Something I have long suspected.
It explains a lot about Aiden, Keith, David Skinner, Colin Hart et al.
I also think those fancy dress outfits and over the top jewellary the bishops wear are a bit of a give away as well…
….and the pope, of course, what is she like.
… I blame it all on the lack of butch role modes, too much reading and not enough vigourous activities like playing rugby…don’t they ever read their gay cure manuals!
Like this one from George “I’m a lumberjack and I’m OK” Rekers?
Google Pope Benedict birthday acrobats. The old lech is practically drooling at the sight of those tight young bodies.
I have written about this:
Gay Agenda, 2:7: A Type I homophobe is a gay or bisexual person that represses their own sexuality. They tend to be viciously homophobic and self-hating closeted homosexual or bisexual homophobes. Usually, either they are religious or they live in a religious community. In general, this kind of people will have been bullied and brainwashed into believing being gay and engaging in a gay relationship is wrong, dangerous or undesirable.
Gay Agenda,2:10 Types I [...] homophobes have no idea what a healthy relationship is and as such, are unable to judge which relationships are worthy of encouraging or discouraging. [...] Obviously, they will consider free gay men and women who choose to form healthy relationships with people they are actually in love with, to have “made a choice to be gay”. In reality, they are the ones choosing to be miserable and want others to be miserable with them.
New York, Essex and California, interesting choices…
Oh and Stu, would please withdrawl you comments that refer to me.
Something hitting close to the mark, Aiden darling?
‘Close to the mark;? More like the ‘Golden Shot’ bullseye. Take a look at the sweet young thing Aiden’s twitter photograph. Now if that is indeed Aiden note the haircut, the scarf, the eyes. Gay as a gay thing having fallen from the top branch of the big gay tree, banged his head on every branch on the way down, landed on a sleeping man under the tree, and then was had. It is the saddest thing to see a gay man so twisted with self hate. (With thanks to Will and Grace for the gay tree).
If it were an archery game – it would be to Olympic standard that bullseye lol ;-)
I hope someday you can come to terms with your homosexuality. It will make you feel so much better!
Whom d’you think you’re kidding, Aiden?
If I spent every other day trawling through and commenting on a Christian website I think I’d have to admit to myself I was hankering for a bit of ‘salvation’ or something along those lines. Time you started being as honest, with yourself at the very least.
@Aiden — care to expand on what you mean by interesting choices ?
It may also explain why certain people are so convinced that being gay is a choice, if they spend a lot of time suppressing their own homosexual desires. Maybe they think everyone is like they are, instead of realising they are a tiny minority.
Absolutely, when I read a summary of the report on another site earlier today there was some discussion about those who suppress their own genuine orientation being the most likely people to be determined to state that orientation is a choice as a self justification that they have made a choice. The reality is they havent changed – they have just suppressed their orientation and are in denial and deceiving themselves and the torment inside is what often causes the arrogant and offensive bile that they froth.
It reminds me of a few people ……
Yes, they never seem to understand that by accusing gay people of having made a ‘lifestyle choice’ they’re unwittingly giving away their own secrets.
Totally, seems to be self-projection on their part.
Tell me something I didn’t know! You don’t need to scientist to work that one out! I always thought people like Stephen Green were so far back in the closet they are in Narnia!
Stephen Green revealed as bigot at Cardiff Mardi Gras.
I think that a lot of homophobes are secretly gay, but some are just hateful
Actually I think they’re all pretty hateful.
Yes, I do think they’re all hateful, but I think that some aren’t secretly gay, and they’re just hateful
Maybe so, some of our trolls display all the classic signs of being closeted though.
Oh, I see – sorry, I misunderstood. I’m not so sure, I think you’d have to have some interest to be so obsessed about it.
Well I think that there are some people that are guided by homophobic religions (Christianity, Islam, etc) or are just ignorant (people from low incomes or low standards of living usually), but there are definitely a ton of closet cases, for example, Aiden and his homophobic friends, Republican politicians, etc. (I definitely think the majority of the trolls on here are closet cases)
(I used to be homophobic myself I’m ashamed to admit, and it turned out I’m homosexual!)
You’re quite right Lumi, those who’re impelled by religious hysteria – specially the women who have a bee in their bonnet about gay men – aren’t necessarily covering up gay feelings themselves.
As if we didn’t know that already!
At the risk of being frivolous about research I would say this comes close to that shocking revelation that water is, in fact, wet.
While this is true, having it published (and not for the first time) is amusing enough.
“Internalised homophobia.” We all knew this.
How many of us gay men have had sex with married men, who hide their sexuality????????
Too many to count.
We all must face our demons.
I never did, and never would.
People that hide behind their wives are slightly above pond life in my opinion.
I do sometimes wonder about a friend who says something very similar to do, Spanner.
I suggest to Paul that it might be more accurate to add a rider to his comment … so “never knowingly …”
Not saying the same is true of you, but Paul accepts there may be one or two he was unaware of.
I have always followed three rules when it came to shags:
1) You are safe.
2) You are single, (none of this ‘open relationship’ crap.)
3) You both understand the score, so no deception.
That ethos has served me well all my life.
Yes, but of the 1000 or so men you’ve said you’ve, er, enjoyed sexual congress with, you must admit there may well have been men who were married but just didn’t come clean (as it were) to you about it?
Sure, there may well have been occasions, but never knowingly. Some people used to be quite surprised that I would turn some cutie or other down simply because he had a BF, but it’s just a personal principle of mine that I have always abided by.
