Homophobia: More than just fear of teh ghey | Page 13 | Forum

Publicist of Lady Gaga

(?)Community Member

Offline

Report Post
Post: 20758337_182 created on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 00:40:29 +0000
Posted: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 00:40:29 +0000

cyropi

PsuedoHermaphrodite

Does anyone actually believe that you can have a fear of homosexuals.

Is it not the intolerance of homosexuals and the Fear of Homosexuality that is Homphobia.

Agoraphobia is afraid of being in large area's [in general terms].
Agoraphobics are not afraid of others that choose to be in these area's.
They are afriad of themselves being there.
It is the same with Homophobics.

Erm, not really. Did you read the first post? It explains it there.

Ofcourse I did.

Walpurgis

(?)Community Member

ornithia's Honey Bun

Neat Friend

Offline

Report Post
Post: 20758337_184 created on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:14:56 +0000
Posted: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:14:56 +0000

cyropi

lil_miss_kino

cyropi

lil_miss_kino

Gay people dog on my faith in God and they are'nt considered bigots. And the funny thing is, I dont even hate gays I just dont think much on the life style.

All last year my friend, who is gay, tried to tell me that I was a fascist and that I was supposed to support gay people. Then he went on to try and push his religion of satanism on me and my other friends, we disagreed, he got mad.

He decribes his sex life with those of us who dont really want to hear it, we tell him to back off the topic, he gets mad and does the same thing.

So call me a bigot for not exactly enjoying the gay lifestyle, because that would be hypocritical. I DO NOT hate gays, I just dont like the life style for those reasons. Hey, gay can openly bash my faith in front of me and call me all these names, but when I tell them what I think, I get a one way ticket to the office for discrimination.I'm not "Intolerant" i'm "Irritated"

Side note: I didnt get sent down to the office, but there have been cases of that in my school to people I am aquainted with.And me and my gay friend are on understanding grounds now and are getting along.

Side-side not: Not all gays I know are like that.

I'd like to point out that it's a bit unrealistic to judge an entire group based on the actions of one person, and doubly so when you know other members of the group that aren't like that.

I mean if your friend had been straight but black, would you say you disagreed with being black just because that one black person was an arsehole?

I'm sorry for the confusion, thats the reason why I put the second part because I had just remembered that. sweatdrop Same goes for the second sentence.

Again, sorry for the confusion. sweatdrop

So, hang on, I'm confused now. Why don't you "like the lifestyle"? (And can you explain what this lifestyle is, because I never really got that.)

I would have to say because of my belief, I dont want to make that a poor argument.

And as for the life style, there are so many things that I could bring up such as, leading back to my friend, he has has seven boyfriends and has had sex with them all. And romantic love should only be reserved for one person and not for many, which is counted as lusting and greeding. And lusting and greeding after someone is not a healthy thing (even in the straight life style).

It also condones sex bofore marraige(Sp?), which can lead to the possible threat of STD's, which is not healthy for either persons.(Also either way).

View from a non religious stand point:

The human bodies (male and female) were made to reproduce, and in the grand scheme of things a humans sole purpose is to make offspring in order to sustain human life. Socially, yes, gays can contribute. Biologicaly, no they cannot.

But thats for another debate.

Again not all gays are like that(Socialy), but these a points that had come to mind.

Lykus

(?)Community Member

Offline

Report Post
Post: 20758337_186 created on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:27:31 +0000
Posted: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:27:31 +0000

lil_miss_kino

The human bodies (male and female) were made to reproduce, and in the grand scheme of things a humans sole purpose is to make offspring in order to sustain human life.

Equivocation of function with purpose. No.

Also: Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have kids. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are not married.

Marriage =/= having children.

Rosealee

(?)Community Member

Offline

Report Post
Post: 20758337_188 created on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:44:11 +0000
Posted: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:44:11 +0000

lil_miss_kino

cyropi

lil_miss_kino

cyropi

lil_miss_kino

Gay people dog on my faith in God and they are'nt considered bigots. And the funny thing is, I dont even hate gays I just dont think much on the life style.

All last year my friend, who is gay, tried to tell me that I was a fascist and that I was supposed to support gay people. Then he went on to try and push his religion of satanism on me and my other friends, we disagreed, he got mad.

He decribes his sex life with those of us who dont really want to hear it, we tell him to back off the topic, he gets mad and does the same thing.

So call me a bigot for not exactly enjoying the gay lifestyle, because that would be hypocritical. I DO NOT hate gays, I just dont like the life style for those reasons. Hey, gay can openly bash my faith in front of me and call me all these names, but when I tell them what I think, I get a one way ticket to the office for discrimination.I'm not "Intolerant" i'm "Irritated"

Side note: I didnt get sent down to the office, but there have been cases of that in my school to people I am aquainted with.And me and my gay friend are on understanding grounds now and are getting along.

Side-side not: Not all gays I know are like that.

I'd like to point out that it's a bit unrealistic to judge an entire group based on the actions of one person, and doubly so when you know other members of the group that aren't like that.

