Racism, homophobia and WoW players.

[Deleted]

Well I obviously can't speak for everyone, but I'll just offer my input. I don't care if someone's gay. What I care about is the way liberal society is trying to force me to accept it as totally normal when I, and many others, simply don't think it is. It's got nothing to do with being hateful. Hell, I've even had two gay friends before, I'm as polite to them as I am to anyone else. I'd be friends with someone who's attracted to children too, or someone who's done incest, but that doesn't mean I think their preferences are normal or that society should support it. To me it's like excusing a mental illness as natural and normal instead of trying to deter or help it, to avoid feelings of discrimination. I'm a big believer of standards, guidelines to live by, and to me that's one of them. God or nature clearly designed us, and every other species, to mate with the opposite sex. Any deviation from the norm, such as gay or incest, shouldn't be supported in my opinion. That's not to say they should be locked up or anything, but I think it should remain a taboo.

And the reason I don't support gay marriage has nothing to do with denying rights. I just think the legal benefits of marriage are largely in place because it's assumed that they're going to start a family together. I don't support gay adoption rights because of my opinion on what it could do to the kid's perspective. They obviously can't have kids naturally either, which to me is enough proof that it's not meant to be, so I see no reason for them to have such legal benefits. If we go down that road, we might as well give single people more benefits too, to make sure they don't feel oppressed, or do away with marriage benefits altogether.

As for racism, I'm honestly not sure it exists too much anymore, at least in my generation. I live in an area that's considered by stereotype to be racist, but I'm not, and I've never known a single young to middle aged person who was. We're primarily white, sure, but that doesn't mean we're mean to those that aren't. I don't see racism online either, except in the form of joking around, which isn't really racism. I think people are just being too thin skinned in general these days, and getting all huffy at anything that doesn't agree with them.

By comparing homosexuality to pedophilia you're showing how uneducated on the matter you are. It's not been classed as a mental illness since the 70s.
Try looking up some studies that have been done on homosexuality sometime: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology...al_orientation

Also, saying "racism doesn't exist too much more anything" is such an easy thing to say when you're white and don't experience racial oppression on a daily basis LOL.

[Jediguy]

I have always found the term "homophobia" an interesting one. It implies some sort of extreme, irrational fear on the part of its subject. And hey, who wants to listen to anyone that has come to their conclusions based on an extreme, irrational fear? It's clever rhetoric to immediately discredit anyone who disagrees with the LGBTQ agenda, but ultimately, it's nothing more than an ad hominem attack. There are two myths prevalent in the world today, especially concerning this topic: (a) if you disapprove of someone's behavior, you must hate them and (b) if you love someone, you must approve of their behavior. Neither myth is true. I do not approve of the LGBTQ community's agenda or behavior, but quite often, as soon as I voice my disagreement, I'm labeled a "hateful bigot" or "homophobe." The name-calling never takes too long to start. Ironically, this is bigotry on part of the LGBTQ community and its allies against any who disagree with them. I do not mean to say there is no hatred the LGBTQ community has had to suffer through from those who disapprove, only that not all who disapprove are hateful; the two are not necessarily linked. When the LGBTQ community fails to distinguish between the two, they stereotype, which is something the LGBTQ community hates when it is done to them.

No one should be nasty toward others for being different, even if they disagree with behaviors they carry out, especially if those behaviors are not harming others. Unfortunately, the LGBTQ community has become just as guilty of hate speech, bigotry, and stereotyping as those who have done these things to them. One side says, "fag" and the other says "homophobe." This isn't language conducive to tolerance, dialogue, or civility.

[larrakeyah]

I've never seen any racist chat on EU servers. Maybe it happens but it would be severely frowned upon. You'd be reported instantly. You US guys are still a long way behind the rest of the world when it comes to racism. Mind you, you had apartheid until the 60s so it's to be expected.

Location: London, England.

Coming from a country that made slavery a profitable and "honourable" business. India, Ireland, Australia... Mind you, you had Apartheid until the 90s: being a Catholic in the 6 counties wasn't a fun experience.

[Aaldarius]

Now I am speaking outside of obvious racist/offensive chanting in trade or /yell.

I think A LOT of people on WoW misinterpret joking with friends as racism. I am white and my name is a heavily used black name, too, so my friends tease me about it occasionally but it is all fun and games - nothing too serious (just jokes about rap music, basketball and alcohol -which three I enjoy equally as well ). But to an outsider, may "white-knight it" this joking and think they are being racist to me or get offended if they share the same name as me. Though if you are at the point of revealing your name then I still think it is pretty naive on a persons part to feel offended by then.

