Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cawigular]

While throwing a drink in her face would be stupid, I've gotta say, I would be a little offended myself if someone assumed I was gay. In before accusations of homophobia.
I generally try not to assume ANYTHING about people's relationships, just leaving them to say it. That way no awkwardness occurs.

[Blood-Tree]

While throwing a drink in her face would be stupid, I've gotta say, I would be a little offended myself if someone assumed I was gay. In before accusations of homophobia.
I generally try not to assume ANYTHING about people's relationships, just leaving them to say it. That way no awkwardness occurs.

Word Brother. Word. Wuurrd...

We are all children of the sun and must walk our paths together.

Yes.

[JackFaerie]

While throwing a drink in her face would be stupid, I've gotta say, I would be a little offended myself if someone assumed I was gay. In before accusations of homophobia.
I generally try not to assume ANYTHING about people's relationships, just leaving them to say it. That way no awkwardness occurs.

That's nice. But if you were standing around with an attractive friend of your preferred gender, would you be equally offended if a bystander assumed this was your significant other? Also, are you regularly "a little offended" when people assume you are straight? (I bet people assume you are straight all the time.) Because otherwise I don't see how your offense at being assumed gay would NOT be at least somewhat homophobic.

[Tetrinity]

That's nice. But if you were standing around with an attractive friend of your preferred gender, would you be equally offended if a bystander assumed this was your significant other? Also, are you regularly "a little offended" when people assume you are straight? (I bet people assume you are straight all the time.) Because otherwise I don't see how your offense at being assumed gay would NOT be at least somewhat homophobic.

In my experience, people get offended if you assume their sexuality is anything other than what it actually is (or at least what they perceive it to be). This holds true for almost every person I know.


I still want to hear more from Elliot. Poor guy seems far more downtrodden than Marten right now...

[Cawigular]

Homophobia- irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. (Merriam-Webster)

I would not be offended if somebody assumed I was straight because I am fact AM straight. I like to think that my manner projects this, as well as how I interact with women. So yes, I would be rather put off if someone assumed I was gay. It would be especially strange considering that the average man is straight, so something about me would have had to imply that I was not.

Also, I would feel similar emotions if someone assumed that I held a certain political opinion. That doesn't mean I hate people who disagree with me.

So, it's not at all homophobic. I have no fear or aversion to homosexuals, nor do I discriminate against them. I am simply not one, and would not enjoy being assumed to be one. Like I said, I try to not make such comments to people, and let them tell me about themselves instead.

[El_Flesh]

I wouldn't call it a regular aversion - I'd call it an irrational aversion.

I, too would be put off to find someone assumed I was gay. What, am I acting effeminate or something??

I'm not gay, but I don't mind talking or interacting with someone gay - so long as they are at arm's length.
But seeing two guys kissing/getting it on? Revolting. Is it my DNA? My conditioning? I don't know and I don't care.

Slapping a label of 'Homophobia' on that would be wrong, too. Unlike my father's generation,
I don't feel gay men should have the shit kicked out of them merely for being gay.

[Cawigular]

Well for me, I see no reason to treat them any different than anybody else. I don't feel a need to "keep them at arms length.
ANNNYYYYWAAAAYYYYSSSSS....



I'm not sure about Padma and Renee sticking around. Having two characters introduced who are in essence bizzarro versions of protagonists is going to get a little old, unless Jeph has a twist in store for us.

[themacnut]

Marten would be justified in throwing his drink in her face. Seriously, two guys, in a bar, just talking, so they HAVE TO be gay? Really? REALLY?

And you don't even know what else went into the assumption--maybe the way Marten acted when he came in for his coffee and a danish. maybe the way Steve was hanging on him when trying to get him to share his feelings.

I'm pretty sure that went a long way towards Padma making that assumption, since normally heterosexual guys (US-raised hetero guys anyway) are not as touchy-feely with each other as Steve and Marten were being in the last few comics.

