Where'd it go?? "So Are you Gay?" thread

Hobbes - thanks for puting the time in to such a long and well thought out post, and I agree totally with your bottom line - whether or not you feel comfortable with homosexuality does not mean that you cannot put an intellectual overlay on top of it.

Calenda - the point of what may be considered derogatory language if used by a stranger, being used in a friendly way between friends or by 2 people of the saem social group that it would be derogatory at is well made. That said, I think that unless people are good in game friends OR both parties know they come from the same in life social group then they should assume the language may be taken as offensive - especially as you lose the tone of voice and facial expressions in game which could help imply way it is being used.

Blix - I assume your comment was related to a certain Funcom advertising banner which used the term "gay" in exactly the way being discussed here.

Maxtor - I think in some ways you are missing the point. If a term is felt to be derogatory by a sufficient number of people then, no matter what the original intention of the person, it is derogatory. As for the last half of your post, I'm not sure it was really relevant, and I would encourgae people not to reply to that bit else we are going to degenerate into another flame war and end up losing the entire thread again. This would be a huge shame when several people have made efforts to put up some very good posts.

Blix;
I am explaining what causes me to hold a grudge against homosexuals. While I am fine with most of what is mainstream, I am strongly against the rarer or newer beliefs (I don't like things which I think are too much, obviously. There is so much you can do to overcome something before forcing yourself to be better than everyone else in the name of 'equality'). Perspective does a lot..
Many groups identify their fringe elements as fringe elements (I have yet to see homosexuals do so, though), not mainstream thought. Such fringe elements would not be displayed often, or the people supporting them told off by everyone else.

I cannot say every single action which actually causes blood to be refused for obvious (deletion of thread) reasons. I thought that would be identified quickly and what would otherwise be said considered in place of what I was able to write. I probably should have avoided the 'opression' topic and not tried to explain what causes me to hold a grudge against homosexuals, but would have to if the debate will last for a while.
HIV is hard to detect until some of its later stages in most cases. Infected blood might not be known as infected for quite some time, and I would rather spend an extra week in a hospital recovering than get HIV.

I could say that the weather in Cincinnati causes people to play football terribly, also, but hold nothing against Cincinnati (well, the riots, stadium, subways and Nordstroms were a bit much). California is the largest state in the US, so it will have its share of idiots (as will Ohio, which is the sixth).

I am not sure how exactly to say this, but; children need a mother figure and a father figure, not two of the same. It is based on how well someone would fit into society from there (the person with only one parent whom I know best was recently suspended from school for a week. As you know, society is quite complex and some people may not fit in if they are raised differently). Otherwise, I think it is best that the biological parent of the child approves of them being adopted by two people of the same gender, if possible. I see the situation as capable of destroying the life of someone who has done nothing wrong.

I used the word "horrendous" (probably wasn’t too good of a word to use, but I’ll admit that rather than update) to be compared to other disease, like cancer, brain tumors, or heart problems (which I am much more likely to get, I care about myself a good amount). Lung cancer is one of the largest killers of women in the US ("good for you, you are an independent woman now. Have a cigarette and die in ten years"). HIV researchers have tons (literally, tons) of money, they should have a cure by now or at least made something great (cure cancer or find a way to stop many other diseases which previously had no cure. Completely get rid of polio, eliminate west nile, make a resistance to ebola or marburg, ect.) along the way. I pity people with HIV, but the same amount of money that can move the cure up about a week could stop cancer months before it would be otherwise. That is from government funding only, private donors are free to do what they wish. The amount of funding is simply disproportionate (no complaint, just saying that HIV has good petitioners) and I tried to convey the idea that petitioning directly to the government does a lot (as opposed to the gay pride parades which you know I do not like). I do not want the government to stop funding any programs which are trying to develop a cure for anything. I was just saying that going directly to the government works and used HIV research as an example (I had to show why it works so well).
Well, the money is best spent on something that will get done, instead of stupid programs. I’ll check the amount of money the congress tries to set aside for medical research and statics.

normal=average=standard
normal couple=average couple=standard couple=a couple with one female and one male, both human
I don't think Leather Fetish Week in Portland (those are an annual event now) was helpful, nor was bestiality. animal+human=disgusting (no biological junk about humans being animals, plz). "Invite the kids!", I don’t think that helps either.
It would have shown homosexual tolerance to straight people, tolerance is actually a big thing in California (one of the DAs spent millions on bus adds saying “we will tolerate anything except intolerance”).

