Homophobia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[sinkoman]

Wtf is with people and homophobia?

Exactly what is it that people hate about gays?

Aside from the christian lunatics. Nobody likes them.

 

[99.vikram]

People are insecure about their own sexuality. So they feel that the gay "disease" must be stopped before their family is infected

 

[Reaktor4]

People need something to hate. It lets them feel better about themselves and also automatically gives them a group of like minded friends (based on the enemy of my enemy is my friend principle). The ones who say being gay is a choice are closet homos too afraid to admit it.

 

[sinkoman]

Intemaresting!

I'm hoping bliink will bring something about in this thread. She seems to know allot about social phobia and behavior.

 

[Raeven0]

The arguments of every homophobe I've ever known can be reduced to two basic lines of reasoning:
1) "I believe, despite overwhelming evidence and logical thinking to the contrary, that homosexuality (more commonly, sodomy) is gross and/or unnatural."*
2) "GOD HATES FAGS"

 

[sinkoman]

The arguments of every homophobe I've ever known can be reduced to two basic lines of reasoning:
1) "I believe, despite overwhelming evidence and logical thinking to the contrary, that homosexuality (more commonly, sodomy) is gross and/or unnatural."
2) "GOD HATES FAGS"

I think that these people just have no real idea of what the deffinition of "gross" or "unnatural" is, and that they don't realise that what is "gross" and "unnatural" is purely oppinion.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

The arguments of every homophobe I've ever known can be reduced to two basic lines of reasoning:
1) "I believe, despite overwhelming evidence and logical thinking to the contrary, that homosexuality (more commonly, sodomy) is gross and/or unnatural."*
2) "GOD HATES FAGS"

It's really just one thing:

"I HATE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE FOR NO REASON BECAUSE AN INVISIBLE MYSTERY FORCE TOLD ME TO."

 

[Yuri]

I think its very entertaining how both
-sodomy is defined as any sexual act without the intent of procreation (by some people, although others would say "unusual sexual acts," which definately includes oral sex)
-and how a lot of manly homophobic men love to engage in anal sex with women (I've personally met lots of these), yet they think it is sick and disturbing when performed between two men. Last I checked, girl butts are just like guy butts, with less hair (sometimes)!

I've never seen a rational argument against gay rights and liberties, not once.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

I just don't like men, gay or not.
They are icky.

 

[Viperidae]

I just don't like men, gay or not.
They are icky.

Now there's an attitude that I like.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Now there's an attitude that I like.

It's not an attitude, it's a biological reflex. I instinctively pull away if a guy touches me. Even my best friends. No touchy. Bad touch.

 

[Viperidae]

It's not an attitude, it's a biological reflex. I instinctively pull away if a guy touches me. Even my best friends. No touchy. Bad touch.

Oh. OK then.

 

[Ikerous]

I'm kewl with pedophiles, necrophelia and beastiality
Hell if I know why ppl are homophobes.

 

[gick]

Homophobes exist because people are stupid, and fear the unknown.

 

[Ikerous]

Homophobes exist because people are stupid, and fear the unknown.

The unknown and butt sechs. Mostly butt sechs...

 

[Mechagodzilla]

A year or so ago, I offered $500 for a single logical reason to ban gay marriage.

Nothing so far.

 

[Neo_Kuja]

Fear of the Unknown, mostly. That and some of the practises that gay couples carry out seem surrealistic to straight men and women, as they have no experience in that area. Toss in, of course, religious reasons that gay couples are "evil", and you have - homophobia !

 

[Ikerous]

A year or so ago, I offered $500 for a single logical reason to ban gay marriage.

Nothing so far.

Kant's maxim of universalized morality. (Third paragraph)

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Ah, tricky.

That's not really a logical reason because its creation would entail the destruction of government as a whole, rendering the entire debate null. The concept of banning would no longer exist because all society would self-limit. :O

 

[Ludah]

Of all the homophobes I've met, they can all be put into a few simple categories.

1.) The religious nut. He likes to spout off catchy slogans like "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" while condemning "them sodomizing ******s" to Hell. Occasionally you get a more liberal version who just settles for saying "Well, I personally think homosexuality is wrong", but their underlying reasons for this are still inane.

