Let's relax and calmly discuss homophobic people...

...but not for the reasons you may think. It's not like I feel a spiritual kinship for gay people either - I don't. The trouble is it bothers me how many people are worried about being gay.

As a preamble, I'd like to say I'm not physically attracted to men; so I'm sorry if Japes, Muro, Dark Elf, Vorak, Xz, DarkFool, Smuel, TDC, Grakelin, Zanza, Grossenschwamm, wayne-scales, Philes, TP, magikot, ytzk, Wolfsbane and Arthgon(? - is he still even here) got the wrong impression - I was never that into you in the first place and it's a fault of my personal magnetism that the bond between us felt so strong*. However I will say I have nothing against being attracted to a man, and if there was a potential male whose personality (and that is not a euphemism) I found attractive enough then why not? I don't find anything wrong with gay feelings, I just don't really have them, but I'm not opposed to having them in principle.

However I guess I'm starting to become homophobicphobic - I'm getting very incensed at people "worrying" that they're gay. There's two issues that lead to this thread, I'll lead with the most trivial one:

A) So I've been contributing to the Fallout: New Vegas forums recently, and just today I guy was saying he could only exemplify himself as a character and so therefore couldn't take the Confirmed Bachelor perk that flags him as gay. However he did say he say with different characters both exemplifying himself he's quite willing to play both the NCR (democracy) and Legion (dictatorship - both of these factions being branded as such in a broad way to not get into the NCR/Legion debate). I'll just copy and post verbatim what I said, though my German history may not be perfect:

How, as a person, could you want to follow both the NCR and the Legion? Even if Caesar is a fool, he is at least correct in saying they are antithetical.

The Legion embodies the benefits of a strong and incorruptible dictatorship resulting out of great strife, as has been repeated throughout history.

The NCR exemplifies the corruption of democracy when public officials can get away with so much in terrible strife (just look at Hanlon, crapping all over the NCR for months).

I've always thought of the situation as embodying Germany in the fallout (hey!) of the First World War - the Allies pretty much dictated democracy on Germany during the Treat of Versailles much to the German's chagrin. However after a few years things seemed pretty spiffy for a few years with democracy (those Roaring Twenties), and much allayed the Germans' fears - especially under Gustav Stresemann who pacified many with the Rentenmark as currency to cure rampant hyperinflation, and continued to follow suit after he was no longer Chancellor towards the back end of 1923. However Streseman died, the Great Depression happened in American with knock on effects into Germany and once again extremist parties became in vogue; like the communist party - but also the Nazi party.

I'd say the lesson is democracy weakens under stress whereas dictatorships do not; likewise I'd say dictatorships become more inviable during peacetime.

So I would love to hear how you can support two antithetical factions, personally I feel like that's far less a divide between deciding whether my fictional self is gay or straight.

Now for the less trivial:

2) So this I will leave up to your judgement, and I definitely welcome it if you think I'm in the wrong. As you know I have had OCD, "have had" being a tenuous term as though you can learn to deal with it you will always have an indelible mark in your psyche that firstly will always prevent you from ever truly "getting over it" as is the culturally accepted way of dealing with mental illness and will secondly always leave you predisposed to falling back into old habits. It is a thoroughly irrational disease - born of strong visceral images entering your mind which you begin to feel that you can't discredit as random - that always resists your empirical evidence in spite of the pure core of rationality that supports it, and it's all underpinned by a feeling of increased responsibility. Though most "regular" people also have these thoughts they don't attach any significance to them - in surveys for example most people will have semi-regularly have thoughts of killing loved ones or committing suicide but they just brushed these off; people with the corresponding OCD don't.

There's lots a different forms: some people worry about that they are the servant of the Devil in eyes of the Lord, and spend every waking hour scouring their thoughts for intrusion to make sure they are free of Satanic influence. Some people worry that they're responsible for causing bacterial infection, and so they'll feel tremendous responsibility for spillages - even going so far as to compulsively make the whooshing noises of a vacuum cleaner to keep people safe (these last two examples I've read about). Though there are other forms, for me there's harm OCD.

