Homophobia

[Misanthrope]

And moonchild, if someone's "opinion", as you insist on calling it, is morally/ethically/logically wrong, should no one clue them in?

Should you not keep it an opinion and not "clue" anyone but rather make statements?

(And please, let's not argue the subjectivity of "wrong." For instance, as a society, we've accepted that racism is "wrong.")

So lets not argue,lets all agree with you and your concepts of wrong are right so you "clue us in"...please...

Not all "opinions" are equally valid and worthy of respect. THAT would be politically correct.

Do you have any short of standart procedure to say what makes an opinion valid? worthy of respect? perhaps you limit yourself to not argue about the subjetivity of wrong ? perhaps you use what you think is valid to measure an opinion? perhaps you want to impose your will and moral and are no better than the rest of society? If it is politically correct to diminish an opinion based on your standart of right and wrong then i do not desire to be politically correct./

 

[Lina]

give me a break, misanthrope. fine, you're free to go kill those "damn my pals and fags." feel better? come on.

 

[Hail Eris!]

I sense hostility....

 

[Sadistik]

I'm glad I brought this up some good (and some not so good) thoughts!

As it is, my response to the "natural" argument (as referring to procreation) is that we ARE more than just penises or vaginas with arms and legs. I've often heard the word "human" defined in boring, staid, and dry biological terms, but the single best definition I've ever heard is rather philisophical: "Humans are the only species in the world with instinctual, comprehended knowledge of their fate" (re: death). It is this fact alone that makes us more. As Socrates said "above all else, we wish to be happy" (which, to my professor's suprise, and admiration-I'm such a braggart- I modified to "Given that all base needs of survival are met, above all all else, we wish to be happy"). My argument for the "morality" of homosexuality is :Would you deny a dying man happiness and accepetance? We are all dying, so don't deny it for anyone

 

[Misanthrope]

Never said i would want to kill fags. I think is wrong to discriminate but notice the "I think" not the "Is moraly wrong".
You have some concepts of morality close to the ones christianity has or at least it looks like it from the attitute you have thinking you are better than him because you are pro gay comunity.

And yea i wanna kill my pals. How about that a Mexican Nigga killer? Do you not consider reality when you post? Do you not understand Mexican people are even more discriminated than black people on the modern world? Who are the Rangers In the boarder shooting off like dogs? African americans? Yes shure i will be the first Mexican person who joins the kkk.

 

[Belial]

Originally posted by Misanthrope

i do not see why a Gay person Could not/ would not/ should not listen to brutal death metal. Its as silly as saying Black people does not listen to metal.

I'm black and I listen to death metal. Not only am I black, but I'm also gay and I listen to death metal.

Originally posted by Lina

I've wondered this too. Is the stereotypical gay personality just a defense mechanism, a way of showing the world that you refuse to be kept in the closet? A way of conforming to the niche society has carved out for you, the same way teenage girls listen to NSync? I tend to believe this, even if it's not a conscious decision on the part of the person.

I've also wondered this. I personally act nothing like a stereotypical gay men. I don't act fem at all, I act and dress "dark" (because I like dark), and my idea of a good time is going to my favorite hang out, getting piss drunk, and head-banging to some heavy metal.

From my perspective it certainly looks like the stereotypical gay personality may be a way of rebelling against a biased culture, but I have a number of gay aquaintences who act like that and just can't help it.

I don't know and frankly, I don't give a damn.

Originally posted by veil the sky

I know exactly what you mean and what you're getting at, but I think that rather than breaking down racial barriers, it can build new ones if people are constantly having to avoid reference to race or sexual orientation.

I agree. I don't think we should jump to preconceptions and judgements because a person belongs to a minority, but we shouldn't avoid the topic either.

I've taken quite a different stance on this. I don't really identify with the black community, and I don't really identify with the gay community. Who do I identify with? Myself. The problem starts when people get stuck-up over their race and sexual orientation that they let it become their entire identity. Therefore I say: Call me gay, call me black, call me whatever the hell you want, I don't care. The only identity I need to get stuck-up on is my identity as a human, and as a unique individual.