As for a hetero guy not liking being called gay, well a big part of that is that many hetero guys feel such a mistake calls into question their manliness and, most importantly, their ability to attract girls. After all, hetero women generally don't have sex with gay guys, right? Many girls hang out with gay guys specifically because they KNOW the guys won't hit on them, and are therefore "harmless". Many hetero guys don't want to be considered that "harmless" because such harmlessness implies a total lack of attraction towards the guy in question. When the guy in question is attracted to the girl who thinks he's gay, finding out she thinks he's gay is basically another form of rejection, and possibly an attack on his manhood; in his mind, she thinks he's not "manly" enough for her.

[musicalsoul]

While throwing a drink in her face would be stupid, I've gotta say, I would be a little offended myself if someone assumed I was gay. In before accusations of homophobia.
I generally try not to assume ANYTHING about people's relationships, just leaving them to say it. That way no awkwardness occurs.

That's nice. But if you were standing around with an attractive friend of your preferred gender, would you be equally offended if a bystander assumed this was your significant other? Also, are you regularly "a little offended" when people assume you are straight? (I bet people assume you are straight all the time.) Because otherwise I don't see how your offense at being assumed gay would NOT be at least somewhat homophobic.

As someone who is often assumed to be a lesbian, I get offended. I don't get so offended that I go into a RAAAAAAAAAGE about it or anything. But, it does get annoying. I mean for instance when someone I've known for three years, who knows me well enough to know I'm straight, looks at me and shouts "You have got to be a lesbian," I get offended. Just like when I was getting an apartment with my best friend, another friend of  ours asked "How is that going to work out since she's a Lesbian, wouldn't that make you uncomfortable?" That offended me. Especially considering the fact that I had at one point in time had feelings for him, THAT HE KNEW ABOUT. After this kind of thing happens regularly, with people who know you it just makes the whole thing a touchy subject. Most of the time if someone asks I just say "no." If someone tells me the assumed I am, it bothers me because, why not just ask?

This does not make me homophobic. I have plenty of gay and lesbian friends. More than anything it's just annoying. I've been in situations where people didn't believe me when I said I was straight. It makes me wonder "Why do people always think that? What is it about me gives off that vibe?" As you can imagine, this doesn't help me win over the men. And it's altogether frustrating.

[Carl-E]

I've always been flattered when being mistaken for gay.  It's usually by other gay men, though, so it can certainly be awkward. 

BTW, "gaydar" is a myth.  It's just an educated guess, a reading of various bits of body language and a lot of assumptions made by that reader. 

Maybe it's my fashion sense?  (that's a joke - my fashion sense is my wife's... she gave me some serious tutelage when I was in grad school, mainly geared towards "dressing for success", and what she liked.  It still works pretty well.)

Maybe it's because I'm involved with the theatre?  'cause, you know, there are no straight guys who like to sing in musicals...

But it's really never been a problem when I was assumed gay by a female acquaintance, either.  If someone of the opposite sex assumed I was gay, and I expressed an interest in them, the reaction would generally be pleasant  surprise.  Never an "Oh god  no, I thought you were gay!" 

So get with it.  Manliness isn't the issue, nor is "effeminism".  Your sexuality is what it is; what it seems to be to others is strictly  in the eye of the beholder.  And that eye only sees what it wants to see, or what it's used to seeing! 

Remember, the people to whom your sexuality matter already know which way you lean...

[Skewbrow]

ooooo-kay

So this is how it looks to the outsider, when I'm vehemently arguing a point while drunk. Marten and Steve seem to have made quite a first impression.

The only time (that I'm aware of  ) when I was mistaken for a gay was very clearly my own fault. I was 19. Travelling by myself somewhere in Northern Germany. Eager for some brewskies (and to test my German at a counter) I went to this bar. I had lead a somewhat sheltered life (Hi Mom!), so I didn't realize that this particular watering hole caters in particular for the homosexual population. The truth only dawned on me shortly after some patrons came up to chat. I guess the look on my face told the whole story. They were probably amused more than anything else  . It was too awkward for me, so I left (after downing my beer - first things first), but nothing really unpleasant happened. Just a mistake you can laugh about after an hour or so.

[Akima]

I'm not gay, but I don't mind talking or interacting with someone gay - so long as they are at arm's length. But seeing two guys kissing/getting it on? Revolting. Is it my DNA? My conditioning? I don't know and I don't care. Slapping a label of 'Homophobia' on that would be wrong, too. Unlike my father's generation, I don't feel gay men should have the shit kicked out of them merely for being gay.

