From my experience, the church's attitudes can cause a skewed, desensitized perspective on what is/isn't homophobic. At what point does something cross the line separating personal opinion from bigotry or discrimination?

I'm asking because a fellow student in one of my college courses said last week that he "doesn't like LGBT people," and I wasn't sure how to respond (aside from telling him I'm a lesbian, which I did). Obviously that isn't anything extreme, and I'm very used to that sort of sentiment (although perhaps not put quite so bluntly), but I'd like to know if there's a better way to respond. Is it even worth doing anything about? Now he's deliberately ignoring me, which I wouldn't mind except that he's obviously doing so because of my sexual orientation.

This question is mostly opinionative, but I appreciate any input.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/2017 07:56PM by ren.

I think it's normal for people to be put off by the idea of homosexuality. But they shouldn't say that out loud. They should just keep that opinion to themselves.

Such a peculiar question. Made me think of the phrase, "You have to choose your battles," since its impossible to fight every one. If you see someone coming at you with a baseball bat it's still best to run.

The Mormon influence on homophobia is that they have pigeonholed it into a "gray area" which in their minds is a safe area for their homophobia. Mormons and others are also whitewashing their homophobia by calling it "religious rights" thereby assuming that they are escaping the label of bigot.

Hate the sin, love the sinner with regards to gay people isn't about love at all. It is a phrase intended to alleviate the bad press they get because of their homophobia. It is an excuse for their bigotry.

If someone says they don't like gay people, my response is, "I don't like bigots, so I guess we have a draw."

Bigotry is not excusable just because it comes with the word God attached to it.

Strangely enough, he's an adamant atheist. I'm not really sure what his rationale for his bigotry is, not that it makes any difference.

Definitely a "choose your battles" type of situation. If he does anything more antagonistic in the future - not that I expect him to - I can always report him to the college (or simply threaten to do so).

From my experience there are three main causes of homophobia:

1) Taught -- A person is taught that homosexuality is bad and that the homosexual is evil, sick or perverted.

2) Insecurity -- A person that is insecure about their sexuality are often homophobic because they hate the idea of not being "normal".

3) May not be real, but I do suspect this as a possibility, A person has something to gain, either financially or politically, by being anti LGBT.

In the first two cases, the best way I have found to deal with the homophobes is for LGBT to live honest, open and proud lives.

For number 3) yeah gotta remove the incentive. As the political landscape has changed regarding LGBT, we have seen the positions of some anti-LGBT politicians change.

I don't think he has anything to gain from being homophobic here, since I'm currently at a very liberal community college in California. His homophobia is probably taught rather from insecurity regarding his own sexual orientation, judging by how much he'd been flirting with me up our last conversation.

A person that is insecure in their sexuality often acts straight to hide the fact that they are not sure they are straight. The world is full of gay men that married women to try to fit into the straight world.

True, although he seemed sincere (e.g. acting shy around me, telling me I'm pretty, always asking to join my group for labs, saying I'm smart, etc). If he is closeted in any way then I hope he comes to terms with it, of course.

"doesn't like LGBT people"

'Cause he knows all LGBT people, of course, and has evaluated all of them as individuals, determining that not one of them has any qualities he likes. Right?

Oh, wait...

Normal and reasonable:
"I don't like that person."

Bigoted and unreasonable:
"All people that are (x) are bad/disgusting/horrible/unlikable."

Discriminatory:
"I won't associate with or do business with all (x) people."

As for how to respond, I'd suggest a form of my first sentence above. It lets them see that their generalization is rather silly. :)

It's even sillier considering he had a crush on me up until I told him I'm a lesbian. Also when this came up I was using my spare time to help him edit an essay for another class, and it was interesting to see how quickly he switched from being friendly and grateful to wanting nothing to do with me.

He'll come around. He's just got to overcome a lifetime of indoctrination. Those of us here know that that can disappear quickly.

It's easier for straight men to be comfortable around lesbians than gay males. Heck, when I hang out with lesbian friends, we can eye women together. "Wow, she's cute!" If you want to tease him, bring your girlfriend and hold hands and kiss. He won't be quite sure how to react.

He may not know how to handle the situation and so he has just withdrawn. He may have felt embarrassed to have dissed gay people only to have you tell him you were gay. Goodness knows being raised Mormon left many of us without a clue as how to act once we were off of our Mormon turf.

Maybe give him the benefit of the doubt. Ask him if now he knows you are lesbian if he still doesn't like gay people? At least that would break the ice.

Hie is right though. He doesn't even know the tip of the iceberg when it comes to gay people.

How old is he? My response assumes that he is at least a teenager.

I would guess that part of his subsequent behavior is processing the fact that he "liked" you and saw you as perfectly "normal," right up until you spilled the beans.