I mean if your friend had been straight but black, would you say you disagreed with being black just because that one black person was an arsehole?

I'm sorry for the confusion, thats the reason why I put the second part because I had just remembered that. sweatdrop Same goes for the second sentence.

Again, sorry for the confusion. sweatdrop

So, hang on, I'm confused now. Why don't you "like the lifestyle"? (And can you explain what this lifestyle is, because I never really got that.)

I would have to say because of my belief, I dont want to make that a poor argument.

And as for the life style, there are so many things that I could bring up such as, leading back to my friend, he has has seven boyfriends and has had sex with them all. And romantic love should only be reserved for one person and not for many, which is counted as lusting and greeding. And lusting and greeding after someone is not a healthy thing (even in the straight life style).

It also condones sex bofore marraige(Sp?), which can lead to the possible threat of STD's, which is not healthy for either persons.(Also either way).

View from a non religious stand point:

The human bodies (male and female) were made to reproduce, and in the grand scheme of things a humans sole purpose is to make offspring in order to sustain human life. Socially, yes, gays can contribute. Biologicaly, no they cannot.

But thats for another debate.

Again not all gays are like that(Socialy), but these a points that had come to mind.

Unless the human race is on the verge of dying out, how is having a minority of people not reproducing going to effect sustaining human life?

I find it baffling that this argument is even relevant to today's human status regarding population. The world is over populated as far I see it!!

(This is not a casual statement one drops in and then replies that this for another debate. I find this part of it since this argument influences the perception people have on homosexual's role within society and/or acceptance)

Walpurgis

(?)Community Member

ornithia's Honey Bun

Neat Friend

Offline

Report Post
Post: 20758337_191 created on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 02:03:52 +0000
Posted: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 02:03:52 +0000

Rosealee

lil_miss_kino

cyropi

lil_miss_kino

cyropi

I'd like to point out that it's a bit unrealistic to judge an entire group based on the actions of one person, and doubly so when you know other members of the group that aren't like that.

I mean if your friend had been straight but black, would you say you disagreed with being black just because that one black person was an arsehole?

I'm sorry for the confusion, thats the reason why I put the second part because I had just remembered that. sweatdrop Same goes for the second sentence.

Again, sorry for the confusion. sweatdrop

So, hang on, I'm confused now. Why don't you "like the lifestyle"? (And can you explain what this lifestyle is, because I never really got that.)

I would have to say because of my belief, I dont want to make that a poor argument.

And as for the life style, there are so many things that I could bring up such as, leading back to my friend, he has has seven boyfriends and has had sex with them all. And romantic love should only be reserved for one person and not for many, which is counted as lusting and greeding. And lusting and greeding after someone is not a healthy thing (even in the straight life style).

It also condones sex bofore marraige(Sp?), which can lead to the possible threat of STD's, which is not healthy for either persons.(Also either way).

View from a non religious stand point:

The human bodies (male and female) were made to reproduce, and in the grand scheme of things a humans sole purpose is to make offspring in order to sustain human life. Socially, yes, gays can contribute. Biologicaly, no they cannot.

But thats for another debate.

Again not all gays are like that(Socialy), but these a points that had come to mind.

Unless the human race is on the verge of dying out, how is having a minority of people not reproducing going to effect sustaining human life?

I find it baffling that this argument is even relevant to today's human status regarding population. The world is over populated as far I see it!!

(This is not a casual statement one drops in and then replies that this for another debate. I find this part of it since this argument influences the perception people have on homosexual's role within society and/or acceptance)

But the thing is, you also have to factor in how many people are getting abortions instead of just how many people are not having kids.

It is relavent because there is a slowly decreasing population, in the USA, and it will take affect when the next census arrives for the next generation of people.

cyropi

(?)Community Member

Eloquent Bibliophile

Offline

Report Post
Post: 20758337_193 created on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 02:11:36 +0000
Posted: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 02:11:36 +0000

Just a note: if you don't want to get into an in-depth debate, the Extended Discussion probably isn't the right forum for you. The whole point of the extended discussion, is, well, extended disussion, as in detained in-depth debates. There isn't really a way to have a detailed in-depth debate without going through people's posts in fine detail. I'm certainly not 'attacking' you, I'm engaging in what this forum was made for - extended discussion.

That said,

lil_miss_kino

cyropi

Personally I don't see why romantic love should be limited to one person, but that's beside the point: what about straight people who have sex with lots of people? There's probably more straight people sleeping around than gay people, but (I assume) you aren't against heterosexuality! Wouldn't it be more accurate to say you're against promiscuity?

Thats why, I added the whole thing in perentheses. To say that it can also pretain to the straight life style to.

If you know it pertains to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals, then may I ask why you brought it up as a point against homosexuality?

Quote:

It also condones sex bofore marraige(Sp?), which can lead to the possible threat of STD's, which is not healthy for either persons.(Also either way).

