped paying taxes, the government soon wouldn't be able to function, and would be *forced* to give gays equal representation.

For various reasons, I don't think this tactic would be likely to work; but I think that was the idea being proposed - not that gays and the government should make a bargain where gays accept unequal treatment in return for a tax reduction.

[lukasahero]

173. "they agree to continue not representing us" - I think it's even more

than that. More accurately, it boils down to "they agree we are not worth as much as / as human as they are".

That's the driving belief structure that has us in a war "fighting them over there rather than here". That's the driving belief structure of racism and misogyny. It's the driving belief system of "the other" as less than.

Not to speak for you TC, but to me, this isn't about "representation", it's truly about life and death.

[ThomCat]

182. You speak for me very well.

:)

I agree, it is about life and death. It's not only about whether we live or die, but how we live or die.

[BOSSHOG]

260. I like it that you are here

I'm not fighting for legalized separtism with the tax issue. Its like the issue in Washington State to make procreation mandatory for marriage. Absurd? Yes. Makes an awesome point? Indeed. Taxation without representation. That, to this vet is what the situation is with gays today and it should change. Repeal the tax paying provision for gays and those who sit by the sidelines might sit up and take notice of the haters actions. I don't want gays to accept any deal. I want all citizens to be protected by the constitution. I didn't spend 24 years in uniform so segments of society could be discriminated against just because, for religious reasons, someone hates them.

And its obvious that segments of the gay community on DU can lump all non-gays in whatever category they choose. Are there dumbasses posting? Yes. Should I take shit for it based on my support of the gay community? I guess so. Should I get all sensitive and choose to sit on the sidelines and think that what I'm hearing from the gay community (rightly or wrongly) is they don't want my support because I'm not gay and I don't understand their plight?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

152. Exactly.

:thumbsup:

[Occulus]

237. Welcome BACK to my ignore list.

Two today. Ugh. I'm never doing THAT again... my ignore list is now permanent.

[foreigncorrespondent]

80. You would!

I disagree with

n/t

[Beelzebud]

10. My humanity was questioned for not being offended by the Snickers ad.

I didn't see a fucking advertisement in the same way a few others did, so my humanity was in question.

That was a subjective advertisement, and one person seeing it one way, does not make everyone who sees it different a homophobic inhuman monster.

As to the rest of your list, I don't see those attitudes in the spotlight on DU. There might be a few drive-by assholes that think that way, but 99.9% of the people on this site are your allies, even when some of us are being branded "not human" for seeing a subjective advertisement a little differently from the rest of the herd.

[sniffa]

20. oh goody

you haven't posted enough about this compLeteLy out of context exchange on any of these GLBT threads.

maybe someone wiLL finaLLy give you the pat on the head you're seeking.

[Beelzebud]

21. Hey you're right. What do I know? I'm just a straight non-human asshole.

As if this entire thread isn't a huge cry out for a pat on the head...

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beelzebud]

33. A grudge? No, more like still shocked that I'm labeled inhuman

for viewing a subjective advertisement in a different way, than I was allowed, apparently.

I support the equal rights for everyone, and to be labeled inhuman over a fucking candy-bar advertisment was really astounding to me.

It's not every day someone questions my humanity, based on a candy bar ad.

I get that some people were offended by it, and your opinions have merit. But do mine? Or am I sub-human, and therefore unworthy of having an opinion?

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beelzebud]

42. I never said others shouldn't be offended, but when I said I wasn't I was attacked.

This is pointless.

When you paint with a broad brush it's impossible to resolves this stuff.

"People like me" will just learn to not even express an opinion on something relating to these issues.

*I* didn't find it offensive. However someone else sees something is out of my control. I would never try to assume I could dictate what *is* or *is not* offensive. So don't paint with a broad brush when dealing with "People like me", because you might be alienating people who actually agree with you, and stick up for you when it matters.

[justiceischeap]

47. Did you stick up for the folks that were offended by it?

Because having participated in the whole Snickers' ad thread(s) I saw a lot more of the lighten up, get over it comments than support and whether you are aware of it or not that kind of stuff does matter.

[ScreamingMeemie]

73. One. I don't believe you were attacked. Two. There are times in life

when I realize that what doesn't bother me might profoundly affect others which makes me either listen to them and perhaps change my opinion or, at the very least, be quiet out of respect for others instead of continuously attempting to prove my point.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

41. "Or am I sub-human, and therefore unworthy of having an opinion?"

No, but you may have a persecution complex.

[Beelzebud]

43. Projecting?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

48. Oh brother

[johnlal]

13. It's not funny if...

If you have to follow up a joke with "lighten up", then it wasn't a funny joke.
One of the main purposes of a joke is to lighten people's spirits. If your joke failed, you can't order someone to "lighten up". It's not the fault of the audience, it's the fault of the performer.

[Kali]

31. depends on the joke

not all humor is universal, or "spirit-lightening" - much is contextual, and much is intentionally in the form of ridicule. It can be very funny, unless you are a target.

In the context of this thread's perspective I have seen examples of humor exhibited by self-identified Gay DUers that would be unacceptable if presented from most straights, much the same way Blacks or other minorities often "own" and utilize the very slurs or stereotypes aimed at them. For some not experienced with the issues (and I differentiate between ignorance and real homophobia) this can be somewhat confusing. Additionally I have seen examples of "accepted" straights saying similar things and it being tolerated because they are doing so in the appropriate context (honorary lesbians for example).

Just an observation.

I think the discussion is healthy and of course sometimes there might even be learning and common ground reached by real conversation. Sometimes the ignorance really is prejudice and inexcusable and conversely, occasionally people DO need to lighten up.

[TahitiNut]

40. "Victim humor" is NEVER funny.

I don't give a damn who the victim is - gays, women, blacks, whites, straights, latinos, Muslims, Jews - there's nothing funny about dehumanizing 'humor.'


That said, wanna hear my favorite ethnic joke?

Q: "What's Irish and stays out all night?"
A: "Paddy O'Furniture."

{rimshot}

[leftofthedial]

144. yeah, Charlie Chaplin's tramp wasn't funny.

The Three Stooges? pathetically not funny.

Abbot and Costello, too. Not fucking funny.

Rodney Dangerfield deserved no respect. He was not funny.

Victim humor is lame.

[ThomCat]

149. There is a huge difference between making fun of yourself

and making fun of "those people" over there.
:eyes:

[leftofthedial]

178. so gay comedians are allowed to be homophobic?

and black entertainers can use the n-word?

and that's not ultimately harmful how?

(never mind that in my examples above, most were consciously exploiting existing ethnic stereotypes, not themselves personally)

[ThomCat]

186. That's a separate issue.

I personally don't find fag jokes funny no matter who makes them. But if it's a gay person I know that the jokes are intended to poke fun at "us" not demean and belittle "them."

[leftofthedial]

207. how do you know, for example,

that the writers of the Snickers ad aren't gay? thus making their commercial okay.

I just think this is a slippery slope.

[ThomCat]

217. If it's not obvious, then it's not appropriate.

If it's not obvious or announced, then they might as well be straight Because their message will be heard as if it came from a straight person.

And even if they are gay, as I said, I still don't approve. But as a rule of thumb, if it's an individual or group that openly identifies themselves as GLBT I cut them some slack.

[leftofthedial]

245. I'll buy that

but I still think it's a slippery slope.

I see little difference between a black rapper's use of "nigger" as a perjorative, (not to even mention the hideous misogyny that infests much of that musical genre) and the use of "nigger" at a KKK rally. Gay-related humor can be equally demeaning and harmful, no doubt, but it can also help straight people to see how absurd the stereotype is. I think you have to take each example on its own merits.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

332. Context and intent.

If a black rapper uses the word, I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean it the same way the Klan does.

And to your earlier point, re: if the Snickers ad people were gay themselves, that's not something that can be easily identifiable, therefore the default assumption is that they are straight.

This is different from a black comedian using the "n" word, since you can simply look at a black comedian performing and easily tell that he IS black.

[TahitiNut]

201. There's also a big difference between making fun of yourself

... and making fun of some ethnic or cultural minority of which you're nominally a part. I just don't buy into the idea that it's OK for a black to make fun of blacks, a latino (Mencia?) to make fun of latinos, or any of the equivalents. I just can't bring myself to laugh (or even feel like it) - for, when I'd laugh, it would no longer be a 'member' of the class exploiting that class.

That said, I must admit to not finding a whole lot funny about the Three Stooges. Hitting someone is funny? Since when? Poking someone in the eye is funny? Since when? Abbott and Costello's "Who's On First" routine is funny. Belting Costello on the back of the head is NOT funny. Hell, I'm 63 and I didn't even regard it as funny when I was 8.

I love puns. I love malapropisms. I love the "Human Comedy" - when it's all-embracing. I'm happy with my sense of humor - and appreciate wit. I don't appreciate half-wit.

[brentblack]

345. Three Stooges NOT FUNNY????????

Now that is an un American statement.

Why do you hate slapstick???

Just kidding of course, but I can spend an entire Saturday morning watching The Three Stooges - as long as it is with Curly. The others are cheap knock offs.

[leftofthedial]

369. I was being sarcastic about the earlier comment that "victim humor"

isn't funny.

I definitely think some of the greatest humor in the history of humor has been predicated upon the audience sympathizing with a victim--including the Three Stooges.

[sniffa]

14. we're thread staLkers

we just go Looking to cause troubLe.

[Prophet 451]

15. I am somewhat guilty

Number 2: I have made arguements that I suspect may have been taken as this. What I was actually trying to say is that the "gay community" (and I'm aware how ridiculous it is to categorise people by their sexuality) needs to get involved at the primary stage by promoting gay-friendly candidates, rather than simply decrying those who are insufficiently gay-friendly.

I have also said that that witholding votes from the D candidate is counter-productive. As lacking as some candidates may be, you as a gay person, are more likely to get at least vaguely fair treatment from a Dem than from a Repub.

[Spangle]

68. I'm not guilty of 2

The issues always need to be out there.

However, politics is stratagy. In 2000 we needed to gain seats in the house. If the Democrats didn't gain control, then Democratic issues would not reach the floor for a vote. A local political group that focused on gay issues had both the rep and the dem come speak. They decided to go for the repug, because they liked his answers a 'little' better. Neter were anti gay. But the repug sounded more supportive. So they helped elect the repug.

Their guy won. But since he was in a party were gay issues were NOT allowed to be taken seriously, and he was a minor/new player in the party.. Electing him did nothing to further the gay issues. Those issues never made it out of committees, never reached the floor. His 'view' on gay issues was rather pointless, meaningless.

On the flip side, if the canidate was of a party that supported gay issues. And that party had the majority where the issues could come to a vote. The party might 'encourage' the person to vote their way. It happens. Exspecially on issues that a person feels rather nutrual over. If they are hot or cold over the issue, they will not 'budge' as easy.

In that case, the other guy, the Democratic guy was their best choice. Even if he was homophobic. By the (d) by his name, it would have helped get the vote to the floor. And because he was a (d), he would have been encouraged to support it. Either way, the rest of the (D)'s would have at least got a chance to vote on it. And then and ONLY THEN would it matter what the republican's would vote.

That is stratagy thinking. It's different depending on the election, race, etc. That was a Federal race where the canidate actually might be dealing with such issues in DC. Local races, where they are not dealing with such laws, etc.. The person's party, the majority, etc, might not make a difference in concern with this issue. But any political group worth their salt, should talk to ALL canidates running for offices. To make them aware they need to be diversified on many different issues. Some of those canidates might later want to run for higher office. This would get them on the right track, right away. <grin>

This is the time of 'free' PR. The questions STILL need to be asked. Canidates STILL need to responed. Just by doing that, it makes OTHERS think about the questions. It makes others talk about the questions, etc.

