Super strict "test" of anti-gayness ...

[anon8]

Are you "missing the point here"? Hard to say since you are talking about posts and "statements" that simply don't exist and never have.

No, I am not missing the point, alltho I admit it is sometimes very difficult for me to fully understand your posts. Probably a language barrier, but sometimes I read some of your posts several times, and it gets even more confusing after each time.

In the thread about Indias court ruling you said the following:

'in other words, and despite all the hype, there was NO evidence presented that there has been any "blatant oppression against our brothers and sisters, the GLBT people of India" at all.'

I used the word 'idiotic' to describe that post from you. I should have used a different word to describe that posting from you. 'idiotic' is offensive term, and I regret using that term, and I apologize!

Should have desribed it as odd or very strange.

But what has ThaiVisa member Naam to do with it?

[LeCharivari]

I agree with all that.

However, what percentage of people do you think would fully pass that test? I think small. So we've got to live in the world as it is, with some level of homophobia existing in most people we encounter.

Thinking about this I just thought about my parents. They both loved me but they both never entirely became homophobia free. Should I have rejected them for that fault? I think not.

Of course, we have to realistic, and not expect every person to like us. Especially older generations, it is probably very difficult for a 72 yr old man to suddenly change his life long beliefs, and predjudices.

Your example abouy your parents.. Very well understood that they may never fully support your 'lifestyle'

But my reply was to Naam. Not trusting his kids to the care of gay teacher, or sports team trainer is simply wrong, and homophobic. If that is not homophobia, what is?

People often confuse gay man with a pedophile. That is simply ignonant. Why on earth do many think an adult gay man is a threat to a 10 yr old boy? How much more ignorant can it get!

Meanwhile the same parents trust their boys under the care of catholic priests.

Im sure you follow boy scouts news from US. Same exact issue there.

So when you say we have to be realitic, how accepting people are towards us, sure, we must know that these kinds of social changes take long time. But blatant hate and homophobia we can not tolerate, and make excuses for.

even though i strongly resent your assumptions drawn from thin air you are excused because obviously you read my posting without your reading glasses. there was no mentioning of "my" children and there was no mentioning that i personally would act or have those reservations i mentioned.

like it or not, the fact remains that a majority of parents would strongly object that a gay male or lesbian female leads a group of teenage boy/girl scouts for "outings".

there was no reference in my post concerning teachers or trainers and the same applies to JT's post which mentioned a "boy scout leader".

by the way, those who do not accept "gayness" couldn't care less what you tolerate or don't tolerate; that's another fact. gay people, both genders, have come a long way within an extremely short time after centuries, respectively milleniae of be hounded, punished and treated as pariahs. being a German i still remember Paragraph 175 of our penal code and i remember people going to prison.

views and opinions are changing, outings of famous persons help(ed) a lot. patience is required, not unsubstantiated accusations based on assumptions.

"like it or not, the fact remains that a majority of parents would strongly object that a gay male or lesbian female leads a group of teenage boy/girl scouts for "outings"."

Just the point I was trying to make (and trying to make in an earlier thread).

I can quite understand why "a majority of parents would strongly object" to a straight man leading a group of teenage girl scouts, and vice-versa. I think most of us can. Their "fears" may be groundless and their "worries" may have nothing to do with pedophilia per se, but that doesn't make them any less real or any less valid.

.... and IF a straight man should not be leading a group of teenage girl scouts, its equally logical and rational that a gay man should not be leading a group of teenage boy scouts for exactly the same reasons.

... and equally, IF there's nothing wrong with a gay man leading a group of teenage boys there should be nothing wrong with a straight man leading a group of teenage girls, and vice-versa.

You can't support or oppose one, rationally, without the other.

Its not just about EQUALITY, which is what the authors of these sort of tests bang on about, but about CONSISTENCY - applying the same rules and same "tests" to everyone ... and in the context of scouts, consistency would seem to mean that parents and children should have the choice of girl scouts, boy scouts, or mixed scouts (including boys, girls, special needs, LGBT, all religions, no religions, etc).

Equality without consistency is simply a sham.

If we excuse our own bigotry on the basis that we're only a small minority so our bigotry doesn't do as much harm as the big majority's, and we don't pay others the same respect in return that we demand from them, then we don't deserve equality.

[Jingthing]

We don't deserve equality.

From someone who claims to identify as a gay man.

That is so twisted.