It's possible that there's some cog-dis going on, AND,

I assume that you're in charge of his grade, and he was flat-out offensive to you. I suspect he's wondering about any like-minded predjudices you may have - now. Lmao at the discomfort of his foot-in-mouth malady.

Me being me, I would have given him his head, and about a length from the finish line let him feel the spurs, so to speak. Too late now to let his crush develop, then introduce the pea-brain to your SO.

BUT, you being an instructor or teacher, you may have a better way of teaching him that his bigotry is just that - unjustified, poor thinking skills.

I would also be careful about personal security around him. Don't be alone with him or trust him. Someone that ignorant is just the type to try to "prove" to you "what you are missing." He's neither rational nor detached. Please be careful.

I never asked for his age, but I'd guess he's around 20.

Sorry, I feel like I worded my post in a misleading way. I'm also a student at the moment. But I'll take your advice and keep my guard up around him.

Perhaps what he meant to say was he hates 'queens' since they are the worst of the loud n proud lgbt's and the ones who give conservative folks (and even many gays) the heebie jeebies. The 'Queens' (I do not know the name of the lesbian equivalent if there is one and do realise it is a british moniker for a certain type) are the epitome of the stereotype of gays that most straighties have in the back of their mind from press pictures of gay pride events.

If he did have a crush on you before you told him your were a lesbian he is probably taking your revelation in the same way as a 'knock-back' or 'put-down': ie some sort of personal rejection. Either he will get over it, or you will get over the fact that some folks are not going to be a true friend for you and neither will you be a true friend to them.

Blow the stereotypes out the water for all of your fellow students with prejudices or stereotypical beliefs by being your likeable self. Who cares what other people think when you are secure in yourself, which from the sound of your post you obviously are, unlike many attending college with you.

Unfotunately, this behaviour is part of life whether one is lgbtq or not. Some people 'ghost' other people, demonstrating their immaturity in the process.

As a gay man, I can say that, yes, many of us, myself included, don't like the loud, obnoxious riot queens you refer to...

...But as soon as any heterosexual dares to state such a nasty opinion in such nasty language, we'll jump right in front of them and stand up for them.

If you take "doesn't like LGBT people" and replace it with "doesn't like black people" "doesn't like Jews" "doesn't like people in wheelchairs" it starts to sound more like it is - just prejudice based on a single trait.

Honestly, since we are all friends?

I don't like the thought of physical intimacy that doesn't conform to my personal orientation. For that reason I don't think about it.

My opinion about your classmate and others like him is that he thinks way too much about other people's relationships and not near enough about his own. It seems to me that when one becomes so preoccupied with others they just don't have enough energy and emotion to take care of themself.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't like the thought of physical intimacy that
> doesn't conform to my personal orientation. For
> that reason I don't think about it.


You, erm, nailed it.

Every day of my life I see so many straight people and I never think of them having sex, even if they're petting on the beach.
And yet some homophobes cannot see a single homosexual and shout "the thought of gay sex makes me sick!"

Alright then, I ask them, what made you think of gay sex at all?

That the only people I read/hear going on and on about sex between gay men in extraordinarily graphic detail are homophobes.

Unless you're a sexual health provider or researcher, who thinks about sex between other people, especially if they're disgusted by it, with such depth and frequency?

I've noticed that as well, and my guess is that those people are deep in the closet about their true sexual orientation, and take out their self-loathing on the LGBT community.

Most other people don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, especially if all parties are consenting adults. That includes those who were taught that homosexuality is taboo, but they don't typically obsess over it.

I don't know if there is what you could call a "normal level of sensitivity" to any bigoted attitudes since the sensitivity itself, as well as the bigoted attitude are both strictly subjective and I am unaware of any objective method of measuring a subjective experience. If there is, I would be very interested in hearing about it.

I tend to think that most bigotry is learned behavior. This young man obviously had a 'crush' on you so disappointment may have also had something to do with it, along with maybe some embarrassment that he was previously unaware of your sexual orientation? As far as a 'better' way to handle it, I don't know of any better way than what you did. I would have probably been tempted to say, "Why?" when he first told you he "doesn't like LGBT people" and then perhaps asked him if he personally knew any. Of course, it's always difficult to imagine what you may have said in any given situation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2017 10:19PM by cinda.

There is definitely a difference between opinion, bigotry, and discrimination.

Anyone with real ethics should not get hung up on discrimination. For example, discrimination in the workplace based on race or sexual preference is illegal and against most company policies. So whether you can get away with it or not, an ethical person would look right past their own opinions or even bigotry and hire the best person for the job based on a person's skills and experience. The candidates skin color or sexual preferences should be irrelevant, regardless of opinions or bigotry, if only because of the laws and company policies. Anyone who can't deal correctly that way issue shouldn't be in management, regardless of their justifications.

