Planetarion Forums - Homophobia is wrong !

Vaio · 26 Jul 2003, 20:20

After an 'eventful' tube journey with some people that went to the gay pride march in London today I realised why there is such a thing as homophobia.

It's not because there is disgust with the gay lifestyle or their sex lives.

It's because the high pitched whining of preening queens just makes you want to land one of them. My family and I were stuck in a tube train with what sounded like 50 of them but what was probably only 5. Why do they insist on sqealing and drawing attention to themselves ? Can't you lost just act like sensible people ?

Is there a special school to teach perfectly sensible gay men how to ponce about and walk like they have a centre of gravity that alters with every step up their arses ?

A gay nightclub must be pretty depressing with it mostly a room full of queens shouting 'Oooh get her' over a Jimmy Summerfield dance track.

I had 4 of them that thought it was amusing to try and block me into a corner of the door (It's probably homo humour so it went over my head) I was getting a little fed up over it but as I am usually quite polite to people (unless you are French, An ex or current Cabinet Minister or Pete Burns from Dead or Alive) so I just ignored it until my wife loudly asked them to move their arses so I could get by. This set them all off with their 'Oooohs and 'Get her' comments.

Wife kept asking me if I was alright but then one of them decided it would be amusing to start knocking me. After 2 goes of this I got more than a little pissed off and suggested that the next one that knocked me I would tear a new arsehole, which upon reflection was not the best choice of threat but I had been working so it was the best I could come up with, cue more 'Get her' comments, It wasnt until I had to grab one by the throat that they behaved.

So unnecessary and pointless

Homophobia is wrong but MincingQueenOphobia is right !

Vaio

MrL_JaKiri · 26 Jul 2003, 20:21

'Most noticeable people out of a group being noticed shock'

Dace · 26 Jul 2003, 21:37

Damn i dont have my copy of 'American Psycho' with me.

Jakiri go and write out the bit from page 87 i think it is.

It's Batemans rant about homos.

Part of which goes:

'How a man, any man, can take pride in sodomising another ...'

Vaio · 26 Jul 2003, 21:38

Quote:

Originally posted by WorkMonkey
you're gay

lol!

Everyone else is too polite

I'm not

You were funny for a day

Vaio

Kumnaa · 26 Jul 2003, 21:41

Twats, whether they are benders, ******s or the working class, are twats.

Ragnarak · 26 Jul 2003, 21:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Vaio
I had 4 of them

heh

Kumnaa · 26 Jul 2003, 21:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Vaio
Everyone else is too polite

I'm not

You were funny for a day

Kumnaa

MrL_JaKiri · 26 Jul 2003, 21:50

Did you watch with a certain traumatised fascination, your mind reeling with the concept that a human being, a man, could feel pride over sodomizing another man, but when you began to receive fay cat-calls from aging, overmuscled beachboys with walruslike moustaches in between the lines "There's a place for us, somewhere a place for us.", you sprinted over to Sixth Avenue, decided to be late to the office and took a cab back to your appartment, where you put on a new suit (by Cerruti 1881), gave yourself a pedicure and tortured to death a small dog you had bought earlier in the week from a pet store in Lexington?

Dace · 26 Jul 2003, 21:51

That'll do.

Vaio · 26 Jul 2003, 22:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Ragnarak
heh

Poor choice of words

Vaio

Matrim · 26 Jul 2003, 22:22

Dear Vaio

Sorry to hear about your unfortunate episode with the some of the gays - this was of course an incident that did not follow along the lines of company procedure, and I do hope you can forgive us for that!

You can rest assured that the staff responsible will be given a thorough spanking in my office, and if they are at any time in the future caught once again at such naughty business, they will promptly be informed that they are no longer welcome at our company.

We do hope that you will continue to appreciate us as an establishment that provieds safe fun and entertainment, and that this small misunderstanding will not make you turn your back on us in the future.

With love

The Flamboyantly Gay

Vaio · 26 Jul 2003, 22:25

Right

I'm scared

Vaio

Deffeh · 26 Jul 2003, 23:21

i think i am developing homophobia.