(Ignoring all the flamebait above.)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Buzzboy

Blix - I assume your comment was related to a certain Funcom advertising banner which used the term "gay" in exactly the way being discussed here.

---

Yeah Buzzboy, I'm talking about the banner that Funcom has placed in their media section.
http://www.anarchy-online.com/banner...4686/view.html

This is a prime example of inappropriate word usage. It's a pretty meanspirited banner.

ok, after sometime away from AO, and the boards, I am back to post here :).

Firstly, let me add my thanks to hobbes for his candid post. Your opinions are your own, and aslong as you are hurting no one else with them, I will accept anything :) As someone who's name I forget once said:

I may Disagree with what you have to say, But I will defend to the death your right to say it.

I have a similar problem when straight guys hit on me, while it doesnt make me sick, the idea of a man and a women together is very strange for me, especially with me as the women. However I see it works for other people and they are very happy (Though I am sure the women would be much happier with each other :D )

Time for a few points for Maxter. Firstly what would be the point of a "Normal people" float at a gay pride? For a start the very name is offensive as you are saying gay people are not normal. The whole point of the gay pride is to celebrate what you are, without fear of persecution. Your next argument will be then why can't we have a "normal People" float? well, when have you ever seen a "Gay people" float at a gay pride? because I have never seen one. However I have seen people who I know are staight on floats at gay prides, and joining in, There is nothing wrong with it, I if I see ANYONE at a gay pride I am at discriminating against someone because of their sexuality, I will complain to the organisers, the police, and anyone else I can think of. However you have to be willing to join in the spirit of the occasion, and not to try and be antagonistic to it.

Secondly, Why should I not be allowed to adopt? There are more and more single parent families in the developed countries in the world, some surveys give figures as high as 1/3 of all families or more. How are these any better than a gay couple? For a start they are more likely to be brought up with tolerence of differences in people. Also Gay people are, on average, higher achieves in careers than straight people (for various reasons) so they are also likely to be brought up in a safe financal enviroment. Off hand I can think of only one problem, though more may come to me later, and that is they are likely to be picked on at school, but this is a problem with society, not the gay couple.

Onto Aids, and Time for some home truths. Firstly the VAST majority of the people in the world with aids are Straight. This disease is one of the biggest killers in the third world, and has the potential to wipe out several entire countries in a few decades (I am not joking about this). Also, The disease is on the increase in the developed world again, and it is growing fastest in the straight communities, not the gay ones (at least in Britain this is the case). This is because there is alot of understanding of it in the gay communities, preventive measures are available easily (often in most gay bars and pubs and clubs), and most gay people take it very seriously and have themselves checked for various diseases regularly. Most of my friends can tell me the date of their last checkup, how many straight people can say the same? For the giving blood problem, there are more straight people with aids and other diseases than gay ones, so surely a better idea would be to demand everyone has the results of a clean checkup to prove they aren't carrying anything, than to just ban one section of society?

To Welzzin, there is a very simple reason people use these words amoung themselves, it is a defense mechanism. By using the word, they change it to mean something else to them. However anyone else using the words "Could" be trying to be offensive, so shouldn't use them. The english language has enough words in it, you dont need to use these few. Anyone who does, ESPECIALLY after they have had things pointed out to them, either IS trying to be offensive, or has very limited intelligence.

Hugs

lilnymph

Great, post just deleted itself when I tried to put it on the board :(.

Well, the UK must have better Gay Pride parades than the US. The point of it was to test the extreme 'tolerance' in California, which would probably allow the display. Otherwise, I can't argue with you about the parades because you have a safe (one that I can't question) view of their purpose.

I think that multinational organisations follow similar laws as student exchange programs do, which would probably allow homosexual couples to adopt someone from a foreign country.
A child needs more than to be loved and financial support, a child needs to be raised by a mother and father if possible. People who were raised by only one parent are much more likely to get themselves in jail and less likely to succeed. The problem isn't with the number of parents, it's the fact that they need parents who will provide for the differing needs of the child.

The vast majority of people in the world are also straight. Countries such as South Africa have an..err.. unique way of spreading the disease.
from http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm:
At the end of the December 2001, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported approximately 362,827 persons in the United States living with AIDS.