Overall, I think the WoW community needs to see everything taken in context and also know the environment. Most guilds and player bases heavily warn about their atmospheres to potential recruits and maybe even pugs. People entering these new atmospheres also need to take into consideration that these players have no obligation to cater to your needs, they may tone down but do not expect it to cease.

tl;dr - Simply, if you are easily offended - do some due diligence on who you play with. Most people are pretty nice outside of a pug standpoint in WoW, silent treatment is not a terrible thing either in a pug/raid.

[Deleted]

I have always found the term "homophobia" an interesting one. It implies some sort of extreme, irrational fear on the part of its subject. And hey, who wants to listen to anyone that has come to their conclusions based on an extreme, irrational fear? It's clever rhetoric to immediately discredit anyone who disagrees with the LGBTQ agenda, but ultimately, it's nothing more than an ad hominem attack. There are two myths prevalent in the world today, especially concerning this topic: (a) if you disapprove of someone's behavior, you must hate them and (b) if you love someone, you must approve of their behavior. Neither myth is true. I do not approve of the LGBTQ community's agenda or behavior, but quite often, as soon as I voice my disagreement, I'm labeled a "hateful bigot" or "homophobe." The name-calling never takes too long to start. Ironically, this is bigotry on part of the LGBTQ community and its allies against any who disagree with them. I do not mean to say there is no hatred the LGBTQ community has had to suffer through from those who disapprove, only that not all who disapprove are hateful; the two are not necessarily linked. When the LGBTQ community fails to distinguish between the two, they stereotype, which is something the LGBTQ community hates when it is done to them.

No one should be nasty toward others for being different, even if they disagree with behaviors they carry out, especially if those behaviors are not harming others. Unfortunately, the LGBTQ community has become just as guilty of hate speech, bigotry, and stereotyping as those who have done these things to them. One side says, "fag" and the other says "homophobe." This isn't language conducive to tolerance, dialogue, or civility.

Please specify what you mean with the phrase "gay agenda".

And are you really trying to equate the word "homophobe" to that of "fag"? If people were not bigoted and ignorant then the word "homophobic" wouldn't have to exist. It's called reverse discourse, read some Foucault.

[anisadora]

Don't forget some of the rampant sexism in this game. Ive had guys try to call me a girl as in insult, (or say something like "go make me a sandwich, you bitch" - in randoms, because I wouldnt pass them the loot i won on a roll that was an equal upgrade for me) or just state girls are not as good as males.

---------- Post added 2013-03-11 at 10:49 AM ----------

I have always found the term "homophobia" an interesting one. It implies some sort of extreme, irrational fear on the part of its subject. And hey, who wants to listen to anyone that has come to their conclusions based on an extreme, irrational fear? It's clever rhetoric to immediately discredit anyone who disagrees with the LGBTQ agenda, but ultimately, it's nothing more than an ad hominem attack. There are two myths prevalent in the world today, especially concerning this topic: (a) if you disapprove of someone's behavior, you must hate them and (b) if you love someone, you must approve of their behavior. Neither myth is true. I do not approve of the LGBTQ community's agenda or behavior, but quite often, as soon as I voice my disagreement, I'm labeled a "hateful bigot" or "homophobe." The name-calling never takes too long to start. Ironically, this is bigotry on part of the LGBTQ community and its allies against any who disagree with them. I do not mean to say there is no hatred the LGBTQ community has had to suffer through from those who disapprove, only that not all who disapprove are hateful; the two are not necessarily linked. When the LGBTQ community fails to distinguish between the two, they stereotype, which is something the LGBTQ community hates when it is done to them.

No one should be nasty toward others for being different, even if they disagree with behaviors they carry out, especially if those behaviors are not harming others. Unfortunately, the LGBTQ community has become just as guilty of hate speech, bigotry, and stereotyping as those who have done these things to them. One side says, "fag" and the other says "homophobe." This isn't language conducive to tolerance, dialogue, or civility.

I feel like, the phrase... "you had to attend college to speak that stupidly" might apply here. That, or the long-suffering excuse-throwing heterosexual-white-male reasoning. But,

[Bridgetjones]

I have no problem with heterohobic gays, what right do i have to prohibit them anything ? They can hate me and think M+F is wrong, call me sick and so on. But i expect same treatment, if i think that M+M\F+F is wrong what right do they have to call me homophob ? Be gay, who cares ? Why they so consern about what other people think of them ? Be zoophile, necrophile....its u right.

But no, EVERY minority demands special treatment to themselfs, want to stand out from the crowd, why ? on what basis ? note that heterosexuals rarely\never parades propagating this lifestyle, we simply live.

