A gay man and two gay minors tortured and sodomized for being gay

[Lord Mord]

I'm pretty sure El-ahrairah was using the term "friendly" ironically, expecting that it wouldn't be taken seriously.

[El-ahrairah]

I'm pretty sure El-ahrairah was using the term "friendly" ironically, expecting that it wouldn't be taken seriously.

Actually "homophobe" was the ironic word. I'm quite serious about friendly. ;)

[sologdin]

moral opposition to certain activities

one can sugarcoat this freakish ideology in any number of ways--it's still barbarism.

[Mad Monkey]

I think it is unfair to blame El-ahrairah for the lawlessness of another individual. El-ahrairah does not condone physical violence against homosexuals.

I never said that he did. But politicians and prominent media figures who make it their business to make gays into second-class citizens, and those that go around portraying gays as brutal, savage, immoral, etc. do create an environment where other, even stupider and crueller individuals can feel comfortable doing what they're going to do.

It's not a 1:1 correlation; I'm not saying that you can place all or most of the blame in those "lower-degree" homosexuals, or that people who do say shit like that should be punished as accessories or anything, but I do say that the prevalence of such attitudes by those in power contributed to the prevalence anti-gay crimes just as the popular portrayal of black men as violent rapists who targeted white women back in Reconstruction contributed to the prevalence of lynching back in that time period.

I disagree with stiffer penalties for hate crimes. Am I also to blame?

I'm not talking about hate crimes. I'm talking about a society where gays are second-class citizens with fewer privileges and rights than heterosexuals for no good reason. Your position on hate crimes doesn't contribute to that, but the pervasiveness of anti-gay rhetoric in law and government does.

[Lord Mord]

El-ahrairah,

And anyhow I certainly don't "hate gays".

When your behavior is hateful, how can anyone tell the difference?

Just so. Which is why maybe we shouldn't use a word for a mental disorder to describe people with a moral opposition to certain activities. ^_^

I don't think that racism or homophobia are mental disorders. Disorders happen to people and affect them in spite of their choices -- hatred is perpetuated only by intent. You may not intend to hurt people, but your actions are no less designed to promote the idea that being gay is "less", less than ideal, and less good, less acceptable. You do such an excellent job at promoting and projecting an attitude of "less", if people feel intimidated, if they feel worthless, this is hardly a coincidence. You bear responsibility for some part of the hurt that people suffer, and only because you feel like visiting it on them.

I'd like you to tell me why that isn't hateful, and isn't a deliberate choice.

[Lord Mord]

Tempra,

The definition of friendly (not hostile) is sufficiently broad to cover his use, but I think you're over analyzing his use of the term.

Okay, so for you, friendliness is absolute -- if you're not hostile, then you're friendly. I'd say instead there is a large gray area in the middle, which encompasses fractions of both friendliness and hostility, and therefore both descriptions are insufficient. I think El-ahrairah's attitude falls, at best, in this gray area, and more hostile than not.

I think it is unfair to blame El-ahrairah for the lawlessness of another individual. El-ahrairah does not condone physical violence against homosexuals. I disagree with stiffer penalties for hate crimes. Am I also to blame?

These are different kinds of positions.

You're not advocating that gay people change because their lifestyles are no good. To the extent you do that, then yes, you are partly to blame.

====================================

El-ahrairah,

Actually "homophobe" was the ironic word. I'm quite serious about friendly

I don't doubt that "homophobe" was also ironic, I just wasn't concerned with that part when I posted. I understand your desire to be seen as friendly, and that you'd like to be friends, but can you see where it would be difficult to accept the description of "friendly" to describe someone who makes a habit of saying "You're entitled to your lifestyle, but it's pretty shitty in the eyes of God"?

I don't dispute that you are friendly in other contexts, but as regards this topic, your posts are typically civil at best.

[Cantabile]

No excuse for being homophobic? what about the excuse which says "I don't think being gay is normal"? my grandmother doesn't think that the fact that I don't like swimming is normal - does that mean there is no excuse for hating swimming??

for the record - I am am totally cool with gay people, but I also totally cool with homophobs as long as they don't commit crimes against gays. Everyone is entitled for an opinion.