It is a bit depressing that disgust and revulsion towards homosexuals has to express itself as criminal violence before people feel that it rises to a level they are prepared to call homophobia. Apparently, anything short of that is OK. One encounters the same kind of thinking with regard to racism of course. There the principle is "I may regard <ethnic group> as sub-human, but I'm not a racist because I don't beat them up, lynch them, or set their houses on fire". It's a kind of ethical limbo-dancing, where the bar is moved up to make it easier to pass under, instead of down to make it more challenging. Still, I suppose the fact that some people actually do, in a few places at least, hesitate to "kick the shit out of them", has to be regarded as progress.

I was rather confused by today's strip.

[pwhodges]

<Moderator comment>

People, be careful if you plan to continue the discussion of homosexuality and homophobia.  Akima has already properly challenged the idea that non-violent homophobia doesn't count (as the earlier quote from Merriam-Webster's dictionary also made clear: "Homophobia- irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals").  I would go further, and say that even remarks like "some of my best friends are homosexuals" (not a quote, thankfully) can easily still be offensive in this context because of the way in which they are placing people into that box as if it matters.  So far the discussion has been sufficiently civil, and with enough correction, for me to let it stand - but even a mere repeat of some earlier remarks would take it over the edge, so please think hard before posting on the subject again.

[westrim]

Holy shucking fit, I just decided to read the rest of the comments and I really shouldn't have. PEOPLE!

chill out.

He reacted the same way most normal people approximately react to a query that is based on a relationship that doesn't exist, such as:
"Madam, would you like some help?" (Asked of a dude.)
"I already plugged in the AARP discount." (Said to a 45 year old.)
"So you guys are gay, right?" (two straight friends)
"So, how long have you two been dating?"(While sitting with your brother.)

I hope my point is made. It's not homophobic to be aggrieved that someone assumed you were homosexual, it's just not very mellow.

[pwhodges]

If you are equally aggrieved at any  mistaken assumption about you, that could be true I suppose - but if you are that commonly aggrieved, you could find a more relaxed approach to life, and less misunderstandings, by simply correcting people's mistakes rather than getting upset by them.

[Lubricus]

Well, sexual orientation is a pretty important part of most people's self image, so being mistaken for a homo-/heterosexual would be harder to handle than being mistaken for, say, an Italian or a Democrat, I think. Still, this isn't the right place to discuss such issues, is it?

Back to the comic - I hope Marten gets a nice new relationship to focus on soon. I hate to see him lonely and sulking - he's such a wonderful guy when he's happy. And I still feel that he could end up with Padma, even though it's starting to look pretty hopeless.

[Odal]

you could find a more relaxed approach to life, and less misunderstandings, by simply correcting people's mistakes rather than getting upset by them.

I agree with this.  But I also think people shouldn't assume things even if it appears horribly obvious.  When someone makes an assumption about me, I am usually not bothered by what the assumption is, but moreso by the fact that this person would make such an assumption without asking me or knowing me.  The act of assuming itself speaks a lot more about the person doing the assuming than anything else.

[Odin]

If you are equally aggrieved at any  mistaken assumption about you, that could be true I suppose - but if you are that commonly aggrieved, you could find a more relaxed approach to life, and less misunderstandings, by simply correcting people's mistakes rather than getting upset by them.

Seriously, that one time a black guy called me an N-bomb (only censoring because the reactionary way things are handled here necessitates it) was hilarious (I'm white).

[westrim]

If you are equally aggrieved at any  mistaken assumption about you, that could be true I suppose - but if you are that commonly aggrieved, you could find a more relaxed approach to life, and less misunderstandings, by simply correcting people's mistakes rather than getting upset by them.

...Yes, thus the not very mellow bit. Though you're exaggerating my point quite a bit, to the point of moving to a different subject- I wasn't talking about all misunderstandings, just core identity/relationships ones, like gender or sexuality or familial ties.

[pwhodges]

I wasn't talking about all misunderstandings, just core identity/relationships ones, like gender or sexuality or familial ties.

Who's to say what's core to someone they don't know, though?