[LeCharivari]

Are you "missing the point here"? Hard to say since you are talking about posts and "statements" that simply don't exist and never have.

No, I am not missing the point, alltho I admit it is sometimes very difficult for me to fully understand your posts. Probably a language barrier, but sometimes I read some of your posts several times, and it gets even more confusing after each time.

In the thread about Indias court ruling you said the following:

'in other words, and despite all the hype, there was NO evidence presented that there has been any "blatant oppression against our brothers and sisters, the GLBT people of India" at all.'

I used the word 'idiotic' to describe that post from you. I should have used a different word to describe that posting from you. 'idiotic' is offensive term, and I regret using that term, and I apologize!

Should have desribed it as odd or very strange.

But what has ThaiVisa member Naam to do with it?

I have commented on this in the appropriate thread ( http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/688196-indian-supreme-court-makes-homosexuality-a-criminal-offence/page-2#entry7182122 ) if you want to discuss the India issue further there.

[anon8]

We don't deserve equality.

From someone who claims to identify as a gay man.

That is so twisted.

This is very, very strange.

A gay man defending the point of view that parents not trusting their kids with a gay scout master is understandable and acceptable!?

But it gets even more strange, a poster says that it is understandable and acceptable that a parent may not want or even allow a straight adult male to lead a team of young girls.

Could it be that a gay man can actually be a homophobe? Is this possible? I have never encountered anything like this before.

[Jingthing]

We don't deserve equality.

From someone who claims to identify as a gay man.

That is so twisted.

This is very, very strange.

A gay man defending the point of view that parents not trusting their kids with a gay scout master is understandable and acceptable!?

But it gets even more strange, a poster says that it is understandable and acceptable that a parent may not want or even allow a straight adult male to lead a team of young girls.

Could it be that a gay man can actually be a homophobe? Is this possible? I have never encountered anything like this before.

It is most definitely possible and actually rather common. Basically internalized homophobia (we are mostly raised in societies that are homophobic to some or great degree) then later EXTERNALIZED. Sometimes such people even reach great power and use that power to oppress other gay people. In those cases of course, they are CLOSETED.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

We're getting back to my original point - this dreadful "we" thing.

Sometimes I am so ashamed of the bigotry of some of my fellow gays and the way that they demand that they be treated with respect by our straight counterparts while they see no need to reciprocate that I can understand, in some ways, why we are sometimes treated as we are.

If this "super-strict test of gayness" was applied in reverse gays would become the bigots and the prejudiced, but to some that's excusable just because we're a minority.

Well, we don't need an excuse. What we need is to respect others and to earn respect ourselves. Some have done that, and it rubs off on the rest of us. Others haven't, and that rubs off too.

[anon8]

..

if you want to discuss the India issue further there.

No, I'd rather not. Our beliefs and opinions are so far apart, we live in different universes.

And not just about homosexuality being criminalized in India. We have no common ground about anything, not about a single issue.

Last few days I am baffled more more each day. Some of posts just blow me away.

I would rather observe the some of opinions posted here from a distance, I usually dont mind confrontation, but this is here has become too tense, and no longer enjoyable and entertaining.

[Jingthing]

Mr. LC has twisted this topic in a very silly way.

To definitively demonstrate how absurd and cynically DISINGENUOUS his POV is, I will take "the test" but asking gay people about heterosexuals.

But its beyond silly. He's arguing against our deserving equality based on a FAKE argument.

Most all gay people would pass, definitely, and as we all know a very large chunk of hetero people would fail. This is independent of the reality that the straight people have the power and often act as our oppressors and the reverse is simply NOT the case.

Here goes:

If you have a HETERO friend (or sister or coworker or...) but still think that HETERO people should not be able to get married, then you are anti-hetero.

I PASS AS WOULD PRETTY MUCH ALL GAY PEOPLE. DUH!

If you're fine with hetero people as long as you don't have to see them kissing or holding hands, then you are anti-hetero.

I PASS AS WOULD PRETTY MUCH ALL GAY PEOPLE. DUH!

If you don't have anything against hetero people but wouldn't want a hetero man leading your daughters's scout troop, then you are anti-hetero.

I PASS AS WOULD PRETTY MUCH ALL GAY PEOPLE. DUH!

If you think that inside hetero people there is anything lurking -- however small -- that causes us to have any less integrity or humanity than gay people have, then you are anti-hetero.

