|
In Reply to: homophobia is not the correct word. posted by Micron on August 18, 2002 at 20:09:14:
I was in a situation a few years ago, when I was running a network for electronic forums like this on BBS systems.
We were approached to host a forum called "LesBiGay", which was supposed to stand for "Lesbian, Bisexual and Gay".
I agreed to open the forum, provided that it was undestood that specific sexual content was not allowed.
For example, it would be okay to discuss issues like discrimination, aids awareness and prevention, and other relevant topics. It would not be okay to talk about sexual techniques or cruise the forum for potential sex partners.
What happened next was a huge war, similar to what we see on Crossfire every once in a while.
The actual homophobes thought I was wrong for even allowing the forum on the network. I still have a copy of a message from one individual who quit the network leaving the comment, "U'NI-net is a faggot network, and Joseph is the head faggot".
Some of the people who wanted to start the Forum were leaving messages saying "Joseph isn't a faggot! He's a homophobe!". They were upset because they felt I was restricting their free speech.
You have to take into account that this was before the Internet became popular, and sexual content became common online.
The thing was that the network was designed for users of all ages. I ran my BBS out of my den, and my kids would sit around and watch people use it. I wasn't the only Sysop on the net that didn't want their kids to read graphic descriptions of gay sex. I certainly didn't want to be responsible for some underaged person being picked up in one of our Forums.
I tried to explain that the rules were equal with ones in all the Forums. In other words, hetrosexual men on the network were not allowed to write messages about their sexual practices either. We had forums with names like "Pets", where people talked about ways to get rid of feas and ticks.
What I came to believe during that ordeal was that homosexuality was becoming a protected class in this country. A protected class gets extra rights that those not in a protected class do not enjoy.
I understand that disabled people are a protected class, and that's why they get to park right by the door. There is a good reason for it, and I agree with it.
I'm just not sure why being attracted to the same sex would qualify someone for extra rights over and above the rights of people who are attracted to the opposite sex.
There is also an issue of acceptance. I am willing to accept that there are homosexuals in the world, and that they have basic human rights equal to mine.
However, I am not willing to take it a step further and accept that those (hetrosexual or homosexual) who act upon sexual attraction to minors are somehow acceptable in society. And especially not that they qualify as a protected class.
I do think that accepting the sexual abuse of minors on television as entertainment is a step in that direction.
I do understand the need to inform the public, in a documentary format. But, not as entertainment. I think that is what "Queer as Folk" did, and I believe it crossed the line.
