Homophobia vs. racism

I recently got a PM in which the sender had hinted to being a homophobe and had (at least to my interpretation) tried to justify this by being born and bread in America. Now, I'm not sure whether or not this person knew I am a homosexual, and regardless of the ludicrous (and somewhat cowardly) excuse for this unfortunate outlook, but it got me thinking of how these two forms of hatred compared. The thought that crossed my mind was, what if I was black, would this person have had the audacity to say "sorry, but I can't help but cringe at the sight of a black man on film" (well actually, regardless if he/she hadn't known who they were speaking to).

There was one previous incident where another member had tried justifying the exclusion of homosexuals from the boy scouts by saying that it's a legitimate right of a private organization to do so and where I had provided (a never rebutted) counterargument by saying that the justification wouldn't be given out so lightly if the case had involved black people (or any other race for that matter). Obviously I feel these two forms of discrimination should be equally condemned, but as shown from these two and many other examples it's not the case. So how do you think these two compare and why is there a different, (in my opinion) much more lenient stance towards homophobia...or do you not think this is so? Reply, argue, share your opinions, call me a hysterical queen and/or a moron or ignore...

P.S.: My apologies in advance to the "anonymous" PM sender, if I have completely misunderstood you, feel free to call me a blundering idiot in public.

__________________
http://www.last.fm/user/diezelpower/

You know my stance, as a true believer in freedom. I think a person should be free to think what they like and dislike whomever they want for whatever reason they choose, as long as I am free to think their views suck, and that they are an *******.

__________________

Ok, but what if you were a homosexual and the views of others directly affected your life and let's say, the "amount" of rights you have as a citizen...? See, it's not really a "live and let live" situation...the other party has the upper hand...:\

Directly affected my life? In what way? As in attacks on my person, or... As for the amount of rights...which rights are these? Clarify and I will attempt to comment...

My mantra is this: To me, the quality of a person has nothing to do with what they look like (cept the hotties I mack on ) or whom they choose to sleep with.

Yea, I'm with adidasss on this one. The "let everyone think what they want" is pretty harmful for homosexuals, IMO. For one, if someone was going around being racist he/she would be corrected/struck down for being a bigot pretty quick, but when that hatred is directed towards homosexuals people are allowed to think whatever they want. That's bad, IMO. I personally think one person's beliefs should have NO influence on how people can run their lives and such.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

Good thread topic.

I'm pretty sure this refers to me. I'll also take your word for it that I didn't reply (sorry about that!), as I often lose track of such things, so I'll just reply now:

You're right in that it "wouldn't be given out so lightly" if it were in reference to blacks, rather than homosexuals. But I don't believe that's a counterargument. It simply illustrates that people view racism and homophobia differently. I still believe that people have the right to think whatever they want, and that they have the right to associate on their own terms. I am not selective in this belief; it goes for things I support, and things I find utterly reprehensible.

When an organization receives federal funding, of course, the issue gets a lot murkier.

But, to the earlier point about homophobia being more accepted than racism: I agree, it is. I suppose the next question, then, is whether or not this is reasonable. That, I think, depends how you define homophobia. Does it refer to people who do not think homosexuality is wholly natural, or does it refer to people who stereotype homosexuals and treat them as sub-human? If it's the latter, then there's no question that it is just as bigoted and reprehensible as racism. If it's the former, it's harder to say.

This is, as some of you know, a rather big issue in the United States today; not homosexuality, that is, but the growing frequency with which homosexuals compare their plight to the civil rights moment. Many leaders in the black community have understandably taken umbrage at the comparison, pointing out, among other things, that blacks had no way of hiding their minority status.

I think they're right. I think the two issues are very different, and even though I believe homosexuality will become more accepted as time goes on, I don't think it will ever be viewed in the same light as the civil rights movement is today.

Well when Americans want to limit homosexuals' rights, why shouldn't they both be viewed the same? Both have to do with citizens' rights.

It might be, it just might be. Too bad. That is the hardest thing about freedom, and either you believe in it, or you don't. Who's job is it to reprimand or "correct" a person's thinking? That is an extremely slippery slope, and one I choose not to climb. I think it has to do with people accepting the fact that there are going to be some things in society we can't or won't accept, and learning to deal with/live with these issues is part of living in a country that supports free thought. There is never going to be a free country that can be "adjusted" to suit the views and needs of everyone, it's a pipe dream, or perhaps a fascist wet dream.

I must say though, that the above statement I quoted from you is quite chilling when I attempt to dig deeper into what you would think is preferable. Not a fan of the thought police...

Again I ask, what rights?

Crap...gots to go guys, heading a couple towns over to play some poker with some skinheads.

Kidding!!!!!

I am playing poker, but not with the Nazis...

I will comment more later.

What rights are you referring to? As far as I know, there's no constitutional right to join the Boy Scouts (which was what this was line of discussion was in reference to).

Even if this were not the case, being black and being a homosexual are two very different things. The fact that both may subject the person to intolerance does not equate them, unless you believe that all intolerance is equally invalid.

How about access to jobs, to adopt children and to get married, for a start?