I PASS AS WOULD PRETTY MUCH ALL GAY PEOPLE. DUH!

Edited December 19, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

We do deserve equality. PERIOD.

ALL human beings do.

We are human beings, right?

Perfection is not a requirement for anyone to be deserving of equal civil rights under the law.

Case closed.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Jingthing

[anon8]

...

Sometimes I am so ashamed of the bigotry of some of my fellow gays and the way that they demand that they be treated with respect by our straight counterparts while they see no need to reciprocate

...

How is insisting to have all the same rights that straight people have bigotry? Isn't this the most reasonable and humble demand?

This line of attack is one of the favorite lines of anti gay organizations, like NOM, National Organization for Marriage, and many other hate groups. Those groups very often use the word 'family' in their names.

They always start by saying gay people are demanding special treatment.

Stephen Colbert, of The Colbert Report produced hilarious parody of NOM's online ad campaign 'The Storm Is Coming'

Here is the NOM original campaign ad:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FtjbmAaWFMg

And here is Stephen Colberts take on NOMs ad, please watch the whole 6 minute clip, it starts with NOM ad, Stephen then comments how he feels about the NOM campaign, and at 3.29 mark, Stephen streams his take on NOM ad.

Please, please watch it, i promise, you will not regret the wasted few minuts!

Here is Stephens take, fast forward to 3.29 mark:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/224789/april-16-2009/the-colbert-coalition-s-anti-gay-marriage-ad

And here is one more very well made parody of NOM campaign:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L0pPEAdDn64

[ToddWeston]

Mr. LC has twisted this topic in a very silly way.

To definitively demonstrate how absurd and cynically DISINGENUOUS his POV is, I will take "the test" but asking gay people about heterosexuals.

But its beyond silly. He's arguing against our deserving equality based on a FAKE argument.

Most all gay people would pass, definitely, and as we all know a very large chunk of hetero people would fail. This is independent of the reality that the straight people have the power and often act as our oppressors and the reverse is simply NOT the case.

Here goes:

If you have a HETERO friend (or sister or coworker or...) but still think that HETERO people should not be able to get married, then you are anti-hetero.

I PASS AS WOULD PRETTY MUCH ALL GAY PEOPLE. DUH!

If you're fine with hetero people as long as you don't have to see them kissing or holding hands, then you are anti-hetero.

I PASS AS WOULD PRETTY MUCH ALL GAY PEOPLE. DUH!

If you don't have anything against hetero people but wouldn't want a hetero man leading your daughters's scout troop, then you are anti-hetero.

I PASS AS WOULD PRETTY MUCH ALL GAY PEOPLE. DUH!

If you think that inside hetero people there is anything lurking -- however small -- that causes us to have any less integrity or humanity than gay people have, then you are anti-hetero.

I PASS AS WOULD PRETTY MUCH ALL GAY PEOPLE. DUH!

It's a shame as we excercise freedom of speech the same amount of energy isn't spent on freedom of thought.

We are a very small miniority who have these activists demanding and speaking absolute equality - who elected them ? they certainly don't speak for me. The more I read about activism, told what I should think, taking tests or being told I'm wrong because I don't give a toss, the more I want to go back into closest. I spent so long in the closest I'm quite comfortable being there. (warning joke - isn't that why we're considered better dressers ? because we spent so much time in the closet ? end joke )

I am a member of society first, part of the 3% miniority and I do take offence to PDA's young, old, gay or straight, I as a gay man respect the majority's concern rightly or wrongly that leading a Scout troop could be seen by some as not appropriate - rather than stand on my soap box demanding equality I choose not to subject myself to being in that role out of respect for the majority.

Perhaps because some of us have equality in our home country we are able to look at things differently. The so called fight if there ever was one, is over, & we're just getting on with life with freedom of thought.

[Naam]

Just the point I was trying to make (and trying to make in an earlier thread).

I can quite understand why "a majority of parents would strongly object" to a straight man leading a group of teenage girl scouts, and vice-versa. I think most of us can. Their "fears" may be groundless and their "worries" may have nothing to do with pedophilia per se, but that doesn't make them any less real or any less valid.

.... and IF a straight man should not be leading a group of teenage girl scouts, its equally logical and rational that a gay man should not be leading a group of teenage boy scouts for exactly the same reasons.

... and equally, IF there's nothing wrong with a gay man leading a group of teenage boys there should be nothing wrong with a straight man leading a group of teenage girls, and vice-versa.

You can't support or oppose one, rationally, without the other.

Its not just about EQUALITY, which is what the authors of these sort of tests bang on about, but about CONSISTENCY - applying the same rules and same "tests" to everyone ... and in the context of scouts, consistency would seem to mean that parents and children should have the choice of girl scouts, boy scouts, or mixed scouts (including boys, girls, special needs, LGBT, all religions, no religions, etc).

Equality without consistency is simply a sham.

If we excuse our own bigotry on the basis that we're only a small minority so our bigotry doesn't do as much harm as the big majority's, and we don't pay others the same respect in return that we demand from them, then we don't deserve equality.

i agree with each and everything you said. that's why, if this is an answer to a part of my posting,

"like it or not, the fact remains that a majority of parents would strongly object that a gay male or lesbian female leads a group of teenage boy/girl scouts for "outings"."

you are barking up the wrong tree. neither your nor my opinion changes prevailing facts which are based on the indoctrination "gay is bad" and to get rid of this indoctrination an open mind, a very long time and perhaps a whole new generation is needed to overcome any bias.

ask an educated non-religious Hindu to eat beef, an educated non-religious Muslim to eat pork or ask an average Joe whether he would like to try a cat stew or deliciously prepared dog embryo.

[CharlieH]

Why is the question about the boy scout leader a "red flag " ?

Please explain?

[ToddWeston]

Why is the question about the boy scout leader a "red flag " ?

Please explain?

It's nothing more than a flame to get people angry so the activists could say look at us no one likes us and then they can label them homophobes. Some people are never happy unless everyone is unhappy.

[Suradit69]

Good test!

I know a guy back in Euroland, he does not consider himself anti gay, and a homophobe.

He feels gay people should have every right to live as we like, but only behind closed door.

He says 2 guys walking together hand in hand is simply wrong, 2 guys kissing out in the open is unacceptable for him.

He really believes what he says, we have spoken about this few times. I have tryed to explain to him that 2 guys kissing is in no way threat to him, those guys kissing wount attack him, and force him to join them. But I think he feels thtreatend. I suspect the thoughts in his head, when he sees 2 guys being intimate, terrify him.

And he honestly believes he is not a homophobe.

In his defence, he is not very bright guy. And I suspect he has terrifying thoughts in his head around bed time, thoughts about how he would eagerly blow his handsom friend, who he goes to gym together.

"2 guys kissing out in the open is unacceptable for him."

Depends on what you mean by kissing. I would prefer that no one, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, start making out in earnest in most public places. A quick kiss, hand holding, etc. is fine regardless of who you are, but I don't particular want to watch soft porn in a restaurant, supermarket or anywhere else that someone should not have to breathe other peoples' smoke ... or watch them either dry-hump one another or plumb one another's throats. And I will say that 9 times out of ten it is a pair of breeders who are putting on the show. Unless you're 16 years old and living at home with mom and dad, please get a room or save it for when you're at home alone.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Suradit69

[LeCharivari]

...

Sometimes I am so ashamed of the bigotry of some of my fellow gays and the way that they demand that they be treated with respect by our straight counterparts while they see no need to reciprocate

...

How is insisting to have all the same rights that straight people have bigotry? Isn't this the most reasonable and humble demand?

This line of attack is one of the favorite lines of anti gay organizations, like NOM, National Organization for Marriage, and many other hate groups. Those groups very often use the word 'family' in their names.

They always start by saying gay people are demanding special treatment.

Stephen Colbert, of The Colbert Report produced hilarious parody of NOM's online ad campaign 'The Storm Is Coming'

Here is the NOM original campaign ad:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FtjbmAaWFMg

And here is Stephen Colberts take on NOMs ad, please watch the whole 6 minute clip, it starts with NOM ad, Stephen then comments how he feels about the NOM campaign, and at 3.29 mark, Stephen streams his take on NOM ad.

Please, please watch it, i promise, you will not regret the wasted few minuts!

Here is Stephens take, fast forward to 3.29 mark:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/224789/april-16-2009/the-colbert-coalition-s-anti-gay-marriage-ad

And here is one more very well made parody of NOM campaign:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L0pPEAdDn64

"How is insisting to have all the same rights that straight people have bigotry?"

I never said or implied in any way that having equal rights was bigotry - even the single line of my post which has been both edited and taken out of context states exactly the type of bigotry I was referring to.