Homophobia really is “so gay”. Anti-gay leaders like George Rekers, Ted Haggard, Eddie Long, Roy Ashburn are constantly being exposed as closet homosexuals, moreover laboratory tests reported at Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-3013, USA. proved self-proclaimed homophobes were turned on by gay porn whereas non-homophobes were not: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014
other homophobic gays:
This one is a no-brainer. Most of us have probably known this since before we even came out ourselves. How many of us know at least one bully who lo and behold is now frequenting a gay bar or a dark park.
Funny how the Christian homophobes who post here think people are not on to them. Another funny one is when these homophobes go to LGBT places pretending to be gay to try and disrupt them or make trouble or get information for the anti-gay Christians. These homophobes try to make themselves look good and play straight to fit in and help the oppressive anti-gay Christians make trouble for LGBT people. One of the famous Christian homophobes with a same sex attraction was Ted Haggard, who was married with children and a large Christian church and presidential advisor. The more they attack the more we know that they are homophobes with same sex attraction. These Christian homophobes do this so the other Christians don’t “look down on them” and so they hide and go along with the haters hoping no finds out who they really are and living in fear of being found out who they really are. Find out if they have any gay affairs and expose them, like the escort did to Ted Haggard to stop them.
Pretty much what most of us would have guessed or experienced.
I used to shout “People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones” when I was getting grief off the phobes – they would usually go ballistic-proving I had hit a raw nerve!
reminds me of fawlty towers
the bleeding obvious
Another revelation of mss in the ho sexual community. It now turns out that many homosexuals are actually hateful homophobes!! Well I never!
The homosexualite disorder community really is harbouring some unsavoury individuals.
Lets just add up the horror so far.
1) Most homophobes are actually HOMOSEXUAL
2) Most paedophile child abuse .in the clergy is HOMOSEXUAL abuse.
3) Aids is disproportionate in the HOMOSEXUAL community.
4) Dysentry is disproportionate in the HOMOSEXUAL community
5) HPV is disproportinate in the HOMOSEXUALl community
5) HOMOSEXUAL relatinships fail disproportionatel i coparison with straight relationships.
What a nice communty you have going!
@Keith — None of this is true: can you provide any to support your claims ?
Clearly this has touched a nerve with Keith – his closeted desires for man on man action (which I suspect he regularly “falls of the wagon” with) are what motivates his homophobia. It gets challenged and he lashes out with lies and untruths – classic behaviour trait.
Now, its either that or he was drinking again last night (or both)
Definitely ! I mean Heteropride… Great 2B Straight!. as a username ! Really ? The sloppy typing mirrors his sloppy reasoning. Explained by both heavy drinking and obsessing over things.
I am intruigued by the idea of a Straight Pride event though: I imagine it might not quite so much fun as Gay Pride events, and probably not so well attended. What do you think ?
Might be fun to experience heteropride (and be on the opposite side for once).
Would it be as much fun? Doubt it.
You bring dysentery into this?! Really?!
You’d think a homophobe would be too scared to comment on this particular article, but no, here he is; enumerating, compensating, getting off on writing “homosexual” in caps…
Yes. Honest self-analysis must be uncomfortable for you.
There are nasty people in every walk of life. I’ve met obnoxious Gay people, Spiteful Trans people, BUT also many nasty “straight” people. Mr Hitler was straight, yet look at the hate and misery that regime caused.
There are many many tolerant people everywhere too, in every section of society. No section is I believe better or worse significantly than any other.
You can as they say make statistics say whatever suits your need.
AIDS in the UK effects more straight couples that gay couples, just saying….so is HPV…..
I sadi disproportionate you imbecile!
Just be honest about yourself – this and other studies just prove that you want to be rammed so hard your grandfather winces. So stop hating yourself and engaging in this self flagellation and spare us your constant self loathing tedium.
I don’t mind a troll. But a boring troll is just a step too far.
More evidence. Keep it coming.
Notice how he only repeats fallacious stereotypes that relate to gay males. Gay females don’t register to him at all. Anyone care to offer an explanation for why that should be? Hmmm…. what could it be?
It’s amusing, but you are all giving the sad little troll exactly what he so devoutly desires – attention.
Previous research has found chronic homophobes show physical response for same sex attraction but situational homophobes don’t. So if you’re being bashed by a gang, the ringleaders may be secretly gay but their followers probably aren’t.
It kinda makes sense, doesn’t it? The ringleaders are the ones deep in the closet. Then they spread propaganda to unwittingly recruit people into their circle. So the new people believe these excuses because they’ve been brainwashed, but probably don’t have the latent homosexuality their leader does. There’s no doubt in my mind that Fred Phelps for example is just a touch queer.
@Keith —Can you tell us:
1. Why no country that has marriage equality also has polygamous marriage ?
2. Why hasn’t heterosexual marriage led to calls for polygamous marriage ?
3. Why do some heterosexuals need to be in polygamous relationships ?
4. If you believe that polygamous relationships are beneficial to all the people involved ?
Reposted from another thread, where you’ve not responded.
In Netherlands, three-way relationships have now been given legal recognition through a “cohabitation agreement”.In Canada, in January 2007 an Ontario appeal court ruled that a child can legally have three
parents.In British Columbia there are major attempts to legalise polygamy through the courts. In Netherland, incest is no longer an offence. In sweden, a brother and sister can now marry each other. All of these cases and legislations used precedent of same-sex marriage.