[westrim]

I wasn't talking about all misunderstandings, just core identity/relationships ones, like gender or sexuality or familial ties.

Who's to say what's core to someone they don't know, though?

Oh for crying out loud, stop moving goalposts. We were NOT talking about every single misunderstanding, and we were NOT talking about what people consider core to themselves! We were talking about whether it is homophobic to react negatively if someone assumes that you are homosexual. I submitted that it was not, and gave examples of other situations in which reacting negatively would generally be considered normal, ones that are nearly universally considered to be important to self identity, not random stuff like how much of a Potterphile a given person is.

[Odin]

Hey, remember when people were going ballistic over other people thinking Padma was black? Same thing.

By pwhodges's argument so far, the people that went ballistic are racist.

[pwhodges]

We were talking about whether it is homophobic to react negatively if someone assumes that you are homosexual. I submitted that it was not

But consider (starting with your example):

"So you guys are gay, right?"
"How dare you suggest we're like that!"

The response is only meaningful if gay is assumed to be a bad thing, therefore homophobic.  So we cannot state a simple rule, but have to consider what is actually said/written.  

My other remark was indeed a digression - simply a warning against making assumptions about what other people may consider important.

[JackFaerie]

Hahah. Okay, now Marten's not catching a break.


Annnnnnd I think I'm gonna stay off the forum from here on it because the sexism and homophobia here is a bit upsetting.

Things I have learned today!


1) Gay guys are"unmanly."
2) Being manly is defined by one's ability to have sex with women (and not,y'know, by being a man.)  I sure am glad that my womanhood is just there to shore up your definition of manhood!
3) Men will unblinkingly say that they don't want to be "harmless" to women and not even think about what that word choice implies. Moreover they will feel that being "harmless" is a negative, because... you must get women by being threatening? something? what? As though if a girl is not attracted to you, you making sure to present yourself as "harmful" or whatever is gonna change that. (Seriously does it not bother people that women often frame NOT receiving unwanted male attention in terms of physical safety--"he's safe, he's harmless," etc, and yet most men want to actively go against that?)
4) Feeling like if you're ever in a conversation with gay men, wanting to "keep them at arm's length" and feeling that any display of physical affection between them is "revolting" is not "an irrational aversion" or homophobic. Cuz it's totally rational to find two consenting adults engaging in mild PDA (like the kind straight people do all the time) totally disgusting, right?




I agree with Carl-E, btw--if a woman is attracted to you, she's attracted, and plenty of women are attracted to gay guys anyway.


(And PS, poster who was constantly assumed to be a lesbian--well no wonder THAT was annoying--your friends didn't so much harmlessly assume as refuse to take your actual stated preference as an answer, which is certainly rude and annoying.)

[Odin]

Hahah. Okay, now Marten's not catching a break.


Annnnnnd I think I'm gonna stay off the forum from here on it because the sexism and homophobia here is a bit upsetting.

Things I have learned today!


1) Gay guys are"unmanly."
2) Being manly is defined by one's ability to have sex with women (and not,y'know, by being a man.)  I sure am glad that my womanhood is just there to shore up your definition of manhood!
3) Men will unblinkingly say that they don't want to be "harmless" to women and not even think about what that word choice implies. Moreover they will feel that being "harmless" is a negative, because... you must get women by being threatening? something? what? As though if a girl is not attracted to you, you making sure to present yourself as "harmful" or whatever is gonna change that. (Seriously does it not bother people that women often frame NOT receiving unwanted male attention in terms of physical safety--"he's safe, he's harmless," etc, and yet most men want to actively go against that?)
4) Feeling like if you're ever in a conversation with gay men, wanting to "keep them at arm's length" and feeling that any display of physical affection between them is "revolting" is not "an irrational aversion" or homophobic. Cuz it's totally rational to find two consenting adults engaging in mild PDA (like the kind straight people do all the time) totally disgusting, right?




I agree with Carl-E, btw--if a woman is attracted to you, she's attracted, and plenty of women are attracted to gay guys anyway.


(And PS, poster who was constantly assumed to be a lesbian--well no wonder THAT was annoying--your friends didn't so much harmlessly assume as refuse to take your actual stated preference as an answer, which is certainly rude and annoying.)

Citation needed.

