Don't touch my oui oui!

HockeyDad wrote:

gay homophobe

teedubbya wrote:

I'm not afraid of Victor rubbing off on me.

HockeyDad wrote:

I at one time was homophobic and like most anything else that fear/phobia/misunderstanding went away with exposure/experience/education etc.
.

teedubbya wrote:

Is it truly a phobia?
I don't think most folks are afraid of gay people.
So is it just a "misunderstanding" as you offer above?
If so, I have french-ophobia because I don't understand them either.

Plus they smell bad and have a disturbing air of misplaced arrogance.

tailgater wrote:

I believe the roots of the term homophobia come from the idea that the most strident anti-gay individuals are usually doing so out of repression of some internal issues and that they are acting out of fear of their own sexual desires (hence the "phobe" part). I don't think anyone is actually afraid of being attacked by a gay if they walk down the street.

victor809 wrote:

I doubt that the term "Most" applies.
That's wishful thinking, and is also a means to provide a verbal and psychological punch to their adversaries.
I find it ridiculous that it's been universally accepted as a means to describe everyone who doesn't want special rules enacted to support the gay agenda.
Oops. I mean to protect gay rights.

tailgater wrote:

Look where the "most" is in the sentence.
The idea (I don't remember which psychologist proposed it, but there is an actual paper in which "homophobia" was coined) is that the most anti-gay... not "most of the..." a little word shift means a lot here.

victor809 wrote:

The whole "thou doth protest too loud" is foreign to my thought process.

I hate the NY Jets. I tell everyone. Does that mean I secretly dream of Rex Ryan's feet?

tailgater wrote:

I was just stating where the term came from. However, the number of anti-gay senators/congressmen and pundits caught in the closet with their pants down does give oneself pause.

victor809 wrote:

I'm sure some or many fail to practice what they preach.
But how would you feel if you were labeled a pedophile because you spoke out against NAMBLA?
Extreme, certainly. But not entirely unrelated.

tailgater wrote:

That's easy. NAMBLA advocates a victimization (statutory rape of a minor, at minimum). This is a huge difference from any gay advocacy group, as "gay" doesn't victimize anyone, hell it really doesn't even involve sex. A celibate gay person is still gay. Being against NAMBLA is the same as being against the National Association for Murdering Elderly Women (NAMEW, not so catchy... but heck). A person being against the victimization of another human being has a rational reason to be against it. Without a rational reason for being against something (ie, something between two adults with no actual impact on your life), then you're just meddling and a person has to question why you care so much.

At least that's my view on it.
.

victor809 wrote:

Nice dialog, but totally unrelated.
I'm not comparing anti-gay to anti-victim.
It's the tendency to Label someone as a hypocrite of the purest form simply because of their public stance.

tailgater wrote:

The whole "thou doth protest too loud" is foreign to my thought process.

I hate the NY Jets. I tell everyone. Does that mean I secretly dream of Rex Ryan's feet?

tailgater wrote:

Well... you do seem to have an unatural attachment to a tight end who is kinda famous for posing naked![-x

rumraider wrote: