ChicagoNow Arts & Entertainment

Hi Pinco, can you site some specific instances of where homophobia is not actually happening in my post? I cannot respond to you if you don't site examples.

Alicia, I will answer for Pinco as I agree with him. Let's begin with the issue of Caster Semenya's gender being called into question. This is hardly a new phenomenon in professional/amateur sports and is a very legitimate practice in sex-separate events. Simply because no-one question's whether a male athlete is, in fact, truly a male, doesn't mean that to question whether a female is a female is homophobic; it means that there's a question over unfair advantage. In fact, I would think that Caster's ability to keep her medal in spite of her being a hermaphrodite points to anything but homophobia. Let's move on to Governor Schwartzenegger cutting AIDS/HIV funding. While HIV/AIDS kills at an alarming rate in the developing world, it's hardly the modern plague it once was. 1 in 8 women will develop breast cancer in their life time...and this is not caused by anything but the ill luck of the draw, whereas HIV/AIDS has become, truly, solely, an STD/behavioral disease in the developed world (no longer transmitted by unfortunate blood transfusions, etc.). Now let's move on to Professor Thio Li-ann's position being revoked: if there's no better example of anti-homophobia, and, ironically, the quashing of the fee exchange of thoughts and ideas, I can't imagine one. This is a glaring example of 'I don't like something you believe in and therefore I don't want to learn ANYTHING from you and will prevent you from earning a living at all cost." Now, there's the example of the so-called "Homophobic neighbor "Disturbed" By Gay Cowboys..." MTV years ago disallowed airing Spring Break footage of women in slingshot bikinis because they were incredibly revealing and offensive to women. There's a clear parallel here; although the cowboys weren't being broadcast on national television, they were (unless proved otherwise-it's only 'questionable whether they were actually in plainsight') viewable by children. I don't mean to suggest that some of these incidents are truly reprehensible and homophobic, but I feel those I pointed out are hardly offensive and more based on commonsense.

Re: Caster Semenya, has it ever occurred to you that more than two genders exist in the world? First, hermaphrodite is an outdated and inaccurate term. The correct term is intersex, and there are many variations on it. As I mention in the text section of the photograph, this is a tricky case because it's not directly homophobia, but the LGBTQ community has discussed this case at great lengths because discrimination based on gender presentation and gender identity is implicit in homophobia.

Gov Schwarz cutting AIDS/HIV funding is alarming and unacceptable. From an article by gay journalist Rex Wockner: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/06/10/12002
"Some 35,000 working- and middle-class Californians who don

I'd be interested to hear you elaborate on how the Caster Semenya inquiry. I understand the nature of the complicated issues involved, but I think it is, at best, only tangentially related to homophobia.

ugh, it somehow cut my 1st sentence off. "...on how the Caster Semenya inquiry implies homophobia."

Alicia:

You use a very wide brush in painting others as homophobes.

According to your argument that Caster is intersexed and that 'more than two genders exist in the world': if this is so, then Caster is neither a male nor a female and should therefore not compete as either, thus barring her from competition until a third category is created to accommodate intersexed competitors. This is ridiculous, but it is the natural conclusion of your comment.

As for Gov. Schwartzenegger: How does making one of many cuts to a bankrupt state's budget make him homophobic? Unless you can prove he targeted homosexuals specifically (and when AIDS became widespread in the US and gays were excoriated, the Gay Community screamed that it wasn't a Gay-only issue; now it is?), instead of a sex-neutral issue, to label him a homophobe is rather base.

Regarding the professor: Would you stand up for a fundamentalist Christian who doesn't believe in equal rights for homosexuals and who feels he/she shouldn't have to take a class from someone who believes in gay rights? The First Amendment works both ways...not just your way.

Finally, the comparison to the gay cowboy/MTV issue, I think, does make sense. The neighbor has been labeled 'homophobic' because he "most likely" used a zoom and it's only 'quesitonable whether they were in plainsight.' There seems to be a lot of conjecture on your part, and the part of many others, who seem quick to cry 'homophobia' at those who take issue with opinions different from yours...and frankly, mine.

Carrie Prejean: I don't agree with her views; I do believe she is entitled to them, however and to lose her crown for holding those beliefs is just as reprehensible as it would be were a pageant winner to lose her title for professing gay rights.

As for Adam Lambert: How desperately hypocritical for a network to pull sponsorship/appearances from a man who kissed another when a teenaged Brittany Spears kissing Madonna is viewed as shocking but goes 'unpunished.' With the growing prevalence of gay men on prime time TV, I would think execs would have a clue. But, complaints from viewers cannot go unnoticed when a corporation is held to a financial responsibility to shareholders. It's unfortunate, but in this case, the voices of those who are homophobic were a little louder than those who aren't. The same goes for voters striking down gay marriage rights. It's sad, unfortunate, and shameful, but until the lgbtq community can change mindsets, this will continue.

The soldier being drummed out of the military? Reprehensible. I've heard him speak, and he's incredibly powerful and moving to hear. I'm disgusted by the military's actions, and, yes, this is homophobia.

Caster? Schwartzenegger? Li-ann? Upset neighbor? These incidents are not born of homophobia.

Was Lambert's appearance canceled because he kissed a guy, or because he kissed a guy AND had a guy simulate going down on him? Compared to that Spears/Madonna was a quick peck on the cheek. Anybody remember the outrage over "nipplegate" from the Super Bowl a couple years back. Lambert's performance was incredibly inappropriate for broadcast TV even by today's basement level standards.

Personally I think that same sex marriage is a civil rights issue and the state has no place preventing it. That said, Carrie Prejean is entitled to believe as she does. Frankly it's consistent with mainstream christian dogma, and Hilton was out of line to ask about it.

And finally, if medical costs have to be cut, treatment for a disease that is almost 100% avoidable should be at the top of the list. Gay is not a lifestyle, but HIV is a lifestyle sickness. It is (mostly) the result of unprotected sex or intravenous drug use. I don't feel any more sympathy for the man or woman who contracted the disease from unprotected sex with a stranger or sharing of hypodermic's than the paraplegic who jumped off the roof imitating Jackass. The fault is theirs, why should society bear the burden?

I misspelt "Eler" as "Eisler" - sorry about that!

It is a complete and utter fallacy to label Arnold's cutting AIDS research as homophobia. In the academic world this is a common mistake caused from confusing causation and correlation. If Arnold cut the funding because he hated GL's that is causation if he did it because he had to cut massive amounts of money and that was just one program cut that is correlation. One is a sign of homophobia and one is not. Moreover, if the reactions to Adam Lambert's actions were a result of homophobia, what about the reaction to Janet Jackson' wardrobe malfunction? Again, just because it happens to a gay or lesbian does not make it homophobia, there again is that causation/correlation confusion. Being gay or straight does not give one a license to be tacky. Semenya's treatment was deplorable, not because of the question of whether or not she can compete, but because of the violation of her privacy. Contrary to your post, if her body is producing testoterone it IS a huge advantage for a woman athlete. In that case she will be justifiably disqualified from competing in women's athletics. Your medical ethics arguments have very little support even among a lot of people who hold some of your views. For example, many medical ethicist have argued that since HIV/AIDS is so preventable too much money is being spent on finding a cure that may not even be possible. The money would be better spent on prevention or to find cures for other diseases that cause similar rates of death but have a better liklihood of cure.

How is gender presentation and gender identity an implicit part of homophobia? Just curious as I believe homophobia has more to do with homosexuality than gender?

the last example of 'homophobia' was especially comical. gays are not the first people to ever be harassed by cops, and certainly won't be the last--especially in the south.

What's so funny about that, joey? This is a serious case of homophobia, and is eerily reminiscent of the Stonewall Riots of 1969 that set off the modern day gay movement.

Sorry I wasted my time reading this crap.

"You should learn how to spell before posting a comment"...what an elitist comment. You shouldn't criticize that man or woman for not being able to spell. It was just how they were born. You misspellaphobic!

This whole article was comical!!

1. Carrie Prejean - she has a right to both her religious beliefs and views on marriage. Carrie was simply trying to express her feelings in as nice a way as possible given that the question was thrust upon her suddenly.

If anyone in the LGBTQ community tries to discriminate against her or others because of such religion-based beliefs, that is still discrimination. It's hypocritical to decry discrimination by discriminating against those who disagree with you.

2. Question 1 (and other legislation nationally) - democracy works most of the time, and sometimes the voting majority do not support a measure, whether it be about gay marriage, transit taxes, or pay raises for corrupt politicians. While still a close majority voted against it, supporters should take heart that the vote was so close. Given more time and less anti-religious hate from some activists might convince more people who are middle-of-the-road to begin to support such measures.

3. Adam Lambert + ABC - when 1,000+ callers complain to the right ears, any company management begins to listen, regardless of the company or industry. Perhaps ABC's reaction was knee-jerk but it was certainly not without some thought. The fact that CBS took the opportunity doesn't really speak to the issue because rival networks do this regularly and quite frankly, CBS is a half-step above NBC, which is in the toilet and waiting to be flushed.

There's three examples for you, and there may be more. The Uganda and Iraqi issues have gotten very little airtime that I have noticed. Perhaps the LGBTQ community should ratchet up voices about those as they are clearly wrong in any circumstance.

1. Carrie Prejean's views are bigoted. Just because her viewpoint is an actual viewpoint doesn't mean they can't be homophobic. No different than the viewpoints of those who opposed civil rights and women's suffrage.

2. Just because it's done legally doesn't make it right. The law used to allow slavery and denied women the right to vote. This is no different.

3. This is the most obvious. A man and a woman kissing is fine. A woman and a woman kissing (Britney and Madonna, for example) is cover page material. But two men? Can't have that. And why? Because of the homophobic people who complained.

What else you got?

Nice try, but linking gay marriage to 'civil rights' is lame.

Racial discrimination is based on the premise that one race is superior, and that other races are inferior - based SOLELY on race. No one is arguing that gays are inferior. No one is denying them any of the Constitutionally protected rights we all enjoy. In fact, if you consider the anti-gay 'hate crime' legislation, I would argue that gays have a superior position under our laws to that of heterosexuals.

"Civil rights" doesn't only pertain to race. They're the rights afforded to citizens, and are meant to be the basic undeniable freedoms associated with citizenship.

Great post!! And your responses were very well handled! :-)

I

Did Brit plant her face between Madonna's thighs the way Lambert pulled the face of one of his dancers to his crotch? He could have gotten away with the kiss just like Spears and Madonna, but the simulated sex act? Please, you don't think that was worthy of a cancelled appearance?

More than anything Carrie Prejean is an idiot - regardless of her views. She IS homophobic by definition, regardless of whether or not it was just being raised that way. It just means her family is homophobic too.

I wrote a whole long response and, apparently, ChicagoNow didn't like it! :-P

In lieu of that response, I will respond to you, Mia.

As far as I can tell (I didn't follow the whole ordeal closely), she didn't agree with gay marriage. What is homophobic about that? In my deleted comment, I talked about a friend who is in the theater community here. He has many gay co-workers and friends. In no way is he homophobic. Yet, he doesn't agree with gay marriage. It's nothing against his friends or co-workers.

I have a feeling that most of what's going on here is a lack of understanding of the term "homophobia."

Actually, she believes in "Opposite Marriage". So, I guess she and your friend are just fond of discrimination and not homophobic.

Had to know that was coming.

"If you don't believe what I believe, you are a bigot." Nice, Mia.

No, they are homophobes too. They have an irrational fear of gays.

Good to know that a person who has no intimate knowledge of another person can label them a homophobe.

Good to know that a person who has no intimate knowledge of another person can label them a homophobe.

Prejean was homophobic, how? Just because you don't believe in rights to same-sex marriage doesn't make you homophobic.

I believe everyone has the right to be as miserable as straight people (and get married), but I also respect Prejeans opinion and that she had the balls to stand up for it. YOU are discriminating on HER for what she said, get it?

Yeah, you're discriminating against the discriminators who have a God-given right to discriminate without recrimination!

Come on, ChicagoDogGal. It's not discrimination when you're fighting for EQUAL rights.

I am all for anyone being allowed to marry whoever they like, but there are too many misnomers in this 'struggle' to get me motivated to help. "Homophobic" being brandished upon those who simply disagree with the actions of homosexuals is bad enough, but 'equal rights' takes the cake. What you want are new laws that protect the interests of homosexuals. Currently, there are equal rights--any man is allowed to marry a woman, regardless of the man's sexuality. For example, I'm straight but that does not afford me any more rights than a gay man has, as neither of us are allowed to marry another man. Maybe you should come up with some more accurate terms instead of going for shock value.

You need motivation to help? Is denying entire groups of people the right to marry the person they love not enough? Your argument dismisses the fact that gay men don't marry women, and lesbians don't marry men. So while all people have equal rights, the law doesn't recognize that some people have no use for the right to marry only members of the opposite sex.

Poor Adam Lambert. Did NBC receive massive complaints when Will and Grace (or countless other TV shows) showed two guys kissing on national network TV almost 10 years ago? No. Most people don't have a problem with that anymore, and I think that's progress. If Will and Jack ever simulated fellacio on an episode (or Grace and Will, for that matter) do you think people would have had a problem with that? Absolutely, and rightfully so.

Adam Lambert's crass and tasteless display at the AMAs was much less about "two guys kissing" than about him crossing the line of decency with his shoving of a guy's face into his crotch, again on national primetime network TV. "Hey, this is who I am, deal with it," he says. Ok, we'll deal with it on LOGO or Cinemax. Not on prime-time network TV Adam, thank you very much.

It's too easy to chalk up peoples' disgust with Adam Lambert on the AMAs to "homophobia." It was about decency, and time and place. Wrong time and wrong place Adam. Have some decency for crying out loud, kids are watching.

As an openly gay woman, I totally agree with you about this. I don't think the kissing was the issue - it was the way in which the kissing and head grinding into crotch took place.

I'd like to declare a moratorium on the "too much on his plate" argument--Obama's the president of the United States, not a diner at Denny's, and he has hundreds of thousands of people under him helping take care of his day-to-day and long-term tasks. We hired him to do the toughest job in the world; to claim now that he isn't up to the challenge is asinine.

Also, the "everyone's entitled to his opinion" statement doesn't work here. Sometimes a person's opinion, for example, is that all blacks should be put to death. That's a totally F-ed up opinion, but an opinion nonetheless--and true, whoever thinks that has the right to think it, but the rest of us have every right (and, some might argue, an outright responsibility) to speak out against such hateful opinion, to fight against such opinions from being turned into policy and, then, into action. Similarly, GLBT people are fighting constantly against prejudice from people across a whole spectrum of homophobia. Carrie Prejean speaking out against gay marriage is the lighter end of the spectrum, and the proposed death penalty for homosexual behavior in Uganda is the other--but no matter how severe the homophobia is, it's still wrong, and something that Ms. Eler has every right to speak out against (and some of the commenters on here, unfortunately, have the right to totally misunderstand).

The 'decency' defense has been used to target queers for a really really long time. You're right, kissing probably wasn't the issue. That being said, the things which are labeled as 'indecent' aren't simple, apolitical things.

mbayles, the outcry over Janet Jackson's nipple slip and Justin Timberlake's ripping off her top (rather violent and can be considered pro-rape if you really want to dissect it) was a HUGE hoopla issue. They were thrashed for decency laws and rightfully so. The fact that Janet was much more harshly attacked for it than Justin just goes to show that sexism is still alive and well. To claim that everything negative someone has to say about the actions of a homosexual is homophobic is just like claiming that if a white person disagrees with the opinions or actions of a black person they are racist. But the same doesn't hold true if a black person disagrees with the opinions or actions of a white person. Or if two people of the same race disagree. Case in point, I can't walk without tripping over an accusation by those who scream racism when a white person doesn't agree with a policy Obama put forth. An argument I highly doubt would occur should Obama be 100% Caucasian. Basically, you can't have it both ways.

In response to people who think Mr. Obama is not moving fast enough to support the LGBT movement, you might want to notice he has more to do than any human being can handle, but in spite of that he is about to pass health care, he has laid a foundation for diplomatic relations with countries around the world who are important to American interests, he has completely revamped the American approach to war designing efforts to train indigents to protect themselves before withdrawing - all following an urgent effort to keep the economy from total collapse,which is beginning to show signs of growth, and now with getting people jobs until the growth blossoms into abundant opportunity. None of this was done haphazardly, but with a carefully thought out plan to solve social and economic issues this country has developed through the past few decades at the same time money is being funneled into the economy to spur growth. Whew! He did all that in eleven months. Most of the world acknowledges his contributions for the health of us all. It is time the LGBT community did the same.

But I don't want to marry a woman, I want to marry a man.

As an aside, this was the exact argument offered in support of anti-miscegenation laws in the 50s and 60s (note: not only was it illegal, but it was also criminalized; in fact, it was a felony in some states). The argument was: laws prohibiting miscegenation were providing equal protection because they applied equally to all races; you aren't any more free as a white to marry a black, than a black to marry a white. It's the same logic, right? The Supreme Court struck down the laws as unconstitutional and referred to marriage as one of the 'basic rights of man.' They went on to recognize that the only possible reason for the law was invidious discrimination. It seems to me that the exact same analysis applies here. The obvious rebuttal is that we didn't enslave individuals according to their sexual orientation, then proceed to restrict their civil rights for a century. Regardless, I still think the same argument applies.

I am not sure that it is fair to call Governor Schwarzenegger homophobic due to the cuts in HIV/AIDS funding. First all the Governor did was to propose the cuts, it was the legislature that actual made the cuts. Second the state had and still has a huge deficit and cuts were made in every program, so it was not like this was just targeted at the gay community. Larger cuts were made to home health care workers and to schools and prisons so does that also make him anti old people, students, teachers and criminals? And third HIV/AIDS is not just a gay disease it affects both the gay community and the straight community, so while I may not approve of the cuts I think that you are assigning a motive that is not based in fact.

It was more about the act of cutting HIV/AIDS funding. Think about it.

She is not homophobic because she doesn't believe in gay marriage. I respect her right to her opinion. She may have personal religious reasons, too. I think it was wrong of people to criticize her, when reality is, most of the US is probably not for gay marriage, and they shouldn't be afraid to voice their opinions for fear of being labeled "homophobic." It's not so easy because marriage is a longstanding institution between man/woman, it's difficult to change that in peoples minds. And what about the other implications- Taxes, health insurance, etc? Straight people want to know how that will affect them. (im just sayin)

You know what, I would be more receptive to arguments of those opposed to same sex marriage if they actually were concerned with how gay marriage would effect them. If they could make some logical arguments using legitimate research that demonstrates how it will significantly affect them in an adverse way, I would say that their acting in their own self-interest is natural. However, I don't think thats the case. I think the opposition to gay marriage primarily bases their argument on the "longstanding institution" and the value of tradition arguments. I don't think that they really try to make any other argument at all.

Re: #17, I assume you do realize that the misguided state senator's was opposed to honoring Harvey Milk, rather than Sean Penn. Perhaps you could use a picture of the courageous politician himself rather than the actor who portrayed him in a film.

MILK the movie brought more visibility to Harvey Milk, so I decided to use an image that probably more people recognize. I will make a note of that in the credits.

Homophobic means fear of homosexuals. It is a misuse of the word. Most people don't fear them. (Maybe some do) but a lot of people, like me, don't fear them, we just disagree with their preferances. (spelling?)

Sealbee, first you should learn how to spell before you post a comment.

Second, homophobia comes in many shapes and forms. It can happen on a personal level (e.g. bar raids, football coaches yelling fag), as well as the state and governmental level (e.g. passing laws like Don't Ask Don't Tell, not passing Employee Non-Discrimination Act).

You say that you "disagree with homosexuals' preferences," which makes no sense because being gay is not a choice. No one is sitting around disagreeing with your heterosexuality, you are not a target of hate crimes, you don't have to fear losing your job because of your sexuality, you can get married and enjoy tax breaks. These are all things that gay and lesbian people do NOT enjoy because of the way they are. That is not fair, and you don't have the right or power to decide who should be able to enjoy rights that all people deserve.

"Sealbee, first you should learn how to spell before you post a comment."

This is coming from a 'writer' who doesn't know the difference between 'cite' and 'site'?

Ad hominem attacks the best you can do?

I am sure someone could make the argument for anything being a choice. They could say gays choose to act-out their gay lifestyle.

I don't think it's a choice, in America we're all entitled to pursuit of happiness, and if you are gay your are gay, you have the right to find happiness and marriage.

I will tell you why I like gay people, and it might offend you, but it's true- The earth is already overpopulated and its growing too fast, and gay couples don't reproduce, so I like that. Ok, it's a valid reason pro gays. I also think gays are less likely to be judgmental or hateful of others.

Also, I am not very familiar with the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy and how it affects the LGT community, anyone care to elaborate? What is your opinion on it?

