The following hypothetical story is directed at the people of these boards who feel they support gays and their rights. If you don’t support gays or their rights, you certainly are welcome to this discussion. Realize though the question at the end of this post is not directed at you, but at who I just specified:
There were reports of homosexual activity at Anytown Munipal Park. Patrons to the park suspected it but could never prove it since it was never out in the open, just behind bushes and the like. Finally the police department had enough, and set up a sting. An attractive male cop was sent into the park as a decoy. Seeing a man he suspected was gay, the cop enticed him for sex. When the man dropped his pants, the cop arrested him. At his court hearing the gay man told the judge he thought the sting was ridiculous. The gay men in the park weren’t having sex in the open, after all. Besides, the only reason he dropped his pants was because the cop enticed him. The judge seemed sympathetic, but didn’t agree with his logic. For one thing, the judge pointed out, there might have been children present when the man dropped his pants. Did he consider that? The verdict was guilty with one month in jail plus community service.
Even if you consider yourself pro-gay rights, you probably tend to agree with the judge and police in the above hypothetical senario. But now read the story this way:
There were reports of sexual activity at Anytown Munipal Park. Patrons to the park suspected it but could never prove it since it was never out in the open, just behind bushes and the like. Finally the police department had enough, and set up a sting. An attractive female cop was sent into the park as a decoy. Seeing a man she suspected was interested, the cop enticed him for sex. When the man dropped his pants, the cop arrested him. At his court hearing the man told the judge he thought the sting was ridiculous. The people in the park weren’t having sex in the open, after all. Besides, the only reason he dropped his pants was because the cop enticed him. The judge seemed sympathetic, but didn’t agree with his logic. For one thing, the judge pointed out, there might have been children present when the man dropped his pants. Did he consider that? The verdict was guilty with one month in jail plus community service.
I am guessing if you are like most average people, you now take a different view of the above story.
So what about it? Could it be some people are unconsciously homophobic, but don’t realize it?
I’m as pro-gay as it gets but I don’t think sex in apublic park is appropriate for anybody, staright or gay.
I don’t really care for the tactic of sending an officer to entice anybody into exposing himself, though. I think if you catch someone in the act then stop them, but otherwise leave them alone.
Well I didn’t see any significant difference in the stories. Both seem like entrapment to me, and so I disagree with both verdicts.
What on earth makes you think this is true. Are you homophylic-phobic
Away from the OP contents to the OP question, I am sure many people are against homosexuality in some ways without being conscious of the fact. Some people will probably be against homosexuality in some ways even against there own will.
For instance, I am very open to peoples sexual freedom, but dispite this I cannot stop myself finding beastiality (sorry zoo-o-philia) yucky.
Doesn’t sound like much of a hypothetical story. There are problems in some cities with homosexual men (never women for some reason) who hang out at parks after hours for anonymous sex. I’m all for busting anyone for having sex in a public park whether they’re straight or gay.
I really hate the phrase homophobic. Other bigots aren’t called “negrophobic” or “hispaniphobic.” I support the rights of homosexual individuals the same as I support the rights of anyone else. I have to admit that I’m not 100% gay friendly though. I try to ensure that my hang ups are my own and don’t affect other people in a negative manner.
I agree that the term is generally used incorrectly. When you’re talking about your run-of-the-mill low-grade insensitivity/naivity, the ‘phobia’ element seems like a bit of overkill. It also doesn’t leave much difference between an elderly aunt who can’t understand “why a nice young man like you doesn’t have a girlfriend”, and people who would seriously like to see every gay person shot.
I think other terms like ‘heterocentrist’ and ‘heterosexist’ give a bit more leeway in much the same way that ‘mysogynist’, ‘chauvanist’ and ‘sexist’ provide a spectrum for gender based bigotry.
>There are problems in some cities with homosexual men (never women for some reason) who hang out at parks after hours for anonymous sex.
Well, for starters, it just ain’t safe for women to be that public about their sexuality no matter their orientation. Think about it-- how fast would a park known for lesbian sex be filled with drunk frat boys? I’d think it would set a land speed record.
I don’t consider myself completely free of unconscious prejudice (sorry, it’s the truth - I’m working on it), but I can’t see any qualitative difference between the two accounts, aside from silly trivial inconsistencies.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the word contained an implication that the homophobe has latent homosexual feelings that manifest themselves as hostility. So it wouldn’t be the same as a white person who hates blacks, for example, because he does not secretly suspect that he is black himself.
I haven’t seen any really good evidence that most people who hate homosexuals have latent homosexual desires themselves. I also think it is a rather trite way of dismissing the bigot in question.
Since I, unlike many people, don’t think that the physical appearance of genitals is harmful to children, I would like to set both guys free, especially since it was entrapment.
I don’t see any difference between the two hypotheticals. Assuming arguendo that exposing oneself in a public park is illegal and that the police officer’s actions are not entrapment, both perps deserve to be punished.
We can debate whether the sting constituted entrapment or whether exposing oneself in a secluded area of a public park should be illegal, but I don’t think either of those debates was on the OP’s mind when he posted. I’m actually not the least bit clear what the OP’s point was, in fact.
(KellyM, my point was that people just react differently to the above story when you change the person from hetero to homo. I think that is why we have so many gay stings–but that some types of heterosexual stings are, well, unheard of. I guess since I was to some degree just expressing my opinion, I could have put it in under IMHO. But realize I did want to get people’s opinion on the matter. I could have been wrong in my assumptions you know (maybe I suffer from heterophobia;), who knows).)