Harm OCD runs the gamut of worrying you're going to hurt someone (typically family), but easily extends to worries discriminating against people vocally (due to race or disability), worrying about sexual feelings towards others (friends, blood relatives, children - though usually this is lesser as this can be a whole other branch of OCD) or just embarrassing yourself (being a general weirdo, however broadly you will define that). They believe they'll do this because there's some part of them that's fundamentally evil and wants to, or that they'll go crazy or in a fugue state, or that they'll sleep walk and do it. The only obvious compulsion here is to avoid people - washing your hands or snapping your fingers doesn't make people feel like they're "better" in this instance - which is why this can be thought of as "purely obsessional" rather than having any real compulsion.

In terms of the harm OCD, I've read about people worrying about microwaving their newborn child in the night and worrying about gouging their eyeballs out. A while back I read this article from a tabloid newspaper (yes, that means one of the shit ones) all about worries of severe harm and I thought if even the shit newspapers can be getting onto diverse forms of OCD then progress must be happening (you know, instead of people thinking OCD sufferers are fundamentally clean freaks).

But... go onto any OCD forum. You'll see 10 to 1 threads about HOCD - I guess in light of what I said you might think "harm" OCD but of course I was going to arrive back at the issue eventually: no, it's "homosexual" OCD. What swamps these forums more than anything else is people wondering irrationally that they "might" be gay - and quite frankly it disturbs me. I understand people worrying that they are hazardous to peoples' health (harm-wise or bacterial-wise) or that they have some terrible conflict that destroys the foundations of their religion - but not that they're gay.

I want people to worry about anything else, worry about the Ukraine or ISIS or literally anything else. But to worry about you being gay - either these people have genuine anxiety disorders over the possibility or they are claiming to have a serious mental health issue when they don't really; both of which disgust and deeply worry, and makes me think that many countries (including the UK, we're not all blameless) are inherently culturally homophobic to a significant extent.

Am I wrong for strongly disliking these people are so afraid of being gay they can develop genuine anxiety about it or at least lie about it to the internet? It feels like prejudice, but at the same time to me it doesn't feel unjustified. It seems fundamentally a wrong thing to strongly worry about.

* I know you all scanned down hopefully seeing "of course, I didn't really mean [you]", but really I was just hoping you'd appreciate how gosh-darned hard that list was to compile (who really knows how to spell Grossenschwamm off the bat, I mean really?). Now if you'll excuse me, a handsome man just walked in...

 

They should probably just have gay sex regularly to be sure.

But seriously, it sounds like simple repressed denial in a homophobic culture to me.

England seems generally fruity to me, but there's plenty of machismo and homophobia to spare, even in the 21st century, and a plethora of denial too.

Also, you are free to judge and disdain whoever you like. Looking back it is obvious to me now that the most aggressively homophobic guys were all super gay.

 

And here I thought there was really something between us Jojo.

Concerning point number one: firstly, I wouldn't advise getting too worked up over a faceless forumite contradicting himself. Secondly, it's not uncommon for people to have strong convictions about moral issues while being totally apathetic to geopolitical issues.

Concerning point number two: I can see where you're coming from, but I have to disagree. According to my beliefs, homosexuality falls squarely in the 'morally wrong' category, so I can see where it could become an unhealthy fixation for a person who suffers from OCD.

My own beef with prevailing attitudes about homosexuality falls on the opposite end of the spectrum. The following is based on my own observations, not on any hard figures, so take it for what it's worth: over the past decade or so, the U.S. has seen a huge paradigm shift, swinging from generally homophobic to generally pro-LGBT rights. While I find this somewhat distressing (as an indicator of the waning influence of Judeo-Christian values, not because I care whether or not a dude can legally marry a dude), what really bothers me is the increasing number of people who want to tell me that my religious beliefs and moral convictions are unacceptable because they don't fall in line with the LGBT agenda.

 

I'm not sure how to take that long list of names and the fact that I'm not included.

But the problem with people is that they are people. I agree with Japes in the first one.