[asthmaticeog]

16. K&R

I am nothing if not a man of my word.

[Deep13]

17. Possible alternate thread title:

DU GLBT community demands perfection from hetero members. A lifetime of societal conditioning must be instantly disgarded or else we are all bigots.

[sniffa]

19. nice

i was waiting for one of these posts.

personaLLy, i Like the aLternate titLe of, "phobe enabLers get mad when caLLed phobes"

[Deep13]

94. Who are you calling a homophobe?

And how are DUers enabling anyone to do anything. Yah know the Phelpses of the world aren't exactly asking for our permission to do anything. I am not responsible for the actions of religious zealots.

[sniffa]

124. again, i reaLLy hate it when peopLe caLL phobe enabLers

homophobes, when they're obviousLy not part of the probLem.

[ThomCat]

128. Ouch!

That's gonna leave a mark. :P

[Deep13]

145. Care to unpack that one?

:shrug: And are you the "Thom" that has everyone so pissed off?

[JackBeck]

153. No.

He's the Thom that's pointing out rampant homophobia on DU.

[ThomCat]

154. Yes, I'm the Thom that wrote the OP.

Hence the name, ThomCat.

Sniffa has a great point. May people who claim that they are not homophobes (and truly might not be) do enable homophobia. They do nothing to challenge or fight homophobia. So even if they claim to be on our side, they're actually supporting the homophobes.

You do see a lot of that here at DU. Some people refer to it as passive homophobia.

[Deep13]

212. Richard Dawkins, the out-spoken atheist, makes the same point...

...about moderate religious people. Just an observation.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

27. *yawn*

:eyes:

I could set my watch by these posts.

[Deep13]

98. "I could set my watch by these posts."

In that case, I am glad I do not need to rely on you to be punctual.

I only wrote one post and those responding to responses of that one post. Judging one by the group (an imaginary group in this case) is the definition of prejudice.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

126. I wasn't judging you. There is always someone coming in to shit on threads of this nature.

It's quite predictable.

If you don't like that, then break the cycle.

[Deep13]

135. So "shit on threads" isn't a judgment?

The OP posted an opinion and I posted mine. If you don't agree, you don't have to (obviously). I don't see how your rather colorful metaphore applies at all.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

140. Good bye.

:hi:

[Gormy Cuss]

174. Your post was akin to a caged monkey throwing feces at zoo visitors.

It was a snarky criticism of the premise of the OP without a sincere attempt to elucidate.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

175. Why are you prejudiced?

:rofl:

[Deep13]

251. I didn't think the OP's premise was elucidated.

Just a list of observations. I'm sure there is some background information to explain that list, but I had no way of knowing what it was.

[Gormy Cuss]

277. The OP framed an argument that homophobia took those forms at DU.

He laid it out succinctly and has subsequently responded to posts with differing perspectives when the poster has framed a differing opinion or observation with more than just snark.

As to your having no way of knowing what it was, here's a suggestion. There are two ways that I find helpful to know the background before replying to such OPs. One is to search for threads on related topics in recent days. The other is to sit back and wait for other posters to reference the other threads before replying off the top of my head.

[Deep13]

290. Nah. It's not worth it.

I really don't have time to read the whole thing, much less research the topic, especially since the OP's point is confined to the DU community and not the larger world anyway. Especially when I can't give it my undivided attention. If you think I'm being snarky, which I assume means snide, then maybe I am. I don't expect it caused any serious injuries. That does not mean that my point is not valid. That point, in case it was missed, was that perhaps GLBT activists might be demanding too much conformity of attitute and risking alienation of people who, after all, are basically on their side anyway. DUers are not voting for anti-gay marriage amendments or homophobe candidates or firing people because of orientation or whatever. There are bigger fish to fry.

[Karenina]

356. Why bother, indeed.

"Those minorities with their "special interests" need ME, I don't need THEM. I have bigger fish to fry."

Have I misunderstood you? :shrug:

[foreigncorrespondent]

92. And it is exactly...

...YOUR kind of attitude that made Thom post what he has posted today.

Perhaps if people were sensitive of others ALL THE FUCKING TIME, there wouldn't be a need for threads like this.

I am a lesbian who doesn't have a need for an abortion, yet I support a womans right of choice. I am a lesbian who isn't so keen on gun, yet I support a persons right to own a gun. You see, that is what being sensitive to others needs is all about. Try and get some sensitivity if you don't want to be labeled anything.

[Deep13]

109. I don't know what Thom posted.

I am not responsible for anything he wrong.

I have no duty to be sensitive all the time. My emotional state is my business and not yours.

Your suggestion that I have NO sensitivity is plainly a lie based on a misdirected emotional reaction.

[foreigncorrespondent]

127. Then why...

...are you even offering an opinion in this thread, if you have no idea what the OP is about?

Silly person!

[Deep13]

142. I read the OP's post.

I don't have time to read every thread ever written. I'll double check, but I don't believe the OP referenced any other threads.

[foreigncorrespondent]

147. Then...

...you should know what Thom said. So why claim you have no idea what Thom said?

[Deep13]

218. I was under the impression from your post...

...that Thom was someone else and had written something inflamatory. I guess I missed that the OP is ThomCat.

[Unvanguard]

205. Then at least admit that your "lifetime of societal conditioning"

makes you prejudiced, and do something about it.

Don't pretend it's some kind of excuse that enables you to continue on your merry way.

[Deep13]

239. Oh, I admit it and try not to let it run my thinking.

I certainly don't vote on that basis. I would never discriminate against anyone in any economic sense because of that. Further, I'd probably feel safe to relax around gay people since they are unlikely to be neocons or Fundies. I say probably because here in Ohio, I don't know anyone who has come out.

[Unvanguard]

246. Right, that's the idea.

All I meant was it's hardly fair to criticize GLBT DUers for drawing attention to homophobic patterns of thought just because they're socially indoctrinated.

Indeed, the fact that they are makes pointing them out even more imperative.

[blonndee]

338. Possible alternate post title: "I can't discuss the issue reasonably and have no intention

of considering the merits of anything you say, so I'll invent a ridiculous strawman caricature of the OP and the DU GLBT community so I can convey my disregard and contempt for you whilst pretending to be more intelligent than I really am."

[LostinVA]

343. Nail on the head

[donco6]

385. Nah. Just be prepared to be called on it.

Every goddam time.

[dogday]

18. A lot of this is ignorance and stereotypes of gays

Until people are educated and enlightened about gays, (and this applies to any group) you are going to have the ones that believe the lies and stories...

How do you help these ignorant people to understand what you are all about is the question...

[justiceischeap]

28. I agree with your thought

However, when trying to educate and enlighten some on DU, the attitudes listed above still prevail. There are lots of folks on here that are very headstrong and it seems that what they know and think is the only correct way to do it. It's kinda hard to enlighten and/or educate those kinds of folks.

[LostinVA]

50. Excellent point

And, unfortunately, some don't WANT to be educated about any of this.

[ecstatic]

86. And you're doing such a great job in helping to educate, right?

Sorry but I cannot hold my tongue on this: Kindness can lead someone to understanding; nastiness just leads to more anger and hostility. If someone is confused or says something (most likely inadvertently) that is offensive, why not just explain to that person what the offense is instead of going off on a wild tirade of attacks and insults?

Since we are all on DU, why not give the poster the benefit of doubt first rather than immediately labeling someone as XYZ...

OK. You can put me back on ignore again. :eyes:

[foreigncorrespondent]

102. Ya know what?

Myself and Sapph along with several other DU queers have been here for a long time now, and we have tried many times to educate about homophobia. With some people it has worked but with a great many it hasn't. There comes a point when we just give up trying to educate and begin defending our very lives. LVA is at that point now, as is the majority of the DU queer community. Why don't you try listening to what we ALL say, you might actually begin hearing our cries.

[porphyrian]

22. "Homophobia" is a misnomer.

Hate, fear and ignorance are not necessarily connected. In any case, if it were indeed a "phobia," you would be wrong for attacking someone with a mental health problem beyond their control without diagnosis and treatment.

[swimboy]

72. No. 11 proposed:

We keep misusing the term "homophobia" because one or two people keep pointing out that it doesn't actually mean what practically the entire world accepts it to mean.

[JackBeck]

106. Yes, Thom, could we please add #11.

I'm tired of this BS, too, swim.

[porphyrian]

180. The entire world can be wrong. And, in this case, you are. - n/t

[ThomCat]

190. If you can get everyone to change the common usage

to agree with you then we'll take that seriously. Until then, words mean what people intend them to mean.

Language is fluid. Unfortunately, dictionaries are goals, not laws.

[porphyrian]

195. So, by that logic, I can call things I don't like "gay," and you shouldn't say anything about it.

Hypocritical much?

[ThomCat]

199. Yes, because it's all about you.

:eyes:

If you can somehow change the common usage of the word "gay" (while we'd be fighting you tooth and nail) then yes, the meaning of the word "gay" can and would change. We would probably start using "queer" or some other term to refer to ourselves.

But in the meantime, words mean what common usage says they mean.

No, I'm not being a hypocrite. You're just being a egotist.

[porphyrian]

204. Ha! I don't agree with you or back down, so I'm an egotist?

Get something for that diaper rash. You're making less sense by the minute.

[swimboy]

206. Just saying when adults are having a discussion about homophobia

as they understand and experience it, it doesn't help all that much to have you repeatedly point out that we really can't discuss it because we don't have an alternate word for it that you find acceptable.

[porphyrian]

211. I haven't done that at all. I'm merely pointing out that the term is incorrect.

As someone who has lived with anxiety and phobia all my life, I know personally very well the difference between a phobia and intolerant behavior. I point this out, and it's treated like an attack. That's your problem, not mine.

[LostinVA]

262. It is a perfectly legit sociological use of "phobia"

There are both medical and sociological usages, and the latter is used in words such as "homophobia" and "xenophobia."

Your baseless intellectual masturbation is both factually incorrect and tiresome.

You are doing nothing but trying to hijack legitimate discussions.

You are on Ignore.

[porphyrian]

268. Wrong. The terms describe fears, not intolerance, hatred and aggression.

While they can be related, it isn't the rule, and it isn't "baseless intellectual masturbation" to acknowledge this. Thank you for proving to be a hypocrite in your quest for equality.

[noamnety]

337. The term is being used correctly according to 4 dictionaries online.

Your understanding of the definition doesn't track with the Random House Unabridged Dictionary's definition, nor the The American Heritage® Dictionary, nor Wordnet from Princeton University, nor Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary.

Their definitions of homophobia include "antipathy," "contempt," "prejudice against," "dislike," "aversion to," and "discrimination against," in addition to "fear."

I want to emphasize that "discrimination against" is a direct quote from the MEDICAL dictionary I cited.

Perhaps you've made some incorrect assumptions about the definition of the term, based on your understanding of a similar term, from which it is partially derived.

The definition of "phobia" is (obviously) not the same as the definition of homophobia, being that they are two separate words.

[foreigncorrespondent]

141. You really got to get a new line!

You are beginning to wear that one out. REALLY!

[porphyrian]

177. Use an appropriate term and I will. - n/t

[foreigncorrespondent]

185. Oh gee sorry!!!

Guess you aren't educated about terms used by other countries. My bad!

[porphyrian]

188. You just showed your own ignorance. Thanks.

The hatred and intolerance against homosexuals is not a phobia, no matter how many people use the word incorrectly.

[ThomCat]

194. You go on tilting at that windmill.

You have the power to singlehandledly dictate language to the entire rest of the world. :eyes:

I guess this is where you quote Websters and insist that common usage means nothing. :eyes:

[porphyrian]

198. If something is wrong, I don't simply accept it. Bully for you if you do.

I'm not looking for your acceptance or approval, I'm merely pointing out that the term is wrong. I really don't give a fuck what you think.