Of these,


42% were in whites,
37% in blacks,
20% in Hispanics,
<1% in Asians and Pacific Islanders,
and <1% in American Indians and Alaska Natives;

Of the 282,250 men (of 13 years or older) who were living with AIDS
57% were men who had sex with men (MSM),
24% were intravenous durg users (IDU)
9% were exposed through heterosexual contact
8% were both MSM and IDU

Of the 76,696 adult and adolescent women with AIDS,
59% were exposed through heterosexual contact
38% were exposed through intravenous drug use

homosexual males are over 6 times more likely to get AIDs than straight males. Lesbians are much safer. I think that blood banks check blood first for all the diseases they can before accepting it from the donor. According to the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/02facts/final2000.htm), heart problems cause the most deaths per year with a total of 71,760 in 2000 alone.


Now, one thing I have always wondered and never thought of an answer for; if two lesbians dance (and I'll assume they do), who leads?

I think the issue of homosexuality intrinsically creates animosity between the people due to a lack of understanding (when I say understanding, I do not mean knowledge of the concepts; I mean actual wisdom from experience).

Imho the causation of homophobia is analogous to the notion of death. No one can truly understand what this whole death business is all about. Sure, we all know that when you are dead, your heart stops beating and your brain stops whirring about with all its synapses, but we are still unable define death from actual experience. Our present existence and our ultimate existence are mutually exclusive. We can never comprehend what it means to be dead, until we are finally lulled into our eternal sleep and rigor mortis sets in. Consequently, death becomes a vast unknown; its incomprehensibility pecks away at us. Any unknown manifests itself as an irrational fear (whether it is darkness an eerie sounds or homosexuality).

Obviously, we are all still alive so how do we deal with this little conundrum, this unknown?

We all have our ways of mollifying that little core of trepidation in our hearts. We keep ourselves busy, so we won’t dwell on such matters. But when old age sets in and death becomes a reality, we have to confront this fear. However, no one wants to admit to their inexorable demise. This inability to understand manifests itself through denial or even the bitterness of old age.

The same inability to understand is present in everyone on the issue of sexuality. As Hobbes and Lilnymph have stated in their posts, they don’t really understand the appeal of homosexuality or heterosexuality (depending on their sexual orientation). Although they realize love exists between two people regardless of gender, they themselves are unable to understand that infatuation. Knowledge of that type of sexual orientation is different and, consequently, mutual exclusive from their viewpoint. The result is an intrinsic unknown. That unknown creates fear that can manifest itself as anger or even hate when confronted with the issue.

So why the animosity towards homosexuals? We are able to go on with our daily lives without worrying about death, why the hullabaloo over sexuality?

Not really sure, but here’s my theory:

Imho, hate towards homosexuals is a residual from the cultures of yesteryear.

Hundreds and thousands of years ago, survival was not as guaranteed as it is now (in 1st world countries). It was a necessity for massive reproduction due to much higher mortality rates. Homosexuality was not viable for the continuation of the species. Consequently, such mindsets had to suppressed to just to keep a barely positive population growth. The result is the negative portrayal of homosexuality in the bible, code of hammurabi (I think), etc. However , other places like ancient Greece were able to support homosexuality due to the affluence and productivity of the city-states.
Nowadays, people are able to be more open about their sexuality as such pressing issues of survivals have long since dissipated into the annals of time. Any hatred is the result of people clinging onto old and obsolete values.

I would imagine that the percentage of homosexuals would be the same today as there were say 1000 years ago. Or similar percentages of the population of the US as in Botswana (after all ppl are ppl).
I am curious if the cultures 3rd countries actively suppress homosexuality through their culture out of necessity to counteract the (tragically) high mortality rates afflicting those nations.

===============
btw i am rather sleepy *yawns* so if my argument isn't coherent, i'll try to rectify on the good 'morrow

Absolutely - I think Hobbes really said it all in his post, which Maxtor would do well to read and dwell on. Feeling uncomfortable with something (as maxtor obviously does) is understandable for various reason, and he has his reasons about why he feels that way, and whether or not people agree with the reasons or logic thereof it will not change his feelingd of comfort. That said the fact that you do not feel comfortable with something, does not make it excusable to say things which other people find derogatory (I'm just trying to bring this back to the orginal point here - we seem to be going a bit off beat in this thread), as you should be quite capable of puting an intellectual layer above that of "while I do not feel comfortable with this, the other person is as entitled to their position as I am mine".

This argument is equally attributable whether the question is sex, sexuality, religion or ethnicity - as long as what that person is/does does not harm anyone else, anything which physically, mentally or verbally oppresses them, or which makes them out to be lesser (e.g., "thats gay" is used for "thats bad" so gay=bad, which was the orginally topic of the conversation, however there are other racist and sexist phrases this equally applies to) is just out and out bigotry.