Can you provide references to these cases?
The Brussels Journal, 26 September 2005, see http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301 as at 15 March
2012; Government of the Netherlands, Marriage, registered partnership and cohabitation agreement, see
as at 15 March 2012
At the time of the marriage it was reported in the Brissels Journal that Vicotr (the “groom”) did not view this as a marriage. His statement was:
“Victor: “A marriage between three persons is not possible in the Netherlands, but a civil union is. We went to the notary in our marriage costume and exchanged rings. We consider this to be just an ordinary marriage.””
The Catholic News Agency of the Netherlands themselves said in 2008 “bigamous or polygamous marriages are prohibited in the Netherlands” and reported the union of Victor de Bruijn as a “co-habitation contract” entered into by the threesome.”
This was reinforced by this website who stated that the only “marriages” that were regarded as acceptable on a polygamous basis in the Netherlands was on the grounds of religion and nothing to do with orientation.
This is a story that people have tried to twist as saying is linked to same sex partners marrying but is not
As for the website from the netherlands government this relates both to marriage and to cohabitation agreements.
The matter that Ken refers to is a cohabitation agreement and not a marriage (as the participants themselves have admitted in media interviews).
The linking of this matter to same sex couples marrying is fatuous and disingenuous as this is not a marriage.
The New York Times, 24 November 2011; National Post, 24 November 2011; PinkNews.co.uk, 4 February
2009, see http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/02/04/mormon-accused-of-polygamy-to-use-gay-marriage-asdefence/
as at 15 March 2012
The Pink News link you give does not exist.
The headline of the story on the NY Times on 24 November 2011 linked to polygamy is “Canadian Court Rules That Polygamy Ban Is Constitutional” – therefore the contention that a polygamous marriage occurring when the court rules it unlawful is preposterous.
The text of the NY Times story stated:
“The ruling stemmed from a failed prosecution in 2009 of two leaders of a breakaway Mormon sect in British Columbia and might have implications for followers of other religions that allow polygamy. In a 335-page decision that followed 42 days of hearings, Robert J. Bauman, the court’s chief justice, found that women in polygamous relationships faced higher rates of domestic, physical and sexual abuse, died younger and were more prone to mental illnesses. Children from those marriages, he said, were more likely to be abused and neglected, less likely to perform well at school and often suffered from emotional and behavioral problems.
… seeks to advance the institution of monogamous marriage, a fundamental value in Western society from the earliest of times,” Justice Bauman wrote. “It seeks to protect against the many harms which are reasonably apprehended to arise out of the practice of polygamy.” He also made reference to reports of plural marriages among Muslims in Canada before concluding, “There is no evidence that it is a widespread or mainstream phenomenon.”
The National Post headline on the story linked to polygamy on 24 November 2011 was “Scott Stinson: Polygamy is bad? You don’t say, Judge Bauman” it clearly suggested that polygamous marriages do not occur. Kens suggestions are lies and irrelevant to the issue of same sex marriage. The story itself said “Polygamy remains a crime in Canada, B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman ruled Wednesday”
No evidence that there has been any legal polygamous marriage in either Canada or Netherlands.
Details above given of 2012 publications which evidence that demonstrate the links given by Ken are fatuous.
The point of this story is that someone has been criminally charged with polygamy and thus the state are not condoning it and prosecuting it. It demonstrates the opposite to what Ken contends and shows that Canada far from endorsing polygamy post same sex marriage seek to stand against it.
The polygamy trial was thrown out on legal argument about the selection of prosecutors (not for any other reaason).
Recent reporting on his polygamy demonstrates the state still seek to stand against Blackmore
Criminal investigations are currently underway in the same matter
Clearly Canada does not support polygamy
I live in the Netherlands and incest is VERY MUCH an a felony. Never heard of a three way relationship, I think something like that would be all over the news. Actually, people think living here is one giant pride parade. Well it’s not. Amsterdam does not represent the rest of the country and people here have some common sense.
“In the Netherlands meanwhile, where consensual incest is no longer prosecuted, the legal status of the child born of such a relationship is ambiguous, according to Masha Antokolskaia, an expert in family law at the Free University in Amsterdam.”http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6424337.stm
key word: consensual. Happens between two adults and is no longer a public crime (like a murder.) It means the state no longer investigates out of own volition. the way you put it, it sounded like you couldn’t press charges if you wanted to. On the same article: Napoleon scrapped incest a couple of centuries ago.
You seem keen to link the Netherlands regarding consensual incest as being legal as somehow linked to same sex marriage when this is far from the case.
Consensual incest in the Netherlands has been legal since the Napoleonic era – whereas same sex marriage has only been legal since 2001 – clearly there is no correlation between the two.
Furthermore, Russia, China, The Netherlands, Spain, France, Turkey, Israel and the Ivory Coast have no legal prohibitions on consensual incest between adults. Of these only the Netherlands and Spain have same sex marriage – so the link between incest and polygamy in Russia, Israel, France, Turkey, Ivory Coast, China etc would not be made out and Kens argument is clearly fatuous and false.
I think you need to check the meaning of ‘felony’ then compare you initial post about incest being ‘VERY MUCH’ a felony with you reply now.
So why the fabrication about a link between incest and same sex marriage – the evidence given to you here, demonstrates that you are lying … Why?