The second; people tend to diagnose themselves without any real knowledge so probably there are some on the forums that doesn't actually have OCD, which is worrisome.

But people don't like to fixate on the big problems, on world problems. The brain often distracts you from real big hurtfull truths in order to protect yourself. Therefore msot people focus on small petty problems, like wheter or not being gay or what that celebrity wore last night. Because they don't wanna think about Ukraine and the chances of a second Cold War. Everyone does it with something.

 

Re:

It means that, whilst I was able to draw a line under most potential trysts I could have on the forum, for you wobbler I had to make an exception

I wasn't really worked up about it, I guess it just provided the impetus to create this thread - I had been thinking about the larger OCD issue for a while so I was looking for an excuse. Having said that I have seen several instances of people saying they can't take the perk essentially because they don't like gays and they're not gay in real life, which I do find slightly alarming given that it's a role-playing game - in it's very essence a game where you're supposed to play roles. I can see some people wanting to play a character like themselves and not take the perk because they're not gay - but not in every instance and even if you take the perk it's not like you have to take the dialogue options, which makes it seem like they're worried about gay thought-crime.

I think to an extent, society could do with being less secular. Most religions to me provide a good framework of beliefs and values that are sorely lacking in a lot of people - you don't have to be religious to have these ideals and values but it definitely helps when a lot of parents don't care to teach their kids basic manners or the broader strokes of right from wrong. I think in a less secular society even people who aren't religious, like myself, feel the benefit as it makes the pervading norm to have a good values system regardless of your creed or religious feelings. I do also think that there's nothing wrong with believing in something larger than yourself, if anything I think that's a good thing because it's great to feel as though the world is more connected than someone without any particular beliefs. I tend to dislike people disparaging against people for their religious feelings, whether they have none at all (I know some atheists hate that idea - that lack of religious beliefs constitute religious beliefs, but for argument's sake that's how I'm classifying it) or they are extremely religious.

I guess you have a good point on the OCD front; I'm not really aware of these people's backgrounds so if they are particularly religious or for whatever other reason they've been raised on the idea that there's something wrong with being gay then maybe it could become a significant area of distress. I'll try and assume they probably have a context like this in the future rather than outright judging them - which is precisely why I wanted to make this thread, to know whether what has been growing to bother me recently is off base or not.

With regards to being gay - you mention that you're morally opposed to gay people but also that you don't care overly much whether gay marriage is legal or not, is that just because you feel like people are entitled to their own rights or something else? I guess I can kind of see the growing liberal LGBT agenda being a barometer for the loss of traditional values, but it seems also like a bit of a niche thing to fixate on. It seems that society tends to be less secular with time, why that is the case I really couldn't say.

I guess all that really morally underpins me is minimising harm to other people - whether that's physical violence, making people feel bad or damaging them financially or in terms of status. At the same time I don't feel the need to reciprocate that to people who don't extend that behaviour to me, which is why I have a big problem with people being discourteous. I also don't think there's anything wrong with thinking anything, only actions count - there really could be no other way with having had OCD.

In those terms I guess I find it hard to know what is morally wrong about being gay, as no one is hurt in that situation. Then again, I'm "okay" with things that other people definitely wouldn't be - for example I have no problem with someone being attracted to children, but I have a big problem with someone acting on that and ruining a kid's life (and no this isn't me announcing I'm a nonce, don't worry). People through choice wouldn't want to be different from the "norm", so until they do something that does hurt someone else then it doesn't bother me in the slightest what goes on in their head (this isn't me equating gay people and paedophiles either, just appreciating that neither is conventionally normal) - and gay people don't have innately hurt anyone anyway like a paedophile might. By the same dint, I don't have anything against people finding gays to be not morally correct - so long as they aren't out on the street bashing gays or telling gay people that they're wrong.

I guess that's a good point, most people tend to focus on what's around them as things on a larger scale can seem incomprehensible.