Originally posted by Misanthrope

on a strictly biological anatomic view: yes it is not normal .But i would be very interested in checking hormone levels in gay persons and if as expected some of them are balanced the wrong way i wonder if a mental process what makes a person gay. That is about the only thing that would make me thing it might not be a merely mental problem.

It is not a mental condition at all. In fact, the American Psychological Assosiation officially dropped homosexuality as a mental condition in 1973, and every reputable study for the past half-century has proven that homosexuality is not a mental condition.

Don't believe me? Try checking out the APA's official information on Homosexuality at: http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/orient.html

Originally posted by Wolff

Has nothing to do with fitness. Homosexuals as a group can not procreate. If isolated, they'd be... extinct. Hardly a more natural group than heterosexulas imho.

WRONG!

I can't speak for all gays, but if the survival of the species depended on it I wouldn't mind fucking a woman at all. Just because I think sex with woman is disgusting doesn't mean I won't do it if my species depended on it.

If someone put a gun to your head and said if you didn't give some other guy a blowjob he'd kill you, and had a guaruntee that you'd live if you did it, would you?

Especially considering today we have gay and lesbian couples who have kids, either by adoption, or serogate parenting (artificial insemination). Hell, I even personally heard of some couples who went off and had sex with someone of the opposite gender just to have a kid.

And what of couples who are infertile, or simply choose not to have children, hm? What of them? By your logic a large chunk of heterosexual couples are "unnatural".

In closing, let me point out that the same way you find gay sex disgusting and distateful, I have a similar feeling towards straight sex. Frankly, I find the thought of sex with woman to be nauseating. I'm not saying this to "flaunt" myself, but to make a point that the feeling is mutual. The only difference is that the heterosexual majority is allowed to express themselves freely while most gays have to (at least for a period of some years) supress their sexuality and put up with it.

I'm going to tell you all what I told my bro once: How about you come to my apartment and we can read some queer litterature, watch a queer movie, flip through queer magazines, and you can listen to me talk about how disgusting and stupid I think heteros are. I promise that you won't like it one bit, but then you'd know what it's like to be in the closet.

 

[Misanthrope]

It is not a mental condition at all. In fact, the American Psychological Assosiation officially dropped homosexuality as a mental condition in 1973, and every reputable study for the past half-century has proven that homosexuality is not a mental condition.

Don't believe me? Try checking out the APA's official information on Homosexuality at: http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/orient.html

I did not say condition. But i want to know if there is an strictly biological factor that could make a man feel sexual attraction to another man. Or woman/woman. I mean if the hormones levels are high enough of course it would be possible and perfectly natural and i would want to look up information on that. But ASUMING ( because it could be and most likely be the first option ) this is not correct, or that is part of the equation, would metal process not be a factor? I mean not a condicion or a dissease sorry if you felt i expressed it that way, i mean predisposition by mental factors originated by experience in life and/or genetic disposition or chemical brain balance? It is not a mental condition, but mental factors could form part of the equation perhaps? or you think there is nothing mental about homosexual attraction?

 

[Xtokalon]

Belial,

Out of curiosity, what are the initials to your real name? It wouldn't by far off chance be NNC?

 

[Lina]

Jesus Christ, Belial, I thought I had a hard time fitting in! Well, welcome to the board. Your post was very interesting.

Xtokalon, I like your new avatar.

 

[Belial]

Originally posted by Misanthrope


I did not say condition. But i want to know if there is an strictly biological factor that could make a man feel sexual attraction to another man. Or woman/woman. I mean if the hormones levels are high enough of course it would be possible and perfectly natural and i would want to look up information on that. But ASUMING ( because it could be and most likely be the first option ) this is not correct, or that is part of the equation, would metal process not be a factor? I mean not a condicion or a dissease sorry if you felt i expressed it that way, i mean predisposition by mental factors originated by experience in life and/or genetic disposition or chemical brain balance? It is not a mental condition, but mental factors could form part of the equation perhaps? or you think there is nothing mental about homosexual attraction?