[westrim]

We were talking about whether it is homophobic to react negatively if someone assumes that you are homosexual. I submitted that it was not

But consider (starting with your example):

"So you guys are gay, right?"
"How dare you suggest we're like that!"

The response is only meaningful if gay is assumed to be a bad thing, therefore homophobic.  So we cannot state a simple rule, but have to consider what is actually said/written.  

My other remark was indeed a digression - simply a warning against making assumptions about what other people may consider important.

Why do you keep warping what I say? Now you're extending 'react negatively' into 'react angrily'. If he reacted by grabbing his chair and beating the table with it that would be bad too, but that's not what we're talking about.

And that was a pretty damn unnecessary warning, unless there's a large segment of humanity that does in fact like to be called older (at 45), another gender, incestuous, or another orientation. Save the warnings for when there's danger.

Jeez, I don't even care about this argument ostensibly, but this misunderstanding is rankling.

Citation needed.

  BWEEOOP BWEEOOOP BWEEEooooo-
Hi, I'm officer Davis, license and registration please
*half an hour goes by*
Have a nice day, be sure to be there for your court date or mail in the check.

Citation status: delivered

[Odin]

[maddness]

I see Steve is backpedaling on that whole flirting thing. Unless he's one of those people who unconsciously flirts with everyone while drunk. I have a gay friend who, when drunk, will even flirt with females. In any case, I'm glad Marten busted him. It needed to be done. I like Steve, but I hate cheaters and I'd hate to not like Steve anymore.


My sister tells me that, lately, when she goes out to the clubs she's been getting hit on by women who assume she's a lesbian. She doesn't get offended, although it does confuse her. She says her guy friends tell her it's because she wears pony tails and and looks tough no matter how girly she dresses. I thinks it has more to do with the fact that she's the only female in the group she regularly hangs with and she/they all act like she's one of the guys. Meanwhile, the guys keep teasing her about her having more luck with the ladies than they are.

Until I moved in with the man who would become my husband everyone in my family expected me to come out of the closet any day. Every single one of them. Now, in their defense I didn't date, all my male friends were gay and I spent most of my time in Boystown, which to my family just meant the homosexual area.

I'm not gay, but I don't mind talking or interacting with someone gay - so long as they are at arm's length. But seeing two guys kissing/getting it on? Revolting. Is it my DNA? My conditioning? I don't know and I don't care. Slapping a label of 'Homophobia' on that would be wrong, too. Unlike my father's generation, I don't feel gay men should have the shit kicked out of them merely for being gay.

It is a bit depressing that disgust and revulsion towards homosexuals has to express itself as criminal violence before people feel that it rises to a level they are prepared to call homophobia. Apparently, anything short of that is OK. One encounters the same kind of thinking with regard to racism of course. There the principle is "I may regard <ethnic group> as sub-human, but I'm not a racist because I don't beat them up, lynch them, or set their houses on fire". It's a kind of ethical limbo-dancing, where the bar is moved up to make it easier to pass under, instead of down to make it more challenging. Still, I suppose the fact that some people actually do, in a few places at least, hesitate to "kick the shit out of them", has to be regarded as progress.

I was rather confused by today's strip.

My husband, who sadly feels the same as El_Flesh, didn't consider himself homophobic and used the exact same rationale. We discussed it frequently in the early days of our relationship because, being bisexual and having mostly gay friends, it was an issue that caused much frustration for me. Eventually we settled on him accepting that he is homophobic and me accepting that you can't argue someone out of a lifetime of conditioning. And it is conditioning. He grew up in a super small town smack in the middle of the bible belt with one of those "macho" dad's who can't see any thing they consider soft in their sons without accusing them of being "queer". I figure that's a special sort of hell for an artistic geek boy.

[Odin]

There is nothing more nauseating than a Nice Guy™.

[Carl-E]

I don't know, hearing "If I was gay, I could do better than that!" would be pretty fucking insulting.

BINGO!  And that's the point.  It wasn't about being gay (not to Marten - maybe a little to Steve), but rather the insult between friends.  

