Dealing with homophobia on Atheist Forums

[ib.me.ub]

Considering I am the author of the origianl so called hateful post, I am going to respond.

Firstly, you may label me with what ever you like, no worries. I can handle mis-informed, assumptions, soley based on little information provided in a forum where the components don't even meet face to face. You may read into it all you like, and label me. It hasen't stopped you before and won't stop you in the future.

On one hand you say people can post whatever they like, but on the other you say don't reply. So which is it?

And as Dotard had briefly outlined, why is it wrong to dislike gays. Shouldn't he have the right to dislike gays without being labelled a homophobe and ridiculed for that reason. It seems like double standards too me, don't dislike gays, but dislike the gay disliker. He could have any number of reason for disliking gays, which he is well entitled too. Now as for openly stating that in a presumed hateful way is another matter. But why than is it ok to openly state your dislike for another member or group of people?

In the real World, it is considered wrong to ridicule a person religion as much as it is wrong to ridicule someones sexuality . So can someone answer why one is ok but the other is taboo. And yes I know this is an Atheism forum. So, is this the internet, is it free and open, or are we to restrict certain froms of thought.

And lastly, if I wanted to purposly be really spiteful, I would have used much different language. The fact is, my experience of homosexual people has not been an overly good one, but I can say that about most people. Perhaps I shouldn't have posted the thread, but it is done now.

[fr0d0]

Very poor use of language ib.me.ub. It's dumb to say you don't like something so widely defined. It's like saying you don't like apples because you once ate a bad one.

To his credit Dotard wears his faults. He has tried to be open about his experience and the reason for it, without condemning anyone for their choices.

If behaviour shocks/ disgusts/ repulses you you need to ask why you're feeling that. People exhibit traits all along the male/ female spectrum: that's a great thing of great benefit and should be embraced & not vilified.

[ib.me.ub]

Very poor use of language ib.me.ub. It's dumb to say you don't like something so widely defined. It's like saying you don't like apples because you once ate a bad one.

Why thank you, I would never have known, unless you had pointed it out. Truely a startling revelation.

...wears his faults...

Don't worry I can wear them all.

If behaviour shocks/ disgusts/ repulses you you need to ask why you're feeling that.

I said nothing of the sort.

[Skipper]

...these posters are complete fucking tools.

Yeah, fuck you too ya asswipe.

We are all different, it's what makes the world go 'round. To start the name calling because someone is different demonstrates, IMO, who the real 'tool' is here.

You're different than me, fine, we discuss our differances, explain the 'whys' best we can and as Adrian said, we all learn a little something.

What you posted is no different than if I were to come in here and post;
"Last week or so has shown me these boards have a fair few very homosexual members. Let them say what they want though, like Adrian says it brings it out for discussion and we can all learn new things and how these posters are complete fucking cock-sucking faggots."

Would anything constructive come of that? Why the fuck do you think it would be different posting what you did?

Thinking someone is a tool because they are a racist is wrong? Thinking someone is a tool because they are sexist is wrong? It's no different, I think you are a tool because you are clearly homophobic, for whatever reason.

And of course your example is different. You are name calling and abusing a group of people for the simple reason they are gay, something they cannot control. I'm calling you and others out for the fact the stuff you write is ridiculous and homophobic, something you CAN control.

these posters are complete fucking tools.

Says the genius who defines people who control their unreasonable fears into the same category as those who will be super paranoid about being around gays.

Really.

Bite me, you ideological freak.

I don't think it's idealogical to expect the people like you to catch up with the rest of the developed world in accepting people are gay, and leaving it at that. Homophobia is generally only a big deal in un-educated, religion driven countries. Of course it is an issue in any country, but over the last 30 years it has become much less so. Of course I may be wrong as I can only go on what I read online and via the news but America seems to me, to have lagged behind the rest of the western world in it's acceptance of homosexuals. Why this is I don't know, I'd guess it has something to do with the amount of time and influence religion gets in peoples lives over there. But again, I dont think it's idealogical to expect people like yourself to get over their dated views.

[thesummerqueen]

It creates an ugly environment.

I think I see what you're trying to say, Ex.

For the person who skims through the postings and gives only a cursory glance to what's inside, the titles and lead post certainly do suggest a negative atmosphere. I'm sure we'll both agree that the title of that particular thread was designed to attract attention, and it certainly accomplished its mission.

Keeping everything all in that thread, rather than just starting a new one to fight it, gives a chance for anyone else who actually reads the thread to find out just how many people disagree with that particular poster and the vehemence of their disagreement leads to insight for an observer that wouldn't exist in a different sort of thread. Not that I'm saying don't start the new one - the splinter threads that form from the more heated discussions are damn interesting.

But I've noticed we always call the theists out when they don't support or respond in their disagreement with us - I don't think we should be any different if someone says "I think this or this about such-and-such group".

[Jaysyn]

But I've noticed we always call the theists out when they don't support or respond in their disagreement with us - I don't think we should be any different if someone says "I think this or this about such-and-such group".

I don't think being religious & being homosexual are comparable. One requires just being born, the other requires serious indoctrination &/or turning off the rational part of your brain.

[thesummerqueen]

But I've noticed we always call the theists out when they don't support or respond in their disagreement with us - I don't think we should be any different if someone says "I think this or this about such-and-such group".

I don't think being religious & being homosexual are comparable. One requires just being born, the other requires serious indoctrination &/or turning off the rational part of your brain.

Absolutely - and I didn't think I was. I'm comparing someone who says "I believe in God", which we atheists consider to be completely irrational, to someone using hate language against gays (or any other group considered outside the norm), which other people also consider completely irrational. Both are expressing something they believe. We have no problem telling theists why we think they're being irrational, so we shouldn't have a problem telling homophobes why. And I think it's perfectly acceptable to do this on the battleground that someone created in a rather asshole-ish fashion, although I empathize with what I thought Ex was trying to say.

[Existentialist]

Thanks thesummerqueen.

I suppose all I'm saying is, if somebody sets up a soap box under the banner of homophobia, we shouldn't all be so keen to respond that we forget to set up another soap box under the banner of anti-homophobia.

[Edwardo Piet]

It's a shame you were/are offended Existentialist but just as "rules are rules" when something isn't against the rules its allowed.

[Existentialist]

It's a shame you were/are offended Existentialist but just as "rules are rules" when something isn't against the rules its allowed.

I know. I've never argued that the homophobic thread or any part of it was against the rules. What makes you think I did?