You are traveling into rocky ground here. As you know, science has yet to confirm the origin of sexual orientation and your theory is just as valid as my own. Since studies have shown that there isn't a psychological cause (according to the APA) it would be reasonable to assume a biological factor is the cause, unless it is so deep in our psyche that the studies couldn't determine it.

From my experience, I've always felt the way I do. When I was 14 I went throught a whole effort to get myself to like girls until I was 17, but failed miserably. I've had considerable time to reflect, and I've even spoken to a couple of shrinks about it. According to them it has nothing to do with my thought process, and after what I went through I had to agree.

Theoretically, I believe sexual orientation is most likely predetermined through our hormone levels, our genes, or any other possible biological factor. Personally, though, I've given up on trying to figure the whole thing out. I no longer care how I became gay or if it is natural. I know that it just is and I'm pretty much stuck with it.

Originally posted by Xtokalon
Belial,

Out of curiosity, what are the initials to your real name? It wouldn't by far off chance be NNC?

No. My innitials are JCH.

Originally posted by Lina
Jesus Christ, Belial, I thought I had a hard time fitting in! Well, welcome to the board. Your post was very interesting.

Xtokalon, I like your new avatar.

Thanks. I'm glad to be here.

 

[Sadistik]

Yes, welcome Belial. I was just curious, do you find that some people view your homosexuality as a your definitive characteristic (i.e. they just can't help but view you "that gay guy")? One of my very closest friends always had that happen to him. I'd be talking with people and mention "hey I was talking to Ricardo today and..." interuption..."the gay guy, right?"....just one of many examples...

 

[Wolff]

Originally posted by Xtokalon


You mean a population of same-sex individuals can't procreate. That's stating the obvious. Males, without females, can't procreate by themselves. And neither can females (excluding the incidence of parthenogenesis). Also, all individuals eventually go extinct. So unless your talking about evolution- fitness and ecology- then you're making no sense. Human homosexuals can and do father (mother) children of their own. Look at Mike J!

Dude,
Stop running circles. The most rudimentary definition of nature, involves being in accordance with nature; being in one's element etc. natural habitat, natural conclusion, natural hair color.

Being in accordance with nature implies reaching a certain equilibrium with it, protecting (or destroying it) while ensuring your self-preservance and passing of the genes... something homosexuls can't do. From an evolutionary point, there's nothing natural about homosexuality.

To go back to your argument: what you say makes no sense.
You mean a population of same-sex individuals can't procreate. That's stating the obvious. Males, without females, can't procreate by themselves. And neither can females (excluding the incidence of parthenogenesis).
So the male subset in and of itself, without females is unnatural. Ibid for females.

Human homosexuals can and do father (mother) children of their own.

How? By knocking up a woman? I thought that was kinda unnatural? Test tubes are not very natural either.

 

[Wolff]

Originally posted by Lina
Perhaps it is a natural means of population control. I meant "natural" in the sense that some people and animals have been born that way as long as life has existed. Do you feel grossed out by infertile men and women? After all, they won't procreate. Does that bother you, keep you up at night?

It doesn't bother me as I'm not passing a value judgement here.
Would you marry an infertile man?

 

[Wolff]

Originally posted by Protocol

and about this 'natural' thing, wolff - what about sex? heterosexuals don't indulge in sex to procreate anywhere near all the time (more like 1% or less?). there's a LOT more heterosexual unprocreative sex going on than gay sex over all (or so i imagine). i bet most people here have never engaged in procreative sex regardless of sexual orientation - i know i haven't.

swedes, if isolated, would go extinct too at the current rate - the only reason our population is growing is the immigrants, and i assure you all of sweden isn't gay. =)

ergo, i find that homosexuality in this aspect is no more unnatural than any number of methods of birth control, or sex performed under the influence of such. i bet you could have a nice argument with the pope as to whether these actually are unnatural or not. ;D

If all X are Y, and if Z is Y then Y is all X. Doesn't follow. Your logic is faulty.