CTVNews.ca, 2 January 2007, see http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20070102/two_mothers_071202/
as at 15 March 2012; Mercatornet.com, 30 September 2008, see
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/same_sex_marriage_lessons_from_canada as at 15 March 2012
Story number 1 has nothing to do with marriage but of the raising of a child by a lesbian couple and the rights of access of the sperm provider. Irrelevant to the issue of same sex couples marrying.
The second story is from a Roman Catholic think tank and is extremely biased about issues relating to same sex relationships and is lying.
@Keith — so, just to clarify your position:
You do not believe that marriage equality will lead to polygamous marriage.
I am glad to see you now agree that polygamy is illegal. I understand that you think my questions are “irrelevant to any of my stated views” but I think 3 and 4 are completely relevant. I don’t understand your reticence to answer them.
Whats it like in the closet,
Can you see Narnia……………..
Mr North’s capacity for intelligent rebuttal has gone south!
How correct you are. I’m in Bristol today. That’s South.
Only there was noting “intelligent” to rebut.
It was West when I went to school, unless they’ve moved it.
As amusing as it is to watch from the sidelines, nothing makes an otherwise intelligent homosexual look so stupid so quickly as responding to criticisms of their sexuality by calling their opponents “secret gays”.
Whether it’s true or not is irrelevant since it rarely addresses whatever criticisms/complaints may have been levelled at homosexuals.
Well all the so-called “criticism/complaints” are based on carefully crafted logical fallacies and misrepresented research. These have been discredited in many places. I have a personal repository of these:
The latent homosexuality in the repressed self-hating homosexual homophobes and the fear of rejection by their unlucky spouses where present, are entirely relevant – these account for most of the initial appeal of the abovementionned logical fallacies.
The rest of the homophobia is explained by ignorance and religious lobotomies.
The latent homosexuality in the repressed self-hating homosexual homophobes and the fear of rejection by their unlucky spouses where present, are entirely relevant – these account for most of the initial appeal of the abovementionned logical fallacies.
I don’t claim that they have any good reason to dislike homosexuals, simply that responding to their arguments by saying that they are repressed homosexuals makes you look unwilling to engage with their points. When somebody makes an argument you disagree with you address the argument not the speaker – this is a well recognised standard of civilised discourse and you undermine your own credibility by ignoring it.Perhaps over time consistent attempts at what we might call “character assassination” might be effective, but it is very easy to deny during a debate.
Also there is something slightly sinister and insane about your website, that isn’t in keeping with the otherwise cool headed and rational tone of the gay rights movement like describing your opponents as suffering from a “disease”. The general layout probably needs jiggling around a bit too ad whilst I’m aware why you chose the name Gay Agenda but I’d still think it does more harm than good.
I spent several months worth of my freetime addressing every single argument levelled against equal rights for gay people. Every single one of these arguments is either a logical fallacy or a personal misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation of reality.
It’s all there, I have addressed the arguments. If the bigot wishes to repeat a discredited argument, then it is not character assasination to point out that the bigot is unable to engage with reality.
Provide me with a single original argument and I will be happy to sit down and address it.
“there is something slightly sinister and insane about your website”
Please elaborate. I am keen to improve it.
I think that it’s more the formatting than anything else – it looks like it’s been cut from the same cloth as Timecube. I’m by no means an expert on website design but I’d stay away from background colours other than white for one thing. In terms of language you sometimes lay on the descriptions of enemies and allies a little too thick.
Going back to the original point of “character assassination”, a bigot who repeats a discredit argument should be met with an explanation as to why their argument is bogus. You can point out that they are not engaging with your rebuttals (and indeed you should), but there is a clear line between pointing out that somebody is simply repeating a flawed argument and saying that the only reason why they keep repeating the argument is because of a psychological defect.
I know it can be frustrating to deal with block headed bigots, but I believe there is always something to be said for avoiding anything that could be misconstrued as petty name calling.
I will look into the layout design.
Please provide the first Chapter:Verse number where you have a problem. I would like to change it or defend the way I have written.
If you can’t do that, then this is a typical case of argument by flytipping.
I’m afraid I don’t have the to go through everything you wrote but I’ll grab an example of this overly zealous tone from the first page.
“Ignorant, arrogant or emotionally unstable people can be vicious and vocal homophobes. ”
Things like this are what I’m talking about: you don’t need the word vicious there, certainly not after listing three other attributes. Across the site in general you come to overuse the word arrogant until it becomes a buzzword, just a symbol that you dislike somebody.
These are just style things though, so feel free to disagree although on the topic of Chapter:Verse numbers they have unfortunate connotations of their own. While I appreciate that they are a useful way to organise material the immediate impression they give is somewhat biblical which (seeing as it is not biblical) comes across as a little “cult-y”.
My argument has remained consistent throughout. Everything I’ve said about your website is just friendly advice.
Obviously the above post was made by Adam Denton.
As a professional designer, I can advise that there is no problem with having non-white backgrounds. It is more about contrast and legibility. Dark text on light is always preferential, and I often use shades of grey or pastels.
For a general readership I entirely agree with you, although for some people with visual impairments e.g. retinitis pigmentosa, a white background is preferable.
For the record, the background on my website is 93% white, basically just off white. I don’t know if Adam’s monitor has some funny calibration issues, but I found it to be slightly more restful on the eyes than pure white.
Full disclosure: I’m colour blind, so I have funny taste in colour.
This story is not about addressing the criticisms that homophobes have made (although they are dealt with in great detail in many of the comments of PN).
