Homophobia

[monoxide_child]

You are right about even watching straight couples get carried away. This is where sayings like "get a room" or "too much infomation" came from. But one thing going for striaght couples is they have nothing to prove to anyone so its rare to see this. Its perfectly normal to desire not to watch or be exposed to any "loud" behavior.

whether or not a couple in a relationship are "going to far" or "getting carried away" shouldn't be dependant on whether or not the couple is a gay/lesbian couple or straight, a gay/lesbian couple "going to far" should only be innapropriate in the exact same way as a straight couple doing the same

about a year ago i saw a girl in open-heeled shoes go into a McDonald's with her goth boyfriend who was wearing a black kilt, when they sat down across from each other, she slid off her shoes then slid her foot up her boyfriend's kilt while she was on her cell phone, she was talking loud enough for me (and several children) to hear her when she told the person on the phone that her guy wasn't wearing anything underneath his kilt and that her bare foot was touching the bare flesh of his dick

this incident in a McDonald's was completely innapropriate becase they were doing sexual things while completely surrounded by pre-sex-drive children, and to me it would not have been any more/less innapropriate if the couple had been gay/lesbian

 

[Kara-Shehr]

why can't the rest of the world think like this?

Because everyone would be the same.

 

[Kara-Shehr]

Two men kissing at a McDonalds is no different from a hetero couple doing the same. It's hypocritical to think otherwise. Whether or not "society" views such acts as acceptable or not is irrelevant. How many people have a problem with seeing a straight couple kissing in public? How about an Asian couple? Probably none in either case...but two gay men, and suddenly it's a problem. Telling me that you're put off by seeing that is no different from telling me you won't go to McDonalds because the cashier isn't white. Prejduiced or racist, it's the same principle. We live in a world that is still very homophobic, and there's no reason for it.

Homophobia is partial to many people because they're ignorant and cannot see past their own narrowmindedness. It's no so much a fear but an unreasonable dislike and lack of understanding towards those that are homosexual. Men in particular are homophobic, and usually only have an issue with gay men.

Honestly im amazed that this thread didn't end after this was said.

People fear and hate what they don't possess the intelligence to comprehend which is basically the ultimate human flaw. If human beings could evolve past that then we would flourish as a society and species.

 

[Kara-Shehr]

Any lifestyle can be judged on it's ability to successfully duplicate itself in a positive way. The homosexual lifestyle cannot naturally duplicate itself at all, so whether or not would be positive doesn't even enter into the arguement.

Errr what?

 

[Dak]

Errr what?

Someone who would put a picture of Crowley as their avatar obviously wouldn't understand a statement with the terms "natural" and "positive" in it.

 

[Ultimate_Symphony]

Holy crap! a year after and this thread is still running? only on UM

 

[Kara-Shehr]

Someone who would put a picture of Crowley as their avatar obviously wouldn't understand a statement with the terms "natural" and "positive" in it.

Says the guy who watches cage fighting. Why don't you just explain your points instead of being a pretentious asshole?
Or is this thread dead so fuck it?

 

[Dak]

Says the guy who watches cage fighting. Why don't you just explain your points instead of being a pretentious asshole?
Or is this thread dead so fuck it?

Your username is the height of pretentiousness, so don't go around slapping that label on other people.

This thread is fairly dead, and no one is going to change minds on subjects like these anyway.

 

[Vossyrus]

Any lifestyle can be judged on it's ability to successfully duplicate itself in a positive way. The homosexual lifestyle cannot naturally duplicate itself at all, so whether or not would be positive doesn't even enter into the arguement.

I don't really understand this comment either. Any lifestyle can be judged on any one thing, but I don't think you need to have children make a difference in a positive way if that is what you're implying. That comment is rather similar to those that Christians make for reasoning against homosexuality.

There's numerous straight couples who choose not to have children, or unable to actually have children. Plenty of others who simply do not want children. When you take into consideration too that the world is overpopulated, are you really helping out in a positive way by having children? So if that's part of the argument, I think adopting a child rather than having your own would a positive thing to do, is it not?

Or how about people who are terrible, drugged-out, abusive parents, but have children who turn out to be alright and made for a strong contribution to society? Do you view those parents & their lifestyle in a positive light?

Also I'm sure there's many musicians you are a fan of who have a positive impact on you and others. Many of them may not have or want to have children, and it's likely that many of them are even homosexual. I think the positive influence a person has over others says a lot more about that person, than what you said previously in your statement which is a rather silly to say that it's all based around that one thing only.