[ThomCat]

203. That's right, get furious because we don't agree

to go by your rules. Each word can only have one meaning, and you are the arbiter of what that meaning is.
:rofl:

[porphyrian]

208. The thing is, I'm not angry at all. I'm simply responding to snide comments and being honest.

I never made any of the claims you're inventing for me.

[foreigncorrespondent]

196. ROFLMAO

You are the only one showing ignorance here. Not once have I said it was a phobia. But it is a common word used. Until you come up with something better and have it written in the dictionary, I will continue actually using the one everyone knows. Thanks!

[porphyrian]

200. What's really funny is that you're the one who's wrong.

I don't give a shit what you think or do.

[ThomCat]

209. If you don't give a shit

then why are you shitting your pants and foaming at the mouth over this? You're insisting that you don't care, while refusing to just let it go.

[porphyrian]

215. You have quite an imagination.

I'm simply responding to your posts.

[LostinVA]

266. Stop engaging, Thom -- he wants to hijack the thread

With this tiresome faux argument.

If they aren't fed, they won't try to eat.

[porphyrian]

269. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it a "faux argument."

And it isn't hijacking a thread to keep it kicked to the top of the page for longer than it ever would have been.

[swimboy]

216. Yeah, you're right.

Listen up, everybody! No more discussion of this issue until we are issued a new term for it. It would be semantically irresponsible to attempt to address the concerns of this population otherwise.

Please hurry up with your coining, porphyrian. I hope you're a competent neologist.

[porphyrian]

221. Again, I'm not telling anyone what they can or cannot say...

...I'm simply pointing out that the term "homophobia" is a misnomer. Is everyone off their meds today or something?

[ThomCat]

222. At least one person seems to be.

:eyes:

[porphyrian]

226. Which one of you do you mean?

I'm not the one inventing and projecting behaviors on others here.

[foreigncorrespondent]

220. If you really didn't give a shit...

...then why in hell did you respond to me? Of course you give a shit, if you didn't, you would have simply ignored what I had said and moved on, but you didn't. Remember mate, actions really do speak louder than words.

[porphyrian]

223. I almost always respond to those who respond to me.

It's really nothing more complicated than that. If you had ignored my initial post, we wouldn't be having this conversation now.

[Bluebear]

232. Yes, because this thread is about semantics, not real people's feelings.

[porphyrian]

236. What about the feelings of people with phobias?

What about associating a mental health term with hatred and violence incorrectly? Why is your issue more important than mine?

[Bluebear]

243. I know, the gay community is so oblivious to people with mental health issues

:eyes:

[porphyrian]

247. I was referring specifically to your dismissal, not the entire "gay community."

And you didn't answer my question. Why should I be sensitive to your issues if you won't even acknowledge mine?

[Bluebear]

253. Because it's rather sad to hijack a thread on wordplay issues. nt

[ThomCat]

255. Sometimes, semantic masterbation is all you've got.

:shrug:

[porphyrian]

256. I've kept this played out thread kicked with my contribution for quite a while now.

More views, more responses. If everyone quit discussing the original topic to comment on my posts, you might have a point. However, three or four people getting defensive and name calling hardly a hijack make.

One more time, if you dismiss my issue as irrelevant or stupid, why should I care at all about yours?

[porphyrian]

282. It's not a hijacking - I'm not controlling anyone else's posting at all.

This is a valid issue for me, and I'm being told a number of things which strangely parallel some of the items in the list of the original post. Maybe I'm just too sensitive. Maybe I should save my issue until after the elections, or only have it in certain company. Fucking hypocrisy.

[LostinVA]

267. As you have been told in other threads, "phobia" is not only a medical term

It is also a sociological term.

Whatever.

[porphyrian]

270. It still means fear, and it thus inaccurate.

It doesn't matter who is using it.

[LostinVA]

263. Yes, it is a "phobia" as used sociologically

YOU continue to show your own ignorance of this.

[porphyrian]

271. I don't care who uses it incorrectly, it's still incorrect. - n/t

[Taxloss]

24. Could I add what might be #10?

I'm not sure if it indicates latent homophobia, a sexual double standard, or just thoughtlessness, but:

10. Making light of male rape, particularly in prisons.

It bugs the hell out of me. Whenever it looks like some repug might face a jail term, there are always jokey comments about him (always him) getting gang-raped, being someone's bitch, whatever. You would never see these comments made, say, Judith Miller or Condi, and for very good reasons.

Whatever. It makes me mad.

(Oh, if we're on gender and sexuality issues at DU, there's the whole "Ann Coulter is a man" thing, but that's a whole other can of penises I'm not opening.)

[ThomCat]

85. Oh, Hell Yes!

I think we're up to 13. by now. Joking about prison rape (getting a boyfriend in prison) as if it's acceptable, funny, and appropriate, and if rape = sex should definitely be on this list.

[LeftishBrit]

164. Yes, I agree on this

I think that gloating over the possibility of someone (of either gender) being raped is a little too close to the Republican attitude that 'enemies' deserve to be treated violently. The same bit of the constitution (IIRC) that protects (or should protect) habeas corpus also prohibits 'cruel and unusual punishment' and surely rape comes under the heading of cruel and unusual punishment.

'a whole other can of penises I'm not opening'- Can I borrow that expression?!!!

[Taxloss]

184. Feel free to borrow it!

You'll find there are distressingly few times when one can slip it in, as the actress said to the bishop.

[myrna minx]

25. When bigotry and hypocrisy is pointed out

by our GLBT friends, whether it be in popular culture, politics or even on DU, there are plenty of people who blithely dismiss it as "no big deal." :eyes: It's really insulting how easily dismissed our GLBT friends are here.

[LostinVA]

37. Thank you, MM -- I really do notice and appreciate your posts

[myrna minx]

74. Holy buckets, I just read those insulting threads from last night.

:wow: Unbelievable.

[LostinVA]

107. I know

Glad to know you're "too sensitive," too.

[josewelder]

35. UMMM HAMBURGERS

Since I guess I would be stereotyped into being a straight "ALLY", then acording to rule #3 I should be listened to. My first advice when dealing with straight men like myself would be; change that abbreviation, every time I hear GLBT I think of something off of a menu at McDonalds, UMM HAMBRGERS, I can them think of nothing else and can no longer participate seriously in any type of debate/discussion.:)

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

44. Err...we should type out gay/lesbian/bisexual/ transgendered so you don't think of hamburgers?

:crazy:

[chefgirl]

169. Well, really,

we should type out gay/lesbian/bisexual/ transgendered so you don't think of hamburgers?
Posted by haruka3_2000


Doesn't seem any more silly than expecting the entire population to be completely sensitive every single minute of the day to anything and EVERYTHING that just might offend a gay person (or anyone else, for that matter).

Now, dont get me wrong here. I'm a woman, who functions every single day in what is traditionally accepted as a 'man's' profession. I deal with prejudice and offensive comments, etc, EVERY single day of my life, so I do understand the concept, and I have seen it occur here on DU from time to time.

What I've learned is that NO ONE can force me to react the way they want me to. Sexist or not, prejudiced or not, whatever the comment or behavior, its up to me to react the way I see fit. You'll never change the behavior of others, but you can change your own perceptions.

I've also learned that life is much easier if you ignore the assholes of the world whenever possible.
Certainly, any homophobia which exists on a message board, can be easily ignored.

I think I can safely say that there is not ONE gay person involved in this thread who honestly thinks that the majority of DUers are homophobic (not even close).

Why not save all this anger for the places where it really needs to be directed? I DON'T believe its DU.

-chef-

[LostinVA]

179. I may not spell out GBLT, but I can spell out

CONDESCENDING.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Come talk to me when you can be legally fired for being a woman, denied housing because you're a woman, and not allowed to marry the man you love because you're a woman. And, have to be told CONTINUOUSLY ON A PROGRESSIVE BOARD that you're a second class citizen nd should STFU about it.

Why haven't you written such a long post defending GBLT rights? HUH?HUH?HUH? Yeah, I fucking thought so.

Don't you EVER think you have a damned right to frame my anger or feelings. EVER. Ot think you have a right to fuck around with my life.

For shame.

[chefgirl]

210. I say this from the bottom of my heart.

People like you, gay or otherwise, are the very people I referred to in my first post.

We ALL have issues to deal with in this world, and just because you're gay you have NO right to think your issues are any more 'worthy' than another persons. It similarly does NOT give you the right to treat people here in a manner worse than the way you say you're treated here on DU.

I have, very often, written in defense of the rights of ALL people right here on this very message board, so your defensive attitude is quite misplaced when directed at me. Sorry, but you're comically wrong about me on that one.

As I said in my first post, why not try directing all that anger where it really needs to be directed, and not at others who are engaged in the same fight you claim to be part of?? Or is it just too damned much fun to play keyboard warrior?



Or, I could have just said, Eat Shit, and have done with it.

-chef-

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

229. I did a search and I couldn't find anything where you came out in support of gay rights.

This is the closest thing to it.

If you have links that I'm missing that'd be awesome. I'd hate to think you were lying.

[chefgirl]

249. I didnt say I came out in support of 'Gay' rights

What I said was that I have often posted messages on this board in support of the rights of ALL people.

Why on earth would you think I would feel it necessary to lie to a bunch of anonymous people on a discussion board? Please...

You'll have to find someone else to chew on in this thread, as I'm beginning to get the feeling that you and some others really ARE only here to argue, no matter with whom.

If you treat everyone as if they were your enemy, then all you'll see are enemies.

-chef-

[josewelder]

291. Who is making things up

Chef you posted what you did and someone came back within 10 minutes and said they did a serch on you and you have not supported gay rights. From what I see you have over 1000 post so whoever did that search is a pretty amazing person. I tend to agree with you people are just here to argue.

[chefgirl]

295. Thank you

Perhaps if there was a little less combat and a little more reading, some of those folks would realize who their enemies AREN'T.

-chef- :hi:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

296. If you have a donor star, you can search back in the archives.

I don't need to read over 1,000 posts, because there is a search engine to do the searching for me.

While I am a mere human, the search function is pretty amazing.

[foreigncorrespondent]

214. You go girl!!!!

A total shame though that we have to continue spelling it out for them, isn't it?

[LostinVA]

258. Yup, I know

[Occulus]

275. Thank you for that

I'm really adding to my ignore list today. Oh, and I'd like to thank Thom for posting this thread- it's really eye opening to see who is and is not supportive of GLBTs here at DU.

I think I'm up to five from this thread alone, and I'm not yet done reading.

[ThomCat]

276. You're welcome!

:hi:

[LostinVA]

279. Me too

[leftofthedial]

328. go for ten!

no! make it a million!

[sniffa]

359. god damn those gay buLLies!!

[leftofthedial]

367. I don't know nuffin about no gay bullies

but I have to give a hell yeah to cutting off communication as a solution to problems. It takes guts to stick your fingers in your ears and go lalalalalalala! Right on!

[sniffa]

453. it's aLmost as much fun as crying victim

and very, passive aggresiveLy posting about on it on severaL threads.

[ThomCat]

225. If words had no impact

and if negative actions never resulted from the accumulation of negative words then you might have a valid point. But if you always ignore sexist/racist/homophobic language then you just enable and allow the sexism/racism/homophobia.

At some point the language has to be challenged. It can't be ignored if you ever want to get past the language to actual positive results.

[chefgirl]

244. I'm not at all advocating always ignoring homophobia

Or gay hating, gay bashing, etc....

The point I was trying to make is that there are always going to be a certain number of ill mannered people, no matter where you go.

There are gay bashers and sexists and racists, etc.

What I did say in both my previous replies, however, is, why direct all that anger at the people who populate a progressive message board? Most of us are your allies in this fight.
While, admittedly, I have seen it happen here from time to time, I do think the most of the gay members of DU realize that those posters are vastly outnumbered here.