This story is about research which identifies that many homophobes are in denial about their own orientation.
You claim that whether the research is true or not is irrelevant. Sounds like denial to me.
I was responding to the comments section and simply saying that this doesn’t give you good reason to call all critics of gay rights repressed homosexuals. This is something I have seen done in real life, so it’s not a completely irrelevant here. The result of using the “you’re just gay” argument is usually to make the bigot look like the bigger man. Not clever.
I don’t question the actual research that’s been done since I’m not in a position to do so and whilst I do have some casual interest in the study of human sexuality (who doesn’t) homosexuality and homophobia aren’t things I can claim to have a burning interest in.
“Sounds like denial to me.”
Cool witch hunting my friend. It’s very interesting how any differing opinions get interpreted as hostile and are met with personal attacks but I’m about a one or a two on the Kinsey scale for whatever that’s worth.
Firstly, I think the study is worthwhile from what I have read about it elsewhere and does show there is a definable link between repressed orientation and homophobia. It also elicits some reasoning as to why this may occur.
Secondly, I am a Kinsley 4. Which surprised me as I expected to be 5 or 6 but hey.
A lot of people come on PN with the intention of condemning people and some of them have admitted their attacks or comments (which it is sometimes difficult to measure the intention behind prose) have been based in repressed orientation leading to homophobia (maybe only one or two admissions on here but nonetheless they have occurred).
I read your comments (prose is difficult to interpret mood) as attacking the study and as lashing out. I reacted to it. That probably wasnt helpful. Nonetheless whilst what I said may not apply to you, it could apply to others.
Hmmmm… Just skimmed through the comments… You do make some valid points… Appreciate you admit to being a one or two on the Kinsey… ( which is it, I’m curious… Too much variance between 1 and 2… :) ) this study surely doesn’t prove that every homophobic reaction stems from suppressesed homosexual tendency… But it is interesting in that it does confirm many people’s beliefs from personal experience.
There is a difference in arguing your viewpoint and screaming “Die and burn in hell… !” and you’re right in saying that when you do revert to a purely emotional response like that you lose all credibility.
It simply makes sense for closeted individuals to be homophobic to protect themselves… That is how I protected myself when I was closeted. Interestingly I have been raised by strict parents and I have a homophobic non accepting brother who I have heard rumors of and who shunned me for not making the right choice.
Don’t take it personal… :)
“Too much variance between 1 and 2″
Is there? The difference between “only incidentally” and “more than incidentally” was pretty fuzzy to me. I’ve always just described myself as straightish whenever it’s been relevant.
You’re not a goon by any chance?
So your friendly constructive advice is that it is not vague enough to allow misinterpretation.
Yes, every single argument I have ever seen used to justify denying equal rights to gay people is based on ignorance, arrogance or lies.
Please provide me a single argument you believe does not fall under these three categories, and I will be happy to modify the website.
“So your friendly constructive advice is that it is not vague enough to allow misinterpretation.”
No, now you’re just getting overly defensive despite the fact that I’m not attacking you or your position; I’m simply of the opinion that a barrage of strongly purgative language makes you sound more like a fiery crusader than the voice of reason. It’s easy to understand why you use language like you do since it’s such an emotive topic but you have to consider who you are writing for. People reading your website who do not already agree with you are likely to be put off simply because the way you’ve written it.
It’s a style thing – I just don’t think you’ve adopted the most persuasive tone for your work. It’s regrettable because the actual meat of your arguments is very solid.
I know my arguments are solid. In fact, it is blindlingly obvious that they are correct. That’s because they are reasoned out and based on evidence and logic.
The minds of the bigots that I work to undermine are not open for reasoning. Check out this part:
I do not wish to convince anybody at all of anything. I think you have misunderstood my purpose.
My purpose is to make it so clear that the bigots are not engaging with reality, that they are unable to pretend even to themselves, much less visitors to the forums they infest, that they are being reasonable.
Indeed, they have accused me of using “an excess of logic”, suggested I had help from majorly powerful hypothetical conspiracies (Zionist, Free Masons, you name it and I’ve been accused of it), and their last word is usually something rather unpleasant and unrepeatable here (unless you’re Keith et al., that is.)
My audience is people who, gay or straight, have come across some homophobic piece of garbage reasoning or claim, that had the nasty feeling that the reasoning was flawed but can’t quite put their finger on what’s wrong with it.
Indeed, homophobes (and scientific creationist cretins, I must add) are often excellent at bending the rules of logic to make their unreasonable position appear as if it has some truth in it and must be respected.
It is naive to think that every debate has two equal sides. Sometimes one side is made up.
“My purpose is to make it so clear that the bigots are not engaging with reality, that they are unable to pretend even to themselves, much less visitors to the forums they infest, that they are being reasonable.”
So you wish to, through strength of reasoned thought, convince people that arguments against gay rights are all fundamentally flawed? This is a genuine question: who are you writing for if not people who don’t already support gay rights? Even if you are writing a handbook for other supporters to use surely the important thing is to give them the clearest possible break down of the logic behind the arguments with as little moralising as you can manage so as not to distract them? (Hey, they’re on your side anyway).