I seem to be going from "understand" to "tolerate".

Dace · 26 Jul 2003, 23:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Deffeh
i think i am developing homophobia.

I seem to be going from "understand" to "tolerate".

Your body's immune system is kicking in.

Your producing antibodies.

Natural protection against 'The Gay'.

Mushroom · 26 Jul 2003, 23:38

i think if you asked a lot of gay people (no, i'm not gay, before anyone starts accusing, but i know people who are), they would be as annoyed at the entire 'camp' thing - the julian clary, over the top sort of gayness that everyone has come to laugh at and is used as a stereotype for all gay people. The fact that some people are like that doesn't help their image at all, and it seems unfortunate to me that the sorts of people who give the wrong image are the sorts of people who go to public 'gay pride' events like the one in London.

Nusselt · 26 Jul 2003, 23:48

well look, they are gay people. They got the name for acting gay , they were called gay because they were gay. If gays werent gay then homosexuals wouldnt be called gay.

Dace · 26 Jul 2003, 23:55

If gay people didn't exist there would have to be another section of society that i despise the most ... probably the blacks or maybe women.

W · 26 Jul 2003, 23:59

You're discriminating with your intolerance. You're supposed to be equally intolerant to everyone.

I am.

Deffeh · 27 Jul 2003, 00:00

couldnt agree more. i dont see why on ****ing earth people would go to gay pride marches, meetings. "so, were gay. lets rub it in peoples faces". Relating this back to MM's unhappy thread about the gay times being banned from the library computers.. i think this is stupid too. What constitutes a gay interest may i ask? Isnt pigeonholing what gay people are so desperate to avoid?

Dace · 27 Jul 2003, 00:06

Quote:

Originally posted by W
You're discriminating with your intolerance. You're supposed to be equally intolerant to everyone.

I try but sometimes it gets hard.

JonnyBGood · 27 Jul 2003, 00:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Deffeh
Isnt pigeonholing what gay people are so desperate to avoid?

It's not the ****ing pigeonholing that has me concerned to be honest.

Dace · 27 Jul 2003, 00:48

Quote:

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
pigeonholing

SICK

SEXUAL

PRACTISE!

Bongdage · 27 Jul 2003, 04:08

my gf tried to drag me to a party last night, it was a particularly gay party with queens and such, and there was no way in hell i was going there, im not too fond of other guys grabbing my bits :/

Phang · 27 Jul 2003, 04:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Bongdage
my gf tried to drag me to a party last night, it was a particularly gay party with queens and such, and there was no way in hell i was going there, im not too fond of other guys grabbing my bits :/

you suck. not in a gay way, not in a 'look at me, im sunday8pm's son out of wedlock' way. but just in a 'tosser' sort of a way.

vaio, you would have had the blessing of most people if you had in fact attatched small explosives to each and every one of the screaming bastards.

Quote:

Homophobia is wrong but MincingQueenOphobia is right !

aye.

Dante Hicks · 27 Jul 2003, 08:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Deffeh
Isnt pigeonholing what gay people are so desperate to avoid?

No. 'They' want to avoid blatant discrmination of the sort of being spat at, assaulted on the street, fired from their jobs, etc.

Any particular group is going to have concerns which only/mainly affect them (or affect them in a particular way). This is why we have specialised newspapers, etc. For instance, The Times can't hope to dedicate enough coverage to "black" issues to satisfy some people, so a market exists for black newspapers (The Voice, The Nation, etc).

I was in central London yesterday and while there was a fair share of screaming fairies, there was some people not behaving idiots. Having said that, when me and my wife went to have dinner at TGI Friday's, some guys dressed as the Village People sat at the bar. :/

Bongdage · 27 Jul 2003, 09:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Phang
you suck. not in a gay way, not in a 'look at me, im sunday8pm's son out of wedlock' way. but just in a 'tosser' sort of a way.

care to elaborate on that mr smarty? i didnt want to goto a party full of queens, as its not my thing, and i've been at bars before where fags try to grab my bits, and i dont particularly get off on that sort of thing, so i have every right to not want to spend time with these people, and im sure the feeling is mutual.