I just believe that there is a time and a place to take your stand, and while I fully agree with that stand, and would happily take it with you, I don't think the majority of DUers deserve to be taken to task this way.

Jeez, at the risk of sounding like some gay hating hetero, I do have to say, I think the vitriol in this thread could really anger a lot of non-GBLT members. I know I felt personally pissed off at reading some of the responses in this thread, accusing perfectly non-homophobic DUers of bigotry for simply disagreeing with some what you posited in your OP.

Just sayin'.

-chef-

[ThomCat]

261. We don't direct all of our anger at a progressive message board.

That's an assumption, and not a kind one. There are a lot of activists here. I know I personally have between 5-6 thousand hours of volunteer work under my belt.

But this is where we're supposed to be able to come and talk to our peers as equals, and yet even here homophobia often gets in the way. If we can't challenge the homophobia here, if we can't convince people here to stop being homophobic, then what chance do we have anywhere else? If straight people here are going to fight us tooth and nail, then how many of the "progressives" here are really our allies?

Just because it's worse someplace else doesn't mean we can ignore here. And just because we choose not to ignore it here doesn't mean we aren't also challenging it everywhere else too.

[chefgirl]

274. Fair enough

But when you choose to fight it here, I would hope that you, and some others, particularly involved in this thread, will remember that simply because we might happen to disagree with you about what constitutes prejudice against you, it does not follow that we are anti-gay bigots.

Im sorry, but I do think that when people have a valid right to rail against mistreatment, its only human nature to become overly zealous in that pursuit.

That was the point I was trying to make, before being so ignorantly dismissed by another poster, when I spoke of dealing with similar mistreatment every day. Sometimes it really is in your best interest to let some of it roll off your back. It really can make YOU the better person, and I don't think it makes me anti-human rights to say so.

Perhaps gay people are tired of hearing that, but so are women, so are black people, etc....still doesn't mean its not true, though.

-chef-

[LeftishBrit]

264. I am not gay, but I'm uncomfortable with some of this post (and I'm not singling you out; I've come

across it in various places.)

Here's what I disagree with:

'Sexist or not, prejudiced or not, whatever the comment or behavior, its up to me to react the way I see fit. You'll never change the behavior of others, but you can change your own perceptions.'

Perhaps if you mean 'you can change whether you allow other's behaviour to influence your own self-image', you are correct - though even there, it's hard not to be worn down by constant long-term attacks.

However, people's behaviour is people's behaviour. It's not, in most cases, a matter of your perception of it. Yes, sometimes one misunderstands other people's behaviour. But often not. When women weren't allowed to vote, they weren't allowed to vote. It wasn't that women 'perceived' the law wrongly. It was that the law really did prevent women from being represented. When African Americans lived under Jim Crow laws in many states, or black South Africans were subjected to apartheid, they didn't 'perceive' the laws as discriminating against them: the laws did discriminate against them. When gay men in the UK could be imprisoned for their homosexuality (until the 1960s!), this wasn't a perception - it was a genuine fact. When gays are not allowed to marry in most places, this is not something that they 'perceive' as discrimination: it is discrimination.

And yes, it is possible to change people's behaviour. Nowadays, women can vote in the UK and USA; black people in the USA and South Africa are not legally segregated from others - though social and economic discrimination is still a serious problem and not just a 'perception'; and gay British and American people can't actually get sent to prison just for being gay - though they still suffer various forms of legal discrimination. All of these changes occurred as a result of political campaigning, activism, and often civil disobedience - not just through the targets of discrimination changing their own perceptions.


What *may* be a matter of perception is the number of people on DU who are homophobic. I suspect that there are relatively few, but that as often, they are the ones who cause distress so they are the ones who are noticed. At least, that's what I'd like to think!

[chefgirl]

You misunderstood what I meant

That may be my fault, and if so, I'll take the responsibility for that.

When I said, you can only change your own perceptions, I was in NO way trying to imply that the behavior is only in the 'victim's' mind.

You used a pretty good example mentioning a time when women couldn't vote. I'm sure that there were some women (hell, there are now) who truly believed that women shouldn't have the right to vote. The LAW is what they changed, not other people's prejudiced behavior toward them.

MLK is another very good example of what I'm saying. Tell me he wasn't called every vile name in the book. There was a man who faced discrimination in every form, but he refused to react to it the way they wanted him to. He stayed above the fray, and as a direct result of his actions, the LAW was changed. However, the prejudice remains.

I was attempting to say that it diminishes you (any of us) as a person, when you allow others to dictate your reactions.

If I reacted to the daily yet quiet, insidious prejudices of the men I work with, I would be diminishing myself, and behaving exactly the way they intended for me to behave. I feel like I owe myself more than that.

I'll save my anger toward sexist men (as well as homophobes and racists) for the appropriate time and place..the ballot box being one of those places.

-chef-

[Lars39]

45. You need to read the OP more closely.

[josewelder]

66. burgers

Please note the smiley face at the end of the post. I believe this means that something was posted in jest. You leave me no choice but to apply rule #1.

[LostinVA]

76. Was your last sentence necessary? No

But hey, we're the thin-skinned posters because someone didn't like your flippness.

[4morewars]

52. I'll have a BLT.

[alcibiades_mystery]

57. You nailed them all

I won't apologize on behalf of the straights. I can't really blame some of them for JUST NOT GETTING IT. It's sad and pathetic, but I can't blame them. The one that disturbs me especially is #9. It's a common practice, and really outrageous. The excuses people come up with for their obnoxious behavior on this point are really to amazing to be believed.

You are absolutely right, 100%. And yes, homophobia is fucking rampant on these boards, whatever these good liberals might think of their tolerance. To quote Nina Simone, "...they keep on sayin' Go slow" (And everybody knows about homophobia in America GODDAMN!)

[terrya]

59. You've hit on all of the themes.

I am delighted to kick and recommend this. This perfectly encapsulates the frustration I feel, as a gay man, coming here.

[smoogatz]

60. #8: Hilarious.

In their freaking dreams. Did somebody really say that?

[JackBeck]

75. Yes. Yesterday.

They were OK with gay rights, in general, but would maybe fear showering with a muscular gay dude cause he might get raped. Post was eventually deleted. But not fast enough.

Hilarious.

[smoogatz]

89. Jeebus.

I was a member of the "men's gym" in Provincetown for something like six years. In all that time, I got hit on--very politely--exactly once. I felt a little sorry for the guy--he must have been truly desperate considering the sheer quantity of young, buff men in that environment. In general I found the "men's gym" an excellent place to work out--the patrons were uniformly polite and friendly, very good about wiping down the equipment, and generally less inclined to grunt-lift and preen in front of the mirrors than straight weightlifters. The only problematic part of the whole deal was the choice of music--very hard to get a decent workout to the disco version of "Don't Cry For Me, Argentina." I learned to take my Walkman early on.

[leftofthedial]

62. other than #1 and the occasional implication of #9, certainly not "every" bad person,

I haven't seen any of the other themes.

I have seen posts that say something like, "I personally didn't find the Snickers ad offensive," whereupon the poster is accused loudly of saying 2 through 8.

:shrug:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

67. I see you've missed many threads.

Gays were blamed for costing the election in '06 because of the NJ marriage ruling. And just yesterday, there was a thread about showering with gay men, in which we "learned" that large gay men will rape smaller straight men.

[Catherine Vincent]

88. Oh come on now, that was one poster. (showering w/large gay man)

And I really think that poster said it to see what responses he/she would get.

[foreigncorrespondent]

163. That ONE...

...poster should not have said it at all, if that ONE poster didn't want to be labeled a bigot. Any negative post about any person/people/group is one negative post too many.

And who gives a shit if that ONE poster wanted to see the responses they would get? Isn't homophobic posts against DU rules anymore?

[foreigncorrespondent]

156. Don't forget...

we were also blamed for 2000 and 2004 as well. And we will be blamed for every fucking loss the Dem's have between here and eternity.

[LostinVA]

166. And, this was also a reason why women kept NOT getting the vote

It would lose elections, an election is coming up, next election cycle, I promise. It finally took the TORTURE of EDUCATED middle class and upper middle class women coming to light to force Wilson's hand.

Do people here REALLY think AA civil rights would have advanced like they did without Dr. King???

There is ALWAYS a reason to put off rights for the minority.

"Rights delayed are rights denied!" -- MLK, Jr.

[foreigncorrespondent]

189. EXACTLY!!!

Very well said, mate!!! Kudos for you! :)

[LostinVA]

191. Thanks!

[LostinVA]

78. Then you didn't see the threads

Because everyone of ThomCat's points are based on FACTS -- actual posts and threads. MANY posts and threads.

[leftofthedial]

81. I never claimed to read every post on DU

But I've been in several threads in which what I described is exactly what happened.

[LostinVA]

83. I was in all those threads, and never saw that

I did, however, see people brush aside GBLT posters finding the ad offensive.

Good try, though.

[leftofthedial]

87. do you think DU is a hostile environment

for homosexuals?

[ThomCat]

90. Yes, frequently.

If you're out, and if you're not willing to just "go along to get along," and especially if you are transexual then Du is often a very hostile environment.

[leftofthedial]

96. what do you mean by "not willing to just 'go along to get along'"?

[ThomCat]

105. "Go along to get along"

Means shut up and nod our heads and agree with whatever the opinionated straight people say just because they claim to be on our side.

[leftofthedial]

121. I, for one, hope you won't do that.

But I also hope you'll engage in positive discussion and not just dismiss any disagreement as a sign of homophobia or hatred of homosexuals.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

91. Yes.

I don't experience homophobia in my day-to-day life. I experience it all the time here.

[leftofthedial]

112. do you think that is that due in part

to the frequent, intense discussion by a diverse community here of pretty much every divisive issue that comes up related to the politics of homosexuality? In other words, the discussions here are more frequent, more political and involve a more diverse group than most discussions IRL.

Or is it due to a large population of gay-haters here?

[jonnyblitz]

138. i think many people here at DU don't think they are homophobes

because they aren't running around screaming FAG with a baseball bat smacking us up side the head while quoting Leviticus from the bible. If they aren't blatent then they don't think they are latent. Interesting thing though, when you point out the latent the blatent sometimes surfaces.

[ThomCat]

162. Isn't that the truth.

x(

[leftofthedial]

306. maybe there is a lack of clarity or agreement about the definition of "homophobe"

what is yours?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

139. I would say that it is due in part to that. However...

this is allegedly a board of "progressives," so one would expect there to be less open homophobia than there is here.

I don't exactly live in a gay mecca or anything. It's red here.

[Occulus]

284. It's more because of condescendingly dismissive attitudes LIKE YOURS

Welcome to my ignore list. You'll be there from now on.

[leftofthedial]

308. "dismissive"?

whatever. your loss.

[leftofthedial]

313. IMHO, at least one of the replies to my "do you think that is due in part" question

(sorry for the bad typing--this keyboard has been abused)

is an example of misguided outrage. I'm being neither condescending nor dismissive. I've been civil, asked for others opinions, stated few of my own, agreed with most of what's been said--and I'm accused and put on ignore by someone as a result. How does that help anyone? How does that help to make this place, this country and this world freer for everyone?

[gollygee]

70. I don't understand how people don't see any homophobia here

And this is a progressive site. I guess that shows how permeated our culture is by homophobia. :(

[leftofthedial]

311. for my part, it's not that I see no homophobia here

It's that I frequently see examples of comments that I do not believe are homophobic being labeled as such.

[derby378]

77. A lot of those arguments have been directed at gun owners, too

Say, I've got it! Let's pass out Berettas and Smith & Wessons to all GLBT folks on DU! That'll really stir the pot! :rofl:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

93. I'm gay and pro-RKBA.

Uh-oh.