“Indeed, they have accused me of using “an excess of logic””
Past success includes the disbanding of the abovementionned hate group on Facebook. As I said, they could no longer pretend even to themselves that they were being reasonable. Indeed, to add to the original point of the article, at least a dozen of them displayed the clear signs of repressed homosexuality (generally displayed by an unhealthy interest in the details of anal sex, and repeating the mantra that “marriage is for making babies”). One went as far as claim “we all experience same-sex attractions in our youth but we then decide that the homosexual lifestyle is not for us” (I have screenshots, but I have not published these online).
As I said, I wrote it for people who have a hint of a doubt in their head that the bigots might have a point. Indeed many otherwise gay-friendly people ask why we need the word “marriage” or whether we are infringing on religious liberty when we try to stop religious nutters from brain washing little children before they can learn to think for themselves.
As I have said, all arguments against equal rights for gay people are based on ignorance (such as how one “turns gay” or “gay is against nature”, or “gays will bring tsunamis”), arrogance (“my arbitrary and accidentally chosen [by birth] god miraculously happens to be homophobic, so your relationship is not real”) and/or lies (“gay people walk naked in the streets for pride”).
I kid you not, all these arguments are actually used by people who are good at dressing them up in fake logic.
…youre quite uptight arent you…
People don’t like SA huh?
…what makes you think that gay men are necessarily intelligent…? lol
Just because someone’s a bit uptight because of the oppression they’ve experienced don’t necessarily mean that they’re also intelligent…
‘Clipped’ is more likely to mean ‘arsey’ than it does ‘clever’… (you just have to look at some of the postings on the Pink News Comments Boards for examples of that…)
…very odd – that was posted as a reply to Adam Denton above – yet for some reason was posted all the way down here…
@Keith — I’m asking you to answer clearly, what you think. Be plain, tell us your views on 3 and 4.
There’s no need to be defensive, just tell us what you think about polygamy.
You failed to answer this question. Do you think it is right to prevent CONSENTING ADULTS that number more than two from marrying. If so, on what basis?
Sorry, I’m not Harry, but I can tell you that I frankly don’t give a toss how many consenting adults get married or in what combination.
which shows that you have no moral boundaries.
No it does not.
@Keith — just tell us what you think about polygamy.
Harry, and let’s not forget that polygamous marriages are strictly an heterosexual phenomenon. Solomon of the old testament had over 300 wives and an assortment of concubines and he wasn’t the only biblical character either. This proves just how desperate and dishonest the C4M hatemongers really are to use the polygamy card. It is they who invented it and continue to perpetrate it. Since Holland first legalised equal civil marriage eleven years ago, there hasn’t been one case of polygamy in Holland or in any of the ten countries as a result of equal marriage equality. Right there, they are bearing false witness, a violation of one of the ten commandments. Telling lies and spreading false, often offencive information about people, especially gay people isn’t about christianity but more about religion based bigotry and hatred. They are NOT christians in any way shape or form.
This has been a well established trend since Prof Henry Adams and his test studys with the gay porn, the self-confessed homophobes and the penile pleismograth…
Other example include these…
Oh and here’s some more
In the words of Roy Zimmerman “This week we just heard about this guy George Rekers… yet another rabid virulent anti gay activist who turned out to be gay and the question then becomes ‘how do you know when a rabid virulent anti gay activist is in fact gay?’ and the answer is – ‘Well D’uh!’”
Yet another homosexual that has been outed. Why are homosexuals disproportionately hiding their perverse desires?
You are doing a damn good job of outing yourself Keith – the evidence is convincing that you are indeed a closet case.
You’re the perfect man to answer that question, Keith – just WHY are you hiding your homosexuality? It’s clearly not making you happy to doing so.
@Keith — you seem to be having difficulty in seeing what is obvious to everyone else.
1. Research says very often homophobes are self-hating gays.
2. People who obsess about gays and compulsively post disgusting messages on gay websites are homophobes.
3. You Keith, obsess about gay people, and you Keith, compulsively post disgusting messages on gay websites.
4. You Keith, are homophobic.
5. So, thing is Keith, you’re probably gay.
And the tragedy is, it’s only a problem for you.
SHOCK ! HORROR! PROBE!
You are telling me they needed to perform all these studies just to prove something the rest of us have known for years?
Some of my best mates are totally straight, and I can kiss them on the cheek or pinch their bums and they just laugh it off and feel flattered. That’s because they are confident in their sexuality and don’t perceive me as a threat. It’s the ones that over-react that usually have something to hide.
How do you know they are hiding something and not actually disgusted by you. If i shoved a pile of excrement in your mouth and you ‘over reacted’, sould I conclude that you are colrophobic in denial.
Actually, I am glad to see you come out of the closet as an ‘out’ idiot!
Because unlike you, they just take people as they find them, without prejudging them. That’s what real straight people do.
Glad to see you are still hiding in your closet like the latent homosexual you really are.
Eat sh|t and die. Oh, sorry, I forgot, you’ve already tried that.
How do you know they are hiding something and not actually disgusted by you. If i shoved a pile of excrement in your mouth and you ‘over reacted’, sould I conclude that you are colrophobic in denial.
Actually, I am glad to see you come out of the closet as an ‘out’ idiot!..
@Keith — you’re getting obsessed again. You know what happens when you start over obsessing about things.
I agree Spanner, anyone who is truly secure in their sexuality is extremely unlikely to become obsessed by homosexuality, simply because – unlike certain specimens who feel the need to troll on this site – they have nothing to feel threatened by.
You failed to answer this question. Do you think it is right to prevent CONSENTING ADULTS that number more than two from marrying. If so, on what basis?…
@Keith — well I think I asked you a question first, which you have responded to by asking a question.