There's a name for the methods you mention: artificial.

 

[Wolff]

Originally posted by Misanthrope
There is no morally/ethically wrong opinions.

Sure there is.

 

[Wolff]

I can't speak for all gays, but if the survival of the species depended on it I wouldn't mind fucking a woman at all. Just because I think sex with woman is disgusting doesn't mean I won't do it if my species depended on it.

BULLSHIT. If your depended on it, you wouldn't mind; but since it doesn't you don't. It's unnatural for me to kill, but if my life depended on it, I would kill. It doesn't make killing natural though.

If someone put a gun to your head and said if you didn't give some other guy a blowjob he'd kill you, and had a guaruntee that you'd live if you did it, would you?

The other flip of the coin. I would not do it. Value judgement again. Too disgusting to live with.

Especially considering today we have gay and lesbian couples who have kids, either by adoption, or serogate parenting (artificial insemination). Hell, I even personally heard of some couples who went off and had sex with someone of the opposite gender just to have a kid.

You said it ... ARTIFICIAL... which is the opposite of NATURAL.

And what of couples who are infertile, or simply choose not to have children, hm? What of them? By your logic a large chunk of heterosexual couples are "unnatural".

YES THEY ARE.

In closing, let me point out that the same way you find gay sex disgusting and distateful, I have a similar feeling towards straight sex. Frankly, I find the thought of sex with woman to be nauseating. I'm not saying this to "flaunt" myself, but to make a point that the feeling is mutual. The only difference is that the heterosexual majority is allowed to express themselves freely while most gays have to (at least for a period of some years) supress their sexuality and put up with it.

I'm going to tell you all what I told my bro once: How about you come to my apartment and we can read some queer litterature, watch a queer movie, flip through queer magazines, and you can listen to me talk about how disgusting and stupid I think heteros are. I promise that you won't like it one bit, but then you'd know what it's like to be in the closet.

...








Look, we're beyond the good and evil here. Natural doesn't mean good, and unnatural doesn't mean bad. Once you take that a priori, it's easy to see my point.

 

[Sadistik]

yes, but based on whose morals and ethics?

 

[Misanthrope]

Moral is an stupid outdated primitive concept that humans should overtrown if we consider ourself an intelligent species. Moral is a subjetive way of putting value to totally neutral facts so it can and change between each individual. Moral has changed and proven faulty over the centuries and today morally accepted things where aberrations just like in 50 years from know homosexualism will be totally accepted. Yet the fact that it will be accepted, and the fact that some persons like i ( but wonder why many times ) choose to respect and/or ignore this people and let them live their lifes would not makes this evolution. Unless a mutation occurs and a new species that can procreate with members of the same sex appears is not nature. But nature is seriously overrated because if we alter nature is only to our benefict so why should a person not live a happy life and create a family? Some interesting points have been made yet im not convinced the mental factor is not involved at all. In another time or day i would have condemned hate violence and general discrimination to the gay comunity...but right now im tired and do not wish to keep taking a side in a subject i rather be away from

 

[Wolff]

Originally posted by Sadistik
yes, but based on whose morals and ethics?

Based on common sense and definitions that allow you to carry on with life.


(Philosophically you can question everything, including.... gravity, but I don't see many philosophers trying to jump from buildings to prove their point.)

 

[Misanthrope]

You can question moral. You sound like a religious fanatic when defending moral values and dos and donts of moral. When you realize that moral is just a way of society expressing their preocupations, than they change as society change, and than the majority is not always right, you could understand why moral is as necesary as religion: no use at all. Then again if you do not wish to trouble yourself and think about your position you can always hook up with Lina. You 2 would make a cute couple with that " better than you" attitude