I will accept it is used without thought and I think anyone who uses it, then apologises when picked up on use of any phrase that someone else finds offensive and doesnt use it again after isn't being bogoted. But continued use of a phrase which you know some people will find offensive makes you a bigot.

Well, this is my first post here.... first I would like to say that I did read the posts, but I can in no way begin to address every issue that I would like to, as I have come in too late... however, at the invitation/request of Buzzboy (my guildmate and, as I like to think of as, my friend), I will post my view.

I am very openly Jewish. I walk around college as probably the ONLY Jew with the traditional head covering. One glance is all anyone needs to see me, so I can very much associate with the statement about the word "Jew" being used in an derogitory (i spelled that wrong, didn't I) manner. Let me give you the Jewish perspective as a religion, and then my personal perspective.

In the bible, which I hold in high regard as a Jew, it says in no uncertain terms that a man lying with another man is an "abomination". Thus, per Jewish law, it is definately a bad thing. The fact that a man might be attracted to other men is not the bad part, but that he should act upon those attractions. Please do not use this fact to assume that all Jews will immedeatly hate gays. This is not the case at all.

Ok, now for my perspective. I was brought up in a rather sheltered and non-politically correct Jewish day school. I have been molded by this, and by my own sexuality, to instinctly be disgusted by gay sexual unions. However, as Hobbes said, there is a difference b/t the instinctive part of a person, and the intellectual part. I personally have nothing at all against gay people. In truth, I find them to be generally very nice and caring and pleasant to be around. As I said earlier, I like to think of buzz as my friend. I am also friendly with a gay guy who works in my mom's office building. I suppress my instinctive feelings and treat them as the feeling person that they are. In truth (please don't hate me for this, Buzz, I honestly don't mean this is the bad way that it could be taken), I can't help but feel sorry that your biological makup is at odds with my religion. However, that will not stop me from being a decent person and respecting and honoring your wishes as to how you would like to be treated.

Now for the use of the term 'gay'. I have to agree with what was said that the term, that no matter what some people say about how they intend it, there is only a pair of meanings for the word. One means happy, joyous. The other means homosexual. Unfortunately, the term gay as homosexual has been used to derogitatively (derogitorily?) refer to said people. The connotation for the word is set, folks. No matter what you think you meant when you said "gay" to refer to something you didn't like or thought was whacked up, it is the derogitory sense of the word as it refers to homosexuals that you are using. No two ways about it. I can call a woman a "b****", and then say "but I meant that in a good way! " That won't save my cheek from a slap and my groin from a knee, guys. No matter what I meant... even if I meant that she was as adorable loving and protective as female dogs are, I used the wrong terminology, period (aside from the fact that I am sure most women don't like to be equated to dogs, but that is beside the point). I should have just said that she was a loving and protective woman, and not use a word that could potentially be insulting due to the common use of the term at that time. That is the thing about language... there are terms and words for everything. Also, words change in meaning and usage. There is no avoiding it. Thus, your use of these words MUST change with the times, otherwise you will insult someone, whether you meant it or not.

To cap this off, I would just like to say this. You all know the saying, "treat others as you would have them treat yourself". I actually disagree with that statement, b/c that statement, while the spirit is good, in inaccurate. I prefer to say "Treat others as they would have themselves be treated". That's the key, folks. If you don't want to insult them, then don't! Pure and simple. Treat them as they would like to be treated, and you can't go wrong.

And just a little humor to lighten the mood....
Men's rules for women... #1 (they all are #1, and for good reason)
"If something I say can mean 2 things, and one of those meanings is insulting to you, I meant the other one."

Just to give you people an Update.

I did receive an official reply via eMail from Funcom regarding the original thread (thank you CZ).

The basic reason why the thread was deleted was that several people felt uncomfortable with the subject, and it was "off topic".
Its strange that the thread can be "off Topic" in the "Off-Topic/Social" forum, but it apparently was. More off topic than "Rate your hangover", "Goatee or no Goatee", "What Game Console is Best".
Besides that, the subject of the topic was ABOUT AO; completely on topic. It discussed the ingame use of the word "gay" as an insult.

I'd like to post the eMail I received in this thread, but am reluctant to do so without CZ's ok.

I tell you man, he deleted it out of human instinct. Because humans all fear what they don't know.


FC, are we striking a nerve, yet?