And no, Marten was not  necessarily "getting his flirt on".  He was responding to a friendly gesture from a new acquaintance.  It may have gone to flirting eventually, but this is  Marten we're talking about.  And the real problem was that Steve moved in and took over the conversation completely, flirting shamelessly (although in his defense, it was probably unconscious, as a lot of Steve's actions are).  

All the homophobia in the strip that's being bandied about on the board is projection.  And JackFaerie, please don't take it too hard - remember, there's a significant proportion of the population (and hence of this board) that needs some serious education on the topic.  I know it upsets you, but you can't be effective if you walk out of the room...

of course, in some cases, you can't be effective at all.  

EDIT:  NiceGuys^TM are not  harmless...

[tbones]

Yeah to marten, but I am confused on how this devolved into meaning either of the two are instantly homophobic or think gay is bad.

Me too, it's a LONG way from acting surprised and insulting(joking with) a friend to homophobia....


Lately (in my own personal life, not this forum) it seems that people just want to get angry at anything...


AAAAANYWAY, great comic today, made me laugh a good while

[Near Lurker]

There is nothing more nauseating than a Nice Guy™.

Hey now - I may be a rake, but I'm an honest rake.  The Nice Guy wants to have his cake an eat it, too, being both "harmless" and on the market, but being on the market to some women means you're a "threat" to others, and the only way to know which is to "threaten," either overtly or underhandedly.  That's life.

[TheEvilDog]

@Odin, there is a reason why they say Beware The Nice Ones.

[Carl-E]

No.  

No, no, no.  

You do not need to "threaten" to be on the market.  You do not need to "make a move" on someone just because "that's how it's done".  

Does it work?  Occasionally.  Too often, in fact.  Some women expect it, but are rarely happy about it.  Most wind up disappointed at some level with the man who does so.  

And just in case you think we're talking about nice guys, this is what's meant by Nice Guy^TM

Try being genuine instead.  It works.  

[Emperor Norton]

sexism and homophobia

Yeah, you've provided a great example of why I usually avoid this section.

You mean the "every person trying to find a way to be offended at every moment" thing?

Yeah, it does get to be a pain. Seriously, can't we discuss the comic WITHOUT it turning into a bunch of OH NO YOU OFFENDED MY SENSIBILITIES EXCUSE ME WHILE I GET OUT MY MILE LONG RANT to "educate" those who don't agree with me. (seriously, while I might agree with Carl-E on the opinion he is giving on the subject of homophobia itself, I find the idea that anyone who has different values than someone is just undereducated on the subject rather more offensive than almost every 'homophobic' post made. Also, yes I am a hypocrite at getting offended in my "lets not get offended" post. Its just the whole ATMOSPHERE of this board sometimes exudes this need to get offended at everything.)

[Odin]

There is nothing more nauseating than a Nice Guy™.

Hey now - I may be a rake, but I'm an honest rake.  The Nice Guy wants to have his cake an eat it, too, being both "harmless" and on the market, but being on the market to some women means you're a "threat" to others, and the only way to know which is to "threaten," either overtly or underhandedly.  That's life.

Carl-E already covered it, but we may be talking about completely different things. There is a huge difference between being a confident, interesting guy compared to being a Jerk or a Nice Guy.

For more info on top of Carl-E's link, check out www.the-niceguy.com and realize the full scope of fucked-up-ness we're talking about when we say "Nice Guy".

[DSL]

That's sad, all of it.

[Odin]

Listen, the US House just passed a measure to cut Planned Parenthood funding by $300 million dollars Friday, there are bigger things to be outraged about.

[Armadillo]

No, more like, "I don't enjoy reading about posters trying to justify their sexist/homophobic/ridiculous thoughts in a comic discussion section." That's all. Joe Blow reacts violently if someone assumes he is gay, Jane Doe makes sure to keep gay people at least an arm's length away, et cetera, et cetera. It's disappointing when tangents like these are left open for posters to discuss, as if those are acceptable opinions. Some ideas are wrong and should be quickly dismissed, allowing the discussion to move on to better things.

So if you don't agree with someone, the best course of action is not to engage them in a civil attempt to change their viewpoints, but rather to ostracize, ridicule, yell "shut up shut up SHUT UP!" and walk out the door?  Going back and forth in an echo chamber doesn't seem like the best way to expand minds and diversify viewpoints.  I would also posit that there are no such things as "unacceptable opinions," no matter how personally offensive they may be to you or me.

