Are you a homophobe? Take the quiz.

[eskimo2]

Originally posted by AWMac
So dating a Ghey Asian Albino Midget would just be WRONG!

Unless you live in Kalifornia.

[Seagoon]

Finally read the thread and took the silly test, scored a 51 which I'm fairly certain is as low as an evangelical who accepts the scriptural witness on the subject is going to be able to score.

The test itself assumes that homosexuality is an ethical lifestyle and in no sense inherently wrong or immoral and that further the only reason someone would not endorse that lifestyle is that one has an irrational hatred and fear of homosexual. It also assumes that a negative assesment of homosexuality will result in violent, abusive, and discriminatory behavior towards homosexuals. Presumably the more negative your assessment, the more likely you are to be violent. In other words, enlightened, rational, and peaceful people are favorably inclined to homosexuality, only mindless bigots are opposed to it. The problem is not homosexuality, the problem is your negative reaction to it.

I believe the fundamental flaws in these premises can be exposed if one were to reframe the test in terms of adultery and adulterers. Is it not possible to have a negative view of adultery as ethically wrong without being labeled an "adulterophobe?" Must we accept that the problem cannot be adultery, but must instead be our inability to accept and embrace it? Does my opposition to adultery really have to stem from an irrational hatred and fear of adulterers, or might I honestly believe it to be wrong in and of itself. Am I really bound to go around acting violently towards adulterers because I am strongly opposed to adultery?

A test that cannot even allow for decisions based on the validity of biblical ethics or even "traditional morals" is hardly an objective assessment of character.

- SEAGOON

[SOB]

Congratulations, you have just debunked this Intardnet quiz.  Although, I think your time could have been better spent picking your teeth or clipping your toenails or maybe just staring at the wall.

[Leslie]

57

You would really need a psychology professor to explain what phobias are, but it doesn't take much smarts to understand the quiz isn't legit where it would serve science.  It is incomplete, and as Seagoon said, leaves out so many things that might make it a scientific test, it should not be treated as such.

Lot of fun though reading the thread.  Guess now I've participated.  Man, talk about peer pressure. Dang it  Airscrew got me to thinking. Was the only reason I participated.





Les

[eskimo2]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Finally read the thread and took the silly test, scored a 51 which I'm fairly certain is as low as an evangelical who accepts the scriptural witness on the subject is going to be able to score.

The test itself assumes that homosexuality is an ethical lifestyle and in no sense inherently wrong or immoral and that further the only reason someone would not endorse that lifestyle is that one has an irrational hatred and fear of homosexual. It also assumes that a negative assesment of homosexuality will result in violent, abusive, and discriminatory behavior towards homosexuals. Presumably the more negative your assessment, the more likely you are to be violent. In other words, enlightened, rational, and peaceful people are favorably inclined to homosexuality, only mindless bigots are opposed to it. The problem is not homosexuality, the problem is your negative reaction to it.

I believe the fundamental flaws in these premises can be exposed if one were to reframe the test in terms of adultery and adulterers. Is it not possible to have a negative view of adultery as ethically wrong without being labeled an "adulterophobe?" Must we accept that the problem cannot be adultery, but must instead be our inability to accept and embrace it? Does my opposition to adultery really have to stem from an irrational hatred and fear of adulterers, or might I honestly believe it to be wrong in and of itself. Am I really bound to go around acting violently towards adulterers because I am strongly opposed to adultery?

A test that cannot even allow for decisions based on the validity of biblical ethics or even "traditional morals" is hardly an objective assessment of character.

- SEAGOON

Seagoon,
Who is more likely to physically abuse/attack a gay person: someone who scored a 10 on the test or someone who scored a 90?  Really, I think that the only folks who might consider attacking gays for being gay are those who have very high scores and an intense hatred/fear of gays.  Those in the middle simply have a typical dislike of gayness.

Suppose I had two neighbors, one was gay and the other was an adulterer.  I’d probably be friends with both; however, I would probably think less of the adulterer.  After all, she broke a serious promise to her husband and an implied promise to her children and even her parents.  The gay neighbor has not hurt anyone or broken any promises.  Besides, her partner is really hot and they never close their shades.

It’s really not a good comparison: the fear/hatred of gays versus adulterers.  Not since the puritan days have people abused adulterers.  The fear/hatred of gays really is irrational; based on many people’s reactions to gays; you’d think it was an awful crime equal to child molestation.  The entire point/question is: why do people care so intensely how other people behave sexually?  Honestly, I just don’t get it.  Do most people imagine every person/couple they meet having sex and they can’t stand the idea of homos going at it?  If I were forced to watch either: a couple of average homos going at it or an old obese hairy couple going at it I think I’d be able to keep my lunch down a bit longer watching the homos.  Why don’t people protest against old obese hairy couples having sex?  You never hear about that, why?  It’s gross isn’t it?