It’s not a convincing way of making a point; in fact I am really not sure what you are trying to achieve by posting on this forum. You make yourself look ridiculous with a series of obsessional rants which most often are deleted because of their foul nature. When anyone asks you a question you become defensive and terribly abusive, and of course you never answer a question. You have the debating style of an adolescent, yet employ the language and phraseology of a pensioner. You seem to think that name calling and abuse is an acceptable way of winning an argument. It is not, and people dislike it, so they no longer seek to engage with you, but bait you for their own entertainment.
So I ask again: what is your point ?
I once hear a bit of wisdom from an Australian author, Andrew Matthews, who said that life is like a mirror – in other words, the problems we have with others is more than likely to be a reflection of ourselves. This study in a way, proves that.
The real challenge is how do we put this knowledge to good use. How can this be used to influence government policy for example. I raise this point, because it would appear that Homophobia is actually an illness.
The irony of a homophobe being GLB is somewhat amusing, and I don’t doubt that some homophobia is rooted in internalised oppression. However, I would be surprised if the majority of homophobes are secretly GLB. After all, if we don’t assume that the majority of white supremacists are secretly black, and don’t assume that the majority of anti-Semites are secretly Jewish, and so on, then why should we assume that the majority of homophobes are secretly GLB?
Never heard the phrase ‘passing’….?
I am sceptical about the ‘homophobes are really gay’ line in general (for instance, do racists secretly feel that they belong to another ethnicity?), though I accept that it can be a strong factor in some cases. It is essential, of course, that the individuals in question be brought up in an already homophobic culture and absorb its values before it will occur to them to deny homosexual attraction in themselves and deal with it by attacking it in others. In most cases I suspect that homophobes are just bigoted straights who buy the culture’s idealisation of heterosexuality(especially as an affirmation of male status) and regard their expression of it as an ‘achievement’ which makes other options inferior and contemptible.
Not all homophobes are gay or fear rejection from their gay partner. Some have had a religious lobotomy.
Good to see this type of research being performed …all helps with tackling the enemies of human rights. May be obvious to some but it’s news to me.
I play in heavy rock bands and am openly Gay. The only actual homophobia I’ve experienced (not talking about the occasional “bloody poof” comment) came from a guy who promptly outed himself to me and his band-mates two years later.
I have an idea. Why don’t newspapers avoid publishing stories on research conducted on nonrepresentative samples? If for no other reason than to make researchers in psychology do a half-way decent job before they publish?
Which specific piece of methodology is it that you wish to critique?
Is this a slow news day? PN really does seem to be scrabbling around for something to print. This kind of research is not new and the findings aren’t new either. What next? Studies find some Easter Eggs are made from milk chocolate?
@ Heteropride… Great 2B Straight!.
I hope that someday you can come to terms with your homosexuality too! It will make you feel so much better, both you and Aiden need to realize that.
I think most, if not all, of us in the gay “community” have known this for years.
Lol, I’m just waiting to see how the vatican responds, it’ll be amusing :-D
Someone forward it to them!! troll the vatican :-D
Was there any particular reason my comment was deleted? All I said is that irrespective of any link between homosexuality and homophobia, calling critics of homosexuality gay just makes otherwise intelligent homosexuals look stupid in the context of any kind of debate.
It’s pretty funny to watch people get massively frustrated at the “accusation” but still, it’s not a very good argument.
So you make a hypothesis that the research is flawed, please sustain it by demonstrating some evidence to support your claim or demonstrating some flaw or flaws in the methodology of the research you seem keen to critique …
Or, is it mere rhetoric you are making?
Not convinced. I still believe that majority of homophobes are heterosexual. Closeted gay homophobes may be the most agressive homophobes when they come in direct contact with other gay people, however. They may be the ones who have uncontrollable psychological reactions. But there are plenty of self-controlling peaceful ideological homophobes among heterosexuals, like the pope, for example. And they are a majority.
This doesn’t even begin to explain the homophobic women who hate gay men.
I always thought that was the case which means that a vast number of them are among the clergy. I always thought Rowan Williams was a deeply closeted self-loather and as for Cardinal O’Brien and Archbishop Nichols, repressed gays who never came out. Makes you wonder about Pope Benedict.
I don’t know if it’s a coincidence, but almost evey homophobic woman I’ve come across were married. Maybe they consider us a threat to them like stealing their husbands away.
Fear is as fear does….
If you read the article its not saying that EVERYONE who’s homophobic is struggling to conceal their own sexuality – just that there are possibly large numbers who are.
To be honest I’ve not experienced an overwhelming number of ‘homophobic women’ myself…
(perhaps as Robert suggests above, those that may be may be secretly fearful that we will ‘turn’ their husbands,partners, boyfriends (ie that perhaps they suspect or are fearful that their partners themselves are gay…)
Pink News, could you please remove the self-loather “Hetero-pride.. Great 2B Straight!” from posting here? I’ve no doubt he’s an agitator for C4M. He’s a nuisance and contributes nothing to the discussions we are having.
That troll will just simply use another name as he has done many times. What this website needs are moderators like Huffington Post. One thing I just do not understand about people is that some people just love being offended – if Keith (to give that troll’s real name) finds us so offensive then he should go elsewhere. Trolling is a custodial offence and hopefully Keith will find himself at Her Majesty’s Pleasure but I cannot think helping that he will keep dropping the soap in the showers there.