My views on organisations like CARM and the FRC do not need repeating here.

[anon8]

We are a very small miniority who have these activists demanding and speaking absolute equality - who elected them ? they certainly don't speak for me

...

I am a member of society first, part of the 3% miniority and I do take offence to PDA's young, old, gay or straight, I as a gay man respect the majority's concern rightly or wrongly that leading a Scout troop could be seen by some as not appropriate

...

We are a very small minority, we should not have the same civil rights, as all other people have?

I read your posts, you seem to identify yourself as gay man. But you agree with homophobic organisations claims and arguments, that we, homosexuals should not have exactly the same rights, that heterosexual people enjoy.

Are you serious, or is your statement sarcastic, and I dont get the sarcasm?

You know, irony and sarcasm are not easy to spot on the internet, and it rarely works on internet, cos its just text, we dont see your facial expression, and we dont hear the tone in your voice, cos web posts are just typed words.. You have to make your sarcastic point is clear and obvious.

So generaton of gay activist in North America are not speaking for you, alltho you are gay man.

Harvey Milk in SF did not fight for your rights, you feel? He did not speak for you? Harvey Milk lost his life, demanding equal rights for people like you and me.

You have said in another tread, that you are from Onario. So you must know who George Hislop was.

He fought for our right to walk the streets of Toronto, without being assaulted by teens from suburbs, who drove around Toronto at night, looking for gay men to beat up. He fought for our rights for years. Surely you know this man. I knew him personally, but only for 2 years before his death.

You feel he wasnt talking, and fighting for people like you and me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hislop

[Scott]

Off-topic post deleted.

[LeCharivari]

It's a shame as we excercise freedom of speech the same amount of energy isn't spent on freedom of thought.

We are a very small miniority who have these activists demanding and speaking absolute equality - who elected them ? they certainly don't speak for me. The more I read about activism, told what I should think, taking tests or being told I'm wrong because I don't give a toss, the more I want to go back into closest. I spent so long in the closest I'm quite comfortable being there. (warning joke - isn't that why we're considered better dressers ? because we spent so much time in the closet ? end joke )

I am a member of society first, part of the 3% miniority and I do take offence to PDA's young, old, gay or straight, I as a gay man respect the majority's concern rightly or wrongly that leading a Scout troop could be seen by some as not appropriate - rather than stand on my soap box demanding equality I choose not to subject myself to being in that role out of respect for the majority.

Perhaps because some of us have equality in our home country we are able to look at things differently. The so called fight if there ever was one, is over, & we're just getting on with life with freedom of thought.

I have to disagree slightly, Todd, as I don’t really have any problem with “absolute equality” as a logical end game for all, based on equality regardless of sexual preference, gender, race, religion, ethnicity or special needs, but I think that the best way of achieving that is by mutual understanding and mutual respect rather than by the demands and insults which some prefer.

On the other hand I don’t think that everybody is either entitled to or deserves “absolute equality” other than equality under the law, otherwise we are going down the path to anarchy. The problem is that sometimes the more “rights” one person gets the more “rights” someone else loses, so there has to be a balance and that balance is usually decided by the majority.

[LeCharivari]

We don't deserve equality.

From someone who claims to identify as a gay man.

That is so twisted.

This is very, very strange.

A gay man defending the point of view that parents not trusting their kids with a gay scout master is understandable and acceptable!?

But it gets even more strange, a poster says that it is understandable and acceptable that a parent may not want or even allow a straight adult male to lead a team of young girls.

Could it be that a gay man can actually be a homophobe? Is this possible? I have never encountered anything like this before.

No "gay man" here has ever said that parents not trusting their kids with a gay scout master is "acceptable" – there is no such post (again).

I fail to see what is "even more strange" about any parent preferring that when his daughter goes off to her girl scout meetings or camps she should be solely in the company of other girls and supervised by a woman, not a man. I don't see how allowing her and her parents the freedom to choose between her attending either a girl scout group (run by and for females) or a mixed scout group (run by and for both sexes) can be either wrong or "strange" – what I would see as distinctly “strange”, though, would be removing that freedom of choice.

I also fail to see how something which is about how “a parent may not want or even allow a straight adult male to lead a team of young girls” can lead to the idea that "a gay man can actually be a homophobe", but that is a different matter.