Seriously, if anyone with a medium or high score could chime in here, what is it that bothers you so much about gays?  Please don’t spew out the typical’ “it’s just wrong” and “the bible says its wrong” response, be specific.  What goes through your mind when you are disturbed about gays?  Is your mind somehow forced to imagine them having sex?  Are you afraid that they are going to hump you while you’re sleeping?  Do biblical passages appear in your mind when you meet a gay?

eskimo

[Sandman]

Originally posted by eskimo2


Seriously, if anyone with a medium or high score could chime in here, what is it that bothers you so much about gays?  Please don’t spew out the typical’ “it’s just wrong” and “the bible says its wrong” response, be specific.  What goes through your mind when you are disturbed about gays?  Is your mind somehow forced to imagine them having sex?  Are you afraid that they are going to hump you while you’re sleeping?  Do biblical passages appear in your mind when you meet a gay?

eskimo

While I can't juge what is attractive or not, I get the sense that most men greatly exaggerate the attractiveness of their own ass.

[xrtoronto]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Finally read the thread and took the silly test, scored a 51 which I'm fairly certain is as low as an evangelical who accepts the scriptural witness on the subject is going to be able to score.

The test itself assumes that homosexuality is an ethical lifestyle and in no sense inherently wrong or immoral and that further the only reason someone would not endorse that lifestyle is that one has an irrational hatred and fear of homosexual. It also assumes that a negative assesment of homosexuality will result in violent, abusive, and discriminatory behavior towards homosexuals. Presumably the more negative your assessment, the more likely you are to be violent. In other words, enlightened, rational, and peaceful people are favorably inclined to homosexuality, only mindless bigots are opposed to it. The problem is not homosexuality, the problem is your negative reaction to it.

I believe the fundamental flaws in these premises can be exposed if one were to reframe the test in terms of adultery and adulterers. Is it not possible to have a negative view of adultery as ethically wrong without being labeled an "adulterophobe?" Must we accept that the problem cannot be adultery, but must instead be our inability to accept and embrace it? Does my opposition to adultery really have to stem from an irrational hatred and fear of adulterers, or might I honestly believe it to be wrong in and of itself. Am I really bound to go around acting violently towards adulterers because I am strongly opposed to adultery?

A test that cannot even allow for decisions based on the validity of biblical ethics or even "traditional morals" is hardly an objective assessment of character.

- SEAGOON

what a convoluted arguement! that's close to what I would expect Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson to say. Seagoon, do you also beleive the purple tele-tubby is gay?

[Seagoon]

Hi Eskimo,

Originally posted by eskimo2
Seagoon,
Who is more likely to physically abuse/attack a gay person: someone who scored a 10 on the test or someone who scored a 90?

Curiously enough, according to the statistics, someone who scored between 0 and ten is much more likely to abuse/attack a gay person. By far the largest number of attacks on homosexuals are perpetrated by other homosexuals, with some stats indicating that gay couples are up to 10 times more likely to batter one another than married heterosexual couples. The Justice Department report "Intimate Partner Violence 1993-1998" released in May of 2000, for instance, indicated that domestic violence occurred in 25-30% of homosexual households - and that was just the reported crimes that could be statitstically analyzed.

In any event Eskimo, to interact briefly with your other questions, it is actually possible to be strongly opposed to homosexuality for other than visceral or emotional reasons, and also without a desire to attack them. For instance, my own opposition to homosexuality has nothing whatsoever to do with feelings of revulsion or the somewhat bizzarre sequence of fantasies you outlined. The chief end of my life is to "glorify God and enjoy Him forever" one of the outworkings of a sincere love for God is the desire to obey His commands, and while the Bible teaches that sex is His good gift, it indicates that this good gift is to be enjoyed in the context of heterosexual marriage, and that outside of that context we are taking what He has given and misusing it and disobeying his commands. So far instance, Joseph refused to commit adultery, not out of fear, but because he loved God (Gen. 39:9) Therefore I'm opposed to any misuse of sex, including homosexual sex.