 

[Dak]

I like when people take one part of my statement and find problems with it by excluding the rest of it.

 

[Vossyrus]

I like when people take one part of my statement and find problems with it by excluding the rest of it.

I believe I did address what you said, both sentences. I disagree with your first sentence and your second, which builds on the first.

If I've misunderstood, then explain.

 

[Dak]

I don't really understand this comment either. Any lifestyle can be judged on any one thing, but I don't think you need to have children make a difference in a positive way if that is what you're implying. That comment is rather similar to those that Christians make for reasoning against homosexuality.

There's numerous straight couples who choose not to have children, or unable to actually have children. Plenty of others who simply do not want children. When you take into consideration too that the world is overpopulated, are you really helping out in a positive way by having children? So if that's part of the argument, I think adopting a child rather than having your own would a positive thing to do, is it not?

Well first I am going to point out that only the incorrectly-informed think the world is over-populated. The fact that there are heterosexual couples that do not reproduce doesn't negate the fact that they have the capability, and that the majority do reproduce. Pulling exceptions does not disprove general trends.

It's not a religious bias to point out homosexuals can't naturally reproduce, it's merely stating a fact.

Adopting is fine, but we spend more energy trying to find people who want to adopt instead of trying to prevent the situations that leave kids in foster care. I am not defending lifestyles that lead to kids being dumped onto society instead of "successfully reproducing in a positive way".

Or how about people who are terrible, drugged-out, abusive parents, but have children who turn out to be alright and made for a strong contribution to society? Do you view those parents & their lifestyle in a positive light?

Again, pulling exceptions does not disprove general trends.

Also I'm sure there's many musicians you are a fan of who have a positive impact on you and others. Many of them may not have or want to have children, and it's likely that many of them are even homosexual. I think the positive influence a person has over others says a lot more about that person, than what you said previously in your statement which is a rather silly to say that it's all based around that one thing only.

I specifically said any lifestyle (lifestyle includes many more criteria than just sexual preference) can be judged on it's ability to duplicate itself in a positive way. Then I pointed out that homosexuality can't naturally reproduce itself at all, so it doesn't even enter into consideration. It doesn't meet the minimum criteria to even merit serious discussion.

 

[Vossyrus]

Start with the beginning Dakryn, you would clear up some of the confusion if you would explain the significance of your first statement regarding duplication in a positive way. How it relates to this thread.

In regards to homosexuality specifically, it will always exist. Sure they cannot reproduce like heterosexual couples (though many lesbians are having their own children via donors, they are women after all and fully capable) but a certain percentage of every generation will be homosexual because homosexuals are born that way. So I do not fully understand the significance of your first statement.

There's plenty of things going on in this world that hold strong influence over people (regardless of their lifestyles, we can all be affected in some way or another) which determine if things turn out to be "positive" or "negative" in present time, or moving forward.

So the topic does indeed merit serious discussion because homophobia is still very common, and homosexuals again, will a part of every generation just like they have always been.

 

[Dak]

The label of "homophobia" is inaccurate to start with. To dislike/shun something =/= paralyzing fear. The fear and race cards get played very often in the face of resistance to various special interest group agendas, and they are massive red herrings.

 

[Vossyrus]

The label of "homophobia" is inaccurate to start with. To dislike/shun something =/= paralyzing fear. The fear and race cards get played very often in the face of resistance to various special interest group agendas, and they are massive red herrings.

I agree it is not a paralyzing fear, and perhaps it is not entirely accurate to call it a phobia because it is not simply a fear of homosexuals but there is however, "fear" demonstrated in various ways. Needless to say, people often fear what they do not understand.

It has been proven that many homophobes (I'm not saying all) are actually homosexual. Their homophobia is usually a result of their own homosexual desires which they have repressed so much that they react strongly against them. They are afraid of accepting themselves and whatever sexual desires they may have, in a world where they are told that is wrong etc. So they are angry with themselves. This also explains why many of them are fixated on the subject matter. Why should anyone be affected by someone else's sex life or choice of partners?

A lot of the dislike people have for homosexuals is based out of the sheer ignorance that they were raised in. Many people do not understand that homosexuality is not a choice! Many believe that the more uncloseted homosexuals there are, the more likely they are to influence other people and turn them homosexual. Many homophobes to not understand that this is nothing new! Some people are afraid of simply, the growing strength within gay communities. Of course let's not forget the perception of AIDS in regards to the gay community. And how about people's fear of gay media making it's way onto their television or gay couples holding hands in their neighbourhoods? So fear is without a doubt demonstrated by homophobes.