Understanding someone else's point of view does NOT mean either accepting or condoning it - they are radically different. I can, for example, understand why the child soldiers in the Khmer Rouge, in the CAR and in other countries do what they do/did, but that does not mean I accept or condone it.

If someone can’t or won’t understand another person's point of view they have little chance of changing it.

[LeCharivari]

We don't deserve equality.

From someone who claims to identify as a gay man.

That is so twisted.

This is very, very strange.

A gay man defending the point of view that parents not trusting their kids with a gay scout master is understandable and acceptable!?

But it gets even more strange, a poster says that it is understandable and acceptable that a parent may not want or even allow a straight adult male to lead a team of young girls.

Could it be that a gay man can actually be a homophobe? Is this possible? I have never encountered anything like this before.

An interesting post from JT which I would full support - any gay man who said "We don't deserve equality" would, in my view also, be at least a little "twisted".

I am unable to find any such post here, though, so without knowing who is supposed to have made this unqualified statement or where it came from I can see little point in commenting on it further.

The "homophobe" question has also been raised before here, on a number of occasions, but each time without naming the supposed offender or giving a link to the supposed homophobic comments. Name them and shame them, I say!

[ToddWeston]

It's a shame as we excercise freedom of speech the same amount of energy isn't spent on freedom of thought.

We are a very small miniority who have these activists demanding and speaking absolute equality - who elected them ? they certainly don't speak for me. The more I read about activism, told what I should think, taking tests or being told I'm wrong because I don't give a toss, the more I want to go back into closest. I spent so long in the closest I'm quite comfortable being there. (warning joke - isn't that why we're considered better dressers ? because we spent so much time in the closet ? end joke )

I am a member of society first, part of the 3% miniority and I do take offence to PDA's young, old, gay or straight, I as a gay man respect the majority's concern rightly or wrongly that leading a Scout troop could be seen by some as not appropriate - rather than stand on my soap box demanding equality I choose not to subject myself to being in that role out of respect for the majority.

Perhaps because some of us have equality in our home country we are able to look at things differently. The so called fight if there ever was one, is over, & we're just getting on with life with freedom of thought.

I have to disagree slightly, Todd, as I dont really have any problem with absolute equality as a logical end game for all, based on equality regardless of sexual preference, gender, race, religion, ethnicity or special needs, but I think that the best way of achieving that is by mutual understanding and mutual respect rather than by the demands and insults which some prefer.

On the other hand I dont think that everybody is either entitled to or deserves absolute equality other than equality under the law, otherwise we are going down the path to anarchy. The problem is that sometimes the more rights one person gets the more rights someone else loses, so there has to be a balance and that balance is usually decided by the majority.

Apologies if I left the impression I don't believe in absolute equality, I'm simply tired of a few speaking on my behalf. With the myriad of topics running it often seems like information overload.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts deleted.

[anon8]

I would have loved to have lived in San Fransisco in 70s.

Or live in in SF any time

Edited December 21, 2013 by valgehiir

[LeCharivari]

Mr. LC has twisted this topic in a very silly way.

To definitively demonstrate how absurd and cynically DISINGENUOUS his POV is, I will take "the test" but asking gay people about heterosexuals.

But its beyond silly. He's arguing against our deserving equality based on a FAKE argument.

Most all gay people would pass, definitely, and as we all know a very large chunk of hetero people would fail. This is independent of the reality that the straight people have the power and often act as our oppressors and the reverse is simply NOT the case.

Here goes:

If you have a HETERO friend (or sister or coworker or...) but still think that HETERO people should not be able to get married, then you are anti-hetero.

I PASS AS WOULD PRETTY MUCH ALL GAY PEOPLE. DUH!

If you're fine with hetero people as long as you don't have to see them kissing or holding hands, then you are anti-hetero.

I PASS AS WOULD PRETTY MUCH ALL GAY PEOPLE. DUH!

If you don't have anything against hetero people but wouldn't want a hetero man leading your daughters's scout troop, then you are anti-hetero.

I PASS AS WOULD PRETTY MUCH ALL GAY PEOPLE. DUH!

If you think that inside hetero people there is anything lurking -- however small -- that causes us to have any less integrity or humanity than gay people have, then you are anti-hetero.

I PASS AS WOULD PRETTY MUCH ALL GAY PEOPLE. DUH!

It's a shame as we excercise freedom of speech the same amount of energy isn't spent on freedom of thought.