:rofl:

[LostinVA]

108. Jeebus

[MuseRider]

82. Thom

well done. K and R.

My personal feeling on the choosing to be gay theme is, SO? So what if someone did choose but that is another discussion entirely.

:yourock:

The whole thing about the shower would crack me up if it were not so damaging. I suggest that the problem lies with the hetero male. They can't seem to handle women or gays in the military for one thing. Women would distract them and gays would look at them funny? Women are now there but many not without problems from....from....hetero men.

To all you wonderful hetero men who would never behave like that I give you the seemingly needed disclaimer....not all of you.

[MedleyMisty]

99. I hope I'm not guilty of #5

I do sometimes wonder if an extremely homophobic person might have some personal issues with their sexuality.

I certainly don't think that all homophobic people are gay, or that because some people who are homophobic might be gay it follows that homophobia is the fault of the gay community. In some individual cases, I do think that it's possible that a person who is confused about their sexuality and was raised in an abusive fundamentalist environment might end up extremely homophobic. And that's pretty much where that thought stops.

Anyway, I haven't been here all that long but I have noticed a lot of the attitudes that you list. I have learned that even on progressive boards, you will find prejudice and stereotyping and thinking of the species in groups and judging some groups to be better or worse than others.

Hopefully your post will make some people think.

[LostinVA]

119. No, I agree with your post

Some extremely homophobic people probably ARE gay,e specially if they are from a strict religious background. But, every Homophobe isn't gay, and since YOU see the point Thom made, I won't lecture you about it!

[jonnyblitz]

100. Since those of us in the DU GLBT community have been more

vigilant and vocal when pointing this all out there has been an angry backlash against us, I noticed. Comments referring to us "oversensitive zealots" show up all the time all over DU now. OH FUCKING WELL.

Another form of phobia you left out is in the lounge when people want to jokingly ridicule one of their fellow DU buddies by posting outrageous pics from a pride parade or photoshopped pics making their buddy appear "gay" for a laugh. People weren't pleased on being called out on that.

[JackBeck]

114. Come on jonny.

Stop throwing a "hissy fit".

:sarcasm:

[AngryAmish]

103. #9 is the one that always pisses me off

Is Penny Hardaway secretly gay...Is Bush secretly gay...Is OJ secretly gsy...

Yeah, every bad person is gay...

[Starbucks Anarchist]

193. Actually, it was Tim Hardaway, not Penny Hardaway.

Different guys.

[AngryAmish]

213. You are right!

I mixed them up.

[unpossibles]

104. unfortunately, I find homophobia to be a systemic problem in our whole culture

not just here or just in freeperville.

I do think sometimes it is done accidentally here, which is why I say it is more a problem of our culture. And yes, as a progressive board, we should be above that, or at the very least apologize when appropriate. I know I have said things that came across as rude, but when that happens and someone calls me out on it, I always try to look honestly at what I said vs. what I intended to say, and I try to apologize because sometimes I can be a cynical bastard.

And as for #8, I think this is a really strong reason most straight guys are somewhat homophobic, and as I have said in other threads it's quite egotistical to think you're so hot that people won't be able to control themselves around you. Must suck to be so hot... :eyes:

That said, as someone who has many, many friends in what I like to think of as the broad spectrum that is human sexuality, in the small handful of times where someone has hit on me and I am not interested - man or woman - I can only offer this advice. Be flattered, and if you are not interested, say so in a polite and diplomatic way. There's no reason to be an asshat or get violent, and if you honestly feel afraid (because there are some fucked up individuals out there, although statistics say the vast majority of rape is done by men to women), then get away and go somewhere safe and report it, and learn how to be alert and protect yourself.

If anything, try to reflect that perhaps this is how many women feel when they get hit on by guys and they are not interested - or is that really the problem? Does it make you feel less manly? I honestly don't get it. Actually, I do think that is the problem: in our culture, many equate gay men as being equal to (or "worse") than being a woman, and in our culture women still have a long way to go before they are accepted with equality. Don't believe me? Go find a story about Nancy Pelosi that doesn't describe her hair, outfit, or whatever. I'll wait.

I honestly wish people would wake the fuck up and realize we're all people; we all eat, we all shit, and most of us fuck. Pardon me for being rude, but this shit just pisses me off.

[johnnie]

117. K&R

Although the "oh, you must be a straight white male" posts are a little tiring, I am all for equality for everyone.

Bigotry is a symptom of self-hatred, and that goes for all bigotry.

[Spangle]

122. Number 9

9. Every bad person in the news is secretly gay.

Ok, I have GOT to say something about this. What do you mean by 'bad'. A murder is gay, just because he murdered someone? The only time I've seen this used is one the person in question tends to be extream 'moral' when it comes to sex issues. Contstantly demeaning others sexual behavior.

In the 90's I posted with a small group who liked to do research, etc on political matters. Hence, we 'knew' all the players. It became the comment joke that such persons who were extreamly against homosexuals, most likely were closet homosexuals themselfs. The same came to be said about those who had extream issues (publicly) with adultry. (Clinton) It is almost like they want to come out publicly to state they are not. And by dissing someone who 'is', then they are proveing they are not 'like them.' What ever the issue might be. Also there is/was the possiblity that since they had to supress their wants/needs, they felt others should have to do so as well. Actually, mad that others were able to do what they personally wish to do.

That was over 10 years ago. What I have seen since then, pretty much confirmed what we thought. Just by using those persons in the public area, I might add.

Example. The head of the Heritage Foundation (I believe that is the name) that supported Paula Jones in many different ways, he spoke loudly and offten about homosexuality and adultry. He was married and a 'good Christian.' He spoke alot of 'hate' against homosexuals. Enocuraged others to feel/believe and speak this way as well. HE was caust in an Atlanta Park trying to encourage an undercover cop to have sex for money. When the news broke, it was found out that it wasn't the first time.

Since the topic is homosexuality (sorta), I used examples along those lines. But the same could be said about anyone who seems to be really outspoke about something. Either they are saying (I can't do it, so it's not fair that others are.) Or they are doing it, and trying to cover. Newt in the 90's was really known for that. LOL! When he started pointed fingers and making claims at the Democrats, he was pretty much stating was his/GOP game plan was. What they were all ready doing, what they all ready done, etc. Good bases for research, as soon as he opened his mouth. Alot of those guys who bashed Clinton for his 'immoral' behavior, brought their own mistresses to hear them speak. THey wanted to be on record that 'they' were a moral person who wouldn't do that. They were speaking to the voters at home, and to history. Not expecting that anyone would actually report about the mistresses attending these things. That was to be keept hush-hush.

So sorry, I don't agree this should be on the list. Cause if someone is rapid Homophobic, I got to ask myself why is the issues such a big deal to them. And it's important to me, cause such persons when they are out there giving those speaches, they are encouraging others to agree with them.

[ThomCat]

137. #9 refers to

all the posts that imply Bush is gay, Cheney is gay, OJ is gay, the villain of the day is gay. Over and over and over again we see the insinuation that someone is secretly gay as a way of insulting them.

And then we get the post that "I'm not criticizing gayness. I'm criticizing hypocrisy." When, in fact, they're using gayness as an insult.

[Spangle]

370. Ah !

Yep, that is different. It seems to be a childish behavior that continues on to adulthood. You can change out 'gay' and stick in the latest word of the day. Using it as a 'diss' shouldn't be promoted.

Acutally, I'm seeing this being done in the Elementry school. Kids calling each other 'gay' as a diss. Then as a 'joke.' I allowed it at first with mine. To take away the getting pissed to be called such things. I couldn't stand the homophobic reactions guys would get when dissed that way. I didn't want my boys to be homophobic that way.

Then I changed the rules. <grin> Actually, I told them the truth. Once they hit middle school (of course, it happens younger for some. Older for others), It's no longer a 'game.' People really are dealing with who they 'are', and what their sexual idea is, that is part of that. And while it's no big deal to my kids if a person is gay, having such a word being used as a diss or a joke, it's hurtful to those who are personally dealing with those issues. (which may someday be them) Making them feel like there is something WRONG with them. Since no one knows who are going through those experiences, it's best not do 'do no harm.' That is the stage we are at now.

As far as it being a diss, it's become less so. Actually, it anounces that there is a homphobic in the mist. Cause only such a person would consider it a 'true' cut down. The teens I've been around the last ten years have a different reaction when called gay. I've seen straight boys leave their girlfriends side, and act like the biggest queen in response to being called gay. And give a great big smile. Even 'come on' to the person trying to diss them. There like 'what ever.'

Another words, the word 'gay' doesn't have as much negative punch as it use to. It's happening slowly, but it is happening.

[leftofthedial]

330. you homophobic loser

how dare you disagree?

















:sarcasm:

[Turbineguy]

130. How about some points

for trying? For some straights, a lifetime of bad propaganda and prejudice rising therefrom is not so easily put away. Then there simply may be a variation of the Mars/Venus thing. I don't know that I've ever seen an on purpose attempt to insult gays here (but obviously I don't read all posts).

But here's an example: We have some friends who are African American (allow for my ignorance, I've seen this label change a few times over the years and may not be fully up to date). I called them one day and asked the wife: "Can I have speaks with the old boy?" After wards it occurred to me that such an expression ("boy", perhaps insensitive) misconstrued, could be offensive. They were not offended. They know me and know this is one of my idiomatic expressions. They are my friends, why should I want to insult or denigrate (oh dear, is that an insensitive word too?) them in any way?

DU has a membership of varied backgrounds and cultures. It seems to me that we are better off concentrating on what we have in common, than picking apart words and looking for points that separate us (how republican!).

That said, if I say something "offensive" or "insensitive", it's not because I mean to, but maybe I'm just stupid and ignorant, just let me know, and perhaps the reason (this word or expression has a derogatory connotation because... etc.). Maybe I can even learn something new.

[ThomCat]

143. We definitely give kudos for effort.

I think I can speak for many of us and say we cherish some of our straight allies and friends here. We often publicly thank people for good posts on GLBT topics. I know I have on a number of occasions.

[josewelder]

197. Divide

Does there really have to be such a divide between "us and them" as seems apparent in the referenced post. I would think that politically like minded poster on a site like this could rise above the divisions of "us and them". By accepting and allowing oneself to agree to this categorization of humans do to sexual preference one plays into the hands of the media and parties that benefit from such a rift, or divided.
On a much larger scale I believe that if people want to be treated as an equal in society, and if people truly want an equal society WE have to stop accepting the imposed divisions that are forced on US.

[ThomCat]

230. If everyone refuses to see the divisions

that are already there, then you can't resolve them. Wishfull thinking only goes so far. That land of no divisions is a goal, not a tactic.

[Tyo]

170. I think that this makes as much sense as anything I've seen here

This seems to be Gay Thread Week at DU and its fascinating reading all this stuff.
Looking at it from my own gay perspective I recognize and have had to deal with all the points listed in the original post.

I do feel like our issues are perpetually on the back burner, and I do see politicians being afraid to get too close to us for fear (unwarranted in my view) of losing elections.

Having said that, it seems to me that you and the vast majority of straight DUers are doing their best to understand and support us even though we can be a prickly bunch (not without good reason) and that can make it difficult. You do understand that our rights are as inalienable as anyone else's and you support us in our quest for equality.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

131. To Each Their Own Perception I Guess. What You See As 'Numbers', I've Seen As A Relatively

insignificant number statistically when taken in light with all the posters here. I've seen spotty quite low in number examples of what you listed but every large community is going to have at least a few ignoramuses. But I don't think the by exception only incredibly small number of posters warrants posting a thread that almost accuses DU of being guilty of the premise on a far larger scale.

But to each their own perception, I guess.

[Pacifist Patriot]

132. This reminds me of the Black Empowerment Controversy in UUism...

from 1967-70.