DogGal, Don't Ask Don't Tell was implemented by President Clinton, and it prohibits gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. That means that if gay or lesbian people disclose their sexuality, they will be discharged. Quote from Wikipedia article: "The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces."

Gay and lesbian people have given their life for this country, and being able to serve openly is the least the U.S. Government should allow them to do. It is an issue of dignity.

How would you like it if you couldn't do something just because of your sexuality which, I might add, is NOT a choice?

More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell

This is not 100% true. While I don't agree with the concept of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, your claim that Clinton implemented this law to prohibit gays from serving 'openly' in the military is incorrect. The law was implemented to prevent the military from forcing a person to divulge their sexuality and then discharge or punish them for it. This law actually gave homosexuals the ability to serve in the military without fear of being 'forced' to declare their sexuality. It was also done to protect said military personnel from being harassed or harmed by actual homophobes within the military. I don't know how old you are, but I'm old enough to remember the debate on this clearly when it was occurring. Before this law, it was MUCH more difficult for a homosexual to serve in the military and if he/she was harmed or prosecuted by the military for their sexual orientation, they had no ability to defend themselves and seek recourse. This law opened the door for that to happen.

It's not 100% perfect at all, by any means, but this law was a step in the right direction, to 'protect' the rights of homosexuals and allowing them to serve. The debate on this was huge as HIV/AIDS was still considered very much a 'gay' disease and the risk to other military personnel who would have to come to the aid of a fallen comrade and risk their own health was a hot button issue. Yes, this can occur with a straight person too, but during the time period of this law, HIV/AIDS wasn't as prevalent in the straight community.

I understand your logic, but you are only reporting one side of the argument, which isn't supporting your views very well.

Do you think its fair? Sounds better than how it was before, but still not totally fair. If straight people can talk to other military people about their boyfriend/husband/etc or their straight sex life, and gays can't?

Citing a disagreement over a gay marriage as major 2009 homophobic act tells me that there is very little homophobia indeed in this country but a lot of cry babies among gays. Gays are much better educated and make much more money, on average, compared to straight folks so I would like to see some numbers supporting the discrimination claims.

Gays are tolerated quite well in the U.S. but they demand acceptance. I tolerate my smoking family members but I will never accept smoking cigarettes myself.

Disagreeing with a gay on gay issues does not make me a homophobic as disagreeing with a black person on race issues does not make me a racist. This would assume that a gay or a black person cannot do wrong at all and cannot be criticized on their respective issues and or behaviors. Nice try but it is intellectually dishonest and designed to shut down the opposite views on the altar of political correctness.

Gay community, and especially male part of it, would do better if it neither tolerated nor accepted completely irresponsible practice of unprotected sex with multiple partners per week. Outside of morality context, this is a criminal behavior i.e. knowingly spreading the disease. And it is followed by the subsequent complaints about the lack of funding to eradicate it. It is irresponsible and dangerous as would be for a straight person to have unprotected sex while knowingly infected.

Thus, one can make a point that homophobia is not the issue. Maybe it is the reaction to completely irresponsible behavior of a part of a group without the rest of the group not willing to do anything to address it but demanding more rights and understanding? And how about demanding acceptance of outrageous behavior on stages with kids watching.

Just tired of spoiled brats whining and demanding acceptance for irresponsibility.

I'm a writer on the queer left who thinks that marriage is a conservative cause, and the gay community needs to stop wasting its resources on this issue. I also don't believe in expending any energy on DADT, given my issues with the military, and I think that hate crimes legislation is simply another way to add to the coffers of the prison industrial complex.

The point I'm making is that not everyone in the gay/queer community is unilaterally for what are considered the main causes of queers everywhere, despite what pro-gay supporters on this blog might have to write. And I do think that some of these issues are complex - in the case of Carrie Prejean, for instance, I was probably more incensed by Perez Hilton's unabashedly misogynistic comments about her than by Prejean's comment about gay marriage. I think the aftermath of Prop 8 showed the gay community's willingness to throw people of colour under the bus, by vehemently blaming them for the loss.

That being said, it's worth looking at this collection of moments as moments which exemplify the lack of any real conversation on what counts as homophobia. Which is to say, while I understand the thrust of the objections that some people have about casting some of these moments as homophobic, their follow-through or explanations reveal a lot about a general inability to discern how complicated homophobia can be.

Eisler is right to point out that gender and sexuality are deeply connected, and that the fear of a woman who won't look and behave like one is deeply connected to homophobia (as in Caster Semenya's case). The Ugandan example is a blatant example of homophobia - how can you see it as otherwise? So I find it interesting that no one has picked that apart. An opposition to Harvey Milk day? Well, some of us could argue for that on a rational basis, perhaps, given that his achievements have been somewhat deified - BUT, and here's the BUT - it would be naive to think that opposing the day, driven by the religious right, was anything but plain homophobia. The same is true of even DADT - how is it not homophobic to decide that gays and lesbians should not be in the army?

So, if you don't think any of these moments are homophobic, fine, say so, but explain why you think so. And let's not sweep the entire lot of examples away - that, sadly, only indicates a certain homophobic desire to not have anyone be critical of the straight world. When you write things like, "Have some decency for crying out loud, kids are watching," in response to the Adam Lambert moment, you are choosing to ignore the vast amounts of gratuitous straight sex that's allowed to make its way onto television. Your cry for decency inherently imagines that gay sex is the problem, not sex itself.

In short, it's fine to have a conversation about what constitutes homophobia. But perhaps it would be helpful for some of us to question whether our resistance comes about because we're genuinely questioning how homophobia is being defined in a particular instance here, or because we just feel too much of the "ick" factor when it comes to homosexual moments. In which case, we may well be exposing our homophobia.

As for the gay supporters, whether or not you're gay yourself, please don't assume that every gay/queer shares your politics on marriage and the rest. I understand that homophobes often resist gay marriage for homophobic reasons, but please respect the fact that lots of gays and queers are sick and tired of marriage and DADT sucking away our time and energy into conservative causes. You're not helping any cause by simplifying matters so greatly.

This.

Many of the moments were debatable, sure, but they're not really being debated here successfully. I also happen to agree that marriage is a total red herring for gay people. Why buy into that system? I think the idea of rewarding people just for tying the knot is ridiculous. If gay people really wanted to "ruin" straight marriage, they'd go out and marry a member of the opposite sex, grab the bennies, and get back in bed with their same-sex sweetheart. They could ruin it right now by doing this, actually.

Dan Choi getting fired was an excellent career move for him, and a poor one by the army. The idea that there are people here right now who are willing to fight overseas for our government but can't because of the nature of their partner's genitalia is ridiculous. You couldn't pay me enough to go over there and get shot at. So I'll be the "[homo] with two legs," as Chris Rock says.

Thanks, Amillar7.

And you might be interested in this piece as well:

http://www.bilerico.com/2009/11/against_equality_in_maine_and_everywhere.php

I posted it below as below, but fear that it will get lost in the flurry.

Marriage Benefits (1,138) Here are a few:

Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran

not simply because of the mockery made by so many on the right by what the right considers 'traditional family values,' but because i feel love cannot be bound by feelings only of one sex towards the opposite, do i feel those of the same sex should be granted the right to marry. so many people seem to believe and purport that 'marriage' is a institution that is rooted in religious tradition, and they use this belief to argue against same sex marriage. one needs not look too far back to realize that even the notion of 'courtly love' is a relatively new institution and that until recently, marriage was nothing more than a way to solidify treaties among warring countries. for the love of god (and I use this term without irony), wake up and let gays marry and enjoy all the benefits that we heteros enjoy. what's the worry?

Well, here's a question for you, DeviantDyke - how about working toward a society where nobody gets these benefits purely because of their marital status? It's not impossible - that's how things function in Canada and Scandinavia.

How about working for a society where people who are not married aren't treated unfairly and don't have to depend on their partners for basic human rights like healthcare? That's also not impossible. I suggest Nancy Polikoff's book, Beyond Straight and Gay Marriage, as an excellent resource.

Yes. I was thinking about this later last afternoon. I was thinking more along civil unions and increasing those benefits.

However, I see what you mean. It would be a great move for American but can America handle doing it is the question. It would uproot our entire system and our very identity would change. I'm not sure how long something like that would take.

For now, the steadfast "easy" approach imo is to hit one law. Instead of one hundred or more. It focuses the energy even if the government and it's citizens flip flop back and forth.

Thanks for the resource. I'll check it out!

You're welcome, DeviantDyke.

I understand the issue of incremental change versus larger changes, but those changes to our system are already happening in various ways. Given our resistance to something as basic as health care, which should be considered a human right, I understand the questioning around cultural shifts in marriage. But, again, we've already moved to a time when most people are not married, and where divorce is on the rise.

And, here's a piece about how marriage sucks our energy and resources:

http://www.bilerico.com/2009/11/against_equality_in_maine_and_everywhere.php

I also forgot to mention that Polikoff has a blog as well, and it's worth checking out for more resources:

http://beyondstraightandgaymarriage.blogspot.com/

Have a great if somewhat chilly weekend, everyone.

Whether or not each of these examples is directly homophobic is not the issue. These are all examples of people being mistreated or of the government turning its back on people in need. Eler's piece reminds us that despite the strides we've made, there is still enormous injustice worldwide. Why not spend your energy arguing something that really matters, rather than how to categorize blatant examples of injustice?

It is the issue. If she wanted to talk about the government turning its back on people in need, she should have titled it appropriately. Instead, she labeled it "homophobia." That is a problem. You can't just walk around declaring things like that. It's like when a minority cries "racism" when, in fact, it is not a racist action.

Wow, the amount of heat surrounding this post is astounding to me.

Firstly, I would like to comment on all issues of government and marriage equality. While people like Carrie Prejean and the NOM have a right to their views on marriage equality, The state law-makers who are voting on issues like Prop 8 and Question 1 really don't. The only reason why, as far as I can understand, folks are opposed to marriage equality is because organized religion is in such vehement opposition to it.

According to the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution(http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1), separation of church and state is a major tenet of our democracy. When legislators vote against a legal marriage between two people who are in love, they are bringing religion into the mix, and that is just not right.

The same goes for the actions of police officers or any other government official.

And Adam Lambert, well you can just read here to see how I feel about that http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/sex-windy-city/2009/11/adam-lamberts-ama-performance-whats-all-the-fuss.html.

When all is said and done, I think that regardless of how you feel about the LGBTQ community, there is a level of respect that needs to be found for their RIGHT to realize the American Dream, just as much as all of us straight people do. A little "live and let live" would go a long way in all of these instances. (Except with the Governator, that's just irresponsible.)