Rids · 27 Jul 2003, 10:08

Unfortunately, living in London, and working within spitting distance from Soho, I understand your plight all too well. I have often been stuck on the tube with more mincers than a beef burger factory.

I can tolerate their actions, but what I cannot tolerate is them thrusting those actions into my face at every single given oppurtunity.

Now, Camera phones are quite big business these days, and every fag has one (deliberate pun ahoi), so, of course, you get the odd moron asking you to show them how to do stuff. Now, I have no problem with this most of the time, however, sometimes when it comes to sending picture messages, and I stupidly enquire 'so what picture do you want to send?' I've been given a few nasty surprises. Great, yeah, I really wanted to see what you giving head to another man looks like, thanks, my day is strangely more complete now.

Now, I'm probably homophobic, I dont know, I've never cared too much to analyse it. I have no problem with fags, nancy boys, mincers, etc, my problem is with those that feel the need to stand their and proclaim to the world that 'I **** MEN IN THE ARSE' I blame all these camp tossers on TV for it, if I had my way they'd all be shot.

Gayle29uk · 27 Jul 2003, 10:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Deffeh
What constitutes a gay interest may i ask?

Marriage would be pretty high on the list, how about section 28? How long have you got?

As long as being gay is an 'issue' in any part of life there will be Pride. The ultimate goal of the Pride concept is that one day there will be no need for it, being gay/straight/bi will not be an issue in social or business life. Until that day comes (and we are SO not even close :/) Pride will be here to remind you all we're gay...Good As You.

Deffeh · 27 Jul 2003, 11:13

i personally see marraige as an outdated concept. but it is still the union of one man and one woman in my eyes. Gay 'unions' are absolutely fine with me, (actually, id encourage the idea of a union to be talked about in regards to heterosexual couples going to a registry office) but it seems just silly to me for homosexual couples to want marraige in the traditional sense of the word.

The section 28 debate is a joke. If you saw the state of straight sex education we get in school nowadays, youd be almost thankful homosexuality isnt bridged.

I think youll find theres discrimination everywhere, and you know it. Its merely that "gayness" is an easily defined group that can complain to be discriminated against. Should i form a Ugly pride campaign, about ugly folk being overlooked for customer service positions?

Marilyn Manson · 27 Jul 2003, 12:57

Everybody who is in a position of power has to be gay or bisexual. This was decided at The Council of Antioch in 328 AD.

Hertrosexuality is for the lower classes.

Anyway.

Got the stuff that was banned from the library computers freed up, heh. They asked me to contact them if I found anything else that was banned for no apprent reason.

Weeks · 27 Jul 2003, 13:16

Matrim made the best point.

Incidentally, my friend came out a while back and noticed him getting more camp. Maybe it's the male and female hormones mixing.

And incase you didnt get matrims point i'll spell it out for you: not all gays are the same. You met some arseholes you HAPPENED to be gay. You just looked for a reason they were being twats, and you decided it was because they were gay. Not just because they were idiots.

Anyway the gay camp community thing is quite interesting/bizzare to me.

Dace · 27 Jul 2003, 14:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Rids
if I had my way they'd all be shot.

Twice.

In the face.

With ...

Dace · 27 Jul 2003, 14:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
Pride will be here to remind you all we're gay...Good As You.

"GAY" isn't actually a statement.

It's a question.

GOT AIDS YET?

Dante Hicks · 27 Jul 2003, 15:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Deffeh
I think youll find theres discrimination everywhere, and you know it.

So what? You could make exactly the same argument against civil rights for any group. "No point struggling for black rights, since there's discrimination elsewhere."

One group has different "rights" to another. This is wrong. More to the point, they will continue to fight (generally) until they have these rights. Whether you feel two men getting married is silly or strange is utterly irrelevent. I'm sure there are some who think marriage is a Christian institution and the idea of two Pakistani's Muslims getting married is somehow wrong, and/or not something we should allow. Fortunately we don't base our legal system (generally) on the irrational opinions of individuals.

Anyway, I agree with the marriage point, but while hetrosexuals can get married there's no real reason I can see for not allowing homosexuals too. While marriage retains a special advantage (e.g. with regards to pensions, immigration, etc) this is imperative.

LHC · 27 Jul 2003, 15:23

I think the worst thing is that people think any mother****er gives a **** what hole they are ****ing.

Deffeh · 27 Jul 2003, 15:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
So what? You could make exactly the same argument against civil rights for any group. "No point struggling for black rights, since there's discrimination elsewhere."

One group has different "rights" to another. This is wrong. More to the point, they will continue to fight (generally) until they have these rights. Whether you feel two men getting married is silly or strange is utterly irrelevent. I'm sure there are some who think marriage is a Christian institution and the idea of two Pakistani's Muslims getting married is somehow wrong, and/or not something we should allow. Fortunately we don't base our legal system (generally) on the irrational opinions of individuals.

Anyway, I agree with the marriage point, but while hetrosexuals can get married there's no real reason I can see for not allowing homosexuals too. While marriage retains a special advantage (e.g. with regards to pensions, immigration, etc) this is imperative.

I didnt say there wasnt any point, i said there was more publicity / weight behind a defineable group movement, homosexuals or blacks or women etc.

I didnt mean silly. I meant its the desire for a right which the church would have to allow them. And we all know the church is always open to new ideas, eh. In terms of Gay couples having the same rights that come with marraige, i have no problem with this, as its the way it should be.

I personally believe marraige should be a christian institution, but the rights that come with it should be seperate.

Fifth_teletubbie · 27 Jul 2003, 19:11

An international term for our word 'relnicht' should be decided upon soon, it makes discussions like these so much easier.

Oingy Boingy · 27 Jul 2003, 20:03

Oingy Boingy

MrL_JaKiri · 27 Jul 2003, 22:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
Good As You.

No-one's as good as me.

Nodrog · 28 Jul 2003, 16:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
So what? You could make exactly the same argument against civil rights for any group. "No point struggling for black rights, since there's discrimination elsewhere."

One group has different "rights" to another. This is wrong. More to the point, they will continue to fight (generally) until they have these rights. Whether you feel two men getting married is silly or strange is utterly irrelevent. I'm sure there are some who think marriage is a Christian institution and the idea of two Pakistani's Muslims getting married is somehow wrong, and/or not something we should allow. Fortunately we don't base our legal system (generally) on the irrational opinions of individuals.

Anyway, I agree with the marriage point, but while hetrosexuals can get married there's no real reason I can see for not allowing homosexuals too. While marriage retains a special advantage (e.g. with regards to pensions, immigration, etc) this is imperative.

Nah, Deffeh is right. Fighting one particular instance of discrimination, when theres several cases all flowing from similar roots, is dumb - the sensible thing to do would be to fight the root cause of the discrimination, thus trying to solve all problems in one go.

In this particular case, "gays not being allowed to marry" isnt particularly important, and campaigning for their marriages to be recognised is pretty pointless. What you should be campagianing for is seperation of church and state, to the point where the government grants no 'benefits' to those who are married, only recognises civil unions rather than religious marriages, and allows the entire institution of marriage to be 'privitised' and carried out by whatever group feels like marrying 2 people.

CrashTester · 28 Jul 2003, 16:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
Nah, Deffeh is right. Fighting one particular instance of discrimination, when theres several cases all flowing from similar roots, is dumb - the sensible thing to do would be to fight the root cause of the discrimination, thus trying to solve all problems in one go.

In this particular case, "gays not being allowed to marry" isnt particularly important, and campaigning for their marriages to be recognised is pretty pointless. What you should be campagianing for is seperation of church and state, to the point where the government grants no 'benefits' to those who are married, only recognises civil unions rather than religious marriages, and allows the entire institution of marriage to be 'privitised' and carried out by whatever group feels like marrying 2 people.

For once, I agree with Nodrogs mum. He talks too much.