While no analogy is perfect, I think issues that arose from the racial civil rights efforts of the 50s and 60s are resurfacing in the quest for social justice for the GLBT community. I hope we can look at what we did wrong back then and correct our mistakes this time.

Now might be a good time for many of us to read Martin Luther King, Jr.'s letter from the Birmingham Jail. Especially when it comes to numbers 1-4.

http://www.thekingcenter.org/prog/non/Letter.pdf

[ThomCat]

146. That is a damned good analogy,

and a very good suggestion. :)

Some of us have frequently made the point that there are similarities between all the branches of the civil rights movment. We face much of the same resistance and many of the same tactics. And Martin Luther King Jr. had a lot of great things to say that definitely still apply.

[LostinVA]

160. I've often thought of this very thing, PP

Thanks for posting the link!

[William Bloode]

134. I am a self admitted homophobe.

I am not the enemy. I try my best to be supportive. Not my fault i have a true medical phobia. I work on it the best i can.
Not all homophobe hate, for some like me it is a true fear. Of course it's not a rational fear, but hey i am who i am. Maybe one day i'll be more enlightened, maybe not. Self discovery is a long slow process.

I will have to say it's disturbing to see all this animosity. GD has been looking like a war zone. I just wish it to fade away with the hope there were no deep lasting wounds bestowed on either side.

[Pacifist Patriot]

158. Death by paper cut.

Sometimes its easier to facilitate healing when its one big rent. Tension repressed is uglier when it eventually resurfaces...and it will.

I do understand what you are saying though. It would be a much more comfortable place if the animosity were gone. And if it weren't here I would certainly wish for no deep lasting wounds either.

Cheers

[verse18]

161. What exactly are you afraid of?

I would really like to know. BTW Phobias aren't a medical condition. They're a mental health issue.

[mmonk]

165. From some of the things I've seen and titles of some threads

I'd say you are correct.

[IronLionZion]

172. Different people have different perspectives and different opinions

I'm straight and certainly do see gays here telling me my opinion doesn't matter only because I'm straight. To me that's obvious discrimination, but to you maybe I'm just a big gay-hating bigot. :sarcasm:

To a gay person, he might view the 9 things you mentioned as discrimination. That's why diversity is important, there are different ways of looking at everything and everyone's opinions ought to be respected even if we disagree.

And don't kid yourself. Gays do have a lot of straight allies. Gays can NOT do it alone. Ethnic minorities and women didn't do it alone. And yes, you do have to rock the boat and stand up and shout to eventually get your rights. Nobody gives it to you. You have to take it. The interesting situation here is that gays are a unique minority. Yours is a fight that has no precedent, so please bear with us as we are all new at this.

Good Luck! :grouphug:

[Spazito]

181. Wow, just reading this thread shows the OP has a very valid

point, imo. I have read the other threads and have seen examples of each of the points made by the OP and, yet, I am straight, go figure! I have been appalled by the lack of empathy shown by more than a few when it comes to gay rights. I distinctly remember a thread that was all about choosing to be less discriminated against (marginally) or fighting for equal rights with the OP advocating the "less discrimination" being the way to go over fighting for full rights.

I find it offensive when someone tells me I shouldn't be offended because they aren't whether it is about gay rights, women's rights, etc.

[bullwinkle428]

183. There's so much bashing and marginalization of the gay community

in society in general, that one expects to find DU to be an oasis of sorts. It's really disheartening to see the ugliness that rears its head here, seemingly on a more and more frequent basis. Thanks Thom for pointing out the specific examples of all the crap that's been thrown around here, and all of those things have occurred in just the last 2-3 months! :applause: :yourock:

[Duncan Grant]

202. 10. Whiny homosexuals are alienating their straight supporters.

Wish I could stick around for this fight Thom but I'm on my way out of town. I did want to mention the "You're alienating your straight supporters!" refrain. That sure got old last week. :eyes:

[Occulus]

219. I just had an obviously christian poster tell me their religion doesn't reject me

Absolutely STUNNINGLY insensitive, blind, and completely clueless.

That person is permanently on my ignore list.

[josewelder]

233. Clueless

I am curious why this is interpreted in being so insensitve, etc.

[ThomCat]

238. Because it ignores that Christianity,

"sin," and "moral values," continue to be used as clubs against us by the majority of churches, denominations, and Christians.

[josewelder]

287. Change

You lump Christianity into a big bad ball. I am more Christian than not, I do not go to Church or belong to an organized religion, but I believe that Christ was a great person with great ideas and that one can use these ideas to help in ones decisions on what is right and wrong.
Perhaps what this woman was trying to communicate is that she and her particular sect of Christianity have gotten over the imposed division that had tried to teach that Homosexuality is a sin. Or that although she does not want to completley give up her religuos beliefs she is able to realize that it is not 100% correct in all its teachings and that maybe it is wrong to think that homosexuality is a sin.
To flame her and place her on ignore would imply that people are not allowed to change. I think the "us and them", "with us or against us" attitude expressed in many parts of this thread leaves little tolerance for others opinions and does not allow you to believe that things/people will ever change.

[ThomCat]

294. I didn't flame anyone, and I haven't put anyone here on ignore.

I also don't treat Christians as a monolithic unit, but I do hold Christianity (in general) responsible for the homophobia that Christianity (in general) promotes. The existance of exceptions doesn't change the general and pervasive influence throughout most Christian movements.

[Tyo]

315. Straight Christians who are accepting and supportive of us...

I think would be that way whatever religion they believed in or if they believed in no religion at all. Christianity seems to be just about whatever you want to make it, and I have a feeling that most religions are the same way.

[ThomCat]

235. That is always less than amusing.

Because a very few Christians are not homophobic, we should ignore the vast amount of homophobia that comes from Christian organizations, churches, and movements.
x(

[josewelder]

304. agree

No you are right, yes all homosexuals should despise all Christins. After all they are the them in "us & them". :sarcasm:

You do not want gay people to be stereotyped but you think Cristians should be, you do not like it when "they" make generalizations that insult your homosexuality but you make many and it is ok. You win I am leaving nothig to discuss.

[ThomCat]

310. Now you're being deliberately argumentative.

I have never said anything about "all Christians." But at the same time, the small groups of progressive Christians don't absolve everything that has been done by Christians in the name of their Christianity.

There's a big difference between stereotyping and acknowledging the abuse we regularly take from various Christian sources.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

309. LOL i love it.

clueless is right.

[redqueen]

224. ...

:pals:

[ThomCat]

241. ...

:hi:

:pals:

[sniffa]

227. nope, not a probLem on DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x226337

[ThomCat]

242. No, not at all.

x(

That is definitely one of the clearer examples from today.

[rman]

228. An unspecified, apparently small number of people...

There are assholes everywhere.

[ThomCat]

248. Exceptionalist as a defense...

People in the majority have always claimed that people with prejudices are a small number of people. "It's not all of us, just a few ignorant people"

I don't know of any minority community that has ever believed that prejudice was really just a small number of assholes. When it's only white people who think racism is rare, and only straight people who think homophobia is rare, and only men who think sexism is rare, you have to sit up and take notice. Maybe it's not so rare.

[rman]

285. How do you mean "maybe"?

We're talking about DU, right?
I get around on DU, i have seen homophobia here only on very rare occasions.

[ThomCat]

297. Other people have already posted

that they see the homophobia regularly here at DU. You might not see it, but then again you might not have any reason to see it. I have seen it with frightening regularity, especially in the last six months.

[rman]

303. I blame it on

a certain brand of DU-ers that i'm not allowed to point out.

[Tatiana]

231. Honestly, I was prepared to think *maybe* this is a bit of an overreaction.

But I'm reading some comments here (not many, mind you, but more than enough) to make me realize that perhaps we do have a problem.

"Oh I'm not a racist/bigot because I have <black/gay/latino/arab> friends!"

I hear that so much that sometimes I start to wonder. I have gay friends, but I don't feel the need to mention that fact.

Maybe we all need to step back and just listen. I'm certainly not one to try to dictate to someone else what or how they should feel. I'm not gay, so I have to trust y'all when you say that you are being disrespected and perhaps told to "get over it." Nothing makes my blood boil quicker than to be told to "get over" something.

So I guess I have a question for the gay family here.

What can we do to ameliorate/address the valid concerns that you have?

[Bluebear]

240. Thank you for asking, Tatiana, but how can you change hearts?

We enjoy the support of many spectacular heterosexual brothers and sisters here, but unfortunately we also endure the problems highlighted in this thread. The best I can hope for is that people will realize as you do that maybe it's not all roses and lollipops for an American gay person in 2007.

[Tatiana]

278. Unfortunately, many times you can't.

That's a sad fact. There are some Southern whites who will never like black people. Ever. I accept that and move on. BUT, I come from the standpoint of you may not like me, but you WILL respect me.

Changing the laws should be, in my opinion, the biggest goal. Federally. And the only way to do that is to get in people's faces. We didn't get civil rights by sitting down and waiting for "massa" to say it was OK to vote, OK to marry someone of a different ethnic background, OK to move into a certain neighborhood. We changed the laws and made it a CRIME to do so. However, I see now that people are, for some reason, uncomfortable with gays being confrontational (which is ludicrous, because every civil rights victory was preceded by a confrontation!).

While I think gay marriage should definitely be on the legislative agenda, I really would like to see some serious hate crime legislation. The attacks in my own neighborhood against gay citizens have been among the worst I've ever seen in this area. If some of the perps were facing hard prison time, they'd have thought twice about attacking someone just because of their orientation.

I'm just sorry. I sat in court at a sentencing last year with a friend of mine who had been brutally attacked by another individual. I worked with the person that attacked him. I NEVER suspected he was capable of such a hateful thing. He ended up paying court costs and was sentenced to time served.

I guess it just goes to show, even the people you think you know, you really don't.

[LostinVA]

286. Great post

[ThomCat]

250. Good post, and good question.

The best straight allies we have simply listen when we say something is wrong. They listen to why we think something is wrong. And they take us seriously when we say something is aimed at us, even when they don't quite see it, because they know we have the experience of being targetted over and over and over again.

The one think our best straight allies don't do is pat us on the head and try to explain things away.

[TexasLawyer]

234. Homophobia

Homophobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.<1> It can also mean hatred, hostility, or disapproval of homosexual people, sexual behavior, or cultures, and is generally used to insinuate bigotry.<2> The term homophobic means "prejudiced against homosexual people,"<3> and a person who is homophobic is a homophobe.

The word homophobic, when used to label someone as prejudiced against homosexual people, can be a pejorative term, and the identification of a group or person as homophobic is nearly always contested.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia


I think that there may be insensitivity to GLBT issues expressed on this board, but that it is unfair to label it "Homophobic". Label the person who says "I hate gay people" homophobic. Label the person who says "That Snickers ad was funny as hell and I don't know what you're talking about" insenitive. It is less confrontational and more accurate, especially when it comes to the mostly great people on DU.

Most of us progressive straight people are doing our best to be sensitive, and I hope that this defense is not itself insensitive.

[Occulus]

298. Well it is

And condescending to boot.

Don't you DARE tell me what I can and can't call homophobic. Oh wait- you CAN'T anymore, because you're now on my ignore list!

[LostinVA]

301. Thank you!

I am soooo tired of people framing what should eb offensive and/or important to me.

[ileus]

257. Gay is great why be straight???

It's a motto I've used for 10 or more years...though I'm not gay.

[demrabble]

265. Here's One Other

Here's another for your list (the two go together):

Gay people should wait until the "right time" to press for full equality.

Now is not the "right time".

[ThomCat]

280. Oh yes.

"Eventually" we'll be in the perfect situation to bring up gay rights and have them taken seriously. But we should all just sit quietly and wait for that magical day.