Your link is broken :~

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

The struggle for equality is something that happens in all fronts.

For same-sex loving people (or people whose gender and sexual identity varies) our political needs are diverse. Not everyone needs the same things, and that's ok.

The struggle for marriage equality is an issue that impacts mostly poor same-sex couples because they don't have the financial resources to stabilize their families, in the way that someone like Ellen Degeneres and Portia de Rossi do. It's a great cause and important to put our political muscle behind.

But if we ignore health care reform, discrimination or violence aimed at us, we're losing out.

This is a great list of challenges to GLBT people this year. Thanks for putting it together Alicia!

Let me just repeat, as a leftist queer who thinks that gay marriage is a red herring and consumes too much of our time:
The queer community is by no means unanimous on the topic and there is ample evidence that many are in fact against it (see link below). Marriage rates are declining overall, and the current health care crisis is a harsh reminder that we need to work towards a system that guarantees basic rights, like health, education, and visitation rights without an emphasis on marital status.

The notion that gay marriage affects mostly poor same-sex couples is a specious one - when two poor people get married, they double their poverty, especially in this economy. If they're dependent on one person for health care, both stand to lose it if one loses a job. Marriage will not guarantee you health care or a steady income or job protection - only a strong labor movement can guarantee that.

As for evidence that gay marriage is a meaningless cause being pushed down our throats by a privileged set of gays and lesbians, here's a link that will dispel any notions that this is a unifying cause. This piece demonstrates that gay marriage is sucking away the community's resources for health care and social services:

http://www.bilerico.com/2009/11/against_equality_in_maine_and_everywhere.php

Let's clear up the definition of what homophobia really is.

HOMOPHOBIA is the irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.

The key word here is IRRATIONAL which means : not rational: as a (1) : not endowed with reason or understanding (2) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence b : not governed by or according to reason

So yes, people like Carrie Prejean are entitled to their opinions but her opinion is not rationally based. It is based on her gut, her church and how she interprets the Bible which I'm sure she reads when she's not making videos of herself diddling her privates.

When people quote the Bible as justification for their beliefs it is homophobia because it is based on faith rather than critical thinking. So you can defend an anti-gay position all you want, but I triple dog dare you to do it RATIONALLY.

Out of curiosity, will you point me to the places where Carrie Prejean expanded upon her anti-gay marriage stance?

I haven't looked into it, but it would seem like you have since you are declaring her opinion to be irrational.

Out of curiosity, will you point me to the places where Carrie Prejean expanded upon her anti-gay marriage stance?

I haven't looked into it, but it would seem like you have since you are declaring her opinion to be irrational.

Sorry for the double post.

I've been having problems with ChicagoNow's comment section all day long.

She pretty much mentions it on every single media appearance she has made. It's really is the only reaosn peopel want to talk to her. I suggest youtube to view video or maybe buy her book- she writes about it in there too.

oooookkkaaayyy....so you're saying that to hold a belief that has been passed on to you generationally is irrational? I'd argue the contrary: that for Carrie Prejean NOT to be anti-gay marriage in spite of being raised in her church as she was and being taught it by parents and her community would be irrational.

Beliefs are NOT rational, they are beliefs. You may value them but please don't call it rational.

Ms Prejean could very likely grow up in a church believing all sorts of things as a result of her upbringing- it doesn't make it reasonable or rational.

Marc: Here's another issue where I don't agree with the position held by the person castigated for her beliefs, but where I can't find agreement with you based on your argument. Carrie's belief may not be rational in your eyes (or mine, for that matter), but to hold that belief based on her history is perfectly rational.

Let's take the Mormon religion. I would suggest that, were I around in the late 1800's, I would view someone who claimed to, literally, pull his faith out of a hat, to be irrational. I would also suggest that if I were to live in SLC today, born of Mormon parents who were born of Mormon parents who were born of Mormon parents, to believe Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet would be completely rational.

You, Marc, believe that gays should be granted the right to marry. (I believe this as well.) But by your argument, you simply hold a belief in your head, not a fact, and you, too, are being irrational.

Isn't this just oversimplification? I'd like to think that people believe that gays should be allowed to marry for some pretty logical reasons, not simply because we're am caught in some cultural zeitgeist. Further, aren't you conflating rationality and reasonableness with probability? You're definitely stripping it of some meaning. Do you think that if I told you that I could fly, it would be more rational to believe that claim in 100 years? Things don't get more or less rational right? Does it have to do with the amount of information we have? If so, shouldn't Carrie's beliefs be compared to a general body of knowledge, or at least supported by some sort of logical argument?

Chicago: I don't think this is an oversimplification at all. I think it is quite relevant. If you tell me today that you can fly and I think you're a nut, frankly, 100 years from now my offspring likely would think the same because I will not have believed you upon inception and thus would have if not discouraged, not have suggested my progeny follow your ridiculous claim.

However, were I a simpleton who bought your line, and were I to raise my offspring in full conviction of your ability to fly, and they to raise their offspring in the same conviction...and they in turn to raise their offspring in full conviction of your ability to fly, I would think that that generation of my progeny would, in fact, believe that you, on this day, could have flown. That is the rational conclusion of a deep seeded belief.

If I told you today that it was natural for two men to love each other and you in turn raised your children to believe the same...and they raised their children to believe the same...and so-on...wouldn't the natural result be for your progeny to believe, say 100 years from now, in spite of the possible widespread dismissal of my initial claim, to be, yes, it's natural for two men to love each other?

Or does this argument apply only to what you believe in?

Ok, i think we are having a serious disconnect on th e meaning of the term rational. I am using the term rational to mean "consistent with or based on reason," or something similar. So lets take the example where you are a simpleton and I am flying. Say you tell your kids that I could fly, and they tell their kids that I could fly. That in no way makes the concept of an individual flying based on reason. It makes it based on trust that the individual before you was telling you the truth, despite all of the evidence in the world indicating that humans cannot fly. That is completely irrational. This is obviously hyperbole, but I think it gets my point across. Standards of rationality develop based on the information being computed right? In the example of me flying, your progeny would be basing their conclusion in contradiction to everything around them; in fact, humans cannot fly.

This goes back to my previous point in that I think there are legitimate reasons based in sound logic to think that gays should be allowed to marry: they have demonstrated to be apt child rearers, as a demographic they are significantly more educated than the rest of society, their being together does not affect other marriages or social structures in any way, etc. etc. etc. Maybe those statements are a bit contentions and can be debated. But to base your argument in "thats now how I was raised" or "thats not what my belief system tells me," and then to say that it is rational just seems silly to me.

Chicago: First, let me reiterate, as I've done in previous posts, that I believe in and support unconditionally same-sex marriages. I'm also not arguing in favor of the beliefs of any of those people whom I'm defending against the label of 'homophobe.' I'm simply defending them against being labeled thus.

I guess I'm just cheesed at people like Carrie Prejean being given any consideration for anything, really. I mean, she was Miss freaking America for a few hours, not Madame Secretary of State. Hasn't that whole pageant been kicked off regular prime-time broadcast anyway for its irrelevance? Hasn't society long since deemed the title of Miss America pretty...meaningless? Haven't we all as a society grown tired of our own jokes about Donald Trump and his taking over the 'contest' simply as a way to get laid? Look at us all...all of us. We're actually lumping in some dopey blonde's bubble-headed comments with the gruesome murder of some poor child in Puerto Rico. I came to her defense for no better reason than I see her as some insignificant being who's being burdened with the weight of a community eager to criticize any individual or community that will criticize them...regardless of their significance. Do we really care what some girl who goes through life cashing in on her smile THINKS? Do you believe anyone even believes or cares about whether she can think? Isn't is desperately sad and telling how there has been a dearth of comments on the sergeant drummed out of the military based on the DADT policy? Instead we've focused on media fabricated pseudo celebrities and whether or not HIV/AIDS is a gay-only or a universal disease. We can disguise our fascination by arguing whether or not Carrie's beliefs are rational or irrational, but what we're really arguing is whether or not she's relevant. And, sadly, I think that's the one point we seem to be in total agreement on. Of all damned things.

Umm. I absolutely think she is a dipshit, and I wish she never would have been given a pulpit to preach from. But unfortunately whether she is being rational or irrational matters. There were countless individuals who flocked to support her upon her wide-spread criticism. Her view is defended by millions. It should be called out for the irrational BS it is. Criticizing her rationality is criticizing he rationality of the position/argument at large. For that reason, it is important.

Guess what the rationale behind DODT is? It is that an effective military couldn't function with homosexuals in it because it would create social problems, or make people uncomfortable or insubordinate, etc. Guess why it makes people feel/act that way? Because its how they were raised and its what they believe. The rationality of those beliefs is absolutely relevant.

Okay, Marc, let's clarify this RATIONALLY for you: whether you like to admit it or not, the Bible is an ancient text (and book of oral tradition) that most of mankind has followed for many, many centuries. It has been interpreted in many and vast ways, and its words have been subjected to the scrutiny of a variety of translations. But what has remained has been, and continues to be, an adherence to text unlike any other ever presented to mankind. It has been the basis of tradition unlike any other mankind has ever witnessed. Adherence to its word has been passed down not just from generation to generation, but from century to century. Its lessons have been engrained in peoples' psyches since its inception. Many close-minded folk have interpreted 'no man shall lay down with another' as the word of God saying homosexuality is wrong. I take your 'triple dog dare' and answer it with, 'Of course it's rational to believe homosexuality is wrong' when you have the weight of centuries of a particular interpretation of the most popular text on Earth weighing down on you.

What don't you understand about the power of centuries of indoctrination, Marc? People have been didactically criticizing the Bible for centuries (read Jerome's Biblical Commentary), yet it still holds sway over hundreds and hundreds of millions of people. How can you possibly consider those who adhere to a Biblical interpretation of homosexuality as being irrational when they have about 2000 years of indoctrination weighing down on them?

So your line of reasoning is that: there is an old book (that throughout its history has had portions removed and added, has been translated into hundreds of languages creating thousands of versions creating a range of different texts, and further has been interpreted in countless different ways), people believe what the book stands for and the institution behind the book, people have done this for a long time, therefore basing your beliefs on an interpretation of the book is rational.

Doesn't this same reasoning apply to any religion with an ancient text? What about Islam?

Again, I really think you should just use a word other than rational, as I believe it has a connotation that you don't believe it has.