Or white people rarely\never demand to forbid consider them racists based solely on skin color, btw why it is considerered normal to adress to any caucasian as White ? Its not racist ? South Park has a great episode on the subject.

btw USA developers thinks it's ok to make Russians main villains in 90% of games, why u not protest against it ? Its normal, not racist ? Political correct even it PC heaven aka USA ? No one even carres about it, exept few couple deprived of attention officials.

Some minorities simply hypocrites...but i bet most live normal live and understand than it doesnt matter gay, white, black, man, woman and so on what matters is good people and bad(mannered and rude), and both types are present in any group of people. educated person can convey his dislike for any group, even without direct insults.

And here you have summed up the entirety of straight, white privilege. My favorite part was where you said that heterosexuals don't parade their "lifestyle" and just "live." I'd like to remind you of weddings, baby showers, valentines day, all marketing for getaway vacations/hotels/bed and breakfast, anniversaries, divorce court (real and on tv), every legendary romance in history from Han and Leia to Rhett Butler and Scarlet O'Hara to Simba and Nala. Every single thing I just mentioned (and MUCH more) is one massive orgy of a hetero pride parade. You cannot go a single day living anywhere in the world without seeing some celebration of the hetero "lifestyle" and, quite frankly, hetero fucking.

The fact is that you take it so much for granted that you CAN live your everyday life without being consciously aware of this or even your own sexual orientation is evidence of how deep, profound, and blinding your privilege is.

[Zardi]

Men jokingly saying they "love each other" has nothing to do with homophobia disappearing - It's more along the lines of bromance. Racism, sexism, and any other sort of discrimination is still as present as it is everywhere else.

[Bridgetjones]

I have always found the term "homophobia" an interesting one. It implies some sort of extreme, irrational fear on the part of its subject. And hey, who wants to listen to anyone that has come to their conclusions based on an extreme, irrational fear? It's clever rhetoric to immediately discredit anyone who disagrees with the LGBTQ agenda, but ultimately, it's nothing more than an ad hominem attack. There are two myths prevalent in the world today, especially concerning this topic: (a) if you disapprove of someone's behavior, you must hate them and (b) if you love someone, you must approve of their behavior. Neither myth is true. I do not approve of the LGBTQ community's agenda or behavior, but quite often, as soon as I voice my disagreement, I'm labeled a "hateful bigot" or "homophobe." The name-calling never takes too long to start. Ironically, this is bigotry on part of the LGBTQ community and its allies against any who disagree with them. I do not mean to say there is no hatred the LGBTQ community has had to suffer through from those who disapprove, only that not all who disapprove are hateful; the two are not necessarily linked. When the LGBTQ community fails to distinguish between the two, they stereotype, which is something the LGBTQ community hates when it is done to them.

No one should be nasty toward others for being different, even if they disagree with behaviors they carry out, especially if those behaviors are not harming others. Unfortunately, the LGBTQ community has become just as guilty of hate speech, bigotry, and stereotyping as those who have done these things to them. One side says, "fag" and the other says "homophobe." This isn't language conducive to tolerance, dialogue, or civility.

The main problem with this post (and there are MANY) is that you cannot simply "disagree" with somebody's innate orientation. I think that if you had read the overwhelming and conclusive body of scientific evidence proving this fact (innate =/= genetic, so don't even get started), then you would understand why "disagreeing" with something that is not chosen, does not affect you in any way, and has nothing to do with you.

The fact that you feel entitled to "disagree" suggests that you do not know your place. Meaning, you, as a presumable heterosexual, are not so high and lofty as to look down on those of other orientations and pronounce either your agreement or disagreement. Your opinion not only does not matter - it should not be formed in the first place. Speaking of privilege, it's HILARIOUS that you equate being called a fag with being called a homophobe as if they were even remotely similar or analagous. Hint: which group is a minority and being denied equal rights? Which group is a majority and denying other people equal rights?

But let's look a little bit below the surface, shall we? Putting aside your privilege in declaring "disagreement" with innate biological facts of other human beings, why could you possibly "disagree" with something that has nothing do with your life or personal being? The answer almost always hinges on some irrational fear, whether you realize it as such or not. You don't really have to work that hard to find examples of this in virtually any right-wing media outlet, religious body, or anti-gay political campaign. So I'll keep calling people homophobes until the day I die.

