Posted on 01/18/2006 12:10:29 PM PST by Callahan
This is a "legitimate" test in-so-far as it was developed by researchers at the University of Georgia. It was designed to test the theory that homophobia is a manifestation of repressed homosexual desire. The researchers reported difficulty finding heterosexual men who were "high-grade non-homophobic."
My guess is that Wright, Adams & Bernat have been getting it on
Yep, there are still guys like that out there, but they will avoid the numbskull filled venues where they would likely end up calling some smart mouthed pipsqueak out and end up facing charges. It just isn't worth getting in trouble over.
(Of course I'd prefer to quarentine the bunch of them and let most of the disease die out but that's probably not going to happen any time soon.)
The truth is: I have an opinion that does not support homosexuality. I'm not afraid of it though.
BS - Myth.
The west was just as populated with sheepherders. It was part of ranch work, and any ranch hand that wanted work, worked with sheep when the job required it.
This myth of cowboy is just a glorified ranch hand.
As for Brokeback Mountain, well that POS homo movie just further explodes the myth of cowboy vs. sheepherder.
I disagree that the test is "balanced." I base my opinion on the fact that there are a plethora of obviously disturbed questions on the test that most people, despite any sexual connotation, would find disagreable (the 'questions' that require someone to deny being violent, being destructive to property, like the "car keying" and "striking (of someone) advancing toward (them)" and similar).
MOST people don't and won't resort to property damage nor to violence unless someone is posing a violent assault. A mere "approaching" person could describe the mailman/woman, the pharmacist with a question about a medication order, even someone trying to help with groceries toward a car...
Without more information, I'd regard questions such as those on that "test" to be impossible to respond to emotionally, in the negative NOR the positive...and thus, a neutral position ("I neither agree nor disagree") is appropriate given the lack of other aspects to almost all of those sccenarios posed.
Most heterosexuals wouldn't want a homosexual roommate. It doesn't imply fear, but it does imply personal preference. And, once someone known to another introduces homosexuality as a personal behavior to a relationship, if you have religious and other beliefs and preferences, there will be a parting of shared values and interests, even however slight. It's impossible to honestly respond that there would be no change to any relationship once/if a "friend" announced they were homosexual and the other person was not. It does not, however, imply that the friendship would simply disappear, but that there would be SOME change in the relationship -- and thus, if someone said they disagreed that there would be no change, they'd also be not straightforward in that response, they'd be, actually, admitting to avoidance, which is not what the test intends to be admitted.
That is, the test is worded in such a fashion that to "please" the test result, a person would have to respond culturally as expected, as rewarded: be "not homophobic" and be indirect, avoid being honest, or, be "homophobic" by the test's determination and be straightforward.
Homosexuality IS "immoral" to people with religious beliefs who are sincere in admitting those beliefs and perspectives. I venture to best guess that the test was written and is evaluated upon quite amoral terms -- any reference to morality as to homosexuality will land you in the denigrated area to those who rationalize homosexuality in amoral terms. Once morality is applied, within a Judeo-Christian understanding particularly, it's impossible to be neutral or even enthusiastic about homosexuality, even on a modestly tolerant cultural level.
You can be tolerant, yes, and most are, but asking someone with religious beliefs and dedication to Christian morality, particularly, to be neutral or even supportive of homosexuality as an IDEA, a concept and set of behaviors, is deceitful and denies the religious 'worth' or merit of others.
The test assigns a negative assessment ("you're homophobic") to those who resond honestly to the questions as to morality and personal preference -- if you're heterosexual, you'll have different preferences than someone who is homosexual, and there's nothing at all wrong or negative about that -- and the test assigns a positive assessment ("you're not homophobic") to those who avoid acknowledging personal preference, unless they themselves are homosexual.
Most people, almost all of us, would never smash people in the face nor key their cars nor dismiss another person outright based upon a perception of them as homosexual.
What the test is almost certainly focused upon is the penalization of and about any applied morality to the question of homosexuality.
Thus, the test evaluates as "good" ("you're not homophobic") AMORALITY, and, penalizes as "bad" ("you're homophobic") MORALITY. That's what the test is fluffing out and trying to, in effect, shame out of people: don't be moral, don't value morality, be amoral and be "o.k."
No surprise that the test is "popular" among psychologists and sociologists, who without these types of "tests," are helpless, given their amoral perspectives. Amorality can be a good process up to a certain point, but once it attemtps to penalize morality and those who value it, it is, in effect, the bad judging the good to be bad.
Well, no, actually, it isn't ("to compare homosexuals with chold [sic] molestors and rapists is completely off base").
If for the fact that many who molest children (that means, they RAPE other human beings) are homosexuals.
You cannot, not at all, separate homosexuality from molestors, rapists, based upon the fact that many who are homosexual comprise those who molest and rape...unfortunately, that includes those who predate upon children.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
That with one really quick search. More can be found if you want to look.
On this site, lose and loose seem to be the most problematic and they're not even homophones.
I scored a 63 BTW, and I have queer friends! (well, close acquaintances)
I agree that the test is flawed - but not for the reasons you state. It is flawed because 1) it gives equal weight to questions of different magnitude, and 2) it does not separate the purely personal "gross-out factor" from opinions on homosexuality itself. In other words, someone who believes that homosexuality is immoral, that gays should not work near children, and would terminate a friendship upon finding out the friend is gay can answer the other 22 questions very gay-friendly, score "non-homophobic," but in fact have a very low opinion of gays.
The rest of your comment presupposes that homosexuality is "immoral." I do not, because I am in no position to comment on other people's sex lives. Personally disgusting TO ME does not equal "immoral" across-the-board. To be sure, both sides contribute to the controversy - some (but not all) homosexuals for flaunting their sexuality in a way that most heterosexuals do not, and some (but not all) heterosexuals for vocally opposing homosexuality in a way that far exceeds the personal gross-out factor.
One of the best pieces of graffiti I came across: "I hate f***ing fags," and written directly underneath: "Then don't f*** them." I don't really think much of homosexuality beyond that, so I'll end here.
Beavis, is that you?
It is my understanding that the term "cowboy" is only a corruption of the spanish word, "caballero" (cahbahyero)
Only if you're buying...I'm broke, LOL!
I really see this "quiz" as just additional ammo to prove how much they want to "normalize" homosexuality. If you're not "statistically a homophobe," then you must not have any problem with that lifestyle, right? Wrong!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.