Everyone is certainly entitled to an opinion. You can think that the Earth is flat, that black people are genetically inferior, that the moon is made out of cheese, and any other completely idiotic notions you want to cling to, just as you can believe the equally ignorant notion that "being gay is not normal."

"[insert people group here] is not normal." has to be the single most widely used vehicle for hatred and discrimination I've seen. And you know what the amusing part is? The vast majority of the people who use it, can't even define what the hell they mean by normal. The only thing better than people using ignorant excuses to discriminate against others, is people using ignorant excuses that they don't even understand to discriminate others.

Please, tell us what "normal" is, and how gay people do not fit into it? Are we talking about biological normalcy, or social normalcy? Shit, it doesn't matter really, since both are equally unfounded. Let's just talk about both.

Homosexuality is a biological fact, occurring in more species than you likely even know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals if you need to brush up on it. It's interesting to note that Bonobo, the closest relative to humans (along with chimps), are entirely bisexual, and have more gay orgies than you can possibly imagine. Now, if you want to take the view that, "Oh, sure, homosexuality occurs throughout the animal kingdom biologically, but not humans! No sir, we're special! Even if our closest relative loves to have lots of gay sex, we don't!" then you might want to look at the mountain of evidence for biological links to homosexuality in humans.

Now if you're using "social normalcy" as your standard definition of "normalcy" then I imagine you're aware that "normalcy" is subjective to each individual culture, subculture, and time period. Homosexuality has not only been common in cultures for thousands of years across the globe, but has often been revered above heterosexuality.

So, please, enlighten me how "being gay is not normal" is in any way a valid statement? 'Cause as is, it looks like a synonym for, "I have this ignorant notion of normalcy, which is completely unsupported by any evidence due to the fact that I haven't even researched my own bigotry. But that's okay, I'm gonna believe it anyway in light of all opposing facts."

[Lightning Lord]

The herd of animals that performed these horrendous acts should be put back in their cages and not allowed out again. Maybe allow them a den to sleep in, but people should be allowed to view them and maybe buy them pellets to eat from time to time.

Disgusting individuals.

On homophobia: I had a friend that was uber-religious and always insisted "I hate the sin of being gay, not the sinner." At the time, I didn't totally understand how she reconciled that in her head. Then I got it - she was an idiot.

[Ocean of Notions]

The definition of friendly (not hostile) is sufficiently broad to cover his use, but I think you're over analyzing his use of the term.

Not really. "Friendly" would also apply acting like how a friend would act towards another. It's a bit more positive than just neutral. Anyway, my issue is him attempting to make light of his bigotry by using cutesy terms referencing pop culture - like it's no big deal.

[The Evil Hat]

Just so. Which is why maybe we shouldn't use a word for a mental disorder to describe people with a moral opposition to certain activities. ^_^

Just so. Sort of like how I don't actually advocate lynching people, I just think that anyone with black skin is inferior and probably shouldn't be in the same school as my future children. That doesn't mean that I wish them harm, though, of course not! They can go be...different...somewhere else, where I don't have to see it.

[Rubies & Jade]

On homophobia: I had a friend that was uber-religious and always insisted "I hate the sin of being gay, not the sinner." At the time, I didn't totally understand how she reconciled that in her head. Then I got it - she was an idiot.

this. I don't advocate violence toward your general, run of the mill, homophobic condescending prick, but I sure as hell wrinkle my nose at them when they walk by and want nothing to do with them.

[Rubies & Jade]

oh, and to the OP... this story is horrifying. everytime I think we have made some progress I see shit like this and feel so defeated. how can humans be so awful?

[Old Nan]

Men getting raped: apparently national news.

Still, disgusting and horrifying, etc.

[El-ahrairah]

When your behavior is hateful, how can anyone tell the difference?

The word "hate" is horribly overused today, I think - why can't we accept that someone may have politics you strongly dislike but lack any malice directed toward you? No doubt some people hate my behavior, and some of them may even hate me. But then such hate as there is is obviously on their side, not mine. In the absence of mind-reading machines I think it's fair to say I'm qualified to report what my own emotions are. ;)

So I'll tell you what I do hate - being in arguments like this one. I admit I will often get a bestial satisfaction at first, but later I know that all my snarky little posts are enraging some real people out there, and ones with a lot more stake in the debate than me. Sometimes I really have to speak my mind, but it's a foul thing all around, honestly.