[Eltoshen]

I have always found the term "homophobia" an interesting one. It implies some sort of extreme, irrational fear on the part of its subject. And hey, who wants to listen to anyone that has come to their conclusions based on an extreme, irrational fear? It's clever rhetoric to immediately discredit anyone who disagrees with the LGBTQ agenda, but ultimately, it's nothing more than an ad hominem attack. There are two myths prevalent in the world today, especially concerning this topic: (a) if you disapprove of someone's behavior, you must hate them and (b) if you love someone, you must approve of their behavior. Neither myth is true. I do not approve of the LGBTQ community's agenda or behavior, but quite often, as soon as I voice my disagreement, I'm labeled a "hateful bigot" or "homophobe." The name-calling never takes too long to start. Ironically, this is bigotry on part of the LGBTQ community and its allies against any who disagree with them. I do not mean to say there is no hatred the LGBTQ community has had to suffer through from those who disapprove, only that not all who disapprove are hateful; the two are not necessarily linked. When the LGBTQ community fails to distinguish between the two, they stereotype, which is something the LGBTQ community hates when it is done to them.

No one should be nasty toward others for being different, even if they disagree with behaviors they carry out, especially if those behaviors are not harming others. Unfortunately, the LGBTQ community has become just as guilty of hate speech, bigotry, and stereotyping as those who have done these things to them. One side says, "fag" and the other says "homophobe." This isn't language conducive to tolerance, dialogue, or civility.

You cannot be comparing the two terms as though they're nearly the same level of severity.

But I guess since these days, being an asshole isn't as "norm" as in the past, assholes are getting offended when they're called homophobes when it's the truth. You cannot disregard a person's sexuality and not be a homophobe. You either are one, or you aren't. And through your post, you've proven that you are indeed a homophobe, whether you like it or not.

Now, you're probably sitting there wondering, "But it's not fair! I don't like gay people but I don't want to be called a homophobe!" Well, now you've understood what gay people have to go through when people call them "faggots". We don't choose to be gay, but here we are stricken with hateful speech.

However, the big difference between the two of us, is that while you can easily avoid being attacked for being a homophobe is by you know, maybe STOP BEING AN ASSHOLE, we can't just stop being faggots by giving up our identity as homosexuals.

Eye-opener, I know.

[judgementofantonidas]

we tolerate no racism. if someone exhibits tendency to racism the are swiftly escorted out of the guild.

having a strong disslike of sexual deviants however non politicaly correct is tolerated if not encoraged.

[nightfalls]

Then they'll say that LFR/LFD has made the people into worse players...then in the same breath they'll say that all Latin players (most of which don't use LFR/LFD), all suck and don't know anything.

I've had some pretty awful experiences with LA players, but not all. Surprisingly (either it's easier to carry, or this is true), I've found a lot of runs lately with players from LA realms, even those who don't speak English, have not gone badly.

It's easy to blame a bad run on "Mexicans" but just as many bad players are from American servers.

[Jediguy]

Please specify what you mean with the phrase "gay agenda".

You're right; I should have specified earlier. I do not mean the part of their agenda to win legal recognition for marriage. In a secular society, I have no argument against that. I mean their agenda in promoting homosexual behavior as morally permissible behavior as a method to win social acceptance.

And are you really trying to equate the word "homophobe" to that of "fag"?

Yes, I am in that they are each a derogatory accusation against the other party that is contrary to civil dialogue.

If people were not bigoted and ignorant then the word "homophobic" wouldn't have to exist.

This is untrue. It’s propaganda, nothing more. I have never met a person who was truly “afraid” of the LGBTQ community. It is a straw man constructed by that community to slander the character of those who do not agree with them. No one dresses up as a LGBTQ person for Halloween in some attempt to be scary, no one looks under their beds or closets for a LGBTQ person hiding there, no one screams in terror upon seeing one, etc. The emotion is not fear; it is not a “phobia.”

The use of the term is merely the LGBTQ community doing the very thing that used to be done to them. 50-100+ years ago, if someone was LGBTQ, they were described as having something psychologically wrong with them. Now that very accusation is made by the LGBTQ community toward everyone who disagrees with their behavior by tossing around the accusation of a psychological disorder: homophobia. It’s a great publicity move on their part, but it’s largely if not completely inaccurate.

---------- Post added 2013-03-11 at 01:47 PM ----------

I feel like, the phrase... "you had to attend college to speak that stupidly" might apply here. That, or the long-suffering excuse-throwing heterosexual-white-male reasoning. But,

And as generally respectable as Morgan Freeman is, here he makes my point: "disagree with me and I'm going to call you names."

---------- Post added 2013-03-11 at 02:04 PM ----------

The main problem with this post (and there are MANY) is that you cannot simply "disagree" with somebody's innate orientation.

I'm not disagreeing with their orientation; I'm disagreeing with their acting on those impulses. I think it a curious argument when people say, "I was born this way" as if it justified acting out on whatever impulses they were born with. A man born with a bad temper could say the same thing: “I was born this way! Who are you to tell me to be different?! I need to be true to myself!” The innateness of a desire has no bearing on the moral value of acting upon it.