The police are aware and investigating his trolling.
Apparently a new offence of trolling has been created. Which police force are investigting Stu, Trumpton?
Who said the offense was named in law as trolling? That merely is a descriptive term of your putrid actions.
Keep looking for the knock on the door!
No, it’s called ‘inciting hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation’ (Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008).
Cease and desist while you still have time.
Well part of the reason for the delay is that 3 police services have been involved so far. One of them is now co-ordinating.
Looking forward to giving evidence against you in court.
Isn’t it revealing why so many of them are religious clerics especially those of the roman and CoE varieties?
Probably no surprises here, but good to see opinions backed up by scientific evidence.
Makes perfect sense to me – I think we have all experienced enough self-hatred from those LGB people who are in denial of their sexuality whilst indulging in addictive, furtive and short-lived sex.
The closet is a terrible place to be – not least because of the extreme lengths people will go to in order to keep their own ‘dirty little secret’ locked up in the dark.
this is so true, from my own life’s experiences, I am glad that it has had proper research.
have known this forever ! thanks for the study
Mmmm, all those anti-gay marriage now have some explaining to do, Ratzi first.
When I was at school, I parrotted the homophobia everyone espoused and not a single kid admitted being gay (section 28 was in place). But I was homophobic because of my family, my school, not knowing of any gay people and not knowing any different. I grew up quickly when I realised I was gay and understood that my parents and teachers had been wrong, and I rejected the homophobic nonsense I’d grown up with. Adult homophobes don’t grow up, and cleave to their prejudice like playground bullys who resent the smart kids. For the most part, I reckon it’s that, not their own sexuality, that makes them homophobic.
Trolls just don’t have patience. They time is coming when you will be brought to account for your putrid actions. It will all start with a knock on the door. Keep looking.
Tell me which theatre you are playing pantomime dame in (well that is all you do on here – you have no more value than that!) and I might come and heckle.
Is it Dick you are playing in DIck Whittington, or is it Aladdins lamp that you like rubbing?
You are doing a great job at outing yourself – keep the evidence coming.
Keep looking for that knock at the door.
@Keith — you’re more clown than pantomime dame.
I’m reserving my judgement until the scientific article comes out and I can read it critically. As much as it might feel gratifying to point the finger and shout out out out, I agree with the few posts here who note that homophobia is probably bigger than a small number of closeted repressive/ed types, and that similar forms of vilifying hatred (race, religion, etc) are not due just to the psychodynamic mirror. I understand from other studies (some printed in the same journal going to publish this one) that deep and unmanageable anxiety is often a cause of extremism, and that scapegoating serves to remove and displace strong unwanted feelings. While no doubt some of those for some people might be suppressed same-sex attraction, I think the majority are displaced angry outrage from diverse sources, not all of which are even related to homosexuality, save for the need for a convenient scapegoat. It’s a cop out to label such people sick. I’d opt for emotionally illiterate and insecure.
Liked this reporting from New Zealand on it:
Teams at the University of Rochester, the University of California Santa Barbara, and at the University of Essex worked together to legitimize what you already thought you knew by conducting four experiments on college-aged students in the US and Germany.
And what did they find?
homophobic people tend to be the way they are because they’ve got a little bit of The Gay themselves and were raised by authoritarian parents, according to a series of new studies. And outwardly directed anti-gay hate is often projected self-hate. Homophobes, then, sort of hate themselves. Take that, homophobes!
Been on the sherbets again, Keith?
I’d keep looking out the front window if I were you.
I’ve been saying this for decades. Ever since I understood that I was a gay man. As children when we were called names we replied saying ‘It takes one to recognise one’. That is as true today as it was all those years ago. We represent all their worst hidden fears and desires. They are so afraid we will ‘out’ them to their friends so they get in first by violent verbal and/or physical abuse. Any gay man who confronts homophobia online in Comments sections should point that out. The homophobe is actually a scared Gay/bi-sexual who needs to deal creatively with his own sexuality first and foremost.
These useless “psychologists” are always to last to know.
It’s like that time my younger brother managed to steal my dad’s Rangie and prang it into a wall. He had to create a diversion so he could either a) run away, b) foist the blame elsewhere c) repair the Rangie promptly. He kept leaping up and down yelling something incoherently about a fire before scarpering. If you huff and puff enough when caught in a trap, you might generate enough guff to get out of it. Sadly nobody is convinced. Especially one angry bloke with a dented Range Rover and garden wall.
Well.. Ive said this all along because I was one of them. I grew up in a home where my father used to say that all gays whould be killed. I grew up a homophobe hateing everyone that reminded me of who I was. Being a small tiny kid I didnt bully anyone but everyone I found attractive I hated. Everyone reminding me of who I really was, I hated. My straight brothers didnt hate gays, but I did.
Im out of the closset now but it took a very long time for me to face my fears and become who I really was.
What bothers me so much is why so many people (hetero and homo) are so
confused about their sexual orientation and behavior.
To me, I’ve never had any problem –it’s cut and dry — black and white — I enjoy women in all their aspects and have no problems with any type of preference of who I want to have a lasting and involved relationship with — a woman has so many fantastic qualities that there’s nothing to make a judgement about — I truly feel sorry for bisexuals, they seem to be totally confused about who and what they want!!
This accounts for the male-dominated Republican “haters” in Congress, as well as the rhetorical religious fanatics in the U.S.