On homophobia: I had a friend that was uber-religious and always insisted "I hate the sin of being gay, not the sinner." At the time, I didn't totally understand how she reconciled that in her head. Then I got it - she was an idiot.

Well if by "being gay" she means the psychological state of a homosexual orientation, then I agree she makes little sense. But I hope we can agree that while it is impossible to control the "act" of being black or female, it is possible to choose whether to engage in certain activities associated with "being gay". We can certainly argue about whether it is heartlessly cruel and pointless to demand them to do that, but the distinction between innate conditions like race and sex and (I'm willing to grant this) sexual orientation on the one hand, and behavior on the other, seems to be far too often overlooked.

[Tears of Lys]

Men getting raped: apparently national news.

Hmm. You may have a point there - not the one on top of your head, I mean.

[Tears of Lys]

Well if by "being gay" she means the psychological state of a homosexual orientation, then I agree she makes little sense. But I hope we can agree that while it is impossible to control the "act" of being black or female, it is possible to choose whether to engage in certain activities associated with "being gay". We can certainly argue about whether it is heartlessly cruel and pointless to demand them to do that, but the distinction between innate conditions like race and sex and (I'm willing to grant this) sexual orientation on the one hand, and behavior on the other, seems to be far too often overlooked.

El-ahrairah, I believe that you really are well-intentioned. Rather than castigate you, I think folks on this board should be sharing with you their life's experiences so that you may understand that your advice to simply "say no" to living their lives as fully as you or I would is an impossibility.

[Cantabile]

The outlook that homosexuality is a mindset or a choice is one of the major reasons there is such a lack of acceptance and understanding towards homosexuality. How is sexual orientation not an innate state? There is absolutely no research to demonstrate that we "choose" our sexual orientation, but a large sum supporting that sexual orientation is indeed innate. Ask yourself this: when did you choose to be straight? Was there a choice? A definitive moment in time, where your rationality observed the data you've accumulated throughout life, and said, "From this day on, I'm heterosexual." Bloody unlikely.

One of the most commonly asked questions to gay people is, "So when did you decide to be gay?" or "Why'd you chose to be gay?" and if you just replace "gay" with "straight" and ask yourself that question, you'll realize how absurd it is. Do you think that any of the innumerable species that have been observed in homosexual activities are making a conscious choice to be gay, seeing as many of those species do not even have brains capable of "choice" as we view it, but are instead stimulus-response organisms?

Now, is behavior based upon our biological conditions a choice? Certainly. One may be heterosexual, and choose to never have any sexual intimacy with the opposite sex, have relationships with them, etc. But that is simply repressing one's innate, biologically-hardwired nature and desires, which leads to a long list of negative health effects.

I understand how people can view homosexuality as "abnormal" or "sinful" based upon how they've been socialized by their family, friends, religion, and overall environment. However, with the wealth of easily accessible information available on the subject, there is truly no excuse for ignorance. If one wants to deny all the resarch, and facts available, and still cling to their bigotry, then so be it. Everyone has a right to idiocy, just as I have a right to find them repulsive human beings.

[El-ahrairah]

Um... I see no reason at all to dispute the scientific consensus that sexual orientation is largely innate. Not sure what you're talking about here.

[Cantabile]

I probably should have been clearer, I was addressing the opinion that homosexuality is a "psychological state" or "choice" rather than your post itself, since you clearly stated it was innate. Your use of "psychological state" is just what triggered my response, which is why I quoted it, but I see how it comes off wrong and looks like I was directing that at you. Will fix. :blush:

[Lightning Lord]

Um... I see no reason at all to dispute the scientific consensus that sexual orientation is largely innate. Not sure what you're talking about here.

You just think they shouldn't act on their desires. It's okay for straight people to have sex, but not gay people. That's not politics. It's a very sad way of thinking. I hope you can realize, somehow, how very wrong that line of thinking is. In the mean time, try to broaden your experiences a bit.