The fact that you feel entitled to "disagree" suggests that you do not know your place.

Oh? Is there no room for disagreement? Do you mean to run a world-wide dictatorship? Is that what the LGBTQ community has come to?

Meaning, you, as a presumable heterosexual, are not so high and lofty as to look down on those of other orientations and pronounce either your agreement or disagreement.

Whoever said anything about looking down on people? Disagreement does not necessitate arrogance.

Your opinion not only does not matter - it should not be formed in the first place.

According to who? You? This is precisely what I was talking about: at the first sign of disagreement, the LGBTQ community and its allies mean to silence others instead of allow the very freedom of expression they ask of others.

Speaking of privilege, it's HILARIOUS that you equate being called a fag with being called a homophobe as if they were even remotely similar or analagous[sic].

Both are mere name-calling that is counterproductive to any civil discussion. No one likes to be be accused off the cuff of having some psychological disorder simply because they disagree with you on a topic and no one wants to be have derogatory phrases hurled at them due to their sexual orientation. They are the same. The fact that you can’t see this only indicates your bias.

Hint: which group is a minority and being denied equal rights? Which group is a majority and denying other people equal rights?

Appeal to irrelevancy. Simply because one group is smaller does not mean it’s okay for them to mouth off with name-calling and baseless accusations in an attempt to slander the character of those who disagree.

But let's look a little bit below the surface, shall we? Putting aside your privilege in declaring "disagreement" with innate biological facts of other human beings, why could you possibly "disagree" with something that has nothing do with your life or personal being?

The behavior of other people in a society in which I live is always of interest to me. We do not live in a bubble. Even if there is no practical impact on my life, if someone’s actions are contrary to the ideal, I would urge them to amend their behavior to adhere to a higher moral standard. They may choose to disregard my advice and that’s certainly within their right. As long as they aren’t infringing on someone else’s rights, they can choose to live how they please, even if it is contrary to the moral law. This does not, however, mean that I am forbidden to express what I perceive as right and wrong in a civil manner or try to help my fellow man in doing what is right.

The answer almost always hinges on some irrational fear, whether you realize it as such or not.

See, this is really a baseless claim. You accuse others of being motivated by fear but have no evidence to back up such a brazen accusation. Of the two of us, I’m the higher authority as to what my motivations are, so it’s my word we’ll be taking here; not yours.

So I'll keep calling people homophobes until the day I die.

And you’ll be incredibly inaccurate in doing so, attributing to others the emotion of fear when it is not present, stereotyping everyone who happens to disagree with you, doing the very thing the LGBTQ community despises when it is done to them, and hindering the possibility of civil discourse between the two groups. Bravo, my friend. Bravo.

[Bridgetjones]

@Jediguy:

I understand that, on the surface, many homophobes do not have a fear reaction in the same sense that you would expect from halloween, horror movies, being stalked, etc. This would be, however, a shallow view of what fear is, what it means, the consequences of fear, and the emotional and sociological implications of fear.

For example, consider the man who says he has no problem with gays in theory, but has some kind of hysterical reaction to being perceived as gay, being looked at by a man, being asked out/hit on by a man, or going to gay-friendly businesses/locations. These reactions are rooted in fear of being viewed as less than a man or being viewed as the object of a man's attention (eg reduced to the level of a woman, which is misogyny). So while passing a gay person on the street our hypothetical man might not scream and hide, he certainly feels fear that men will treat him the way he treats a women.

Or consider campaigns to ban gay marriage. They are founded and built on the fear that 1) gays will make your kid gay, 2) having a gay kid is bad, 3) gays will rape your children, 4) gays will destroy your freedom to practice your religion, 5) your kids will learn about the existence of gay people, 6) gay people marrying will defile straight marriage, 7) gays will cause straight people to not want to marry anymore and/or cause straight people to spontaneously divorce, etc. Clearly and unsurprisingly the places where gay marriage is legal have exposed these campaign messages to be rooted in fear rather than fact.

Or consider the DADT-era lines about destroying the military, ruining combat readiness, undermining unit cohesion, or *gasp* having to share a locker room or bunk with an out gay person. Again, all these arguments have proven themselves to be rooted in fear of gay people causing some type of destruction or ruining something venerable.

So what I'm trying to say here, ultimately, is that you misunderstand the nature of social fear. The fear is not always directly a fright of gays (because you won't always know who is gay). Rather, it is a fear of what equality means to straight people. People who "disagree" with gays (whatever that means), who hate them, or who think they are disgusting perverts naturally think they are better. And that's really what it comes down to: homophobes are people who "disagree" with full equality because they fear the idea of being equal to something they believe is inherently inferior to themselves.

