Anyhoo, I thought I'd go to the fount of all "human rights" dogma in Ontario, the Ontario "human rights" commish. On that super-virtuous body's website I found the following helpful info:
“Homophobia” and “heterosexism” are terms used to describe prejudice relating to sexual orientation. They refer to the assumption that heterosexuality is superior and preferable, and is the only right, normal or moral expression of sexuality. Both may also be the basis for negative treatment of gay, lesbian or bisexual people based on sexual orientation. Although these terms are closely related and overlapping, they also can emphasize different aspects and expressions of prejudice, and can therefore be helpful in identifying and addressing different aspects of the discrimination and harassment experienced by lesbian, bisexual or gay people.The implication being that if you happen to be non-hetero, and you happen to believe that your gender preference is the superior one, there's absolutely no problem with that--which, sorry, hardly seems "fair" (if the desire for "fairness"--and not some other agenda--is really what's at stake).But I digress. To continue:
“Homophobia” is often defined as the irrational aversion to, or fear or hatred of gay, lesbian or bisexual people and communities, or to behaviours stereotyped as “homosexual.” It is commonly used to signify a hostile psychological state in the context of overt discrimination, harassmetn (sic) or violence against gay, lesbian or bisexual people.It does? Such a bald statement points to an obvious question: Who in this day and age could possibly assume such a thing? One would have to be a half-wit, or insane, or dwelling in a zone of delusion to assume that everyone (what, in the province, the country, on the planet?) is hetero. But wait--to the "human rights" hucksters it appears to mean so much more than that:
“Heterosexism” refers to the assumption that everyone is heterosexual.
This definition is often used in the context of discrimination against bisexual, lesbian and gay people that is less overt, and which may be unintentional and unrecognized by the person or organization responsible for the discrimination. It can also be useful in understanding and identifying some kinds of institutional or societal bias, although homophobia may also be at play.In other words, what we're talking about here is not a full-on, hardcore, ugly sort of bigotry. Call it, instead, a type of bigotry that may not even exist, or, more accurately, exists largely in the minds of anti-hetero "human rights" types who have it in for the non-fun sexual orientation, the one that generally eschews organized, activist (and often atavistic) peacock-like public displays of sexuality and nekkidness in "Pride" parades.
The "human rights" types have invented an entire category of bigotry that brands men who prefer women, and women who prefer men, as bigots by default, and without they're even having to do the least thing that's overtly bigoted.
Ah, but as we know with these "human rights" control freaks, it's the thoughts--and thought crimes--that count. And if you're a hetero who has ever dared to harbour the thought, say, that the man-woman thing and the families that result from it is a building block for a stable society, then you, my friend, are ipso facto guilty of the "thought crime" of heterosexism.
Is it just me, or is "heterosexism" merely the latest way to describe what used to be called "the bourgeoisie," and is this concerted attack on "heterosexism" merely the latest fusilade aimed at the group most loathed by the revolutionaries and social Utopians amongst us? In the past, those groups have included the Jacobins of French Revolution and Reign of Terror fame, as well as a whole slew of later revolutionaries--Marxists, Leninists, Maoists, Islamists and the like. Attacking the "bourgeoisie" is a no-brainer--and a big winner--for those who want to tear down the current society and rebuild a new one. Too bad history shows that those given to such attacks invariably establish "new"societies that are as miserable as they are unfree, not to mention the attendant bloodshed, the millions who are dismissed as collateral damage in the building of the perfectly equitable society (which, down the line, inevitably turns into a failed basketcase of a state).
Not that I'm saying the OHRC wants to kill anyone; that would be silly. No, theirs is likely to be a most civilized "revolution," one which hounds you into submission by being the most annoying, obnoxious and relentless virtue-mongers around.