I don't know what the current laws in every one of the different countries we all live in are, but I do know that if homosexual people have the same rights to these things as heterosexual, then it is a very recent development.

In the UK there have only very recently been changes in the law to prevent discrimination against people in the provision of goods and services on the grounds of sexual orientation. And civil partnerships have only been around a couple of years at most, and there are those who still do not consider partnerships equal to marriage.

Racism and homophobia are AWESOME. More principled thinking and less socially conformist 'tolerance,' please.

There are things we're obligated to try our best to "correct" people's thoughts on. Such as rape, murder, etc. And correcting a person's thoughts has nothing to do with restricting their freedom; it has to do with them being wrong.

Oh come on, you know me better than that.

The right to see their loved one before they die, to adopt children, get married, etc, etc.

Oh. Well in that case why does a black person have more right to join the Scouts than a gay person?

Even if this were not the case, being black and being a homosexual are two very different things. The fact that both may subject the person to intolerance does not equate them, unless you believe that all intolerance is equally invalid.[/quote]Intolerance of a person's rights is equally invalid, yes.

I'd say there's one kind of homophobia, intolerance towards homosexuality. I don't see a difference between thinking someone's behavior and feelings are unnatural (or as seventh likes to say "not for them") and thinking they're sub-human. Shades of gray IMO.

Why not? We're talking about two groups of citizens that were treated as "sub-humans" and stripped of basic human rights for no logical reason...the fact that one group was able to pass off as a part of the majority doesn't erase the irrational hatred or the consequences on the lives of such people...
All irrational intolerance is...

Interesting you mention fascism. So imagine you lived at a time when fascism was the generally approved and accepted viewpoint. The majority of your country thinks people of other races/nationalities/beliefs are subhuman and should therefore be stripped of certain rights. Would you be as nonchalant about the lives of these people? I think that's a dreadful way of thinking...And I don't think I'm exaggerating when I make the parallel. Homosexuality is an offense punishable by death in certain countries...:\

33

And who gets to decide which intolerances are 'rational' and which are unacceptable? You?

I think homophobia is considered acceptable because so many folks still think it's a choice.

Racism is considered unacceptable because of the history of subjugation that is attached to it.

That said, if we tried to keep African-Americans from serving in the military, or wouldn't let them have partner benefits without marriage, like we do to homosexuals, we'd have Reverend Jesse and Reverend Al all uptight and spouting to each and every network about the injustice.

It's not right, but this what we have to deal with until more folks stop feeling threatened.

__________________
If God had wanted me otherwise, He would have created me otherwise.

Johann von Goethe

I dont care if this response leads to my account closure, because atleast it is in defense of honestly and manipulation of circumstance.

I knew you were gay because of a couple movies you list as your favorite films in your profile & the manner in which you present yourself & that isn't a stereotypical comment, it is only a honest observation through comparison of other people in my life who share the same traits. That's fine because you shouldn't have to be shy or hide it while in public because it is the liberty every human has during our short years on earth. Even so you know as well i do that you are full of ******** Adidass.

The comments I made in my apology letter wasn't even a reference to your sexuality, it was an example of the social pressures placed on Americans during the course of their lives to follow the flock and share the ideals of the man next to you. This includes looking at homosexuality or any person who doesn't share similar beliefs or is different in any way becomes labeled a sinful and a abomination of humanity. It is this that has been etched in our minds by this country that's smothered by right wing & religious bigotry which starts the moment we are born in this nation. I only gave an explanation on the troubles of completely erasing this social programing, and this statement is especially true for the majority of heterosexual males in the U.S.

So who do you think you are trivializing prejudice and racism as a defense against me because my wife who wanted to offer some perspective for you to consider to make a difference against the deep seeded bias which seems to be returning to society's forefront. You are spitting in every man or woman who has ever been the victim of a hate crime & you should be ashamed of yourself for making such a comparison.

You are in a position to make a real diffence by sharing the experiences of your life and offer understanding of your country that could never come from any book. There is nothing I would rather do in my time on this forum then to gain understanding on your country & learn about the history which shaped a nation that very few understand, so I could continue to bring the message to areas in society you could never reach.

Instead, all you do is over react about anything and everything ever said to you which differs from your concrete ideals which fester inside of you until you see an opportunity to launch the overwhelming rancid outlook on any foreign person.

Adidasss you are the very definition of 'Prejudice'

Not only that, but it is shocking to see the lengths that you will go to justify your perverted and putrefied views. Also your tactics of expression are identical to the propaganda of nazis, klu klux klan, and every other prejudice or racist person or organization has done ever since first two people with different pigments of skin met for the first time, the only difference is the spectrum.

So there is no other way to say this but,"You are the most defiled person I have ever encountered in my life and your soul is so contaminated that you're not only prejudice of other people, you are the malignant tumor that makes someone a bigot in the first place & there is nothing you can possibly say about me or anyone else that can change that fact until you take the time to change it yourself."

How dare you, Adidasss! You tell me what gives you the right to make such a baseless accusation that is an all out assault on my character. Only the most corrupt of people would do such a thing.

I think reasonable people should be able to come to the conclusion that it's wrong to infringe upon the rights of people who do not threaten you/other people/society with their behavior...:\