 

Re: Re:

I'm not morally opposed to gay people, just their homosexual behavior. And I guess I just don't see affording gay people the right to marry as some great threat to the stability of society. I think there are other more pressing issues to worry about. Too many Christians spend too much time preaching against this sin or that sin, and not enough time actually preaching the gospel.

 

I agree to a point that religious children are often more moral, but only to a point.

I've seen too many minds tied in knots with fear and wilful delusion by religious teachings that I wouldn't even impose the Santa myth, let alone the Bible, on a kid's brain, because of the damage it can cause, not least of which is demonising gay kids. Not even metaphorically for some of these people.

To reiterate, raising kids to be religious is morally wrong. So is neglecting their education and spawning criminals, of course, but you do not need a Stone Age myth to teach right from wrong.

It wasn't long ago I'd be tortured in the town square for saying that. Such is the morality of avoiding a vengeful god's wrath.

 

Re:

Fair enough, I was just curious about what sort of distinctions you make.

I don't know, I think people following guidance laid out by religion can be much better than people being wayward arseholes. I definitely don't think that you need religion to have moral values - but for some groups of the population it helps. I don't think there's anything wrong with raising kids to be religious, though even if I was religious I would rather leave my kids to decide for themselves at an appropriate age and without pressure. Extremist or fundamentalist groups tend to be what skews people's view of religion, but they're hardly representative of the whole.

 

"I don't know, I think..."

Exactly, unlike the faithful.

Seriously, though, judeochristianislamism is a particularly bloodthirsty and bigoted tradition and an unsurprisingly high number of sky god worshippers are not rational, not merely the fringe.

I'm all for inspiration and warm fuzzies but get real. I think we've patronised the scared children for enough centuries now, it's becoming pathological.

You needn't look very far in modern society to find good reason not to conflate a moral education with religious indoctrination, and you needn't look far into the bible to see why it is morally repugnant.

Personally, I hold deep religious views and have great affection and respect for the Nazarene but, make no mistake, we tortured the guy to death and ritually eat his flesh because we are savage apes howling at the moon, not because the cosmos demands a blood debt for all the sex.

You think teaching that to kids makes them better people? I don't buy it.

 

I mean, are you just trying to bait me into an argument here ytzk?

 

Re:

I think the core moral lessons of most religions do tend give people a moral foundation that people without religion can neglect, however as you pointed out and I'd readily agree with you do not need religion to be moral. At least religion and religious communities however can provide a fallback when kids don't get those lessons at home, plus it can give people a reason to want to be better which some people sorely need. I guess it might just be that my local area is a dive though.

For the more ritualised parts of any religion, I think they're harmless and if they make other people happy then why not? I guess you do seem to think that extremists make up a large portion of religions - but there's always going to be whackjobs with or without religion.

 

Re: I'm growing to hate homophobic people...

I guess people weigh priorities differently. To be honest, I might be aware of the corruption and steamrolling of the NCR, but I generally prefer that over the slavery and misogyny of Caesar's legion. In spite of that, I'm not really invested in either side. And I've considered several times whether I wanted the "confirmed bachelor" perk, thinking that, if anything, I'd be playing someone who pretended to be gay to make assassinating male targets easier. Or I could play a gay character. Hell, in my next game I'm making my character a female, because I thought the point of role playing games was to play a role.


To be frank, I don't have a problem with religion. I have a problem with people who use religion as a weapon, which is appropriate considering the history of the top three monotheistic religions on the planet. Japes' idea that homosexuality is morally wrong goes a bit further than my idea that I don't want to have butt sex with another man, or that I find lesbian sex boring. But I do agree with him (and a lot of people, really) that there are more important things to fuss over than whether or not gay couples can get married. This is especially poignant if you consider that the early catholic church officiated same sex marriages, and that marriage itself predates organized religion.

On top of that, according to the bible, all sex that isn't for procreation is wrong, so it's not just gay couples doing something bad.

 

Re: I'm growing to hate homophobic people...

I think you mean, "according to the Roman Catholic interpretation of the bible". A more common interpretation outside the Catholic church is that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong. As far as I know, it's only the Catholics who hold the sperm itself to be sacred.