The point is that either way, homophobia is a term used to describe the way certain people react to homosexuals so that is what counts! Homophobes are typically opposed to gay men most of all, but that does not exclude the rest of the LGBT community. Many homophones are against transgendered people, a matter they know even less about than homosexuality.

 

[Dak]

It has been proven that many homophobes (I'm not saying all) are actually homosexual. Their homophobia is usually a result of their own homosexual desires which they have repressed so much that they react strongly against them. They are afraid of accepting themselves and whatever sexual desires they may have, in a world where they are told that is wrong etc. So they are angry with themselves. This also explains why many of them are fixated on the subject matter. Why should anyone be affected by someone else's sex life or choice of partners?

A lot of the dislike people have for homosexuals is based out of the sheer ignorance that they were raised in. Many people do not understand that homosexuality is not a choice! Many believe that the more uncloseted homosexuals there are, the more likely they are to influence other people and turn them homosexual. Many homophobes to not understand that this is nothing new! Some people are afraid of simply, the growing strength within gay communities. Of course let's not forget the perception of AIDS in regards to the gay community. And how about people's fear of gay media making it's way onto their television or gay couples holding hands in their neighbourhoods? So fear is without a doubt demonstrated by homophobes.

You state these things are all proven, but I am dubious at best. I haven't seen any proof of the above. Some movies depicting repressed homosexuals and some narcissitic religious establishment hypocrits do not count as proof of a major trend.

The point is that either way, homophobia is a term used to describe the way certain people react to homosexuals so that is what counts! Homophobes are typically opposed to gay men most of all, but that does not exclude the rest of the LGBT community. Many homophones are against transgendered people, a matter they know even less about than homosexuality.

Terms are important though, and labeling is done by think tanks to control the direction of discussion. As I stated earlier, the fear and race card are played constantly, and they are red herrings. Just like we have gone from calling jihadist's "terrorists", to slowly broadening to an ambiguous term like "extremists" and creating subconcious word associations.

Words/labels control the way a person thinks and perceives events/data. By mislabeling, you can misdirect thought, and all extensions and byproducts of thought.

 

[Vossyrus]

You state these things are all proven, but I am dubious at best. I haven't seen any proof of the above. Some movies depicting repressed homosexuals and some narcissitic religious establishment hypocrits do not count as proof of a major trend.

I am not talking about movies, nor religious groups' stance against homosexuals since that is an entirely different matter and mentality.

I would encourage you to look these studies up yourself so you can learn about them. And for example, there's been plenty of studies done that have indicated that homophobic men are more likely to be sexually aroused by viewing homosexual content than nonhomophobic men. Again, do some research on the matters I've mentioned above and perhaps read up on some psychology too. Since you're doubtful of what I've said, it's probably better that you read it from other sources as well.

Terms are important though, and labeling is done by think tanks to control the direction of discussion. As I stated earlier, the fear and race card are played constantly, and they are red herrings. Just like we have gone from calling jihadist's "terrorists", to slowly broadening to an ambiguous term like "extremists" and creating subconcious word associations.

Words/labels control the way a person thinks and perceives events/data. By mislabeling, you can misdirect thought, and all extensions and byproducts of thought.

It's pretty obvious what homophobia is. I don't think anyone is mislead by the term. People may not fully understand the reasoning for homophobic behaviour, but they at least know what it means on a surface level. There's plenty of clear cut evidence to show that homophobia is a still serious problem in this world, although things are looking better these days. Regarding race, you can look at racism/slavery for example and see how races are generally treated better these days in contrast to how things were before. These are not acts of conspiracy either, it's the general population being educated and accepting the fact that they were ignorant and wrong regarding these matters to begin with, and moving away from that. Same with regards to the homosexual issues. Why? Because homosexuals deserve the same rights as heterosexuals. I'm really not sure what you're trying to defend here.

 

[Dak]

I am defending the right to disdain a particular lifestyle for arguable reasons, without getting some sort of overkill, innacurate label thrown around, just like I disdain other lifestyles I perceive to be less than intelligent.

I don't believe government should be involved in marriage licensing, so whether or not homosexuals can marry is a moot point to me.

 

[monoxide_child]

Holy crap! a year after and this thread is still running? only on UM

i think this might be a whole different thread than the one you saw a whole year ago

 

[monoxide_child]

I don't believe government should be involved in marriage licensing, so whether or not homosexuals can marry is a moot point to me.

this is america
the government has been controling mariage licencing from day 1