As to the point about "taking offense at being assumed gay = homophobia," I ask of any gay/lesbian readers in this room: do you get a tinge of uncomfortability/anger if somebody assumes you to be straight?

[tbones]

So if you don't agree with someone, the best course of action is not to engage them in a civil attempt to change their viewpoints, but rather to ostracize, ridicule, yell "shut up shut up SHUT UP!" and walk out the door?

Sorry to barge in but...
What? When in Tender's post did you read that the best course of action is to " ostracize, ridicule, yell "shut up shut up SHUT UP!" and walk out the door? "??

Tender only said that homophobia is wrong.  And i agree with him/her, if you have some personal choices that don't go along with homosexuality, that's your bussiness, but that doesn't mean you can discriminate people because of their sexual orientation.

[Armadillo]

So if you don't agree with someone, the best course of action is not to engage them in a civil attempt to change their viewpoints, but rather to ostracize, ridicule, yell "shut up shut up SHUT UP!" and walk out the door?

Sorry to barge in but...
What? When in Tender's post did you read that the best course of action is to " ostracize, ridicule, yell "shut up shut up SHUT UP!" and walk out the door? "??

Tender only said that homophobia is wrong.  And i agree with him/her, if you have some personal choices that don't go along with homosexuality, that's your bussiness, but that doesn't mean you can discriminate people because of their sexual orientation.

I should clarify.

My issue isn't with tender's point of view regarding sexual orientation/homophobia, rather the reaction towards those with a differing viewpoint, such as this quote:

"It's disappointing when tangents like these are left open for posters to discuss, as if those are acceptable opinions. Some ideas are wrong and should be quickly dismissed, allowing the discussion to move on to better things."

It's the use of the term "acceptable opinions" that raises my hackles the most; like I said earlier, I feel that there are no "unacceptable" opinions, no matter how offensive they may be.  He/she also seems to wish to control the dialogue, "dismissing" those opinions they find disagreeable, in order to "move on to better things."  To me, that's a closed-minded attitude taken, ironically, in order to further "open-mindedness."   

[Carl-E]

Oh, but there are  unacceptable opinions.  No matter how sincerely held, there are opinions that, at their root, are just wrong.  Doesn't make the holder an evil person (necessarily), but it doesn't reflect well on them either. 

The attempt to open the eyes/mind of such a person needs to be made.  Otherwise, they'll continue in the dark, and you've implicitly validated their opinion.  It doesn't need to be vehement or violent, nor does it need to end a friendship, but it needs to be done. 

The range of people in this forum is vast, in background, age and maturity.  For many, it's the first time some of these assumptions have ever been challenged.  Make the attempt to correct what's wrong, and you'll leave the place in better shape than it was before.  the improvements may not show for a while, but without the effort, change will never happen. 

[Fenriswolf]

Listen, the US House just passed a measure to cut Planned Parenthood funding by $300 million dollars Friday, there are bigger things to be outraged about.

Strangely, it's possible to care about more than one thing at a time. It's possible to fight the bill as hard as you can, and call people out on homophobia. 

[cabbagehut]

I, too would be put off to find someone assumed I was gay. What, am I acting effeminate or something??

I'm not gay, but I don't mind talking or interacting with someone gay - so long as they are at arm's length.
But seeing two guys kissing/getting it on? Revolting. Is it my DNA? My conditioning? I don't know and I don't care.

Slapping a label of 'Homophobia' on that would be wrong, too. Unlike my father's generation,
I don't feel gay men should have the shit kicked out of them merely for being gay.

No, that's... pretty much homophobia, and it's not wrong to say it is.  As others have noted, it doesn't have to be violent or dangerous to be homophobic.  I am curious about two things: do you think that there aren't gay people on this board that might read this and feel a little put off (good to know we only disgust you and you don't think we should be beaten for that), and secondly, do you feel the same way about gay women?  Lots of people are all right with two pretty girls kissing, but not so much with two men, pretty or not.  Also, you don't need to keep the gays at arm's length.  Everyone knows that the gay is only transmitted sexually.

