Of all the prejudices out there it seams that homophobia is the most tolerated, Why is that?
If somebody makes fun of any racial group or a person's religion they will catch loads of flak.
But it seams that making fun of homosexuals is rather accepted with the possible exception of the gay and lesbian community and liberals.
Prejudice of most kinds (except against criminals) is completely uncalled for in my opinion.
However I do find myself to be slightly homophobic (in the literal sense, I support gay rights and feel they should not be discriminated against.) and am ashamed of my homophobia.
No, OP is forgetting pedophobia.
What about furryphobia and gurophobia?
SAGE
Blame Judeo-Christian ethics. In both religions, God says gays are evil. So being that most Americans are at least familiar with the notion that religious people aren't big on gays.
It's probably less true in Buddhist or Hindu countries. I know in paganism its not really a big deal to be gay.
Yeah. And the funny thing is that this Judeo-Christian anti-gay stand is most likely based upon a misinterpretation of what really happened in Sodom and Gomorrah. In other words, it's based upon a lie.
See A History of Homophobia, http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/homopho2.htm
>>1
Wrong. The most tolerated prejudice is the hatred of those who who are prejudiced. It might sound counter-intuitive, but when you say that a person is immoral or somehow "evil" if they disagree with your point of view (no matter what your opinion is) you are being prejudiced against them.
And in regards to making fun of someone's race or religion >>9 proves you wrong again. Caucasians are the only racial group that it is politically correct to slander. Christianity is the one religious group that receives the most flak for Western society's problems.
Please explain why you believe that prejudice against people whose guilt or innocence you cannot prove is justified, and how this works with your other feelings about prejudice. I'd love to hear your logic.
Let me just say that I am not "homophobic". I do not fear homosexuals. In fact, I have several homosexual friends. But that does not mean that my opinions about their condition will change.
>Caucasians are the only racial group that it is politically correct to slander.
"White males" you mean.
signed.
I wasn't making fun of Judeo-Christian ethics. I was pointing to a fact about those religions, and frankly, you could add Islam to the same mix -- They say that Homosexuality is a sin, the exact wording in Leviticus is "abomination". Since most in America and other western countries are familiar with the edicts of these religions, they're less inclined to speak out against such discrimination.
If you were raised in a country where pork-eating was considered an abomination, then you could reasonably expect to get some flak for eating a ham sandwich. It's human nature. If something another group does runs counter to what the majority believe in, then you will see them mocked or worse. The nail that sticks out must be hammered flat, as the saying goes.
And as for Christian oppression, well, I personally find some of their examples rather lacking. Saying Holiday Tree or Happy Holidays is not discrimination. In fact, most nonchristian holidays are scarcly mentioned. No American Hindu expects to hear Happy Dawali outside of his temple. No pagan expects the mainstream culture to recognize Yule or Samhein (btw, Samhein is a harvest festival, not a pagan god), no Buddhist expects to open a western calendar and see a mention of Obon or Buddha's Birthday.
>>13
in regards to Christian oppression...
Have you ever had someone ask you why you have dirt on your face on Ash Wednesday?
Have you ever seen anyone wearing a rosary around their neck?
Have you heard of the photograph "Piss Christ"?
I more than agree with you. Saying "happy holidays" is not discrimination. But insisting that a nativity scene be taken down because one Jewish family complains is. The minority discriminates against the majority at least as often as vice versa. insisting on a "holiday tree" after decades of "Christmas trees, just to be politically correct is not only discriminatory, it's insulting to everyone that came before AND stupid.
Please note: people of minority religions do not expect to here their traditional greetings on their holidays because they are the only people that are aware of them. Is is the Christians' fault that they are the most prevalent religion?
the reason it's okay to be prejudicious against most people who are prejudicious is because most prejudices to begin with are unfounded in any rational arguments. Mainly it's just "i don't like ___ because it's not like me", which is a pretty bad argument. Sometimes people go "it's bad 'cause god says so", that' snot much better if you ask me. Once you account for social, economic, cultural diferences and origins, most people are exactly the same, some prefer bacon to cheese, others cheese to bacon, this doesn't mean the baconlovers can call the cheeselovers stupid, and if they do, I take the liberty to call them stupid, because they have what being 'stupid' is, all wrong.
>>15 hooray for grammar!
I'd just like to argue this point...
"Why exactly is it not sensible to dislike something because it is different from yourself?" No one can ever answer this question adequately. Best explanation I've heard translates to: "Just... Because." Kind of like "Why is diversity important?" Everyone wants to agree that it's true, but no one can explain why.
When you call someone stupid "because they have what being 'stupid' is, all wrong" you are disliking them because they are different. So...
I would also blame Anglo-Saxon culture as well, there is some evidence pointing to the idea that the Norse concept of "Nio", male "witches" who were effeminate, is responsible for homophobia. They were considered terribly powerful, but lost their strength if harassed in loud voices and physically assaulted.
>>17 I've never heard of a Nio. But if that's true, than yeah. So we should blame Norway as well.
>>1 On the other hand, it's becoming less and less tolerated. You've seen the furor over various uses of the "Fag" word.
>>10 You'd be amazed at the sheer volume of things in Judeo-Christian scriptures and traditions that are simply overstated lies. Early church leaders purposefully edited many, many parts of the scriptures to better "sell" the image they wanted of their "messiah," Jesus. Jesus was actually a Jewish man who lived with his widow mother and took care of her and himself by running the carpentry business of his late father (or surrogate father, according to Christianity). He often spent time at Jerusalem's temple teaching and talking with teachers, and also traveled around the region with his brothers (or half brothers, his father's sons) and their friends, teaching as he went.
And yes, men and white people are the most widely insulted group of people on the planet. But there's nothing we can do about it, because the equivalent of a white rights interest group is the KKK. ;_;
>>20 The reason why white males remain the most insulted group on the planet is not because we can't do anything, but because we let it happen ON PURPOSE.
Think of it this way: What is the easiest way to get what you want done when a "superior" (who has no real power over you) tells you to do something else? Agree with them, and then do whatever you want.
White men are the most economically powerful group on the planet, which makes them the most politically powerful. Minority interest groups try to use politics to leverage the white males. In response, white males make big show of appeasing these groups, then move on without really changing anything. (Case in point affirmative action - the people who benefit most are WHITE women, not black men.)
For better or for worst this is true. White men in power don't give a damn what anyone else thinks and just go about their business.
>White men are the most economically powerful group on the planet
lies. take your head out of the hole. there are only 80 white man that are holding this power.
the rest is being shitted on. by other "victim" groups.
i'll stop this before i get angry.
>>22 those white men are the only ones that really matter then, huh? it's those same white males that get most of the flack, so...
>>23 your argument is stupid. i can't even call that an argument.
i smell mangina.
>>19
but... at least during the turn of the first millenia and a couple of centuries later, during the viking era, the society was largely matriarchal. I'm sure there have been witches and practicioners of seid and whatnot, but i doubt the whole "this is the reason people were misogynist and homophobic" thing.