2.) The amateur scientist. Believes he can empirically prove how homosexuality is abnormal, sick, degenerate, dangerous, etc. His expertise is largely derived from a few pseudoscientific studies and some internet blogs. He is an idiot.

3.) The thirteen year old. "OMG NOE BUTT SECKZ IS GROSS LLOLOLLOL Y U WANT A DIK UP UR BUTT ROFLROFLROFL THATS POOPY LLLOLOLL"

 

[Ikerous]

Ah, tricky.

That's not really a logical reason because its creation would entail the destruction of government as a whole, rendering the entire debate null. The concept of banning would no longer exist because all society would self-limit. :O

:E Figured it was worth a shot

 

[15357]

homophobes exist because Michael Jackson exists.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Homosexual =/= pedophile.

Even the majority of pedophiles who target boys identify themselves as straight.

Honestly, I really wish people would think with their brains before just yelling "pedo".

It's the sequel to Godwin's Law:

As an online discussion of sexuality grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving pedophilia approaches one.

 

[Sulkdodds]

As has been said, I have never seen a logical argument. Arguments excepting the religious and the very young and stupid invariably rest on:
- Homosexuality spreads
- Homosexuality is abnormal therefore it is wrong
- Homosexuality is unnatural therefore it is wrong
- Homosexuality = no children therefore it is wrong

Kant's maxim of universalized morality. (Third paragraph)

If all men chose to marry/love men, society would collapse thus it is immoral to do it oneself? D

 

[Ikerous]

If all men chose to marry/love men, society would collapse thus it is immoral to do it oneself? D

Haha, blaim kant not me
He's the great philosopher

 

[Sulkdodds]

But - does that mean I can't be a journalist because if everybody did it society would collapse?

I expect we'd have to say that actually you can't be that specific, and rather 'be a journalist' must be replaced with 'work'.

In the same way, couldn't you just reduce 'have sex with men' to 'have sex'?

 

[Ikerous]

But - does that mean I can't be a journalist because if everybody did it society would collapse?

I expect we'd have to say that actually you can't be that specific, and rather 'be a journalist' must be replaced with 'work'.

In the same way, couldn't you just reduce 'have sex with men' to 'have sex'?

I realize it doesn't make sense ^_^
I've thought about it too..
I just wanted to see if dues would notice

:shh:

 

[Sulkdodds]

Heh.

Still, I think often it's obvious people who are 'against' homosexuality are conditioned to be so. They have a predisposition. Meanwhile, gay rights advocates have no predisposition except towards equality - no matter how much their opponents try to claim that they're 'promoting' or 'advocating' sexuality.

Thus, half of people's arguments are quite obviously bullshit that they're trying to slot into their own beliefs, rather than them having considered all the options and concluded that homosexuality is a bad thing.

Also, I apologise for never replying to that Dutch-o-paedo thread which I'm not going to dig up now but might as well say I forgot to sort of politely acknowledge that you'd been getting the wrong end of the stick.

:shh:

 

[99.vikram]

Still, I think often it's obvious people who are 'against' homophobia are conditioned to be so.

You contradictificatified yourself

 

[Sulkdodds]

Where? D:

 

[99.vikram]

First you state that people against homophobia (incl. yourself) are biased, then you say they're not. That's contradictification right there

 

[Sulkdodds]

I think I mispronounced 'against homosexuality' as 'against homophobia'.

 

[99.vikram]

Salright.

Everyone makes mistakes
(Except me of course )

 

[bliink]

I think that these people just have no real idea of what the deffinition of "gross" or "unnatural" is, and that they don't realise that what is "gross" and "unnatural" is purely oppinion.

I think what you're meaning to say is that its all subjective. Which is mostly true.

Also, how is it "unnatural"? Sure, you don't get babies unless you're straight, but you're not inhuman for having sex with ANYTHING, let alone another human.

Heres my logic:
Human == natural
having sex with a human != inhuman
human + human = Human!

Therefore
natural == all that stuff I just said.

If we, as entities of nature, do something, how does that make it un-natural?

If its "not as nature intended", then why would people want to do it?
The fact that they want to do it shows that it is natural.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Yeah, that's always been my outlook on the concept of 'natural'.

