Hand grenade for the day: answer this one, alerts off.

New "why are you asking?" answers.

Ha, Momus to thread.

Cos it's not a safe assumption - the balance has shifted from "repugnant/wrong" to "not for me", and I think homosexuality=evil is a minority view now.

Back when it was a safe assumption homosexuals didn't have many/any rights.

I think homosexuality=evil

tom!

HAHA, ONLY JOKING.

yeah: it's not a safe assumption.

John Inman and the guy that played Jason King paved the way for mainsteram gay rights in the UK.

Sadly I'm convinced that David is right. I'm sure that a large majority think it's *wrong*, but may not go as far as *repugnant*. They may not even openly voice this, but if pushed would say it's wrong.

These are obv. sweeping generalisations but it's gotta be the majority view for pensioners/the working class/christians/middle- englanders. Add these together and the middle-class liberal elite is swamped.

in any polity where a majority view has at least some political force, rights are the establishment of a degree of social protection FROM the (assumed) majority view

I think its more likely that the typical view is that its repugnant but not wrong, Dr. C.

Big suprise, Mark S = OTM.

I think even more likely is that most people really aren't bothered unless you're doing it in front of them.

(i deleted the repeat thread)

I reckon tom's right again.

I think more people would look upon homosexual ACTS as repugnant but not wrong than would look upon them as repugnant AND wrong. I'm sure this minority still=lots. so: lots of people look upon them as wrong and even more people look upon them as repugnant!

but, yeah. I also think, like Dr. C said, plenty of members of older generations and other GROUPS will hold views like these. but: they don't have any POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hm. something like what mark said.

Yeah this is kind of what I meant too. Most of the homophobic comments I've heard (from a pretty broad spectrum of people) are "I dont mind them doing it but do they have to flaunt it?" and then discomfort at the idea of gay sex itself. Which is an attack on rights but falls short of calling homosexuality evil or wrong.

Did anyone else see a column in the weekend papers - cant remember who by - arguing that a rise in heterosexual anal and oral sex meant more tolerance for gay men as the acts weren't 'scary' any more?

yeah but repugnant also often = just sexual generally, which means ppl are CONFLICTED (cf attitudes to porn) rather than ABSOLUTE in attitude

is feeling a bit weird abt specific acts which don't turn you on the same as intolerance: it's clearly connected to it

samuel delany has argued for some years that the broadening of the sexual palate (palette?) (menu?) via porn has been of direct, palpable benefit to the non-straight community ("community"?)

I don't know, I think there are still problems with how people see homosexuals, in terms of personality. I think some people have problems with thinking all homosexuals are the camp stereotype and men should not be like this or something. I don't think it's completely about the sex.

yeah it's acts (or behaviour if you like) that get persecuted. Social in/tolerance of problematic "personality type" isn't related to political groups at all: "i hate horrible people" "so do i there ought to be a law"

(or assumed behaviour)

i do not trust the state to protect minority interests. So if the majority of people in alberta view it as sick, then i cannot expect to be protected by a government elected by this majority.

governments are usually elected by a majority VOTE, not so much by the majority. OF PEOPLE.

Bourgeois decadence

becos tory swine love getting dressed up in red lace knickers and having their teeth fucked out from their asses by our massive gloating cocks.

RJG's last post reminds me of Charlton Heston in "Soylent Green".

I've worked with brilliantly talented homosexuals all my life. But when I told an audience that gay rights should extend no further than your rights or my rights, I was called a homophobe.

Everyone should have rights and be equal. I know people who are homosexual and they are some of the funniest people I have ever met in my entire life. Why are so many people against homosexuals? I don't understand this. In my opinion, most people are against homosexuality due to the fact that they believe it is unnatural. Define unnatural! I wouldn't say homosexuality is man made so how can it be unnatural? Or am I just waffling on?

I knew it. all homosexuals=funny. except. all the ones that think they're funny because they're homosexual]=[play IT up for LAUGHS. I suppose this takes in all the ones that make it onto television.

laughter is the best medicine but there's no cure for homosexuality. or love, come to that. YET.

if people are against homosexuals it is usually because they too are homosexual [haha, how true this occasionally might be in some circumstances].

unnatural=in violation of a natural law=inconsistent with an individual pattern or custom=deviating from a behavioral or social norm: an unnatural attachment=contrived or constrained; artificial=in violation of natural feelings; inhuman. apparently! they don't mention anything about sexual persuasion. there. unless you want to read anything like that into it and if you do then you are obviously a homophobe.

homosexuality should be classed as man made. why not??

Tom quotes "I dont mind them doing it but do they have to flaunt it?", but I've always preferred "I don't mind as long as they don't shove it down my throat" for its huge double entendre.

One other point: everyone believes stealing is wrong/morally terrible, but thieves still have rights. And we are thinking very muddily indeed if we conflate "repugnant" and "evil" - the subject of coprophilia arose last night at the FAP, and I find that the former but in no way the latter.

experiences this year have me worried that this may be (becoming?) a safe assumption : (