Welcome to Gaia! ::

I've been in a lesbian relationship for about three and a half years and never had too much trouble with homophobia. Then again, we pick friends amongst very open-minded people and lots of other gays, and we're not the sort to be publicly obvious. Hand-holding and stuff, yes, but people don't seem to pay much attention.

I tend to forget how homophobic a lot of the world is, being cushioned in my circle of gays and lovely people. Though when people do show homophobic opinions, it's the naïveté that usually bothers me the most. "I don't think gay couples should be allowed children, because they might turn them gay." 1. what is wrong with them being gay? 2. how exactly do you think they're going to be 'turned gay'? That particular one irritated me with its stupidity. Also, "You're a lesbian? Do you fancy me?" -- I mean, you wouldn't expect every person of the opposite sex to automatically be attracted to you, why would you expect it of every homosexual of your own gender? Also, you'd never ask that of someone in any regular context, I find it incredibly irritating that we're supposed to be subject to such questions without complaint.


Have to say though, one of the most homophobic people I know suddenly turned into a lesbian overnight. I've read about a study on that somewhere: something like 80% of the homophobic men in the test were turned on by gay porn, whereas only a very small number of non-homophobic straight men showed any response...

Seeing as you and Sara both seem to be in the UK I think your country has a much lower rate of homophobia.
My problem is the fact that most homophobes think racism is wrong (not counting idiots/rednecks) and still have prejudice towards one group or another because of something incontrollable(so not how it's spelled, is it?). If you think it's any different to be homophobic than it is to be racist then you're suffering from the belief of a bullshit double standard, and probably don't deserve a place in any form of utopian society. Isn't that what we're all striving for anyway?

This pisses me off no end. Why is one type of discrimination any more socially acceptable than another? Call someone a ****** and people are shocked, call someone a f**, they join in.

The idea of a utopia is completely ridiculous. You know how influenza mutates when someone finds a cure for a strain? It's kind of like that. People will always get ill, people will always be treated badly. When people stop bashing gay people, it'll be someone else they'll take their ignorance to.

I think your concept of utopia is skewed. The idea is of an ideal world, not simply one without pain or discrimination.

Also, despite the fact that bad things always happen, they can clearly be reduced. Sure, people will always pick on minority groups. However, in Western society, religious war is now pretty much non-existent (don't talk to me of Northern Ireland - they don't care about religion, they just want a chance to fight). Disabled people have rights and protection and are treated with at least some semblance of understanded. Blacks and other people of non-caucasian origins are no longer marginalised, but treated just the same as anyone else. Women can live and work and vote and are no longer expected to defer to men (don't start). Yes, racism, sexism and discrimination towards disabled people exist, but they've been greatly reduced. Homosexuality used to be severely punishable (and still is, in some countries) - now people are working to accept it. Prejudice is not merely being displaced or swept under the rug: it's actually actively being reduced.

Yes, there will always be discrimination, and there will always be stupid people, but it's completely ridiculous to say we should resign ourselves to it when it can so clearly be changed.

U⋅to⋅pi⋅a  /yuˈtoʊpiə/ [yoo-toh-pee-uh]
–noun 1. an imaginary island described in Sir Thomas More's Utopia (1516) as enjoying perfection in law, politics, etc.
2. (usually lowercase) an ideal place or state.
3. (usually lowercase) any visionary system of political or social perfection.


You fail at being literal - I assume you mean "literal" as opposed to "as it appears in literature"?

And of course it's impossible; thus the nature of the concept.

Points I also have to argue include that absence of love leads to absence of any negative emotion, that perfection means blandness and completion, that humanity would cease to breed in a neutral society, and why on earth a utopia would be free from love.

Also, not all art derives from emotion. Don't start an argument about whether emotionless art is 'true' art - I merely mean the creation of music and paintings and whatever else. People create for fun as much as expression: people paint pictures just to see things that please them, write music to hear sounds that please them, dance to make movements that please them. I remember watching footage of rappers in China; with a government that disallows any sort of political messages in such music, they were rapping with lyrics about food. They were not making a statement, merely enjoying themselves.

To be honest, I could sum up my opinions on your views of a utopia with a big, fat, WRONG. razz Your entire line of thinking just doesn't make sense to me.

Well, to combat your argument I'm going to dissect my own further, and even state that Love is the reason that a utopia could never exist. Since you so handily cited wikipedia for Utopia, I'm going to abide by that standard in my argument.

Love is any of a number of emotions and experiences related to a sense of strong affection[1] and attachment. The word love can refer to a variety of different feelings, states, and attitudes, ranging from generic pleasure ("I loved that meal") to intense interpersonal attraction ("I love my boyfriend"). This diversity of uses and meanings, combined with the complexity of the feelings involved, makes love unusually difficult to consistently define, even compared to other emotional states.

As an abstract concept, love usually refers to a deep, ineffable feeling of tenderly caring for another person. Even this limited conception of love, however, encompasses a wealth of different feelings, from the passionate desire and intimacy of romantic love to the nonsexual emotional closeness of familial and platonic love[2] to the profound oneness or devotion of religious love.[3] Love in its various forms acts as a major facilitator of interpersonal relationships and, owing to its central psychological importance, is one of the most common themes in the creative arts.

Ok, so there it is. The internet's standard definition. Now, to explain my point, it's integral that you understand how much of a motivating factor love is in our world (especially under religious and interpersonal categories). Religious love, among other things, has consistently been one of the most destructive forces known to man. Love of one's country is also another one of these broad categories, but to get even more detailed we really have to dive deep into relationships. Love causes people to hate. It ruins people, causes mental delusion, lack of conscience, and overall inability to be unselfconscious, which obviously results in anxiety, which in turn can result in violence. Crimes of passion, emotion, or whatever you'd like to call them are almost exclusively related to love (in either a narcissistic or outwardly hateful manner).

It's also foolish to argue that any human action is absent of emotion. Humans are emotion. Even insignificant actions are completely intertwined in the most complex ways. And besides, without statements to be made true art couldn't really exist, since nothing exists in a vacuum. It's clear that you really didn't put much thought into this. I respect your opinion, and your obvious desire to try (which alone is another reason that a utopia cannot exist, people will always be competing with each other. It's an inherent human quality).

Side note: I wrote the word literary (as in books), not literal. I meant exactly what I said.