All I'm saying, chicago123, is that it is rational to hold a set of beliefs (however irrational you may find those beliefs) when you have been taught these beliefs your entire life with little if any dissent. I view the word 'rational' in this sense as I do the word 'logical'. Therefore, the "logical" result of a life spent being taught that gay marriage is wrong is to believe gay marriage is wrong. This belief happens to run contrary to your and my belief that gay marriage should be accepted by society, but I don't think this belief necessarily makes one homophobic. Ignorant, yes. Wrong-headed, yes. Unenlightened, yes. But homophobic, no.

I'm not sure if I think that it's 'homophobic.' I'd have to think about it. But then again, I never said that it was.

I still think that you are misusing the terms rational and logical. Just because someone is likely to hold a belief because of how they were raised or what they were taught does not turn that belief into something rational or logical. We may be able to say that it is logical to predict that they would believe such things. But we cannot say that their belief is based on rational thinking or logic.

The term "homophobic" is way overused. Not agreeing with someone's lifestyle doesn't make you afraid of it, nor does it make you a bigot. People need to live and let live, but people shouldn't be beyond criticism because of their sexual choices.

Just so we're on the same page , here's the definition of Homophobia:

HOMOPHOBIA is the irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.

The key word here is IRRATIONAL which means : not rational: as a (1) : not endowed with reason or understanding (2) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence b : not governed by or according to reason

So if you can come up with a RATIONAL reason for "not agreeing with someone's lifestyle," I'd like to hear.

a RATIONAL example for "not agreeing with someone's lifestlyle' is when it offends that person's religious beliefs. and marc, please don't try to state that religious beliefs are not rational; that simply doesn't hold water. you simply cannot state that just because something cannot be proved following the scientific method means that the belief is irrational. when you have such overwhelming history (upbringing, community, etc.) fortifying belief in something intangible, it's perfectly rational to hold that belief.

Religious beliefs are not rational, they are beliefs. You have to accept them on faith. Ask the Pope, he'll tell you the same thing.

So, being offended because it's against your beliefs, while understandable, is irrational.

And what have we learned hear today? Homophobia is the irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.

And someone who has an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals is a homophobe.

Dude, I'm sorry, but you really need to figure out the meaning of rational.

You just said that believing in something that cannot be proved for the sole reason that other people believe in it is rational.

Does this apply to believing in the legitimacy of slavery or segregation (it was based on upbringing, community, etc.)? How about certain Muslim societies believing that honor killings are not only accepted but necessary? Are these beliefs rational? By your definition, they probably are.

Marc and chicago, I'm not saying the belief is rational. I'm saying that to hold the belief in light of tradition and upbringing/indoctrination, however, is. Frankly, yes, I think it is rational for a Muslim, raised in the tradition of a fundamentalist tradition of Sharia law, to hold the view that honor killings are accepted and necessary. I think the belief is irrational and revolting.

Ok. But I think that if what you are proposing is not that belief is rational but that holding a belief in light of an upbringing is, I believe you are essentially reiterating what I previously said: standards of rationality are based on the information we have. Particular societies or cultures may have limited information right? (note: I am using the term information broadly; in lots of cases of religious beliefs I think that really all you need to do is exhibit some elementary reasoning to determine that your belief is faith-based and not based on logic or reason) So rationality, in this sense, is not something to be valued. Rather it really is just a calculation of the probability that you will believe something given the information you are fed (and whether you buy it, whether you think about it/challenge it, etc).

So lets go back to the Carrie example. If you want to say that it is rational for her to believe what she does (not that the actual belief she holds is rational), then you should feel okay with saying that it is rational because of the information she is taking in and 'computing,' right? This same concept, like you said, applies to societies where honor killings are accepted, slavery is accepted, etc.

I guess my question is shouldn't we care about the actual rationality of the belief she holds? Isn't the rationality of the belief what actually has value? Consequentially, shouldn't it be challenged? Can we as a society really maintain a policy for no other reason than it is what we believe? Do we not have to support it with some sort of logical reasoning beyond "this is how I was raised"? Again, I think that if we really want to have any sort of civil society, we have to be willing to challenge statements like hers. When someone holds a benign belief, for example, believing that a wafer the priest hands you is actually the physiological body of a guy from 2000 years ago, that sort of belief doesn't harm anyone. Sure, go ahead and believe it. I have no problem with you believing it. But when your belief is being used to support a system of repression -- telling someone else they have to or cannot do something -- then I think that belief necessarily has to be challenged. I don't want to run around telling religious people their beliefs are bunk. But if they use their belief as the sole rational for public policy, then I think it need be challenged.

Also, to be honest I really do think that people will misunderstand your use of the term rational. To most people if you say something is rational it means that it can be explained by point to fact and logic. I really do think its sort of irresponsible to call beliefs in things like honor killings, slaver, etc. rational, even if what you really mean is that given how people are raised it seems likely that they will believe it. Further, I think that it does disservice to your depth of thought.

Also, I have to say that I've been enjoying this back and forth :-)

i've enjoyed this back-and-forth as well. i assume you've learned a few things about me from my posts: a. i'm straight, b. i'm very pro gay rights, c. i strive to be egalitarian, and d. i strive not to pigeonhole people for holding beliefs that are the product of their upbringing. i appreciate your suggesting that my definition of 'rational' may strike some as easily misinterpreted, chicago. it's hard, after all, to defend the belief that honor killings and slavery are rational. i don't mean to suggest that the beliefs themselves are intrinsically rational; i only mean to suggest that the property of those beliefs is. abolition of slavery is an incredibly recent factor in human history...i'd defy you to find an example prior to, say, the 1700's where enslaving other humans wasn't a basic fact of life for any society (be it regarding humans as chattel, the spoils of war, whathaveyou.) given this context, while society finally became enlightened to the notion that slavery was abhorrent, to hold the belief that slavery was legitimate (until said enlightenment surfaced) must be viewed as rational as it was so engrained in so many societies psyches as correct. thus, i think, for someone to be so indoctrinated with, say, gay marriage being bad that that's all they know and don't have the capacity to argue otherwise is a rational thing.

And I think that society has become significantly more rational since the enlightenment-era. I'm not saying that we've reached some pinnacle, but I still think its important to judge societies by how rationally they think (how they base their policies, etc). Anyway, happy holidays.

I think your trying to rationalize your definition rational. You can't just make up new definitions for words and expect it fly.

I understand what you are trying to say though- You think it's understandable why they think that way and yes, it is understandable why they think that way, but their thinking is not rational.

By the way you present it, we are the ones doing the rationalizing. We understand why they do it- they do it on faith.

i think this semantics thing is getting overblown.

by your definition of 'rational' it is entirely irrational for two men or two women to want to coexist, as a sexual union, rationally (by your definition), is based on procreation, which two people of the same gender simply cannot achieve. by your definition, homosexuality is irrational, and the logical and rational reaction to homosexuality, therefore, is if not indifference, then disdain. you can't argue that love, emotions, feelings, are rational by your definition of the word. you can't even argue that an innate or inborn desire is rational by your definition of the word as there's no scientifically or methodically provable evidence of such.

put that in your pipe and smoke it (then share it with me).

I'm not defining rational- the dictionary does that well enough. Sex is complicated and it doesn't all end in procreation because if it did, then your right hand would be pregnant?

As Shakespaear said

I just finished a book, "BIAS", by Bernhard Goldberg, who was fired by CBS after 28 years because he challenged the BIAS of the "lamestream media. The "lamestream" media has lied for years about Aids being a problem for heterosexuals in order to get more funding for the homosexuals who have aids because of their unhealthy practices. The incidence of Aids in people who do not have sex with men, share dirty drug needles, use drugs themselves, frequent bath houses, and other wise live an unhealthy life style is very, very small most of the Aids patients do all of the above and this has been kept from the public by the "lamestream" media for years. If anyone in media challenges any of the beliefs of said media their job is in jeopardy, as Bernie found out. AIDS is only small area of the BIAS.

You should really read statistics before you make assumptions on HIV statistics. I think you maybe oh I don't know should read more than one book before you cite a blasphemous book as fact. Since you are to lazy to actually read another book, I have found a link for you: http://www.avert.org/worlstatinfo.htm

As you can see the worldwide view of HIV statistics, you should also be able to see that most infections actually occur from mothers giving birth to HIV infected children. Unless there is a new way of having babies and as a lesbian I would probably know, babies are still born after heterosexual sex, which seems to be the culprit for the spread of HIV to other countries since if you know anything about HIV or strains of the virus it originated in Sub-Saharan Africa. Cheers to Google and an open mind!

PS. Your post should make the 25 most homophobic remarks of 2009...Just an idea.

You make a lot of strange assumption about what I want to admit or don't want to admit or what I understand or don't understand.

What I will admit to is this- I am a Bible scholar. I have studied the Bible my entire life and I can tell you that the Bible is a rich and wonderful book as it's full of poetry, hyperbole, and fantastical stories, but it is not rational. If you accept the Bible for the word of God, you do it because of your faith, not your reasoning abilities.

As far as the weight of history goes- for thousands of years people thought the Earth was flat but should we still believe it even though science has proved otherwise? Along the same lines, if everyone jumped of the end of the dock, would you?

The sentiment in the gay community is that the Christian are holding fast to the anti-gay sentiment because they feel it is the last card to be pulled out from their house of cards before it all to tumbles down. But rest assured, even if gay marriage passes and equality is for all, Christian will still go to church just as they have under Roman prosecution, after divorce became commonplace and people started living in sin.

Erin, let me stop you right there. This is a MAJOR pet peeve of mine. Separation of Church and State is not a tenet of our democracy. So many people have decided to throw that phrase around without knowing what it means.

First, nowhere in any founding documents is that phrase found. It was coined by Thomas Jefferson in his letters to the Danbury Baptists. It addressed their concerns that their state government (Connecticut) would declare a state religion thus pushing aside the religious minorities (like the Danbury Baptists).

Well if it isn't it out to be.

"ought" to be. Gosh I'm a terrible speller today.

Well then I guess we can count in the group with those that are choosing to re-write the constitution.

Frankly, the constitution (as written) provides enough protection from a state religion. Besides, in this day and age, with the variety of religions, there wouldn't be a state religion.

Good, then we agree that religion should be separate from government.

It is.

Also, last time I checked, HIV/AIDS affects everyone. Cutting funding to treatment affects more than the GLBT community. Saying it is homophobic is awefully narrow minded.

And before anyone harps on my last post, I believe in civil unions for gays, with all the benefits that come with it, just don't call it marriage, as that is a religious term.

Well, my religion demands that all civil unions be called marriage, now what are we going to do about that? Whose religion is more right?