Either everything we do is unnnatural or everything we do is natural. There cannot, logically, be any in-between.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

"I HATE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE FOR NO REASON BECAUSE AN INVISIBLE MYSTERY FORCE TOLD ME TO."

A sequel to Team America: World Police?

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Yeah, that's always been my outlook on the concept of 'natural'.
Either everything we do is unnnatural or everything we do is natural. There cannot, logically, be any in-between.

I had this discussion before, quite a while ago. I ended up proving (or trying very, very hard to) that getting your groceries from the supermarket was unnatural.
"Natural" and nature though, really only applies to individuals. There is not even one trait or bahavior exhibited by every member of the human race.

 

[99.vikram]

"Natural" should not be the basis on which any argument stands. Anybody who feels gay people are a menace to the world should explain why with clear reasons.

 

[Steel.Inferno]

Warning, the following post is about 80% rant, and should be ignored by any rational forumgoer. This post in incohesive, and may come across as offensive, prejudiced, and immature. My random meandering mini-rants may burn to the very core of your soul, or may just make you twitch. You have been warned.

Most common argument: Gays are a menace to the world because who wants a cock up their ass, I mean really. Obviously, female lesbians are not, because it is hot and awesome to watch.

Others: Religion.
I hate religion. Well, dislike/disapprove of/etc would be more accurate. It just doesn't "work" with human nature. It would be all well and good if more people followed and obeyed their religions teachings. But far too many don't. They follow only the teachings that they want to be taught, and generally ignore those most important to the furthering of human "perfection." Islam, for example, used to stand for scholarly thought and behaivor, encouraging intelligence and the like. Now, thanks to some alterations in interpretation in the last 500 or so years, the once dominant cultures have become incredibly poor, and for it, many Muslim countries are feared and hated, their people oppressed all over the world, their countries invaded, and the average American thinks that any "arab" is going to go blow themselves up in the middle of the street.

Gogo bias against male homosexuality versus female homosexuality.


I have no real issue with homosexuality...

My one stance against gay rights is for homosexual married couples adopting children. And that is SOLELY because that in the current world, the child would have to endure alot of hate (homophobia) directed at him/her because of his parents. I just don't think an adopted child, who has no or minimal choice in who adopts him/her, should have to deal with that on top of other social issues. Of course, when society is more accepting of homosexuality, it would be totally fine. And by "more accepting" I mean when they decide to target another random group.

I also would think that, as someone above said, everything we do is either natural or unnatural. We exist in nature, therefore everything we do is natural, or we do not exist in nature (anymore or just don't), therefore everything we do is unnatural. I think everything we do is "natural." Well, in fact, I think the word "natural" in regards to human issues is irrelevant. It's an opinion, and doesn't really change anything either way. Oooh plastic is unnatural, does that mean we shouldn't use something that facilitates our lives in so many ways? If we didn't use plastic alot of our technology simply wouldn't exist or would be less efficient. Besides, wooden toys give you splinters and metal toys are heav(ier) and aren't as fun to burn/explode/melt.

As far as bestiality/necrophilia and whatnot, simple stances... And of course, they have absolutely NOTHING to do with homosexuality.

Necrophilia: While I find it a bit disgusting, as in I would never do it myself, I suppose it is fine with permission from the deceased. Otherwise I think it could be considered a form of rape. Nonconsenting sex. Granted I believe when you are dead, you are *dead*, and therefore, nothing matters, it would in many cases be incredibly harmful emotionally to the family, friends, etc.

Bestiality (how the hell do you spell this) I feel is really not all that bad, as long as it is consenting. Animals can and do consent to sex, or are the ones who engage in the activity initially. Again nonconsenting sex = bad.

I love rambling endlessly whenever I make long posts... I'm sorry if this contradicts itself or makes no sense, my mind is like that sometimes when its written down.

 

[99.vikram]

Obviously, female lesbians are not, because it is hot and awesome to watch.

Obviously

Of course, when society is more accepting of homosexuality, it would be totally fine. And by "more accepting" I mean when they decide to target another random group.

That was one of the most intelligent posts on this thread :thumbs: