Bastard homophobes (1 Viewer)

[Abbeygale]

In a lot of ways, the current controversy over orientation is reminiscent of the African-American fight for rights in the 50’s.
It is with the same scorn and disgust that we look back on somebody from that time saying “I’m racist and proud of it” that people in fifty years will think of comments like that.

I was trying to do research today on interracial marriage, but I had to give up because 90% of the sites that I turned up were articles comparing the gay marriage debate to the lifting of the ban on interracial marriages in 1968 (US).

 

[untying_average]

Well, the people who opposed interracial marriage are the same people who are opposing homosexual marriage. (not literally)

 

[neo o]

If you don't like corn, are you cornophobic? Hate doesn't always equate to fear. Oh and yay, another gay thread (I have such happy memories) .

 

[Xayma]

Except since the last threads, there is articles that cover up to a childs teenage years that being children of gay parents doesn't result in any problems to their happinies or health Didn't we already come to an agreement with all this shit?

 

[Abbeygale]

If you don't like corn, are you cornophobic? Hate doesn't always equate to fear. Oh and yay, another gay thread (I have such happy memories) .

Why does this argument always have to come up every time? If you're going to go with the latin roots, homophobia is defined as a crippling fear of things that are the same.
Since English is a living language, words tend to get assigned commonly accepted definitions. Since the common definition of a homophobic is someone who hates homosexuals, the etymology of the word is irrelevant.

 

[malkin86]

Sometimes, if in the past you have been afraid to be somewhere because you're too young, or the wrong sex, or gay, or whatever it is that is "wrong" with you, it can be incredibly liberating to say to yourself "Hey, I'm here, and I'm (fill in the blank)".
It's ok for them to be able to feel good about themselves - however there are many many reasons for someone to be proud of themselves other than having accepted their sexuality. Gay people aren't just gay. They are people who happen to be gay.

 

[Xayma]

Except some seem to think that is the most important part of themselves.

I don't think two gays or lesbians acting in the same way a straight couple would (being sappy all that shit) is flaunting their sexuality.

But those who run around in rainbow spandex's accusing everyone not gay of being a homophobe, and making meaningless comments about their sexuality when it obviously has no reason to be mentioned, really gets on peoples nerves.

In your hypothetical, I would rule against the homo, all other things equal. Murder > Homosexuality in the heirarchy, obviously.

That was a true case. In any case I think a lesbian mother would be a better parent figure for a child then a convicted murderer.

 

[malkin86]

Except some seem to think that is the most important part of themselves.
<snip>
But those who run around in rainbow spandex accusing everyone not gay of being a homophobe, and making meaningless comments about their sexuality when it obviously has no reason to be mentioned, really gets on peoples' nerves.

And fair enough - that's annoying by anyone's standards. Gay people like that even piss off other gay people, cos it creates a stereotype for them.

 

[Estel]

Xayma, I must concede that there is no scientific basis for prejudicing against gays in adoption.
Too many studies that suggested no impact are either small in scope/scale or poorly done, yet the only argument going the other way is done by Christian conservatives.


I guess it's just the prejudice in me then.

 

[malkin86]

If you really want a strong male or female (depending on circumstances) role model for children of homosexual couples, I think that you need to look to the schools, look to the sports, look to the community groups like the Guides and the Scouts.
Cos that's where most kids of heterosexual couples are getting a great deal of their role models and character development from anyways.

 

[im an idiot]

And fair enough - that's annoying by anyone's standards. Gay people like that even piss off other gay people, cos it creates a stereotype for them.

i agree the problem is with the stereotype ones

 

[Vahl]

If you really want a strong male or female (depending on circumstances) role model for children of homosexual couples, I think that you need to look to the schools, look to the sports, look to the community groups like the Guides and the Scouts.
Cos that's where most kids of heterosexual couples are getting a great deal of their role models and character development from anyways.

Sports people, especially 'professional' sports people are exploiters. They contribute nothing of consequence to our society, but command huge resources in return for their 'labours'. Ian Thorpe may get up at 6 and train for 8 hours a day, and, like other sports people they might 'work really hard' (thus being justifying their fame and wealth in the minds of many), but so does everyone else. I get up at 6 am and work through until 9 pm, doing the HSC. I'll work hard for the rest of my life, but I doubt I'll be a millionaire, especially when I'm going to have a huge hecs debt to 'give me a start in life'.

Thorpe had his training paid for by the hard work of 'ordinary Australians'. Millions of dollars worth of equipment and specialists that he'll never have to pay back. AND he is a millionaire, he had two expensive cars(top of the range Audi cars) before he was even old enough to drive.

It can be argued that sports people provide entertainment. However this also is a sign of how sick our society has become. 'Entertainment' consists of watching a bunch of spoilt, immature fools competing(often violently) against each other for a ball or some such other pointless goal.

No. Malkin. I do not think we should be encouraging anyone to idolise sports 'stars', they aren't contributors, merely lazy takers who drag the collective down. They provide us with nothing, yet they expect treatment as the very best of humanity.

Giving children role models is a sad aspect of modern society. I think it is wrong to encourage anyone to aspire to be another. It is an impossible goal, and ultimately will therefore lead to disappointment and disillusionment. Why can't people simply be themselves. I would expect gay parents to see this more clearly than others.

_

 

[malkin86]

I meant kiddie sports - joining up your kid to a softball/soccer/netball/game-of-your-choice team - local stuff, nice people. I guess I may not have made that clear, although the schools and the community groups are local institutions. There is an important difference between idols and role models, to my mind.

I don't think role models are bad - they're people that behave in a certain way, that kids can try out behaving like them and see how changing their behaviour to others changes others' responses to them. Kids like to try new things - and if behaving a certain way makes new friends, they may continue with that behaviour, and make it part of their character to be friendly and inclusive to other kids.

 

[Vahl]

Malkin: I disagree with the idea that it is good for children to attempt to behave like others. Whilst it is good for them to have varied experiences, playing as a role model is dangerous because as you are not being yourself you are less likely to think through the morality etc of your actions. This is dangerous as you can commit acts on the basis of others moral code, ie, "I can do it because another did it", it is like believing that one has the right to say, invade a sovereign nation because previous national leaders have done so. No assessment of the morality, death, suffering etc.

Furthermore, when you picture a role model you have a set image etc of what that person is etc, but this is never the full picture as you cannot experience the full range of emotions and experiences that made the person and when you copy the actions/behaviour of a role model you are doing it primarily to identify with that image rather than the potentially more legitimate reasons of the original person. eg. Many people( especially the masses of shallow Australian teenagers) might occasionally say something about the problems/sufferings of others or vote for the greens etc to associate themselves with the image of environmentally/socially responsible and thus ease their conscience. But if they do not recognise the reason and need for action or take any more of a serious stand etc than they are missing the point in a most shallow way.

 

[malkin86]

I'm not sure you understand my perspective, vahl.

Changing an aspect of one's behaviour does not change the self. If a little boy occasionally (not constantly) plays with mummy's clothes, that doesn't make him a girl - it shows that he's curious, or he likes the colours, or something - if you asked him, he might tell you. If one is to change due to a moral reason, then one must be convicted of that reason from the core of oneself. It's good for a role model to show the way, but true change comes from within.

You suggested a few pages back that you thought it would be more beneficial for society to have something of a more open kinship structure - where all of the community looked after the children and so on. What is this then, but many many role models and family for the children?

I would suggest that a truly good role model would, when neccessary, say "I'm doing this, or saying this, because (insert moral reason here)" - they are showing their beliefs through their actions, and occasionally telling as well, so that others can be clear.
If you get to know your role model, you learn more and more about them all the time - you will never get the full picture, but this is not neccesary, as you are developing as your own person, and if a mainly similar moral base is established, people can get along fine.

 

[Vahl]

I'm not sure you understand my perspective, vahl.

Changing an aspect of one's behaviour does not change the self. If a little boy occasionally (not constantly) plays with mummy's clothes, that doesn't make him a girl - it shows that he's curious, or he likes the colours, or something - if you asked him, he might tell you. If one is to change due to a moral reason, then one must be convicted of that reason from the core of oneself. It's good for a role model to show the way, but true change comes from within.

You suggested a few pages back that you thought it would be more beneficial for society to have something of a more open kinship structure - where all of the community looked after the children and so on. What is this then, but many many role models and family for the children?

I would suggest that a truly good role model would, when neccessary, say "I'm doing this, or saying this, because (insert moral reason here)" - they are showing their beliefs through their actions, and occasionally telling as well, so that others can be clear.
If you get to know your role model, you learn more and more about them all the time - you will never get the full picture, but this is not neccesary, as you are developing as your own person, and if a mainly similar moral base is established, people can get along fine.

I can accept that there are positive functions for role models within society. However children already repeat the behaviours of their parents and accept their views/beliefs etc.

The main reason for arguing against role models was the suggestion that 'professional' sportspeople make good role models. As before,

They contribute nothing of consequence to our society, but command huge resources in return for their 'labours'.

No. Malkin. I do not think we should be encouraging anyone to idolise sports 'stars', they aren't contributors, merely lazy takers who drag the collective down. They provide us with nothing, yet they expect treatment as the very best of humanity.

I think there is a danger in encouraging children to idolise any 'celebrity', such as TV personalities, 'pop stars' etc. These people exploit, they have given themselves over to flogging off products in an underhand way through 'drama' and ;chat circles' etc.

It is better to encourage children not to 'role model' people but recognise the achievements of others and let it contribute to the makeup of the whole. ie, not attempt to BE the person but learn from the experiences etc of the 'hero figure'.


By the way - I was the most awesome drag queen in kindy

 

[malkin86]

The main excuse that people cite as the reason to not let gays adopt is that they will not have, or will not have as much of, access to a positive role model of the opposite sex to their adoptive parents.

I never intended to say that I thought that professional sportspeople make good role models. For me, the jury's still out on that - I don't pay much attention to sport anyway. I may have been a little unclear in my initial post on the benefits of role models, but in my next post I clarified that I meant local kiddie-grade sports. The coach and captain would obviously be the role models there.

People that you know, and who know you, make far better role models than following some distant figure through the media. They are a part of your lives, and they care for you.

Sometimes it's easier to do something yourself than to listen to why somebody did something many years ago. Young children especially would not be content to merely listen for years on end - as people do get their life experiences - which would contribute to their moral character. They would end up with merely the tales of their role model, and no life of their own. Tales and yarns do have a place in the moral education of youth - our fairy tales nearly always have "good" and "evil" characters, who do good or evil things - but action is vital.

 

[Stan..]

Shit happens, Eh. What can you do?