---------- Post added 2013-03-11 at 03:49 PM ----------

Oh? Is there no room for disagreement? Do you mean to run a world-wide dictatorship? Is that what the LGBTQ community has come to?



Whoever said anything about looking down on people? Disagreement does not necessitate arrogance.



According to who? You? This is precisely what I was talking about: at the first sign of disagreement, the LGBTQ community and its allies mean to silence others instead of allow the very freedom of expression they ask of others.



Both are mere name-calling that is counterproductive to any civil discussion. No one likes to be be accused off the cuff of having some psychological disorder simply because they disagree with you on a topic and no one wants to be have derogatory phrases hurled at them due to their sexual orientation. They are the same. The fact that you can’t see this only indicates your bias.



Appeal to irrelevancy. Simply because one group is smaller does not mean it’s okay for them to mouth off with name-calling and baseless accusations in an attempt to slander the character of those who disagree.



The behavior of other people in a society in which I live is always of interest to me. We do not live in a bubble. Even if there is no practical impact on my life, if someone’s actions are contrary to the ideal, I would urge them to amend their behavior to adhere to a higher moral standard. They may choose to disregard my advice and that’s certainly within their right. As long as they aren’t infringing on someone else’s rights, they can choose to live how they please, even if it is contrary to the moral law. This does not, however, mean that I am forbidden to express what I perceive as right and wrong in a civil manner or try to help my fellow man in doing what is right.



See, this is really a baseless claim. You accuse others of being motivated by fear but have no evidence to back up such a brazen accusation. Of the two of us, I’m the higher authority as to what my motivations are, so it’s my word we’ll be taking here; not yours.



And you’ll be incredibly inaccurate in doing so, attributing to others the emotion of fear when it is not present, stereotyping everyone who happens to disagree with you, doing the very thing the LGBTQ community despises when it is done to them, and hindering the possibility of civil discourse between the two groups. Bravo, my friend. Bravo.

I know that trying to convince a privileged person of their privilege is an unwinnable battle. But here's something for you to chew on: Your opinion does not matter in light of gay peoples' lived experience. This always comes as a huge shock to heterosexual people who are hellbent on forming opinions about anything and everything pertaining to other sexualities, but being a member of a majority makes you distinctly and irreversibly unqualified to make decisions (or even hold valid opinions) about a minority.

Brace yourself for another shocker here. LGBT people do not need to "have a conversation." They need you to stop talking about your opinions for 5 seconds and actually listen to the stories of our lived experiences. Your opinion about gay people not being "born this way" doesn't matter two shits to a gay person who (like every heterosexual ever born) says the exact opposite. So, no, there is not room for disagreement because you cannot agree or disagree with a person's orientation any more than you can "disagree" with their hair color or skin color or left-handedness. Certainly you do not think left-handed people should be forced to write right-handed for *your* benefit; after all, writing left-handed is a behavior and lefties can just choose to not do it, amirite?

Also, you're unimaginably wrong about disagreement not equating to arrogance. It is absolutely arrogant and inherently condescending. I'm sure you would love if somebody declined to attend your interracial wedding because they "disagreed." Why would anyone decline to attend an interracial marriage if they did not believe that intraracial marriage was intrinsically superior? Likewise, you believe you can "disagree" with sexual orientation because you believe yours in intrinsically superior. And that, my friend, is the very definition of privilege: the idea that you, as a superior being, are bestowed the ability to determine the rights of others.

[Jediguy]

For example, consider the man who says he has no problem with gays in theory, but has some kind of hysterical reaction to being perceived as gay, being looked at by a man, being asked out/hit on by a man, or going to gay-friendly businesses/locations. These reactions are rooted in fear of being viewed as less than a man or being viewed as the object of a man's attention (eg reduced to the level of a woman, which is misogyny). So while passing a gay person on the street our hypothetical man might not scream and hide, he certainly feels fear that men will treat him the way he treats a women.

You’re right - there is an element of fear in this situation, but it is important to note that this fear need not be present in everyone who disagrees with LGBTQ sexual behavior as moral. Further still, even this example is not really a fear of homosexuals (“homophobia”), but a fear of being seen as less manly, which can manifest itself by any number of means. The heart of fear (heh) is not found in homosexuals but in his own insecurity about his masculinity.

Or consider campaigns to ban gay marriage. They are founded and built on the fear that 1) gays will make your kid gay, 2) having a gay kid is bad, 3) gays will rape your children, 4) gays will destroy your freedom to practice your religion, 5) your kids will learn about the existence of gay people, 6) gay people marrying will defile straight marriage, 7) gays will cause straight people to not want to marry anymore and/or cause straight people to spontaneously divorce, etc. Clearly and unsurprisingly the places where gay marriage is legal have exposed these campaign messages to be rooted in fear rather than fact.