I know this will seem hard to believe, but I'm far from "homophobic." I've worked with homosexuals, and even counseled homosexuals trying to leave that lifestyle. Prior to becoming a Christian, I even lived over a gay bar in Alexandria, VA and worked security at Columbia Island Marina, which is one of D.C.s major gay trysting spots after dark.  I've had a chance to see the long term damage that homosexuality or any other lifestyle that makes an idol out of fornication can do. It's not surprising to me at all that the life expectancy of gay men is significantly lower than that of heterosexuals, that gay relationships are hardly ever monogamous and generally short-lived, that the suicide rates in the gay community are depressingly high, or that it is plagued with STDs. We were not created for an endless pursuit of sexual gratification, and when we attempt to make that the chief end of our lives, we will inevitably end up failing to find contentment or even peace. Quite the opposite, usually its an e-ticket to depression, despair and bitterness. It's questing after dust. "Vanity and Grasping for the wind" as the author of Ecclesiasties puts it. So while the primary reason I am opposed to homosexuality is from a desire to obey Scripture, the secondary reason is because homosexuality like all heart idols, consumes its worshippers and I don't want that to be the end of anyone's life. I know that the current wisdom is that if we don't accept the lifestyle we must hate the practitioners, but actually I'd say that by accepting a destructive lifestyle we actually do them far more harm.

I know this will make little sense to a hard-core materialist, especially the young ones, or to someone who has never really reached an end of the pursuit of pleasure, but believe me if scripture hadn't told me that, the evidence of my own experience would have made that clear.

- SEAGOON

[Suave]

Does this guy ever answer a question with less than 500 words ?

[Seagoon]

Nope.

[J_A_B]

If Seagoon's feelings are similar to what the Catholic church taught me, then he wouldn't dislike homosexual individuals so much as dislike the practice/glorification of that "lifestyle".  To that line of thought, homosexuality could be compared to someone who, say, feels the need to masturbate 20 times a day.  While it's no fault of the person who has that particular trait, it's nonetheless an unhealthy lifestyle which certainly shouldn't be "celebrated" or encouraged.  At least that's how several of the Catholic priests I know feel about it, and that's similar to how I feel about it, too.  

I'm not religious in any active sense of the word.  I harbor very little respect towards the institution of marriage, as marriage as it is today is virtually meaningless anyway.  Real commitment comes from a bond between two people, not from signing on the dotted line or having the local Priest say "Man and Wife".  I know plenty of "married" couples who disgrace the very idea of marriage, to say nothing of those people who get married/divorced multiple times.  It's like the people who live however immorally they want 6 days a week, but think going to church every Sunday somehow makes them more "religious" than I am.  What a joke.  

But then, we live in an age where it's considered okay and even encouraged to cheat on your spouse as long as you do it before you're officially married.  Considering the small number of gays in the population, homosexuality is at most a minor concern.  Our society might be decaying from within, but that decay isn't caused by gays and anyone blaming the gays is merely searching for a scapegoat.


My score on the test ranged from low 30's to upper 40's, after taking it a few times with different "qualifying assumptions" for several of the overly broad questions.

J_A_B

[midnight Target]

Seagoon, you quoted a statistic "The Justice Department report "Intimate Partner Violence 1993-1998" released in May of 2000, for instance, indicated that domestic violence occurred in 25-30% of homosexual households"

I guess you never read it (the DoJ report) or you get your stats second hand from an unreliable source.

Here it is... Please find the passage you are quoting?
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/vvr98.txt

Intimate partner violence, 1993-98

Between 1993 and 1998, an average of 1.1 million
violent crimes were committed against persons by
their current or former spouses, boyfriends, or
girlfriends annually.  An average of 87% of this
violence, termed intimate partner violence, was
committed against women.

Between 1993 and 1998 intimate partner
victimization of women differed by race.  American
Indians were victimized by an intimate at rates
higher than those for all other females -- 23
American Indians per 1,000 persons age 12 or older
compared to 11 blacks, 8 whites, and 2 Asians.  
Black females were victimized at higher rates than
white and Asian females, and white females
experienced violence by an intimate at rates
higher than Asians.

                Average annual rate
                of inmate partner
                violence per 1,000
                persons age 12 or
                older, 1993-98
                   Female   Male
White               8.1      1.3
Black              11.2      2.0
American Indian    23.2      4.2*
Asian               1.9      0.3*
 
*Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.

Trends in intimate partner violence

The rate of intimate partner violence against
white females fell significantly between 1993 and
1998, from 10 victimizations to 8 victimizations
per 1,000 women.  

The apparent decline in the rate of intimate
partner violence against black females as measured
by comparing the 1993 and 1998 rates was not
significant.  Insufficient sample sizes for
American Indian and Asian females prevented
examination of trends.

              Female victims of intimate partner
              violence, by year, 1993-98
 
              Female victims of intimate partner violence
                     White                Black
              Number        Rate    Number      Rate
 Total        4,560,740      8.1    961,380     11.2
1993            895,090      9.8    162,600     11.9
1994            813,670      8.8    174,470     12.5
1995            731,850      7.8    188,510     13.3
1996            689,170      7.3    177,530     12.3
1997            695,930      7.4    129,610      8.9
1998            735,040      7.7    128,660      8.7
 
Note:  Multiple-offender victimizations are
classified by the most intimate relationship
between the victim and one of the offenders.
There were too few cases of Asian and
American Indian females to provide reliable
estimates for each year.
 