Isn't the point that what religions demand is irrelevant? The State should either: (1) call all unions something besides marriage; (2) call them marriage (for nostalgia's sake) and allow access to everyone. No religious consideration should play a role here. Having the State authorize unions between gays doesn't mean that your own Church has to recognize them. You can do whatever you want. The government, on the other hand, cannot.

I am all for equal rights for everyone regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation. But, can someone please show me where in the Bill of Rights it says that marriage is a right? As far as I know, it is a religious practise, sanctioned by the government so it can be taxed and regulated. Rights cannot be prevented or taken away (unless incarcerated). You can be prevented from marrying if your blood type is not compatable.

It is a "right" because the laws say it is a "right." Just like, "you have the right to remain silent."

I love it when people expound on constitutional law with no background and no reference to authority. There may well not be a fundamental right to be married by the state, but that still doesn't mean that the government can restrict the institution of marriage in any way it sees fit (e.g. unconstitutionality of anti-miscegenation laws).

Cutting HIV/AIDS funding homophobic? Last time I checked anyone can get HIV/AIDS. Anyone. Regardless of orientation. Anyone.

Yes, anyone can get HIV/AIDS but the consequences of the funding cuts primarily effect gay men.

How so? I ask because I don't know how that could primarily affect one group. But I'm not going to be convinced unless you have facts.

don't get me wrong, I think the cuts are wrong. I just really don't see how its homophobic unless you have legitimate data to back up such an extreme statement.

http://www.thebody.com/content/art33034.html

Soo...the straight people who will lose their coverage aren't being affected? And I thought HIV/AIDS isn't a "gay disease." Is it, or isn't it? Because if it is, gays can be blamed for spreading it. If it isn't they can not be blamed. If it a gay disease then gays can't claim that funding issues persecute gays only. It's that simple. You can't have it both ways people. Sorry, that's the part about equality that sucks.

I couldn't agree more, crazytaz. For years the gay community has been shouting about HIV/AIDS being universal and not limited to the gay community, and they've been entirely correct. To call cutting HIV/AIDS funding homophobic is a glaring example of double talk.

Of course everyone is affected by AIDS but in the USA, gay men are disproportionately affected.

In Africa it is whole different matter but in reference to CA, it is mostly gay men.

I can understand that, Marc, but how does simply a disproportionate affectation equate with homophobia? When California attempted to curtail the spread of HIV/AIDS in the late '70's by suggesting bathhouses be closed, the gay community cried discrimination. When the scourge hit the gay community disproportionately, they cried that not enough attention was being paid to them. When HIV/AIDS became (and I shudder to use this term) mainstream, they said, "Told you so." And now that it's accepted that the disease does not discriminate, the community says, "What about us?" Look, breast cancer more than overwhelmingly affects women...but men are not immune. I would think that if you cut funding for breast cancer research, you'd hear one man speak up about it for every 10,000 women. The only "popular" diseases that spring to mind that are gender/sex specific are cervical cancer and prostate cancer. Cut funding to either of those, and I can see an argument for gender-bias. HIV/AIDS? Not so much.

Think about this old feminist mantra that "if breast cancer affected men as much as woman we'd have cure for it by now."

Marc: That's a cute mantra. Thing is, the awareness to and amount of money spent on breast cancer research is overwhelming compared with so very many other diseases that affect both sexes proportionately. Even I know who Susan B. Kohman is (even if I can't spell her name correctly), yet I don't give a passing thought to my contracting breast cancer. Yet still there is no cure. Sexist? Draw your own conspiracy theories, but I think not. Sadly elusive disease? Yes.

Name ONE cancer that has a cure. Can't? Didn't think so. That's because NO cancer has a cure. Treatments, yes, but no cures. If that "old feminist mantra" you quoted held any water, no man would need fear prostrate cancer.

From my expert friend in the field:

"AIDS does affect gay men more than any other group in this country, and ESPECIALLY in California, but I don

Marc: I like your friend's input...because, frankly, he seems to believe as I do. I still can't see these cuts being construed as homophobic, as I feel that homophobia implies (or, at least, should) an act intentionally directed against the gay community, and I just don't see any evidence of the sort regarding this cut in funding. I respect your opinion, but I disagree.

Actually that's not the claim. The claim is for better screening/testing measures than what is currently available. I wholeheartedly feel that if men had to be subjected to having a sensitive part of their anatomy smashed between two plastic plates repeatedly, from different angles and pay for the pleasure of doing so, that there would definitely be better screening methods for them. If the treatment for a type of cancer that predominantly affected a sensitive part of a man's body was to remove said body part, and not want to cover the cost of reconstructive surgery, leaving that man to essentially be a 'freak' the yes, there would be better treatments than there are now. As it is, using breast cancer as an example is really disingenuous here because for centuries, breast cancer, and screening and treatment measures was pretty much ignored until women (and men) banded together to evoke change. Is that not what the GLBT community is trying to do now, evoke change? If so, they should be taking notes, not slamming the efforts of organizations like AVON and Susan B. Komen. And again, HIV/AIDS is 100% preventable. (except in the case of rape or accidental blood exposure in a medical emergency) There is NOTHING you can do to 100% prevent getting ANY type of cancer. The comparison doesn't hold water. Sorry.

Broccoli: Let's just discard your argument that 'if men had to be subjected to having a sensitive part of their anatomy smashed between two plastic plates repeatedly, from different angles and pay for the pleasure of doing so, that there would definitely be better screening methods for them.' Men do have a similar disease where the screening method is unpleasant and the treatment doesn't simply leave the man a 'freak' as you put it; it removes an essential part of what many consider essential in being defined as a man. It's prostate cancer. While some may enjoy having a gloved lubed finger shoved up their rectum and rooted about their insides, I'd argue that this is-if not just comparable with breast cancer screening in unpleasantness-a tad more so.

Somebody should learn the difference between Harvey Milk and Sean Penn.

If Madonna started simulating oral sex on Britney on prime-time television, the outcry would be the same. Madonna has been banned from performing countless times either on TV, or on stage in various US states and abroad because of the overt sexuality and desecration of religious symbols she practices in her shows. It's not limited at all to homosexuals. To claim otherwise is disingenuous and not reality. Bottom line, most citizens of the United States are prudes, and we'll watch people getting slaughtered all day long, and allow our kids to play games acting out mass murder all day long, but we won't allow them to see a boobie, or see a simulation of how they came to be born in the first place. That is something that likely will never change, and the homosexual community better get used to that like the rest of us crazy straight people. Because that would be equal rights after all. You want to be treated equally, that means you get the crap parts too.

I'm also pretty tired of having that label thrown at me. Tolerance, it seems, is a one-way street for gays. We are supposed to tolerate them, but they have no reciprocal obligation to tolerate us.

My beliefs are just as deeply-seated as theirs, but somehow writers (like Alicia Eler) believe that gays have staked out some moral high ground from which they can dictate to the rest of society.

And Alicia, the word is 'cite' not 'site' when you're asking for examples. You'd think a 'writer' would know that . . .

Regular Guy,
In your first comment your words imply that the term civil rights can only be applied to racial issues, as though the now famous Black Civil Rights movement can be the only civil rights movement. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits all forms of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin... Civil rights are just that - rights. They have to do with people not just with color. You further state that no one is denying gay people constitutionally protected rights that we all enjoy. The following are just some of the examples of the rights I do not enjoy. Gay people cannot file taxes jointly as a married couple and enjoy the benefits of doing so. Nor can we collect social security benefits upon the death of our partners or have a non U.S. spouse become a full citizen. We can be compelled to testify against one another in court, which heterosexual married couples cannot. In many places gay people cannot make decisions for their partner's medical care and may even be denied hospital visitation rights and the right to be notified of changes in condition. Gay couples lose out on numerous insurance benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples and in some states even the right to parent children. Elder gay couples face huge amounts of adversity in properly securing their estates and the futures of their partners. Often times estranged relatives can seize control of money or property, taking it from the widowed partner. These are only SOME of the rights denied to gay people by denying the right to marriage. I hope you can see that gay marriage in inherently a civil rights issue. It's about more than the ceremony and the title - there are numerous rights attached to the institution of marriage as well.

You further state that because of hate crime laws gay people actually enjoy more rights than heterosexual people. Simply put, if straight people didn't beat us and kill us for being who we are, we wouldn't need such a law.

Your talk of tolerance is certaintly thought provoking. Tolerance is different than acceptance. My asking for equal rights is not a lecture from some moral high ground nor is it incredulous to desire that people who actively seek to deny me rights stop. It hurts my spirit everytime someone makes the argument that gay people are hypocrites because we can't see the other point of view. When the other point of view is that I am wrong because of what I am , that I am immoral, or disgusting, or unfit, or any of the other un words that get thrown our way - when the other point of view is that a lifestyle that has brought me countless moments of hardship and adversity is somehow my choice - when the other point of view is that I am to be tolerated but not accepted, then I will never accept that point of view. I don't seek to control your life or tell you how to live. All I ask is that you do the same for me. That's pretty much what most of us are looking for.

Oh, and when you correct someone elses grammar in a debate like this, it just makes you look petty.

The 14th Amendment is the legal basis for most civil rights laws. If you understand the context of that Amendment, you'd understand that it has not been stretched beyond race. Also, if you'd do some research, you'd find that the whole idea of states regulating marriage is relatively recent in our nation's history. Marriage has also always been a state, not federal, function.

Arguing 'cause-and-effect' for hate crimes is ludicrous. If all people are equal under the law, then there is no justification for increasing criminal penalties based on who the victim is.

In the states where same-sex marriage is legal, many good people are being harmed simply because of their beliefs. A wedding photographer whose religious faith says same-sex marriage is wrong can't refuse to shoot a gay wedding, or else they face a discrimination lawsuit.

We let people who are conscientious objectors out of military duty because they believe it is wrong to kill under any circumstances. Yet someone who won't kill can be forced to cater gay weddings. How is that tolerance? Or even acceptance?

And the only reason I commented on the 'writer's' grammar was because she made a point to criticize a poster's spelling. If you're a professional writer, you don't throw stones at someone else's spelling when your grammar is flawed.

"The 14th Amendment is the legal basis for most civil rights laws. If you understand the context of that Amendment, you'd understand that it has not been stretched beyond race."
- While its strongest application remains to race, it has been applied in other contexts. Most pertinent to this debate, it is the source of protection from gender discrimination.