Opinions are different. I have read enough about the spread of AIDS and how it spreads amongst gay men, that I credit gay men as the primary cause of the spread of AIDS in the US. Although anyone can spread AIDS and others do contribute to the spread of AIDS, if gay men were removed from the equasion, the disease itself would die off all by itself, faster than it could spread, if not for the behaviors of gay men (very much higher average numbers of partners compared to hetrosexuals, infected semen entering the bleeding rectal cavity - women's wombs are designed to stretch and protect her to some degree from infections, which is not the case for the rectum, and other unique factors identified by medical researchers). This is my opinion after significant amount of reading from the CDC and other credible sources, but is not bigotry. It's more like the belief that smoking causes lung cancer. I am sure that some people who have not done the research will label me a bigot for having this opinion. But they are simply ill-informed and need to perform their own unbiased research.

Bigotry adds an irrational emotional element to beliefs and opinions. An example would be to make an assumption that all gay people are also child molestors. The likely truth is that people of all sexual preferences are statistically equally likely, per the same percentage of their respective populations, to be child molestors. So the bigotry spreads information that is significantly not rational. Political correctness can spread bigotry also (ie: a person who immediately labels me a bigot for my opinions about the cause of the spread od AIDS in the US, without ever combing over the charts and graphs at the CDC and other places, but instantly has a strongly differing opinion based on what someone else told them to believe).



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2017 12:27AM by azsteve.

azsteve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> - women's wombs are designed to stretch and
> protect her to some degree from infections, which
> is not the case for the rectum...

You must be having sex with some odd women.
With the ones I've had sex with, the womb was never involved in any way. Vaginas, yes. Wombs, no.

:)

where do you think the sperm winds up - a special storage bag under the cervix? Can it not pass through into the womb because a c*ck 'only' fits inside a p*ssy and not all the way past the cervix into the womb? Poppycock.

Of course the womb is involved, whether the act of sex results in pregnancy or not - even if a prophylactic is used.

azsteve's statement does not deserve ridicule, imo.



NB No reference of special scientific study complete with control groups required to prove this fact, just common sense. However, don't take my word for it - check it out yourself if you so desire to do so. Ask google: where does sperm go inside a human female.

Hint: most schoolkids of middle school age are taught this as part of the curriculum, it is how babies are made. You have 3, I would have thought you understood this.

anonuk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course the womb is involved, whether the act
> of sex results in pregnancy or not - even if a
> prophylactic is used.

> Hint: most schoolkids of middle school age are
> taught this as part of the curriculum, it is how
> babies are made. You have 3, I would have thought
> you understood this.


Not that it's really relevant to the discussion, but Hie is right. Wombs can stretch, of course, but don't really do so during sex since only a very, very small percent of the sperm even make it past the cervix. azsteve presumably meant to refer to the vagina.

Now if people would just stop saying vagina when they mean vulva.

what? hie is right casting aspersions on the ladies azsteve has been with?

bit harsh.

There are many places where it is legal to discriminate at work based on sexual orientation.

Even if it is legal to discriminate at work based on sexual orientation, it is likely to be a poor business decision to do it. If you pick the best person for the job and reward them correctly, your company will be more competitive in the market place. The choice to pick the lesser qualified person for the job still meets the description of discrimination, and that harms the company.

At the same time, some people set themselves up to be discriminated against. The discrimination is still wrong, but the people still set themselves up none the less. There are a lot of mormons where I work. It's not difficult for me to identify them. Despite the fact that I am a returned missionary, I act ignorant and disinterested when religion comes up. If I 'came out' as an apostate and told them that I disagree with their religion, it wouldn't be good for my career. So I act ignorant and disinterested when religion comes up. I tell the truth by saying "no" when anyone asks if I am a mormon. After resigning you become a non-member. The point is that you don't need to give others the information they could use to discriminate against you with. There are certain types of questions that are illegal to ask someone in a job interview. Even when I suspect things in common that I might see as favorable (though irrelevant in the work place), I never ask those questions. But people have offered information about things that I would never ask about. You sometimes need to know what is a higher priority to you, for others to accept you for who you are, or to have a good career. That's the same reason that I don't flirt with the woman at work. My career is more important.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2017 01:38AM by azsteve.

If you want to mess with his head, tell him that it is too bad that he doesn't like lesbians, because your girlfriend and you were considering him to see if he wanted to try a threesome with the two of you, just to see what it's like and to see if you might like it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2017 12:55AM by azsteve.

... My policy is: zero tolerance. But once in a while, everyone starts with a clean slate. At christmas if I'm in the west, or ramadan if I'm elsewhere. In your case, maybe a new school year is a good start?