Among white males there was no discernible trend
in the occurrence of intimate partner violence.
The rate in 1998 was similar to the 1993 rate.
There were too few sample cases for black,
American Indian, and Asian males for estimation of
changes in rates by year.

Reporting of intimate partner violence

Intimate partner violence is reported to police in
lower percentages than violent crime in general.
The percentage of intimate partner violence
against females reported to police did not differ
by the race of the victim, 1993-98.  The only
exception was that 66% of violence by intimates
against black females was reported to police
compared to 51% of violence against white females.
The percentage of violence against white, Asian
(52%), and American Indian (51%) females reported
between 1993 and 1998 was similar (not shown in
table).

White male victims of intimate partner
violence, by year, 1993-98
 
             Number      Rate
 Total       713,466      1.3
1993         136,380      1.6
1994         146,610      1.7
1995         104,050      1.2
1996          96,940      1.1
1997          87,370      1.0
1998         142,120      1.6
 
Note:  Multiple-offender victimizations are
classified by the most intimate relationship
between the victim and one of the offenders.
There were too few cases of black, Asian, an
American Indian males to provide reliable
estimates for each year.
 
Reasons for not reporting the victimization were
similar across the victims' racial groups,
1993-98.  Violence by intimates against females
was not reported to police most commonly because
the victim stated it was a "private or personal
matter."  Other commonly stated reasons this
violence was not reported to the police was
because the victim "feared reprisal" and the
victim wished to "protect the offender."

For additional information see Intimate
Partner Violence, BJS Special Report, May
2000, NCJ 178247, and Violence by Intimates,
BJS Factbook, March 1998, NCJ 167237, available  
on the BJS website.    

Reasons for not reporting intimate partner
violence to the police, females, 1993-98
 
                   Female victims of intimate partner violence
                              White                Black
                        Average             Average
                        annual    Percent   annual    Percent
Private or
personal matter        124,210       34%    19,400       36%
Afraid of reprisal      70,760       19     10,390       19
Protect offender        45,630       12      6,830       13
Small/no loss           27,500        7      1,380*       3*
Police will not
bother                  21,570        6      2,850*       5*
Other reason
given                  147,850       40     26,290       49
 
Note:  Percentages may not total to 100% because
respondents could suggest more than one reason. "Other
reason given" include responses such as "police
ineffectiveness or biased,"  "not clear a crime occurred,"
"inconvenient," and "reported to another official."  There
were too few cases of Asians and American Indians to
provide reliable individual year estimates.
*Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
---------------------------------------

[eskimo2]

Seagoon,

Paragraph #1: You took my words out context and avoided the question:
“Who is more likely to physically abuse/attack a gay person: someone who scored a 10 on the test or someone who scored a 90? Really, I think that the only folks who might consider attacking gays for being gay are those who have very high scores and an intense hatred/fear of gays.  Those in the middle simply have a typical dislike of gayness.”

Gays generally do not attack each other for being gay; “domestic violence” has nothing to do with homophobia and hate crimes.
Hetero men are also probably more likely to abuse hetero women; so what?

Paragraph #2: The keyword in all of this is “likely”.  Likely clearly does not mean absolute.  No one, not even the test I think, is suggesting that you personally are a highly likely to attack a gays for being gay.  


Paragraph #3:
I’m sure that most folks who scored a 90 also do not consider themselves homophobic.  After all, who’s afraid of a studmuffin?  Right?  

“We were not created for an endless pursuit of sexual gratification, and when we attempt to make that the chief end of our lives, we will inevitably end up failing to find contentment or even peace.”  -  You said this after explaining the sorts of gays that you have been exposed to.  Find an equally seedy hetero bar area and you are going to find many of the same problems.  Personally, I don’t know too many “out” gays but the ones that I do know are all in long term relationships.  I doubt if they consider the pursuit of sex any more important than I do.

That aside, I’m sure that many gay men live for sex, as do many hetero men, so what?

eskimo

[lazs2]

I think that the testers and guys like blukitty just aren't getting it.

It is not fear that drives most people uncomfortable with homosexuals... it is not even the fact that they are homo's.    

The vast majority of us don't care or even know details about others sex life.  

The problem comes with the normal human trait to emphathize... It is what we do.  We place our selves in the situation that we see or... sometimes, even hear about.

As such... it is perfectly normal to be repulsed by seeing males kissing in public say.   When we see attractive male/female partners doing the same we react differently.   This is far from "homophobic"  this is a natural and normal way to be.

most likely there is only a tiny little portion of the population that actually fears homo's

lazs

[storch]

yup and the person who fears that homo is the other homo he hangs out with.