"Also, if you'd do some research, you'd find that the whole idea of states regulating marriage is relatively recent in our nation's history. Marriage has also always been a state, not federal, function."
- Marriage as a contractual entity has been regulated by the states. That is, you are married under a certain state's power, they certify it, etc. However, marriage has had ramifications under Federal law forever (particularly tax law). I don't think many people are arguing that the Federal government should step in and take marriage from the states (in fact I don't think it necessarily can). But it is worth arguing that perhaps they should provide equal benefits to couples regardless of whether they are "married" in a state and instead look to some sort of contractual union. I think that is perfectly reasonable, and strips the states of nothing as it is only affecting ramifications of federal law.

"Arguing 'cause-and-effect' for hate crimes is ludicrous. If all people are equal under the law, then there is no justification for increasing criminal penalties based on who the victim is."
- Would you be willing to extend this argument to say, child sex offenders? Should someone who molests a 40 year old woman be punished the same way as someone who molests an 8 year old? How about the whole idea of genocide? Do you think that there is no special harm in trying to extinguish an entire people? Should Karadzic be treated like an ordinary murderer?

There are two rationales for hate crimes. First, is that certain groups of people need special protection and that this protection is best achieved by increasing the punishment of those who harm them. I am much more of a proponent of the second (considering that I'm still not convinced deterrence is all that effective). Second, is that the reason we punish perpetrators of hate crimes more than regular offenders is because we think there is something especially heinous for committing a violent crime against someone because of who they are, especially when the reason is significantly based on their identity. I think people who commit crimes for such a reason deserve special contempt from society through punishment.

"A wedding photographer whose religious faith says same-sex marriage is wrong can't refuse to shoot a gay wedding, or else they face a discrimination lawsuit."
- I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this is not true. I'm no expert in civil rights claims, but I'm pretty sure that as of right now you could absolutely refuse. Correct me if I am wrong.

As a wedding photographer, I would not fear facing reprisal for refusing to photograph a gay wedding. I'm a sub-contractor...I'm providing a service that is hardly unique or essential (even though my talents may be unique, they're hardly 'necessary'). Even in the smallest towns throughout the US, there's always another option when it comes to photographers. There are photographers who shoot only gay couples, weddings, homoerotic vignettes...and I highly doubt any of them would fear being subjected to a discrimination lawsuit should they refuse to shoot a hetero wedding. All that said, I'm all for same-sex marriages, and if anyone needs a photographer, please do get in touch!

You're missing my point. Sure people in the community might be pissed off as a result of you not photographing gay weddings. Yes, if you are providing a service of which there is an apt supply you might be screwed. That's just supply and demand though.

My point is that there are no legal grounds for a lawsuit. This is exactly he disconnect people don't understand. If gay marriage is legalized it is not going to have these crazy pervasive legal ramifications. Your church will no have to allow gays to marry. The caterer will not be forced to cater gay weddings. They can do whatever they like. That is, unless the state passes a law that says you cannot discriminate based on those grounds and in those situations. The federal government likely wouldn't be able to do that. I'm less well versed in state constitutional matters.

But my point remains.

"No legal grounds?" It would be the same 'legal grounds' for suing a discriminating landlord, or an employer.

It's not that simple. There are limitations on how the government can restrict the ability of individuals to discriminate.

Like I said, I'm not going to talk about state law, because state constitutions differ in what they allow legislatures to do. But as of right now Congress would likely be limited in its power to pass a law allowing private lawsuits for the discrimination described above (wedding photographer). They might be able to pass a law restricting discrimination in employment or housing, I think. But that really has nothing to do with allowing gay marriage -- those laws are largely based on a completely separate congressional power.

Anyway, my point is there are acts of discrimination that you can't be sued for.

chicago123 wrote "- Would you be willing to extend this argument to say, child sex offenders? Should someone who molests a 40 year old woman be punished the same way as someone who molests an 8 year old? How about the whole idea of genocide? Do you think that there is no special harm in trying to extinguish an entire people? Should Karadzic be treated like an ordinary murderer?

There are two rationales for hate crimes. First, is that certain groups of people need special protection and that this protection is best achieved by increasing the punishment of those who harm them. I am much more of a proponent of the second (considering that I'm still not convinced deterrence is all that effective). Second, is that the reason we punish perpetrators of hate crimes more than regular offenders is because we think there is something especially heinous for committing a violent crime against someone because of who they are, especially when the reason is significantly based on their identity. I think people who commit crimes for such a reason deserve special contempt from society through punishment."

Our innate sense of justice always wants to punish the wrong-doer. But re-writing criminal laws based on current PC practices is simply wrong.

Let's say I'm a father whose family depends on for income. Shouldn't I get 'more protection' because of that?

When you set up arbitrary criteria for escalating punishment, you completely undercut the basic premise that "all men are created equal."

I definitely get your point. I think that the democratic tenet of all men being created equal, as written in the declaration of independence, is fundamental to a just society. But like I said, one of the theoretical justifications for increased punishment for hate crime legislation is that we think that crimes committed against individuals because of their immutable traits are particularly heinous. We don't pass laws like the one you proposed because we believe that at some level the father made the choice to become a father. When you kill lynch a Black man for no other reason than the color of his skin, that seems especially egregious because the victim was killed on account of an immutable aspect of his identity.

Not being persecuted based on your intrinsic characteristics seems like an equally fundamental aspect of american democracy. In fact, I think you could say that prohibiting such crimes is actually supported by the principle of all persons being created equal. That principle, I take it, represents at least in part a concept of tolerance in civil society -- a recognition that there is no individual who is born superior to another. What conflicts more with that egalitarian concept of tolerance than committing a violent crime against someone purely because of immutable aspects of their identity?

Charging someone with a hate crime helps the prosecution establish motive which is a big part of the legal process.

I just red a good essay on Homophobia written by a cowboy where he discusses-
"The Effects of Homophobia On American Society"
"The Reasons Homophobes Give For Their Hatred"
"The Real Reasons Behind Their Hatred"
And "How We All Pay The Price"

"Homophobia: The Fear Behind The Hatred
An essay on the origin and nature of homophobia."

http://www.bidstrup.com/phobia.htm

How very exciting to read these posts, writers with such fervor and passion. What would our world be like if this passion was used for good? Fervor used to lift up each of us, rather than continue to look for ways to force women and men into tiny boxes of familiarity and "samenesss."

We can applaud ourselves for having the conversation out here, in public. But in private, I urge you to look in the mirror and see much that is so different from me. Is your relationship more worthy than mine (of almost 20 years)? Should your choices be subject to my approval, as you require of me? Should you have to live by my religious tenents (which would at least give you better food)?

Sigh. I often feel too old for these baseless arguments. The world is so complex and so filled with discontent. Why can't we just allow one another to live our lives in peace.

Yes, I know my desires are simple and naive. What's wrong with that?

Ooops, it is in there. Sorry! The pictures scrolled further than I had thought they did.

I know, I can't believe the horrible things that are happening in Uganda. did you read the Caster Semenya New Yorker story (Ariel Levy, November 30) where they talk about the"corrective rapes" that are performed on lesbians? Horrifying. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/11/30/091130fa_fact_levy

Corrective rapes??? wtf. Cause that solves *everything* -head desk-

I would like to marry my cat. Why can't I do that? Unfortunately, too many people believe marriage should be between 2 humans. Whenever I take my cat to the vet, I have to pay out of pocket. She is not covered by my medical plan. Is that right? I don't think so.

You should talk to someone in government about this. There are probably lots of people who feel the same way as you.

That's blatant discrimination against whatever it is you call yourself. Maybe the dcb community? (dog/cat/beast lovers)

There is some argument as to whether a cat can consent to such a union. I wouldn't do it unless you want to get charged with rape.

clr, while you cannot marry your cat, you can will your fortune (should you have any) to it. No one will deny you your right to visit your cat should it be in a comatose state and sheltered from most visitors. And you can purchase health insurance for your cat, the information for which you'll find at any vet's office.

Alicia, you would be wise to consider the fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger is currently governing a state that's facing an unprecedented budget crisis. To include him on this list alongside examples of sadistic torture and murder is pushing speciousness nearly to the point of outright slander. Not everything comes as easily as your college tuition.

Hi Michael, thanks for your comment.

Yes, we are all aware of California's budget crisis.

Have you been following the UC School system budget cuts? http://www.sdnn.com/sandiego/2009-12-01/politics-city-county-government/california-budget-politics-city-county-government/california-budget-crisis-diaries-takes-on-higher-education-cuts

Did you hear about the poison control budget cuts:
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-20311285.html

These are both cuts that affect people regardless of race, class, gender or sexual orientation. They are not targeted at a specific marginalized group of peoples.

Why would Schwarz specifically throw in HIV/AIDS funding to his budget cuts? Are people living with HIV not as important as others? If this were not about a marginalized group suffering budget cuts, it would be a different story. But because it is, I think there's a valid argument for homophobia.

Do you know anything about the history of HIV/AIDS funding in the United States? I would suggest beginning here: http://www.avert.org/aids-funding.htm

Think about all of the marginalized people who suffer under budget cuts, and of the underlying racism, sexism, homophobia, and misogyny in our society, and then tell me that these budget cuts have nothing to do with a marginalized group but instead have only to do with money.

Also, this is a broad collection of noteworthy news stories from 2009, and it just so happens that there is no one way that homophobia happens. It may be more obvious, like a news anchor being fired because he is gay, or a football coach yelling "faggot." It may be more subtle, like the AIDS/HIV funding cuts, or Obama not following up on his promises.

I look forward to reading your response.

Cheers.

I'd be delighted to respond, but you haven't made clear what your question exactly is. You've presented no evidence whatsoever to indicate that Schwarzenegger's reduction of HIV/AIDS spending is rooted in homophobia. Your argument is especially dubious when taking into consideration his vocal support for gays' right to adoption and civil unions.

Show me the proof.

Also, I'd like to point out the following from one of the sites you linked to:

http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm

Please note the 24% figure illustrated in the second pie chart. Would you concede that AIDS does not affect gays exclusively, or would you prefer turning the clock back a few decades by calling it GRIDS again?

Think about all of the marginalized people who suffer under budget cuts, and of the underlying racism, sexism, homophobia, and misogyny in our society, and then tell me that these budget cuts have nothing to do with a marginalized group but instead have only to do with money.

I'm pretty sure you won't appreciate me pointing this out, but it's well worth noting that religious zealots use the exact same rhetorical trick to "prove" the existence of god.

