La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 1, 2009 Author Share Posted July 1, 2009 I love Dolce and Gabbana, lots! It's not really for those that pander to the pink pound is it? Maybe a minority of gays go for that label. Not something that I am aware of, but I wouldn't want to take an interest in what 'label' other people's clothes are. But I know the majority of gay guys couldn't care less where their clothes are from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 LDV - I am not homophobic - I do not hate homosexuals any more than I would hate someone who suffered from, say, Parkinson's. I never said you necessarily hate homosexuals. However, you hold oppressive views towards homosexuality based on a heterosexist perspective. That's enough to be homophobic. LDV - please point out where I have expressed the view that homosexuals should be oppressed. You will spend a lot of time looking to no avail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 So Evil Goblin - in your view what "afflicts" a homosexual - the problems someone with Parkinson suffers from are clear - they have a huge cost for the person and for those who care for them. What is your claim for homosexuality. Edit - and repling that they "obviously" suffer from homosexuality isn't good enough - you need to explain what is "wrong" with that. Chinahand- I admit I was tired and irritated when I posted this and I was deliberately provocative - apologies all round. My central point remains, though - I am not homophobic (despite LDV's subjective view on the matter). Ref "wrong" - how you can ask this question given all the relevant to-ing and fro-ing there has been on this thread I don't know. You already know my views on the subject -why should I spend time repeating them ad infinitum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 "anyone who calls you intolerant a hypocrite" - anyone has a perfect right to disagree with anyone else, but if someone who is clearly intolerant then accuses me of that offence then yes, I regard you as a hypocrite. im curious to know EG do you consider your view point regarding homosexuality to be intolerant? and sausagefeeder, congratulations your posts have succinctly combinined all the essential materials needed for an overwhelming debunking of both sides of this debate, truth be told you have won the internets completely and should not waste time with it any more. you should become a roving philisophical preacher, who spreads his message to the world, in fact i recommend you run outside now, find a busy road and begin flagging down passing motorists and share your awsomeness with them. spread the vitriolic, invective message of hate and distain for lifestyles that you fear or do not understand. Lao - I do not consider my views on homosexuality to be intolerant. I do not advocate the oppression of homosexuals, nor discrimination against them. They exist through no fault of their own - full stop. To discriminate against and oppress them would be unreasonable and unfair. All I advocate is that, in due course and given the ability, we could eliminate the deviance from the gene pool without harming a single soul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanna Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Why is the word "homophobic" used? I wouldnt have thought any hetro bloke has a fear of homos unless hes scared they might get hit by their manbags. Shouldnt it be something like "homoist"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Spanna - it's because the word denotes "homo" (as in the Greek "sameness") and phobic ("hating"). If I'm wrong I'm sure LDV or someone will correct me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 1. If homosexuality is a harmless 'deviance,' why seek to eliminate it? 2. would you advocate a similar elimination of female homosexuality? 3. Would you advocate the elimination of other 'deviances' such as those who obtain gratification from bondage, S&M, masturbation, oral sex etc? I am no apologist for homosexuality - I dislike the idea of it - but I do not see any advantage to be gained from eliminating it, any more than there is advantage to be gained from eliminating every form of governance other than democracy. It might appeal to those who desire a totally ordered and conformist society, but I suspect that such people have deeper problems than anyone whose sexuality is perceived as being a 'deviance' from the 'norm.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 I do not consider my views on homosexuality to be intolerant. I do not advocate the oppression of homosexuals, nor discrimination against them. They exist through no fault of their own - full stop. To discriminate against and oppress them would be unreasonable and unfair. All I advocate is that, in due course and given the ability, we could eliminate the deviance from the gene pool without harming a single soul. Oh come on Evil Goblin - here you are being disengenous. You claimed above that I know your views on why homosexuality is wrong, well I'm afraid I don't, I feel you've not explained at all. I obviously know you dislike it and wish it was gone, but I've no idea why. You've said its abnormal and deviant, but when pressed all you mean symantically is rare - as is red hair, or green eyes - just because something is rare is no reason for it to be picked out for extermination. You've said homosexuality does no harm, but gives no benefit either - so why the desire for its genocide - and I continue to use that word. Homosexuality is a strong, distinctive cultural identity - to deliberately plan and organise its extermination would be genocide - you do not have to murder to destroy a culture - a state oppressively stopping a language being taught, destroying its histories and monuments, teaching children different myths and legends and folk traditions, banning dances and ceremonies - that is genocide - ask the Dalai Lama or a Kurd. I can guess your retort that homosexuality has non of these things - but you would advocate removing someones sexual behaviour - which manefests itself in a very distinct culture - if you cannot see the strong parallels you are blind. And lets be clear your claim that you are not advocating oppression of homosexuals is a lie. Imagine you are gay - you are happy with your sexuality, you live in a community which accepts and is tolerent towards gays - and suddenly it is announced that someone has found a way to ensure all children born from now on will not exhibit homosexual behaviours. Obviously this is an impossiblility - homosexuality isn't an entirely genetic condition to be simply screened out - there are strong and important cultural factors - you would basically have to screen out the human sex drive and probably even more to ensure homosexual behaviours are entirely absent - with obvious consequences for all humanity. But anyway lets continue with your fantasy that it is possible. You would advocate some eugenics programme to ensure this screening becomes universal. I imagine ideally you would want homosexuals to embrace the idea, gladly accepting their extinction; you would want governments to enforce it, children to be innoculated before they sexually matured to ensure couldn't accidentally breed a homosexual offspring. How do you think a homosexual would view that - do you really not see that it would be an attack on his or her very essence - you would want that person's cultural milleu to be wipped out, you would celebrate that person becoming lonelier and lonelier as their friends, lovers, companions and colleagues die out with no one with similar ideas and behaviours to reinvigorate their environment. If you are incapable of seeing that would be a traumatic and oppressive experience for any person to go through then you are niave and frankly bigotted, unable to empathise due to your intolerence. You want to create a fantasy world where all homosexuals acknowledge and renounce the wrongness you see in their behaviour - well let me be frank, they wont. Most will see your ideas as pure intolerence. You gleefully point out the liberal contradiction and claim the homosexuals are being intolerent of you and wish to be genocidal towards your beliefs. But you misunderstand - people can think whatever they like - but when they cross the line into action then there are limits. You can hope that homosexuality will die out - ignoring the abundent evidence that it is a longstanding and stable evolutionary behaviour that exists almost universally amoungst "higher" orders - basically anything from an insect and up shows it. The evidence is overwhelming that homosexuality has been a part of human culture since its most ancient times that it inherited this behaviour from its ape ancestors who inherited it from their forebears; its continued longevity, despite millenia of Christian and other such oppression, shows it is a robust part of human life. Your desires for homosexualities demise are your own - and neither I nor anyone else has any right to remove them - but that is the right you wish to have. I hope your type of intolerence does die out - but there is no way I would advocate a needle or a screening process to enforce its demise. That is what you hope for and that is the difference which makes your intolerence unacceptable in a liberal society. Let people be, to be what they want to be. Sure give your point of view - Evil Goblin I've actively asked you to explain your ideas as I do not understand them and find them abhorrant - but understand when you want to deliberately intevene to affect peoples beliefs and behaviours then you are advocating a far greater oppression than disagreeing with a persons point of view. Lao robustly says he's intolerent of intolerence, I've pretty similar views, but neither of us are advocating mind control to stop you believing what you want - you are, you aspire to alter brains or genes or cultures to get your way - and I still have little idea why - just a yuck factor? Oh grow up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lao Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 a factor yet to be considered is that if these modifications were made the human race would no longer be 'natural'. it may be a small point compared to the human rights issue but who know what side effects will be brought on by our own interference with DNA. thank you evil goblin for clearing up my earlier question, i now have another, are your views on homosexuality in anyway influence by your religion if you have one? LDV i also have a question for you, do i also exhibit a hetrosexist bias towards homosexual people or their behavior? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 1, 2009 Author Share Posted July 1, 2009 LDV - please point out where I have expressed the view that homosexuals should be oppressed. You will spend a lot of time looking to no avail. Your views are oppressive because they come from a heterosexual discourse that seeks to marginalise homosexuality. Spanna - it's because the word denotes "homo" (as in the Greek "sameness") and phobic ("hating"). If I'm wrong I'm sure LDV or someone will correct me! I thought phobia means fear. But the word is a bad term for what homophobia is, but it has the equivalent meaning of racism. My central point remains, though - I am not homophobic (despite LDV's subjective view on the matter). Mine is a subjective view, but one based on recognising the underlying meaning and purpose behind existing power structures that seek maintain and reinforce the current heterosexual discourse. It is one that you reproduce here by questioning the merit and benefit of homosexuality. We could do the same with heterosexuality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 1, 2009 Author Share Posted July 1, 2009 LDV i also have a question for you, do i also exhibit a hetrosexist bias towards homosexual people or their behavior? Not too sure, would have to re-read yours posts but I do remember coming across one (I think) where you mentioned the private nature of sexuality. This is heterosexist outlook because heterosexual do not perceive their sexuality as private, certainly not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lao Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 LDV i also have a question for you, do i also exhibit a hetrosexist bias towards homosexual people or their behavior? Not too sure, would have to re-read yours posts but I do remember coming across one (I think) where you mentioned the private nature of sexuality. This is heterosexist outlook because heterosexual do not perceive their sexuality as private, certainly not. thanks, i was just curious. i think my feelings may have changed on the matter of 'privacy' regarding sexuality, i used to say that people (anyone) should be careful not to confuse children, but with more evidence that sexual attraction is genetic im not worried for the kids anymore. And im not against gay couples adopting, which doesnt really tally with my previous opinion. so im dropping any concern i may have expressed over public displays of affection as they dont fit the rest of my philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 1, 2009 Author Share Posted July 1, 2009 i think my feelings may have changed on the matter of 'privacy' regarding sexuality, i used to say that people (anyone) should be careful not to confuse children, A significant proportion of children would be far less confused and trouble if they didn't see themselves as either wrong or thinking that being heterosexual is better or desirable. And when there is no bullying going on because of it. but with more evidence that sexual attraction is genetic I am not aware of much evidence. There isn't really a great deal to point to it being genetic. There have been a few studies by heterosexuals trying to determine why homosexuality exists, rather than looking at sexuality as a whole and with dubious motives. The situation is far from conclusive. so im dropping any concern i may have expressed over public displays of affection as they dont fit the rest of my philosophy. I wasn't talking about just public display of affection, the publicness of sexuality is much more expansive and broad than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartT Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 I've met the odd lesbian I've wished was straight. Bisexual would be better. Then she could bring her (lesbian but not dyke) mates round.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 1, 2009 Author Share Posted July 1, 2009 I've met the odd lesbian I've wished was straight. Bisexual would be better. Then she could bring her (lesbian but not dyke) mates round.... What's the difference between a dyke and a lesbian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.