Nusselt · 28 Jul 2003, 16:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog

In this particular case, "gays not being allowed to marry" isnt particularly important, and campaigning for their marriages to be recognised is pretty pointless. What you should be campagianing for is seperation of church and state, to the point where the government grants no 'benefits' to those who are married, only recognises civil unions rather than religious marriages, and allows the entire institution of marriage to be 'privitised' and carried out by whatever group feels like marrying 2 people.

i thought that state and church were seperate on marriage?? dont you have to fill in a certificate that states you are married, and the religious ceremony is just that, a ceremony?? hence people getting married in registry offices. And the full formal separation of church and state does not preclude the dominance of one religion acting as a defacto state religion (U.S.) what we should be doing is saying there are enough people in the world already. Gays make sense. really.

Nodrog · 28 Jul 2003, 16:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Nusselt
i thought that state and church were seperate on marriage?? dont you have to fill in a certificate that states you are married, and the religious ceremony is just that, a ceremony?? hence people getting married in registry offices. And the full formal separation of church and state does not preclude the dominance of one religion acting as a defacto state religion (U.S.) what we should be doing is saying there are enough people in the world already. Gays make sense. really.

Registry office marriages are still Judeo-Christian in everything but name. Tried marrying a second wife (or someone your own sex) recently?

Nusselt · 28 Jul 2003, 16:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
Registry office marriages are still Judeo-Christian in everything but name. Tried marrying a second wife (or someone your own sex) recently?

just for refrence, a friend pointed this out to me, india might actually go the other way

JonnyBGood · 28 Jul 2003, 16:40

I disagree. All this leftist talk about civil rights is distracting us from the larger issues at stake here. We're talking about the destruction of our cultural heritage and the end of our civilisation just so some people will feel more accepted. Homosexuals are a sin in the eyes of god and man and no good will ever come of anything they do.

Fifth_teletubbie · 28 Jul 2003, 16:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
Registry office marriages are still Judeo-Christian in everything but name. Tried marrying a second wife (or someone your own sex) recently?

Yuo can marry someone your own sex in several european countries already, the rest wont be far behind (especially those countries in the EU).

Not being allowed to have a second spouse probably has much to do with taxation, just imagine all the loopholes you could exploit >:-)

Nodrog · 28 Jul 2003, 16:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Fifth_teletubbie

Not being allowed to have a second spouse probably has much to do with taxation, just imagine all the loopholes you could exploit >:-)

Yeah thats the thing; there shouldnt be any difference whatsoever whether someone is married, from the point of view of the state.

Dante Hicks · 28 Jul 2003, 17:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
What you should be campagianing for is seperation of church and state, to the point where the government grants no 'benefits' to those who are married

It's not just the government, it's also private parties via pensions, etc. My wife will get benefits from certain investments whereas a lover wouldn't. But yes, civil unions are the way forward.

Anyway, that's not the only "gay" issue, as Gayle said. Section 28 doesn't really have much to do with the privilidged status of marriage in judeo-christian countries. Or assaults on gay people, etc.

Obviously stupidity and irrationality is the root cause of all these problems but I don't see any easy way of fighting that beyond smacking people about the head with Propositional Logic textbooks. In the circumstances, "gay pride" is a fairly acceptable tactic to fight bigotry on numerous subjects.

And obviously I do campaign for the seperation of church and state. "Campaigning against things" generally aren't mutually exclusive, except when there are time constraints.

queball · 28 Jul 2003, 17:37

Civil unions are stupid anyway, the anti-rights they grant are populist restrictions on free contracts such as tenancy, and irresponisble mutations of socialist policies like inheritance tax. I should be able to specify anyone I like to decide my fate in hospitals in the manner currently given to "next of kin"; including a trusted doctor, my lawyer, or a robot. And I'd decide when I got my private health insurance in a free society.

acropolis · 28 Jul 2003, 18:24

what i don't get is why all of you need excuses to hate faggots

(yes i am against gay marriage for the reason nod pointed out: government shouldn't be able to say who can and cannot marry)