Alicia: Once again, if the gay community (and I use that blanket as a non-offensive shorthand for lgbtq because, frankly, I am not of the community and don't want to offend anyones' sensibilities by getting the hierarchy of letters incorrect) really believes that cutting funding for HIV/AIDS is targeted directly at them, they cannot then claim that HIV/AIDS is not a gay issue, and frankly, it's not. HIV/AIDS has long since its first reports transcended the gay community has become a disease that knows no gender or sexual preference. HIV/AIDS is no longer the 'gay cancer' (which, ironically, the gay community both embraced and discouraged as a term of reference). For the gay community to decry cutting funding for research on HIV/AIDS as homophobic strikes me as the community saying, "Okay, we don't want this disease to be associated with 'us', so let's denounce it being solely associated with our community lest we be marginalized and garner too much attention we don't want. Wait, that didn't quite work because now that it's no longer associated only with our community we're being marginalized because we're not being given enough of the attention we want.'

Alicia, I understand HIV/AIDS is a horrible disease. I have tremendous empathy and sympathy for anyone who has contracted it for any reason. But this is a disease that does not discriminate. And, frankly, there are diseases that do kill and debilitate more in the US--for the sake of this thread, I'm sticking to the US, not global numbers, though HIV/AIDS is not the #1 global killer--on an annual basis, and to cut funding is not a social but rather a financial issue. This is not a decision based on homophobia--do you REALLY think Gov. Schwartzenegger sat in his office and thought, 'You know, I don't like the gays...let's cut HIV/AIDS funding; that will take care of a few dollars'?--but rather on financial responsibility (in spite of past financial irresponsibility).

Alicia, I believe statistics show that AIDS/HIV has not been just a 'gay' disease for quite some time. So the cutting of the funding affects "straight" people with the disease too. There is nothing homophobic about it. Bottom line, AIDS/HIV is 100% avoidable if people wouldn't be reckless with their own health. Its not like cancer which can strike anyone at anytime, regardless of how careful they are about their own health.

As far as school budget cuts, etc. I think that AIDS/HIV funding cuts should happen before that. Kids don't choose to come into this world, and they deserve to have an education. Funding education for our children is insurance in our future.

Paying for the mistakes of people who were too reckless to care for themselves is a different story. The exception to this being, of course, a victim of rape who contracted the disease from their perp. They should be covered. Those who went to a meth party and and engaged in sexual activity in a group orgy and contracted the disease? Sorry...you should of thought of that to begin with.

I am 100% for gays having the same rights as us. Mainly because I don't give a rats butt what others do as long as they are law-abiding citizens who pay their taxes, and take care of their kids. It doesn't affect my life at all...and I don't believe I have the right to tell others how to live their lives, unless of course they are hurting someone. (pedophilia). What goes on between consenting adults is none of my business.

But, I do have to say, that perhaps the LBGT activists might change more minds by showing the world that homosexuals and transexuals have jobs, have families, have morals, have goals, and just want to live their lives and raise their children in a safe, loving environment, just like the rest of us. Events like the gay pride parade, albeit fun (I watched every year when I lived in Chicago)and overtly sexual acts for 'shock' value like Lambert did, only reinforce the negative stereotypes that people have about homosexuality...I think it hurts more than it helps. But that's just my opinion.

Alicia,

Did you forget to read "And the Band Played On" by Randy Shilts. Although dead - from AIDS no less - Shilts' work mercilessly and honestly portrays the irresponsibility that was once the hallmark of some members of the LGBT community. It also sheds light on some of the history of HIV/AIDS research and funding and why so many gays originally rallied to the cause of HIV/AIDS.

The days of HIV/AIDS being solely a LGBT issue are long gone. HIV/AIDS is no longer primary to the LGBT community. It affects more non-LGBT people than gay people on a daily basis. So when funding for it is cut, it's not a gay rights issue at all. It's a funding and health issue for everyone.

Part of the confusion that some people have, and part of why some cannot more fully dialogue with the LGBT community is that some issues - such as AIDS research - do not truly belong to any single group and when one group tries to lay claim to that issue, it does not seem appropriate to the other group. It smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

Plus, more people live with diabetes, cancer, and other diseases in the USA than HIV/AIDS. Why do HIV/AIDS patients get more attention than innocent children with Leukemia or Army veterans still suffering from Agent Orange? Again, one's political and personal proclivities may color the lenses through which they evaluate which groups and which diseases are the most important to cure.

Alicia,

Gays make up a high percentage of HIV/AIDS patients, but that is coincidence. With the exception of inadvertent infection through needle sticks or blood transfusions HIV/AIDS patients, gay or straight, can trace their infection back to high risk behavior, typically unprotected sex with strangers or shared needle IV drug use. Both of these are avoidable behaviors.

So if some aspect of healthcare must be cut should it be healthcare for children? mental healthcare? Cancer research? Or should it be treatment for people who contracted a well known disease that is almost 100% avoidable?

My lack of empathy for US HIV/AIDS victims (the cultural issues involved with Africa's crisis are different) is not because the victims are predominantly gay, it's because they ignored the barrage of public service announcements and literature about how to avoid HIV and acted recklessly. If you can't be bothered to protect yourself, why should my tax dollars take care of you?

OK, question from a straight guy.

Isn't LGBTQ kind of "Department of Redundancy Department?" I mean, L, B, and T are clear. I even kind of get gay = male homosexual, even though it is also a generic term for any gender homosexual.

But how does queer differ from gay in its generic sense?

@ Pinco Pallino: I agree with your statement; however it is that idea that keeps the world fighting. My view is this, if we keep accepting the words of those who choose to not accept, we choose to live in a world that is parted. It must be reminded that these people are not choosing to not accept what one person wears or eats, but who they love. It is a lifestyle that is being chastised and burned to the ground. People do not choose to be black, white, gay, straight and everything in-between, therefore they should not fear to live as they are, and that is exactly what some people choose to believe: That living as something you cannot control is wrong.

First, I'll second what Michael74 said.

Second, as to this: "Contrary to media speculation, Semenya does not have an athletic advantage over other runners." Um, what's your basis for saying that? That's not exactly the kind of thing you can just whip out and expect people to accept. I mean, based on the fact that she has routinely kicked her competitors' butts, it's pretty clear that she does, in fact, have an athletic advantage over other runners. It's also a fact that her body produces 3 to 5 times the amount of testosterone as other females. The question is whether or not those two facts are related. The IAAF has apparently concluded that they are because Semenya is barred from future competition.

Hi, please send me a source for this. My source is the New Yorker article by Ariel Levy that I mention in my post. I cannot respond if you don't tell me where you got this information.

What else can you really say, Pinco Pallino said it the best.

No mention of gays harassing blacks in California because they voted overwhelmingly against the same sex marriage amendment?

That is a good point. Post a link to the story in a comment and I'll see what I can do.

What right is more basic than the one to have a physical relationship with the (legal adult/consenting/mentally competent) partner of your choosing? To go back the the math reference, that's like arguing that ab+ac is not the same as a(b+c).

The right to love the person of your choice is (to me) the 2nd most important right after life itself. To not support that right SHOULD disqualify you as an instructor on human rights in the US. Although I suppose she is well qualified to teach in, say, Saudi Arabia (except for that being a woman part of course).

Bankerdanny:

I'd say the right not to have an axe thrust through your skull for the simple matter or walking down a street while whistling Dixie is more basic than the one to have a physical relationship with the partner of your choosing. Please, not all rights begin and end with sexuality.

And arguing that ab+ac does not equal a(b+c) debases my argument and makes you look stupid. If we believed mathematics was static and not constantly evolving we'd still live under the premise that the sun revolves around the earth. Grow up.

I believe entirely that we cannot control whom we chose to love. I disagree with the professor's views; frankly, I'm feel that her views are shameful. However, she is just as entitled to her beliefs as we are to ours, and I don't feel that anyone has a right to prevent her from presenting them in any forum. However, I find it sadly, but not surprisingly, ironic that you would suggest suppressing her beliefs ("To not support that right SHOULD (sic) disqualify you as an instructor on human rights in the US") while drawing an analogy to being "well qualified to teach in, say, Saudi Arabia." Freedom of speech and expression, Bankerdanny, extends to everyone, not simply to those who think as you do.

please pardon my poor grammar in the preceding post.

please read my commemt again.Right to life is the most important right to me.

Math is evolving, but the core concepts (like the equation in my comment) are fixed. 2+2 always equals 4.

Perhaps I am being overly harsh in my view of Professor Li-Ann. But I would be interested in how she frames the issue in her class. I would be particullarly interested in how she squares her belief with her role as a Human Rights instructor.

Freedom of speech means you can say almost anything, it doesn't mean freedom of consequences and just because you can say something doesn't mean you should.

Great post Alicia - I hadn't heard about a few of these instances. Whether or not you can convince any of these haters it's important to have the information out there. Change is slow and painful.

Thanks for checking out the post, Jennifer. Glad you learned something from it. I agree--too bad about all the haters. They are the ones slowing progress.

You know, I take offense to that. The only thing I have seen from this article and many of the responses (not all) is, essentially, name calling. It's the "you're either with us or against us" mentality.

Ironically enough, THAT kind of attitude is slowing progress.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me how the Semenya inquiry was in any way homophobic.

Caught wind of this discussion from a friend...First I don't think it is effective to have a discussion about something and prematurely labeling someone as a 'hater' simply because they disagree with you it's not effective. It is a lazy way to intellectually and responsibly voice your opinion.

First lets start with the definition of Homophobia. It is defined as an "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"...After reading the post on the 25 most homophobic events of 2009 I do agree that 24/25 of those events would fall under the definition of homophobia. The one disagreement I have is with the Semenya inquiry. I do think it in fact has nothing to do with her being a person who might straddle the gender lines, I think it has to do with competing as a female athlete in female sanctioned events. If there is even the slightest question to an athletes sex, there should be tests. It is unfair for a man to compete with women, or even if they have a slight masculine edge to their body. It is a question of fairness yes but homophobic is not the term to apply to the situation with Semenya I think it is more of a sexism topic.

An important part that Alicia left out is that Semenya's genetic tests were revealed without her consent and that she didn't even know the results herself when the world was told. Was the revelation homophobia? Maybe.

The fact it was revealed without her consent and knowledge is tragic and irrefutably inexcusable but I do not think it is homophobic. I think it has more to do with the idea of a man competing against women or a woman who may blur the gender lines competing against women who are one hundred percent female. I do see how it might be seen as homophobic though.

Precicely, Corey. Even Marc says "maybe" in regards to it being a homophobic act. Sadly, "maybe" seems all that's necessary to label something homophobic.

I have to agree with Pinco. Simply because I don't agree that all instances cited are homophobic hardly makes me a 'hater', and to label me one is quite base.