Yes, it does seem odd that a thread discussing use of common slang terms within ao which some people find derogatory is more off-topic than counting to a million....

That said, although it was a shame to lose people's work I think this 2nd thread has been far more constructive

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes
Yesterday, I was flipping through the channels and started watching this show about a man decorating his living space. It took me 10 minute to realize that I was not watching an SNL parody of gay men. From his clothing, to his voice, to his arrangment of monochromaic colors, to his immaculately groomed and dyed beard, he was the stereotypical homosexual- he was Christopher Lowell. I just shook my head and laughed. He and I must come from different planets. I couldn't connect with him.

---

Hobbes, on this subject, if you were to do your research you would find that Christopher Lowell may apper homosexual to you, but in reality he is married, to a female. If you have ever heard the term "don't judge a book by it's cover" I belive you and everyone should apply that to people as well. I myself have hit on people like him and they politly turn me down and told me that they are str8

Matt,

You're the first openly gay leet on Rubi-Ka, congrats.

If you hit on men like him and are rejected, looks like we both are guilty of making assumptions based on appearance.

I changed the wording a bit, as I feel that "judging" is more of an issue of "good" vs "bad". I am not saying that I think he is a "good nor bad" person, on that issue I have no information.

Personal appearance is not random, it is an intentional act by the individual. The content of the novel does not chose the book cover, but this is chosen by the publisher to attract the eye. Humans are the book and chose their own cover to reflect to others what they are "about" or want you to think they are about. So, I feel you have misused the cliche.


A better example of judging a book by the cover comes from the classic: Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. In that film, Slugworth was a tall, angular, pale, ugly guy with a scar. You were meant to assume he was "evil" based on his cover (physical appearance). He in fact, was working for Wonka and was a "good guy". Unlike how we dress or speak or act, Slugworths physical appearance was not one he chose, but one given to him by life.

But I'm not here to quibble semantics, I have met my own "Christopher Lowell". We are all baffled, even gay people raise a brow at this guy. He is blithely unaware and everytime he makes a comment like "Oh, I'd like a piece of her action", we all laugh till we cry. He is an enigma. But a good guy and valued co-worker.

But, let us not let exceptions define the rule. These are aberrations, outliers (sp?). I will suspect people that look and act like Lowell to be gay, each and every time. If he walks like a horse, talks like horse........, he's probably a horse. My own cliche.

He is married, so what. I grew up in St. Louis and worked in the local Zoo in Forest Park. Going to and from work everyday I passed an awful lot of married men cruising the loop in Kennedy Forest. Before the police cracked down, that area was swarming with homosexuals who were married men just going out to "get a paper, dear".

For those of you who are gay, what percent do you think are married?

Ahh Hobbes does identify a very good point:
MattLeet has confessed to enforcing the same kind of stereotype that he is complaining about.
By making passes (ie: "hit on") on people who look 'gay' to him, MattLeet has in fact judged the book by the cover.

Moral of the story: We all need to ease up and not make judgements about people's lifestyles.

What bothers me most though, is why Hobbes "shook his head and laughed" at someone who acted differently than him.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes
Yesterday, I was flipping through the channels and started watching this show about a man decorating his living space. It took me 10 minute to realize that I was not watching an SNL parody of gay men. From his clothing, to his voice, to his arrangment of monochromaic colors, to his immaculately groomed and dyed beard, he was the stereotypical homosexual- he was Christopher Lowell.

---I just shook my head and laughed. ---

He and I must come from different planets. I couldn't connect with him.

---

Blix is reading too much into this.

Substitute "chuckle" or "wore a knowing smile".

"Laugh" was not meant to imply the "knee slapping, finger pointing, side splitting cacophonous bellow" type.

It wasn't actually about "humor" at all. It was about recognition. He and I are both "male", but gosh are we different.

That's all it meant.


This is the difficulty in posting on open forums. A slight lack of precision in your post can lead to a misunderstanding based on the spin or bias of the reader. Most times we have no context in which to place an individuals response, so if we read with a defensive attitude we can become offended by something totally innocent.

To be honest, though. In the context of the entire post, it would be inconsistent of me to conclude that we must be tolerant despite innate aversion, but at the same time point and laugh at someone who is different.

We should attempt to interpret individual lines as they relate to the overall theme of the post and not dissect out one little line to get offended by.



(By the way Blix, my computer moniter has a lot better resolution and is much bigger than the TV I used to watch videos on in college. So, I dont mind watching movies on it.)