As for the comic, Marten seems pretty fine with gay men - I don't consider him homophobic.  Especially after interacting with his father, and his support of his dad's desire for partnership, I don't think that he'd necessarily be offended that Padma thought he was gay with Steve.  Rather, I think he's just frustrated that Steve's monopolizing the conversation and seeming like he's not disclosing his relationship status (that might be concern for Cosette, or it might be jealousy of Padma's attention, both, or some other reason).  Steve, on the other hand, I'm not exactly sure.  He hasn't shown any real reasoning one way or the other, from what I can recall (and I may be mistaken!).

And the poster who said that the homophobia is projected, yes, it pretty much is.  Most of the responses have been about what other commenters on this board have said, but I think it's relevant to the comic itself.  Jacques has clearly made an effort to make realistic characters of many sexual orientations, and tried to be sensitive to them.  How the readers interpret that, and how people of those sexual orientations feel about the representation matter.  Gay people and homophobia are pretty common jokes, and they can either reinforce negative ideas about gay people and the like, or they can sort of undermine the humor in degrading other people.  I feel that this situation, we aren't supposed to laugh at the idea that Marten and Steve are gay, but rather that Padma keeps saying the wrong thing and that Steve and Marten do sometimes act like an old married couple.  

[Fenriswolf]

And the poster who said that the homophobia is projected, yes, it pretty much is.  Most of the responses have been about what other commenters on this board have said, but I think it's relevant to the comic itself.  Jacques has clearly made an effort to make realistic characters of many sexual orientations, and tried to be sensitive to them.  How the readers interpret that, and how people of those sexual orientations feel about the representation matter.  Gay people and homophobia are pretty common jokes, and they can either reinforce negative ideas about gay people and the like, or they can sort of undermine the humor in degrading other people.  I feel that this situation, we aren't supposed to laugh at the idea that Marten and Steve are gay, but rather that Padma keeps saying the wrong thing and that Steve and Marten do sometimes act like an old married couple.  

Yeah, I don't think anyone was ever arguing any of the characters were homophobic. Someone brought up that Marten should throw a drink in Padma's face for *gasp* assuming he's gay, and someone else argued that strong of a reaction is pretty homophobic, and it went from there. Complete with homophobic statements defended as, er, not homophobia.

We need to de-couple this concept of homophobic/other discriminatory belief=bad person. While they are not good traits, people have unfortunately come to the conclusion that, for example, homophobes are bad people, and I'm not a bad person, so I can't be homophobic. Er, no. We are somewhat socialised to be prejudiced, and recognising that prejudice and making an effort to change is what stops you being a "bad person", not attempting to change the definition of your behaviour.

[cabbagehut]

Yeah, I don't think anyone was ever arguing any of the characters were homophobic. Someone brought up that Marten should throw a drink in Padma's face for *gasp* assuming he's gay, and someone else argued that strong of a reaction is pretty homophobic, and it went from there. Complete with homophobic statements defended as, er, not homophobia.

We need to de-couple this concept of homophobic/other discriminatory belief=bad person. While they are not good traits, people have unfortunately come to the conclusion that, for example, homophobes are bad people, and I'm not a bad person, so I can't be homophobic. Er, no. We are somewhat socialised to be prejudiced, and recognising that prejudice and making an effort to change is what stops you being a "bad person", not attempting to change the definition of your behaviour.

I guess I just wanted to be clear about what I was saying.  Sorry if I was just stating the obvious!

And your second part - QUOTED FOR TRUTH.  Having homophobic beliefs absolutely does not make you a bad person.  You can have all sorts of wonderful qualities and still be a homophobe.  It's still bad and hurtful to be a homophobe, but it doesn't invalidate all the good things about a person.  People are very complex!  You said it much more eloquently than I could, and I guess I just wanted to reinforce it.

[cesariojpn]

By pwhodges's argument so far, the people that went ballistic are racist.

From a lighter I saw once: I don't discriminate, I hate everyone.

[pwhodges]

Like Kim Pine...  But does it make you happy?

[akronnick]

Oh.

It looks like this is going to be one of those threads... 

[Carl-E]

Going to be? 

Already is, has been, and...

<_<

>_>

...with a little luck, may calm down some...


[/wishful thinking]