Comments on: Idiot arguments: part 1,246,122,798,467

By: nbc

nbc — Sat, 30 May 2009 09:15:18 +0000

Is there any reason to a phobia, given that they’re usually regarded as irrational?

Or might you mean “cause” in place of “reason”?

I’ve done a little reading, via google, this morning and I’m still none the wiser.

By: bellagerens

bellagerens — Fri, 29 May 2009 19:07:33 +0000

No, I don’t think that’s narrow-minded at all. I just wondered if there were some reason for homophobia I hadn’t yet chanced upon.

By: nbc

nbc — Fri, 29 May 2009 13:30:00 +0000

Bella, by “bomb” in my previous comment I was referring to the use of the “inside every homophobe…” comment. There’s no argument against it and should one try – then that’s game over. You’re labelled then as a homophobe or narrow-minded bigot (or both) regardless of any argument you may offer.

I don’t think I’m either, but then I’m rather biased about me I suppose.

What consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business, nor is it the business of government or law enforcement – The chap convicted of having sex with a bicycle springs to mind here (I wish it didn’t, but there you go). But in my view, what people do in public is another matter public indecency applies to everyone regardless of ones sexual preferences.

If this is narrow-mindedness then I’ll consider myself as labelled.

By: bellagerens

bellagerens — Thu, 28 May 2009 18:18:26 +0000

You’re right – I too see that statement produced whenever homophobia rears its head, and yet I’ve never quite understood what the objection is. Viewing insecurity in one’s sexuality as a ‘bomb’ does rather suggest an a priori view that insecurity in one’s sexuality is a bad thing. Which means the ‘bomb’ may not be such an inaccurate strike after all.

Better by far, perhaps, to say, ‘Yes, I am insecure in my sexuality, and that makes me wary of teh gays. So what?’ At least that way one is being honest. More than likely, it’s worse to come out with, ‘No, I’m perfectly secure in my sexuality; I’m just a small-minded bigot.’

Not that I’m suggesting you are any such thing. But if there are other, better justifications for homophobia, I’d like to know them, just out of curiosity. And as you can see, I’m not letting the pre-emptive strike close the discussion. ;-)

By: nbc

nbc — Thu, 28 May 2009 14:58:23 +0000

Bella

My apologies. I agree with the thrust of your post and the author is indeed a knob. The point I was trying to make, albeit very poorly, was that this “statement” is produced without fail whenever there’s any discussion of homosexuality/homophobia. It is offered as a pre-emptive strike to close any discussion on homosexuality before it has begun.

I have no idea where that statement came from or whether there’s any research to back it up, I’m just tired of tripping over it, it seems lazy just to drop that bomb and walk off. I’m beginning to think that it exists on the intertubes in a similar way to Godwin’s Law.

That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it. If that makes me a knob, then so be it. I’ll still be reading your blog though.

By: bellagerens

bellagerens — Thu, 28 May 2009 13:00:55 +0000

@ nbc – Go on, then. What is the motivation for homophobia?

By: bellagerens

bellagerens — Thu, 28 May 2009 12:59:53 +0000

@ Chris – I believe it’s available in unrestricted quantities in the American hinterland, but the side effects are devastating and the withdrawal is a bugger. Better stick to the usual stuff.

By: nbc

nbc — Thu, 28 May 2009 11:24:02 +0000

“Inside every homophobe is a person insecure in their own sexuality.”

Moron yourself.

By: marksany

marksany — Wed, 27 May 2009 16:21:11 +0000

No comments being taken on his article – maybe they are afraid of something.

What a moron.

Inside every homophobe is a person insecure in their own sexuality.

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:50:48 +0000

Equal inheritance and property ownership rights for gays = the death of all kinship bonds, and rape frenzy in the streets.

Where can I get some of what he’s on please?