Propaganda is used by both sides; I agree, and so are stereotypes, which is precisely what you just posted, supposing these tactics are used by everyone who does not view LGBTQ sexual behavior as moral. Scare tactics are used by both sides: many anti-gay people portray the LGBTQ community as a disease that will infect others while the LGBTQ community portrays anyone who disagrees with them as venomously bigoted, ignorant, and psychologically insane (“phobia”).

Or consider the DADT-era lines about destroying the military, ruining combat readiness, undermining unit cohesion, or *gasp* having to share a locker room or bunk with an out gay person.

This is a can of worms in itself, especially as I’m a veteran that served under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. For example, in basic training, all trainees are separated into entirely male or entirely female groups called “flights." During your awful training experience, you do everything together with this flight: exercise, take classes, march, sleep, eat, and shower. Now tell me: upon allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military, what is to stop people from being sexually “ogled” in the showers by members of the same sex any more than if we made no distinction between sexes and had all men and women trainees shower together? Why should we cater to the homosexuals by allowing them to see the sex they're attracted to naked but discriminate against heterosexuals by not allowing them the same opportunity? It smacks of a double standard. Of course, you could ask the question “What’s to stop homosexuals from secretly enjoying the sight of their naked flight members in the shower under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'” and you’re right, but under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, there was the assumption that everyone there is straight. That’s just not the case anymore and I think a case could be made now that heterosexuals are being discriminated against by not being allowed to shower with the sex they’re attracted to while homosexuals are. Straight trainees are put in a situation where they are sexually vulnerable to be enjoyed by people they don't want enjoying them while the divide between male and female flights was put in place specifically to protect trainees from being sexually vulnerable to the appetites of straight people. So what's it going to be? Are we going to protect trainees from being taken advantage of while they're naked by people who are attracted to their sex or aren't we? If so, then either all homosexual members must not be allowed to shower with the flight (or even with each other) or each person has an individual shower stall. If not, then let's all shower together: males and females. At least be consistent.

But… anyway, that’s my rant on that subject in particular. Like I said, can of worms.

People who "disagree" with gays (whatever that means), who hate them, or who think they are disgusting perverts naturally think they are better.

But see, there’s that stereotyping again. You suppose that because someone does not approve of their behavior, they must hate them or think them inferior. That’s the prejudice and bigotry the LGBTQ community and its allies are suffering from. There are a lot of people who DO hate the LGBTQ community and who do think them inferior, but that does not mean everyone who disagrees with that community on the moral value of their behavior falls into that category. All who hate them disapprove of their behavior but not all disapprove of their behavior hate them. See the difference? If I made up my mind to hate everyone who did something immoral, I would find myself hating everyone – including myself.

[Crym]

Because it's easier to disturb straight males (most of the WoW population) with forward suggestions than just calling them "gay" (which everyone online is desensitized to) but everyone still throws a fit when a racist statement is made. It's all about shock value and we live in a largely "politically correct" world.

[Jediguy]

(I didn’t realize you had posted more until later; my apologies for the belated response)

I know that trying to convince a privileged person of their privilege is an unwinnable battle.

But again, here we have the issue of ad hominem. You’re trying to discredit the other party themselves rather than something they’ve said. Focus on the issues, not the person.

But here's something for you to chew on: Your opinion does not matter in light of gay peoples' lived experience.

Apparently, it does, else you would not be spending time here to discuss it with me. Unless, of course, you mean to say you spend lots of time and attention on things that don’t matter.

This always comes as a huge shock to heterosexual people who are hellbent on forming opinions about anything and everything pertaining to other sexualities, but being a member of a majority makes you distinctly and irreversibly unqualified to make decisions (or even hold valid opinions) about a minority.

Again, this is not only untrue, but is a brazen ad hominem logic fallacy. Might I suggest a course in philosophy or logic?

Brace yourself for another shocker here.

Oh, I can’t wait.

LGBT people do not need to "have a conversation." They need you to stop talking about your opinions for 5 seconds and actually listen to the stories of our lived experiences. Your opinion about gay people not being "born this way" doesn't matter two shits to a gay person who (like every heterosexual ever born) says the exact opposite.

This is truly, truly ironic. You accuse me of not listening to the other side, then immediately misrepresent my stance because you’re more interested in listening to your own presuppositions about the other side rather than what I’ve actually said. Nowhere have I denied the idea that homosexuals are “born this way.” I have said that argument is only an appeal to irrelevancy concerning the moral value of their actions; that the innateness of a desire is no indication of its moral excellence. Put simply: it doesn’t matter if they were “born this way” or not, so I see no sense in denying or confirming the assertion in this discussion.