We are a very small miniority who have these activists demanding and speaking absolute equality - who elected them ? they certainly don't speak for me. The more I read about activism, told what I should think, taking tests or being told I'm wrong because I don't give a toss, the more I want to go back into closest. I spent so long in the closest I'm quite comfortable being there. (warning joke - isn't that why we're considered better dressers ? because we spent so much time in the closet ? end joke )

I am a member of society first, part of the 3% miniority and I do take offence to PDA's young, old, gay or straight, I as a gay man respect the majority's concern rightly or wrongly that leading a Scout troop could be seen by some as not appropriate - rather than stand on my soap box demanding equality I choose not to subject myself to being in that role out of respect for the majority.

Perhaps because some of us have equality in our home country we are able to look at things differently. The so called fight if there ever was one, is over, & we're just getting on with life with freedom of thought.

Let me limit my reply to one which is strictly about this "test" by saying that while I do not consider JT in any way "anti-straight" I disagree with his conclusions about how he would fare on this absurd test.

Tests of this sort are seldom designed to be self-administered with any validity, and individual's and group's opinions of their own homophobia/heterophobia are not necessarily a reflection of how others see them, and this test is no exception.

CARM, for example, is recognised as one of the most homophobic Christian groups around, yet they are adamant that "No, CARM is not homophobic ..... We are no more homophobic than they are heterophobic. ..... we reject the label of being homophobic ..... We are not homophobic. We are pro-traditional marriage and we are pro-traditional sexual practice. It is the homosexual community that wants to redefine proper sexual conduct and marriage definitions. We could easily say that the pro-homosexual movement is heterophobic and/or christophobic."

http://carm.org/carm-homophobic

In their view, they too would pass any "test".

[LeCharivari]

I would have loved to have lived in San Fransisco in 70s.

Or live in in SF any time

As far as I am aware you do not need to pass this particular "test" to be permitted to move there ..... although apparently it may help in some quarters, so why not?

[anon8]

I would have loved to have lived in San Fransisco in 70s.

Or live in in SF any time

As far as I am aware you do not need to pass this particular "test" to be permitted to move there ..... although apparently it may help in some quarters, so why not?

This is OT and will deleted soon, but quick reply,

Reason I never in SF is the cost of living there is so high, I think it is most expensive city to live in NA

Sent from my C6802 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Jingthing]

I would have loved to have lived in San Fransisco in 70s.

Or live in in SF any time

As far as I am aware you do not need to pass this particular "test" to be permitted to move there ..... although apparently it may help in some quarters, so why not?

This is OT and will deleted soon, but quick reply,

Reason I never in SF is the cost of living there is so high, I think it is most expensive city to live in NA

Sent from my C6802 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Yes now it is for rich people but back in the day ....

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[bifftastic]

There are gay people who don't want to be included and identifyed as gay. Self hating is very common among gay community. People who are not comfortable being gay dont want to be gay, and they certainly dont want to be part of 'we', and gay communiy. It must be very stressful not being comfortable with who you are. Sent from my C6802 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I love these amateur psychologists who think that anyone who doesn't share their point of view must be 'self haters'.

I support your thought as far as the need to be careful in going overboard with GENERALIZATIONS. However, there are such people as self hating gays, gays with severe INTERNALIZED homophobia, etc. I think there are a lot of similarities to self hating Jews ... there are many of those as well. I would be a bit shy of rushing to label specific people that way though.

As far as the test in the OP, I think it might be too strict a standard. I have known people who are reasonably tolerant of gay people who still would have a problem sending their boy child to a gay boy scout leader. I know it is not fair to assume bad things about a gay boy scout leader only based on being gay, but I have some compassion for their fears about their children as well.

I have never understood the connection some people make between someone being gay and how that might affect children who are 'exposed' to, or left in the charge of, that person. There seems to be an implied connection to pedophilia, which is unfortunate to say the least, and that a person's sexuality is even remotely relevant when taking care of children, to me, is just nonsense.

As for public displays of affection, personally I don't like them. Not just from gay people, I just don't like them, but that's my issue, and I understand that.

Just as I understand that people have the right to behave how they want to (within reason) either in public or in private.

As for the whole 'gay community' thing, I couldn't comment really. I'm straight, and I don't feel part of a 'straight community' but then there isn't really a need for a straight community, or a lack of straight rights or anything, so I'm unqualified to comment on those issues.