I received two comment from two people that I was been offended by, recently.
The first message wrote
I don't allow homophobic comments on my site.
When you say gay films are 'kinda gross' it is offensive. It equally offensive to then say you find lesbian films 'kinda hot' - you're discriminating between these two kinds of homosexuality.
If I were you I would ask myself WHY I find gay films 'gross', and maybe talk to a counsellor/psychologist about it, because it's not normal. And yes, I know a lot of people are homophobic, but that isn't normal either. It's very bad, and it alienates people like me. Right now I have no interest in your blog whatsoever. I'm sure that you have the capacity to be tolerant and accept others, but until then you are not welcome to comment on my blog, okay?
Xxxxxxxx (I removed his name, because I am not certain whether he want the public to know his gay.)
I was actually offended by the comment, because, firstly I grow up in a family that is extremely pro civil right, secondly, I studied a degree that gives me the knowledge to use it to break down stereolization and thirdly, I am also a Buddhist (although not a very serious one.) and in Buddhism, stereotype is practically in sine. (That is why there is never too much problem with racism, religion racism or any other form of discrimination in most East Asian country.)
So saying that I am somebody that is not capable of showing “capacity to be tolerant and accept others “is like calling somebody that is not racist, a racist. So can imagine why I am so offended.
Yes, I do not denier I said that I find “gay sex” to be gross and “lesbian sex” to be hot, but that is just because different people have different sexual desires. I am sorry you felt it to be discriminative, but honestly there is nothing discriminative about it.
And just to let make it clear, that was all I said, in that time.
I do believe there is nothing wrong about been gay, because there is nothing homosexual can do about it. I have no love towards homophobic behavior, because although most homophobic claim there intention is purely in favor of conservative values in regards of marriage, in reality they are really just stereolizationist.
Before I go any further I want to explain the differences between whether a person is in favor or against “same sex love” and whether a person is a homophobia, which I am just going to refer to as anti-homosexuals, from now on.
From an academic point of view, whether a person is in favor of the behavior of “Same sex love” and whether a person is anti-homosexual are really two totally different things, although people that are anti-homosexual are usually amount people that are not in favor of the idea of “same sex love”
Anti-homosexual behavior is really constructed through two things. One is religion misuse and secondly, is linguistic othering.
Religious radicalism is common amount both the Catholic faith and Muslim faith today, which according to Dr. Zzzz, from Sydney University (I forgot the name again.) refers to, as people who misuse religion in a certain way, to achieve their own selfish goal.
The radical group of Taliban is probably the best case of all, (now you are probably wondering what do this got to do with anti-homosexualist, I am getting there.) in his analysis of the Muslim faith, Dr Zzzz argues the colonial and post colonial era leads the middle eastern nations feeling their own culture been threaten by western dominance. This leads to the misuse Muslim’s original idea of Holy War.
The original idea of Holy War in Muslim, is a form of defensive warfare, which includes most of the idea behind modern rules of engagement, which includes firstly, an army is only allow to go into war to defend themselves against aggressors, secondly, only go to war as a final resolution and thirdly, never attack civilian, the war must be restricted between the military.(Any Muslims that are reading this fell free to correct me, because honestly, I am not somebody that experience it first hand, but research it through secondary sources.)
Today radicalism personal in the Middle East, who dislikes the western influence, is quick to misuse the concept of Holy War, to become an idea of killing westerners, to force western influence out of their country, labeling anybody who use any western knowledge as traitors and ultimately even to conquest the west. (If there is anybody from the Middle East, feel free to correct me, if you want to.)
The Bible has also been used in a similar manner, by the anti-homosexuals through the phrase “A marriage should be union between a man and a woman” (correct me if I am not accurate), it leads to religion been misuse and become a form of excuse for the anti-homosexuals, despite the fact that there are thousand or millions of phrases within the bible that counter this sort of radical action.
But what leads the anti-homosexuals, to start using a bible phrase as an excuse to stereotype is once again a different issue, that can only be understand through the concept of linguistic othering.
As I have said in prior although most anti-homosexuals are amount people that are not in favor of the idea of “same sex love”, whether a person is in favor or not in favor of “same sex love” and whether a person is anti-homosexual or not anti-homosexual, is really two different things. Anti-homosexual behavior is really constructed by something, that is best to be refer as “linguistic othering”, constructed by two things one, the concept of othering and two, linguistic signs.
Chris Baker argues that, people with a significantly different characteristic, can be easily point out and be target as the negative others (E.g. race, religion, homosexuals, handicap etc.) The non others will be represented positively, in comparison to the others. (Baker, 2004, P248~P277) Baker argues the others will be isolated and be seen as something that can not be consider to be a part of the community and if the other’s culture to become a part of the non other’s culture, it will be seen, as a disturbance of social norm. (Baker, 2004, P248~P277)
Sassure argues linguistic signs are made up of two things, a signified and a signifier. A signifier is a sound pattern or a written pattern. A signified is a meaning that the signifier represents. However, the signified and the signifier do not have any natural bound between them. (Cobley P & Litza J, 1997, P10~P13) For example, the word dog does not have any natural bond with “dogs” themselves. The word dog is a symbol that is, use to relate to the idea of dogness.
Linguistic othering, is a situation where people use a particular word to categorize a people of a particular group base on their characteristic either racial (through the word oriented.), Muslims (through the word Muslim.) homosexual (through the word gay, not so much through the word lesbian) and to a smaller extend also sexism (through the word woman, although sexism is much more complicated and to a larger extend on a totally different topic, I am not going to go into it here.)
In the case of the homosexuality, the word “gay” become a symbol that allows people that are involve in “same sex love” to be categorize and later onwards been turned into the negative others and that was why a few years ago, homosexuals almost become second class citizens, especially the period where gay marriage all in a sudden become an agenda, that was been debated.
In theory, the anti gay movement a few years ago should not have happened, if it wasn’t for the religion misuse or linguistic othering, the chances are, it will just be a cold topic nobody cares about, where people will see it on TV and simply forget and it is because of religion misuse and linguistic othering that some people that are not in favor of “same sex love”, started to lost perspective and become anti-homosexuals and then further more spread it to some others.
Now, I am not going to denier the fact that, I am not in favor of the idea of “same sex love” in certain ways, but I do believe there is nothing wrong about bee gay, because ultimately it is not their choise and I am not anti homosexual either.
However, I am not suggesting the idea of whether we should either be in favor or against “same sex love”, honestly I do not really care about it and I do not have a problem with gay people either. I met them before and I talk to them before and I treat them just like anybody else.
As for those who are going to attack me on this comment, I know there will be some because, the second comment that piss me off is just in regards to this topic and I am going to write it down in part 2. Read about it, tomorrow
The former soap star Jason Smith who played Robbie Hunter on "Home and Away", is now taking on the role as a character within the newest "Power Ranger" series.
Smith is now playing the role of the Red Power Ranger, within the US "Power Ranger" series "Power Ranger Jungle Fury", which came on air around Feburary 2008.
Within this new series Smith played the character Casey, an amature, but talented martial art apprentist, who was given the job as an guardian of man kind, after the original candidate to become the Red Ranger was been kick out of the academy.
Despite been the only amature within a whole bunch of professional warriors, Casey turns out to be a natural born leader and capable of leading a whole bunch of warriors that are way more powerful then him, into battle.
Smith's new character is extremely different from the character he played on "Home and Away", where Smith played a nerdy but decent young man, who is not capable of a fight.
Smith left the "Home and Away" series in 2006, where his character moved to America with his bueatyful young wife Tasha Hunter, played by Isabel Lucas.