So, no, there is not room for disagreement because you cannot agree or disagree with a person's orientation any more than you can "disagree" with their hair color or skin color or left-handedness.

The irony continues. You are clearly not listening to the other person. Nowhere have I asserted that I am disagreeing with a person’s orientation; I am disagreeing with their assertion that acting out on their LGBT impulses is morally permissible. To be oriented toward a specific behavior does not mandate you actually carry out that behavior, much like a man born with a bad temper does not justify acting out on it any way he pleases by saying, “I was born this way! This is my natural orientation!”

Certainly you do not think left-handed people should be forced to write right-handed for *your* benefit; after all, writing left-handed is a behavior and lefties can just choose to not do it, amirite?

False analogy, as writing left handed is not against the moral law.

Also, you're unimaginably wrong about disagreement not equating to arrogance. It is absolutely arrogant and inherently condescending

If this is true, then you are incredibly arrogant and condescending to disagree with me. Do you read what you type before you click “submit?”

I'm sure you would love if somebody declined to attend your interracial wedding because they "disagreed."

Do you mean to say that everyone is obliged to partake in what they consider immoral? Really? Who are you to make such a judgment? I would be disappointed that a friend might not be present at such a wedding, but as long as they treated us with civility, how could I complain? I would be disappointed that our disagreement on an issue caused us to miss out on sharing an event together, but I could not immediately label them as arrogant or condescending; to do so would be merely my own venomous reaction to slander someone who does not conform to my worldview – also known as “bigotry.” I’m sorry you seem to suffer so extensively from this ailment.

Why would anyone decline to attend an interracial marriage if they did not believe that intraracial marriage was intrinsically superior?

People are funny creatures; they never like to be disagreed with, and as soon as someone does, they try to discredit the person who disagrees by labeling their disagreement as “arrogant” or “condescending,” as if no level headed person could possibly disagree with anything they do. Is this what you mean to say?

You’re trying to draw a parallel with interracial marriages because you think both LGBT marriages and interracial marriages have the same moral value; that because people disagreed with interracial marriages before and were wrong for doing so, that anyone who disagrees with LGBT marriages today must likewise be wrong for doing so. I submit this is a false parallel, as I do not believe interracial marriages are immoral, but I do believe that LGBT marriages are. I could be wrong, of course, but until someone is able to explain away the clear prohibitions of the moral law (for me, based on scripture), these two examples remain unparallel. Simply because the moral law was misinterpreted in the past does not mean all future interpretations are inaccurate.

Likewise, you believe you can "disagree" with sexual orientation because you believe yours in intrinsically superior. And that, my friend, is the very definition of privilege: the idea that you, as a superior being, are bestowed the ability to determine the rights of others.

Right behavior is always superior to wrong behavior – do you disagree? You seem too caught up in wanting to say that no action is better than another. Would you apply this reasoning to, say, Nazi morality versus the morality of Mother Theresa? Would you condemn Mother Theresa for supposing her actions to be “superior” to those of the Nazis? If not, then you are comfortable in saying that one set of behavior is morally superior to another, which makes your complaint here hypocritical. You may think the basis for judgment is flawed, but let’s do away with this nonsense of suggesting that all behaviors are equal and only an arrogant person would think otherwise. That is simply untrue.

[Deleted]

you actually think homophobia no longer exists and suddenly everyones on the same level with it?

Urm.. yeah, you might want to check the list of how many opening gay characters are in wow, and every time something shitty happens in the game, how long it takes for it to be refereed to as 'gay' in a bad meaning derogatory.

Really? You want gay characters in WoW? Really? It's not World of Relationshipcraft. It's not important whether someone like Admiral Taylor loves men or women. And of course main characters like Varian and Thrall will always have to be heterosexual if you want their kids to play some role in the future.

[Maxilian]

Really? You want gay characters in WoW? Really? It's not World of Relationshipcraft. It's not important whether someone like Admiral Taylor loves men or women. And of course main characters like Varian and Thrall will always have to be heterosexual if you want their kids to play some role in the future.

I would like to have a gay character in WoW but i agree that's not really something important, also you know is actually irrelevant if Thrall or/and Varian are heterosexual or homosexual, even if you want their kids to play some role in the future, just look how many gay people have kids (many)...

[noo]

When they say they want to have sex with each other they mean it ironically OP. Which is still mocking homosexuals for thier handicap which is so mean, so cruel. At the same time, stereotypes aren't racist at all. Racism is discriminating against someone in some way because of those stereotypes. That one is a go back to school issue on your end.