[Bluebear]

283. Senator Dianne Feinstein: "Too much, too fast, too soon!"

I will never forget her saying that about gay rights.

[demrabble]

292. Exactly. It's Like "Annie"

"Tomorrow. Tomorrow. I Love You Tomorrow"

Somehow "Tomorrow" -- that wonderful "sometime" when it will be "appropriate" for GLBT people to enjoy ALL the rights others do ust never comes -- but it's only a day away.

[noamnety]

273. #2 has some strings attached

#2: We should shut up and wait until after elections to speak up or we'll be responsible for the loss.

Yes, we are supposed to shut up during elections, and wait til after it's over before speaking up.

But once the election comes, you are told to shut up and don't criticize, because the new people haven't even taken office yet.

Then they take office, and the story is: shut up, you need to give at least give them a chance.

By the time they are settled in and started taking care of the priorities (everything that doesn't involve GLBT rights), the next election cycle is already underway. Time to shut up again, so we aren't forming the circular firing squad, eating our own, yada yada.

[Az]

288. Atheists get all of that too

I don't think its necessarily homophobia/atheiphobia(???). I think it is more a case of our priorities do not line up with their priorities. In the big tent everyone has their pet issue. For the GLBT community it is GLBT issues. For us atheists the Wall of Separation tends to be a big issue.

A further problem that both of out groups face is that we tend to scare off votes from certain mindsets. Our issues are still controversial. I don't know that a person that shies away from controversial subjects when they are trying to win an election is a hater. I think it may be something more like a coward. Or in the best light someone that is worried about winning an election. But of course that attitude leads to sliding down the slope into the rights waiting arms.

I don't know that there is anything that we can do in each of our camps other than stay strong, stay active, and stay in their faces about it. That is how everyone with an issue has to be. Its sort of like working on the floor of Wallstreet. There are a lot of people clamoring for attention. You have to make sure that your issue gets heard.

[Tyo]

293. I belong to both camps

And I don't think that civil rights and the separation of Church and State qualify as "pet" issues. They are key and they go to the very heart of what this country is all about.

[Az]

305. But we have to understand

That sometimes other people do not see the issues we raise as being as significant as we do. I agree that the Church/State Separation issue is paramount. I can hardly imagine anything more important. I am also a very strong and vocal advocate of GLBT issues for I find my freedom tied up with those issues as well. But I cannot expect everyone to be on the same page as me. I have to educate, inform, and extol the reasons I support the issues I do. And I have to be willing to listen to other's issues as well.

[ThomCat]

299. First

recognize that some of us are in your camp. The two groups aren't mutually exclusice. :)

Second, recognize that GLBT people have a very, very strong incentive to support a strong separation of church and state.

[Az]

300. Of course

The camps often intersect. I hope I did not imply anything other than that.

[ronnykmarshall]

307. Well no goddamn wonder ...

[Behind the Aegis]

312. I almost expect to see a new thread titled...

"Homo nest raided! Queen bees stinging mad!" :eyes:

Points for anyone that knows where that title came from.

[ThomCat]

314. That SO sounds like a Stonewall Riot Headline.

[Behind the Aegis]

316. It is. From the NYT, no less!

You get a :beer:! :)

[Infomaniac]

317. Nope.

No, you didn't miss any of the major themes. I have seen homophobic posts in the past and am guilty of not piping up. I will try to overcome my astrological sign and start calling a spade, a spade.

[ThomCat]

322. Or...

PM one of us who you know is willing to be a bit confrontational, and we'll challenge the homophobia. I certainly don't mind another set of eyes.
:hi:

[hfojvt]

318. are you seeing that from everybody

or just from MrsGrumpy, Midlodemocrat, and Leftymom, et. al?

[ThomCat]

320. You just named three of the most supportive,

most empatheic, least prejudiced straight women here at DU. All three of them are awesome! I'm always impressed with their posts issues of discrimination and prejudice.

[hfojvt]

346. I know I did, but what am I?

Don't answer that! I'm chopped liver, as I well know. Point I was trying to make is that there are some, perhaps very many here, who are your staunch allies. Even a social conservative such as myself, put on a GLBT icon (Ellen DeGeneres) as a show of support when the anti-marriage amendment was being debated by Congress.
Here's how I see it. I do not have a personal stake in GLBT issues. My personal interests are in the areas of poverty, taxes, and the budget. However, we are allies, with at least one common interest - defeating Republicans. If Republicans are defeated, then both of our agendas are advanced. If, OTOH, Republicans are elected, then not only are our agendas not advanced, but major strides will be taken in the opposite direction. So even though it may seem that electing Democrats barely advances our causes, especially when they are Clintonesque, but it must be better than the alternative.

[ThomCat]

348. Maybe

But that denies the posibility of other alternatives.

It denies the possibility to pulling our party farther to the left to really represent our issues, instead of just sort of paying lip service to them. It implies that we must compromise in order to survive. But if we keep compromising and the right doesn't, then we keep moving right.

We're already so far to the right that our democrats would be the far-right concervatives in any other industrial nation.

Yes, we all have a vested interest in electing democrats, but electing DINOs doesn't help any of us. They'll just throw us under the bus in favor of corporate interests. Sometimes the lesser of two evils isn't good enough and you have to force a third, better option.

[hfojvt]

358. Yeah, I thought about the DINOs

but I wondered what a DINO is. Is a social conservative a DINO, or is an economic conservative?

I did not, however, say we wanted to elect Democrats, but that we want to defeat Republicans. I have not seen any viable third options, but I am more likely to support DFA, PDA or PFAW (and DU for that matter) than I am the DNC or the DCCC. We cannot move to the left until we have vanquished the right.

Heck, I think lip service is important. I always got on Clinton for talking like a Republican, and that is my main beef with Lieberman. Here in Kansas and Missouri, both Moore and Carnahan campaigned on the fact that they both voted for the Bush tax cuts. That kind of rhetoric does not help in explaining to the voters that the Bush tax cuts were horrible ideas. Right now our "Democratic" Governor is supporting the same huge corporate tax breaks that the Republican House is. We can't even get lip service in this state :argh:

I am getting some numbers too on Illinois. I think they have a Democratic controlled legislature and a Democratic Governor and yet they have very regressive state taxes. What is up with that? And Obama is pushing the meme that we need to compromise more as if the problem in the last six years has been 'partisanship' from Democrats. He's giving lip service to Republican spin points.

We can't even get them to talk the talk, much less walk the walk, but are we trying to pull them to the left on social issues or economic ones? Either way, we seem to agree that there is no point to "defeating Republicans by becoming one".

[noamnety]

363. I wish I were convinced you were right

"If Republicans are defeated, then both of our agendas are advanced."

Where is the part about GLBT rights in the 2004 Democratic National Platform?
http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

Seems like it should be under "Strong Healthy Families." But I don't see it there or anywhere else.

[hfojvt]

366. maybe the advance is only in stopping the backslide

What percentage of Republicans voted for the marriage amendment? Presumably higher than the percentage of Democrats. Which party is more likely to appoint a judge who thinks that anti-sodomy laws are constitutional? Which party is more likely to increase police power and curtail civil rights? Which party has been more supportive of civil unions at the state level and opposed anti-GLBT amendments? No steps forward is still better than two steps back. On both of our agendas. One of the main things I count on Democrats to do is to stop Republican evils.

[noamnety]

368. I'll go along with that.

I'm not suggesting there's no difference, more that I think supporting the democrats sometimes has more to do with knowing your enemies than knowing your allies, at least when it comes to GLBT issues.

[bettyellen]

319. you missed the threats "With that atttitude, I'm not going to support you anymore...."

i was shocked at how many times i saw this at DU. Unfuckingbelievable.
And some people want a moratorium on outrage- LOL.

[ThomCat]

321. Whenever I see that

I'm always pretty sure we didn't have their support to begin with. But now they feel justified in withholding that support. Whatever.

[bettyellen]

324. Ack! Don't look down!

[BOSSHOG]

331. Is your goal to alienate

every non-gay on DU? Despite your efforts I will continue to support what is right and that is full equality and all constitutional liberties for every citizen of our country. Put me on ignore if you wish. Take umbrage with every verb. And most importantly "always be pretty sure" of the motives of those who say they support you. This is not yet the land of the free, but it certainly isn't the land of the religious zealot who hates in the name of Jesus Christ. If you'd rather not have me fight on your side, fine. But I will continue to fight for the same goals as you, even if I have to fight alone. Because its the right thing to do.

[ThomCat]

334. WTF are you talking about?

I've never posted anything but supportive responses on your threads, and I've never accused you of being one of the homophobes here at DU. To the best of my knowledge, you're not.

However, that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of homophobes here, and it doesn't mean I won't confront homophobia when I see it. If you want to help, that's awesome.

[sniffa]

456. aLienate? no.

marginaLize the phobes? yes.

shame the enabLers? fuck yes.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

326. Hey, I was told above that I need to change my perception on life.

I guess if I get really zen and shit, there will be no homophobia.

Ommmmm....Ommmmmm...

Nope, there's still homophobes.

[k_jerome]

323. well...with that attitude you're certainly not winning over to "your side"....

you ain't making me want to be on "your team"

[ThomCat]

325. LOL!

I'm guessing you meant that sarcastically, in response to BettyEllen, above. You've posted awesome stuff on GLBT issues. :hi:

[k_jerome]

327. but you have to work to win me over to your cause...

and fighting back against discrimination makes me uncomfortable.

[yurbud]

333. possible the GLBT are being pissed off by same handful that piss off rest of us on other issues?

A lot of the more irritating posts in those veins smell like the work of a PR firm or the staffer of a corporate owned pol.

Someone who believed all those things you said either wouldn't care enough about politics to post on a progressive board or they would be over at Freerepublic.

[ThomCat]

335. There are a suprising number of longtime, high post-count DUers

who have posted stuff on that list. :shrug:

[Marie26]

336. You've got em.

What I think is interesting is that the same basic arguments are used on many different issues - racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc. IMO, they're basically methods of trying to control & shut down the debate. When it comes to repeating stereotypes, sometimes people are hateful or intolerant, & sometimes people are just uninformed. The hard part is separating out people who can change their minds from those that are truly hopeless.

[jus_the_facts]

339. I have seen blatant hate and bashing toward a GLBT DU'er by other GLBT DU'ers....

...so bad that they got banned for defending them self against said attacks..THAT made me have a problem with several GLBT DU'ers. :(

[Rising Phoenix]

354. ..

[sniffa]

355. oh gee, whatever are you taLking about?

hopefuLLy, not trying to dredge that up again.

good spin though.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

357. Wow...still holding a grudge?

Geez, what does that situation have to do with homophobia?

Oh yeah, NOTHING.

[k_jerome]

340. can you give a quick summary of this New Jersey thing I keep reading about? nt.

[ThomCat]

341. Sure.

New Jersey courts decided that the state must start allowing Civil Unions. This was right before the November elections. There was an immediate uproar claiming that we

1. supposedly timed this court decision for right before the elections
2. were deliberately polarizing people and driving away moderate democrats
3. were deliberately stealing steam away from more important issues
4. were going to cause the democrats to loose in the November elections because we weren't cooperating by shutting up and staying invisible.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

342. Within minutes of the NJ supreme court ruling legalizing civil unions...

threads went up saying that gays were costing the election, saying it was a Rovian tactic blah, blah blah.

One thread title was "Love ya gays, but you just cost us the election." Things got REALLY nasty. A few straight DUers like Midlodemocrat and MrsGrumpy got rainbow avatars after that to show solidarity.