 

Re: I'm growing to hate homophobic people...

Even so, what you've said achieves a similar end to my statement, while admittedly being a less severe situation.

 

No, japes, old chap, I just have a bone to pick with your religion and I'll be damned (haha) if I tiptoe around a destructive delusion just because it's adherents hold it to be more precious than any reality.

The thing is my family is, by and large, fundamentalist.

My sister's kids all caught whooping cough because of some distorted view of vaccination. My old man is spending his last two years of life with a brittle desperation that Jesus will heal him, making his lifelong obtuseness a terminal condition and my brother spent his childhood being demonised because his sense of reason rejected our tribe's imaginary friend.

As for me, I've kept my religious convictions private and always been tolerant of other peoples', but less and less as I get older, because of the damage they cause.

Im keen on Jesus, but only as I encounter him in the gospels, not in the slightest as I see him tangled up in millennia of politics and jingoism. I approve of kosher and halal on hygienic grounds and I appreciate banning alcohol and doing five daily prayers is a very healthy practise for society.

I even appreciate Abraham in context, breaking free from a corrupt polytheism and establishing a nameless, omnipotent creator. This is closer to Truth and Science than five thousand named idols lining the streets of Babylon but, millennia later, it is ontologically linked to the schizophrenic episodes of him and later prophets: a bogeyman of an authoritarian patriarch in a brutal age.

Na, no god of truth would allow me to swallow such tangled confusion. I believe in truth and I believe in love, anything to the contrary is obviously another case of monkey politics gone mad.

However, it answers Jobo's question: for most Abrahamic religious followers, homosexuality qualifies for inclusion in OCD because it is a terrible, terrible sin.

 

Re:

That's exactly what I'm doing currently, taking both Confirmed Bachelor and Lady Killer so I can better manipulate people as my character doesn't really value sex in any emotional sense and so they'll sleep and flirt with whoever they please to more easily kill or use them (plus the extra damage is great). They only thing they really value is money.

I got that from what Japes said earlier, I guess I didn't see it as a big deal to anyone these days especially as some Christian denominations are starting to allow gay priests - admittedly it's not something must churches necessarily condone but they also don't wade in and put a stop to it either. I kind of thought it was one of the aspects of the Bible that was falling by the wayside to highlight more of the inarguably positive parts of the gospel, but I guess more conservative practitioners of most Christian denominations and certainly other religions too still believe in it - which is fine.

Beyond that, even if all of these people who claim to have homosexual OCD are very Christian - it still seems weird that so many of them would develop this facet of OCD when they could develop OCD that grated on any other part of their religion. I guess maybe this is because the LGBT agenda does get so much coverage now and quite possibly a good portion of these people are young (from what I've seen of different threads most tend to be of high school age when they state it) and don't have a firm idea of their own sexuality, but still there are certainly more sinful things out there to be worried about.

Additionally I still wouldn't think absolutely all of these people were religious, in which case they seem to be worried (to the point of extreme anxiety and panic attacks) that they are gay for very little reason - which does come across as being strongly intolerant for no special reason other than society and upbringing (this last point is not to chide Christians, as from what Japes has said it seems like he and many Christians are tolerant but at the same time don't believe homosexual acts to be correct - feel free to correct me on this if I'm wrong). I guess I like the idea of society being as tolerant as possible, but things like this remind me it doesn't always work out like that.

 

Christianity is just the icing on the cake of millennia of aggressive machismo.

It must be noted that the 'generally homophobic' norm which reflects judeochristian values usually involves a culture of punishing the gays to death, either through crippling ostracism and abuse which leads to suicide or else good old fashioned beating them to death. It is not cool, let alone moral.

It does not surprise me in the least that so many kids would be scared to death by their naturally fuzzily defined teenaged sexuality.

I suppose I must also concede that, both in world and family history, people would probably have been a lot nastier without Jesus.

 

Gay people can marry the opposite gender just like straight people. I fail to see the lack of rights.

 

Re:

The obvious problem is that straight people can't marry the same gender.

 

How is that a problem?