[LostinVA]

349. Within MINUTES -- we couldn't even celebrate the victory

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

353. Yeah seriously, my phobe mom gave me a freaking hug over the ruling. DU spat on the victory.

[JackBeck]

344. Right before the mid-term election

The NJ Supreme Court ruled that the Legislature had 6 months to decided whether the GLBT couples would be allowed to enter in to a "civil union" or "marriage". Many people posted that this would make Menendez lose the election, and the Democrats wouldn't even have a shot at gaining seats in the Senate. Many in the GLBT community and our straight allies argues that this would not happen. It didn't. Posters swore that it would and that they would apologize if they were wrong. They didn't.

[happydreams]

347. Could you point me to some specific examples? Just curious

[LostinVA]

350. That's against DU rules -- but you don't have to look far

GD last night is close enough.

[ThomCat]

351. A quick search for recent threads with the word "gay" in it

would turn up quite a bit.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

352. You can do searches on NJ ruling, the locked shower thread yesterday, read the snickers threads etc

He can't link to specific threads unfortunately because of DU rules. I'm sure you understand.

A lot of the worst stuff is deleted messages or sub-threads. Some threads lost nearly a 100 messages with a sub-thread getting deleted.

[Duppers]

360. you go, cat! - No. 9 can be proven

The results of this poll bothered me and proves your No. 9 point:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=223490&mesg_id=223490

[Error]

362. Here's a good idea:

let's all check ourselves to make sure we're not being homophobic, and as an extra protection, check ourselves that we're not homophobicphobic.

Just think of that every time before you hit the "Post message" button everyone, ok?

[Az]

364. Sounds to me like someone is

a bit homophobicphobicphobic. Maybe you are some sort of closeted homophobicphobe. :evilgrin:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

365. ...

:spray:

[donco6]

391. BWAHAHA!

:rofl:

[bluescribbler]

375. Takes me back

Substitute "gay" or "GLBT" for "Negro" or "Black", and "straight" for "white", and you see the same rationales that we saw in the 1960's re. the Civil Rights movement. Well, except for #7.

The rationales were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

[Name removed]

376. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

379. Why are you not on this alleged "GLBT bandwagon?" What opinions mentioned above do you subcribe to?

What is the GLBT agenda? Please enlighten me, as I have never recieved my copy.

In what ways are you GLBT or homo-intolerant?

[Name removed]

386. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluebear]

388. "Lifestyles", "choice", boy you are a true progressive aren't you?

"I believe sexuality is a choice.

I would not choose to shower with a lesbian.

I would not prefer to have a GLBT babysit my children.

More???

Nonetheless, it is not fear, it is intolerance. To which I admit unashamedly"



Dreadful.

[Name removed]

394. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluebear]

400. You sound extremely unenlightened. Adieu.

[donco6]

389. So essentially, not on bandwagon because you hate gays.

Well, thanks for clearing that one up.

[PetraPooh]

397. I do not hate gays; I simply don't care about gays to the level

that would make you happy.

[donco6]

403. Oh, well then, I guess that's better.

:eyes:

But since we're all pedophiles, maybe you'd be more comfortable if we were just all locked up?

[PetraPooh]

411. You're a pedofile? Wow, talk about changing the topic and trying

to distract from my perspective by throwing around hysterical terms.

[ThomCat]

413. Why else wouldn't you ever want any of us to babysit your

kids? You did say that.

[Name removed]

429. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ScreamingMeemie]

438. Oh My Fucking God...

This will be deleted, but so be it. You are about the most worthless excuse for a human I have ever encountered. Truly. You have a list of items that could describe any number of people and yet you deem them attributes of your many GLBT "friends"...

It sounds as if you have encountered this often. My father always told me, "If you keep having problems with your friends perhaps it's not them."

Shame on you.

[Maven]

392. If I had children

I wouldn't want someone like you anywhere near them.

[Name removed]

401. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blonndee]

408. ****NO ANTI-GAY BIGOTRY ON DU, HUH?****

[LostinVA]

440. Why, have you seen any lately, Blonndee???

[Starbucks Anarchist]

417. That's...

fucking sad. :eyes: :puke:

[terrya]

419. Ok. You're honest. And now I'll be honest. You're an asshole.

An unenlightened, intolerant, asshole who won't even try to understand gay people and try to be a better person.

Mods, do your thing. Go ahead and delete this.

[Bluebear]

425. A big unenlightened troll asshole who is not worth the bandwidth we're wasting on her

I hope karma bites her in her intolerant ass.

[terrya]

426. I'm resorting to insults at this point.

I mean, fuck, it's like banging your head against the wall dealing with some of these ignorant cretins. They don't even try to understand.

[Bluebear]

427. Hey lighten up!

There is no homophobia at DU! :puke:

[terrya]

428. Sure, right. And I'm Brad Pitt.

And if you were to happen on my pic in the DU Gallery, you'd discover that I am NOT Brad Pitt.

There's a whole, sad boatload of people drifting down the river Denial about homophobia on Democratic Underground.

[foreigncorrespondent]

420. Well going byy your own beliefs...

...could you please enlighten us all and tell us exactly when it was you chose to be straight?

[PetraPooh]

431. 1982. When I was approached by an old school chum who

had determined that she was a lesbian. After weeks of getting to know each other again; she wanted to take it a step further, we did. It was okay, but I just prefer heterosexual encounters for myself. However if only women roamed the earth I assure you I would adapt. Given a choice, I choose men.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

432. When did you choose to become a heterosexual?

What do you think will happen to you if you shower with a lesbian?

What do you think a homosexual will do to your children?

[LostinVA]

433. Why the FUCK are you posting on DEMOCRATIC Underground?

Seriously -- there is no answer you can ever possibly give that'll be rational.

[Bluebear]

435. It's purely an academic exercise.

There she sits, calmly puffing on her Dorals, enjoying the reactions to the stink bombs she is throwing. Then she will go back to her "home" Underground site and explain how she "got us all good".

[LostinVA]

436. Yup, it has to be -- they are pathetic

And why the hell they aren't TSed after THAT admission... Jeebus.

[Bluebear]

437. "Pedofile" indeed. The spelling is always the first clue. nt

[k_jerome]

382. i have to admit to being impressed that you can admit your bigotry. nt.

[Bluebear]

383. .

[bliss_eternal]

390. Then why are you here...?

:shrug:

[LeftyMom]

393. Then you need to work past that.

Not being "on the bandwagon" of human rights and equality doesn't say anything good about you.

[Name removed]

410. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftyMom]

415. Gay people are human, so their rights are human rights.

And you're underestimating the rights that gay people have in much of this country. It is perfectly legal in many places to refuse to rent or sell a house to gay people, to deny their medical care, to take their children away, to refuse their patronage.

We are in no position to criticize other countries for their abuses when we treat our own so badly.

[Name removed]

424. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftyMom]

430. 1. I never said they were. I did say that we have to set an example and that you overestimated the

rights of gay people in most of the US.
2. You are making an amusing assumption about my sexuality based on my politics. You may want to reconsider, because this does not cast you in a flattering light.
3. Everybody's rights should be a priority in your life. It's sad that your focus is so narrow.
4. Since human rights overseas are such a big deal to you that you have no time to improve conditions at home, what are you doing about them? May I safely assume that you're posting from some Doctors Without Borders encampment in the Congo?

[Bluebear]

418. I don't believe you. You don't sound as if you would focus on anyone's rights, frankly.

[foreigncorrespondent]

407. How about we use this one?

Bigot? And in your case there has never been a more appropriate word.

[lumberjack_jeff]

377. Misrepresenting the viewpoints of your opponents is the definition of flame bait.

And no, the burden to refute your claims isn't mine. Backing them up is yours. Please provide links.

You don't "see" these things. You perceive them.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

378. If he provides links, then he's breaking DU rules.

[ThomCat]

380. Various people have agreed

that they too have seen these same homophobic statements and arguments repeatedly on DU. So I guess I'm perceiving a shared delusion. :eyes:

So what point are you trying to make?

[lumberjack_jeff]

396. a) the magnitude of the problem you describe (rampant DU homophobia) is, at best, exaggerated.

b) it is a leap of presumption to claim that the paraphrases you used are a correct interpretation of the viewpoints of the individual posters with whom you disagree.
c) it is a further leap to describe those viewpoints as indicative of homophobia. Insensitive? Perhaps. Unfair stereotyping? Debatable. Homophobia? Doubtful.

It's exaggerating the magnitude of a problem that you presume exists, for the purpose of attracting hundreds of posts eliciting strong disagreement - e.g. flame bait.

[jonnyblitz]

402. rampant LATENT homophobia is here, just because it isnt

BLATENT doesn't mean it isn't here. i see it every damn day when GLBT issues are discussed.

[donco6]

405. Try post 386 for starters.

It's right on this thread.

[Bluebear]

422. :crickets:

[ThomCat]

406. Well, just because you don't see the magnitude of the problem

doesn't mean it's not there for other people to see. It could just be that you're wearing blinders.

It's quite ironic that you would post something so argumentative and arrogant, but accuse me of posting flamebait.

[donco6]

387. They're not misrepresented.

But keep telling yourself that.

[jonnyblitz]

399. offensive stuff usually gets deleted so often times it's hard to

find it to link to. Sadly not all of it gets deleted. but anyways, I have personally been involved in most of the discussions where the things Thom has brought up have occured.

[sniffa]

449. i'm sure someone has some of the good stuff copied somewhere

[k_jerome]

414. so what exactly are you whining about here?

do you feel victimized in some way by the OP?

[flvegan]

416. Good word: "opponents"

Sorta stands on its own accord.

[seaglass]

395. None of those are prevalent sentiments on DU. It is unfortunate

that any of them were expressed or intimated but I think the number of people involved is very small.

[Bluebear]

404. Here you go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=225444&mesg_id=230700

[seaglass]

454. I don't understand what that post has to do with what I posted. n/t

[LostinVA]

442. Unfortunately, that's not true -- I wish it were

[bigwillq]

409. Bravo ThomCat

Great thread.

:hi: :hug: :loveya:


This thread is a little large for me to read through every post since I am at work but when I get the chance, I will read each and every post.

Who is this PetraPooh person? :shrug:

[Name removed]

421. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

423. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[k_jerome]

434. geez. you guys really need to lighten up....

i see no reason to complain.

[JackBeck]

439. Sorry.

Just another one of our "hissy fits". To the back of the bus go I.

[PetraPooh]

443. Don't go to the back of the bus; why diss yourself so?

Just quit throwing "hissy fits" and sit up here with me. (pats the seat)

[JackBeck]

444. No thanks.

I know where my friends sit.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

445. You don't really want the likes of Jack and I sitting with you.

:eyes:

[JackBeck]

446. We tend to give the gay.

We're contagious! Run for the hills, oh pure ones!

Won't someone please just think of the children?!?!?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

451. OMG! I babysit my cousin's young impressionable children sometimes.

Somebody should warn her that her kids are gonna catch the gay.

[ThomCat]

455. Damn, I used to babysit for friends' kids almost every weekend

for over six years. I wonder how many of them I converted? :eyes:

[sniffa]

450. i'LL onLy sit with you if your grandkids are there too

y'know, the pedophiLia and aLL.

[blonndee]

458. Yeah, best to catch them early...

but let's not tell TOO much about our "agenda," okay? I think she's onto us. :eyes:

[fishwax]

447. Great post

k/r :kick:

[ThomCat]

457. Thanks.

Who would have guessed we'd be here 400 posts later looking at a thread like this?

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

459. I'm going to lock this.

Do not post "flame bait" discussion topics. While there is no clear line regarding what constitutes flame bait, the moderators have the authority to shut down threads which they consider too rhetorically hot, too divisive, too extreme, or too inflammatory. Please use good judgment when starting threads; inflammatory rhetoric does not normally lead to productive discussion.

Do not start a new topic in order to continue a flame war from another discussion thread.

Also, the mods would like the DU with the User ID of 'name removed' to review the civility rules here:

here

best,
wakemeupwhenitsover
DU Moderator