Quote:

Shouldn't you support the legalisation of gay marriage, then? Since by keeping it illegal you're forcing homosexuals to have sex outside of marriage.
And by the way, marriage doesn't stop you getting STDs. Choosing your sexual partners carefully and practicing safe sex is what stops you getting STDs.

1. Do i have to?And i'm I spacifically that one person that is forcing all of the gays not to be married?

2.I know that marraige spacifically doesnt save you from STD's, I just wasnt prepaired for my post to be nit picked and Every Single Detail was to be adressed.

Of course you don't have to, I'm merely suggesting that logically that would make sense. If you don't, may I ask why not?

I already explained about going through your post in detail.

Quote:

View from a non religious stand point:

The human bodies (male and female) were made

Quote:

Bzzzt!

'Made' implies a 'maker'. That's not a non-religious viewpoint.

...wow. I dont think I really have to point that one out to you, I think you'll get it eventually.

I was merely pointing out that your 'view from a non-religious viewpoint' was in fact from a religious viewpoint.

Quote:

Why do you think human bodies were made for this purpose?

In this worldview, what is your explanation for the male prostate gland - a gland which only men have, which acts when stimulated somewhat like the female g-spot, and which is positioned so that it is best stimulated via the rectum during a**l sex? Wouldn't this suggest that if there is a 'maker', male bodies were designed for a**l sex?

Speak English.

I apologise, I wasn't aware that my post was unclear.

Men have a particular gland called the 'prostate gland'. When the prostate is stimulated by touch, it acts very much like the 'g-spot' in women - i.e. it intensifies and heightens the sensations of sexual pleasure.

The prostate gland is in such a position that the only way to stimulate it is through a**l sex. The wikipedia article on this gland has a very nice diagram showing the position of the prostate.

Doesn't the existance of this gland - a part of the anatomy which gives sexual pleasure when stimulated and which can only be stimulated through the a**s - suggest that male bodies were made for a**l sex? Otherwise, why is it positioned there and why does it give pleasure?

Quote:

1) Why do you say that the sole function of a person is to have offspring, and what evidence or reasoning do you ahve for this assertation?

1. Because I can, and I just did.

2.Because my uterus is not just for decoration, and the fact that, if it was'nt, then there would be no human race because everyone decided that other things were more important than us being alive.

But that doesn't mean that the sole function of a person is to ahve offspring.

If I may use an example: without food production, there would be no human race, because we'd all be dead. That doesn't mean the sole function of a person is to produce food.

Quote:

2) What about infertile people, or people who choose not to have offspring?

I can agree that they have no choice in the matter.

People who choose not to have offspring have no choice in the matter?

Quote:

3) What about homosexuals who do have biological children, or homosexuals who adopt?

Yay for them and may they live a happy and sucsessful life.

Quote:

4) Considering there are straight people who do not have children and homosexuals who do ahve children, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you're against people who do not have children, whatever their sexuality?

No.

I'm not quite understanding your opinion. Could you possibly explain it to me a little more clearly?

You say that the purpose of humans is to procreate. Then you say that you're not against people not having children, but you are against homosexuality? I don't quite follow the logic.

Quote:

5) Why are you against peole not having children?

I am not, but thanks for trying.

I apologise. It sounded like you were.

Quote:

I'm sorry to get so mean, but it annoys me when debates tend to get out of hand, nit picking at the opponents post seems to be the only affective manuver in confusing everyone.

And I intend to stop this "Debate" if I get electracuted by the " I have you now!" Button.Again.

Accusing me because you think that the 7% of my opinion on a post , sums up who I actually am, makes me want to hurl.I was hoping that this would be a civil, calm debate, but now its turning into a blame fest.

Please forgive me for my thinning patients.And I do agree it is a bit late. sweatdrop

This is a civil, calm debate. I have not been nitpicking, merely giving your opinion the respect it deserves by responding to it in depth and detail and endevouring to fully understand your point of view. I don't understand why you think it is a blame fest, or why you think I was accusing you of anything, and I sincerly apologise if I did anything to appear that way.

Rosealee

(?)Community Member

Offline

Report Post
Post: 20758337_195 created on Sun, 17 Dec 2006 02:13:18 +0000
Posted: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 02:13:18 +0000

lil_miss_kino

Rosealee

lil_miss_kino

cyropi

lil_miss_kino

cyropi

I'd like to point out that it's a bit unrealistic to judge an entire group based on the actions of one person, and doubly so when you know other members of the group that aren't like that.

I mean if your friend had been straight but black, would you say you disagreed with being black just because that one black person was an arsehole?

I'm sorry for the confusion, thats the reason why I put the second part because I had just remembered that. sweatdrop Same goes for the second sentence.

Again, sorry for the confusion. sweatdrop

So, hang on, I'm confused now. Why don't you "like the lifestyle"? (And can you explain what this lifestyle is, because I never really got that.)

I would have to say because of my belief, I dont want to make that a poor argument.

And as for the life style, there are so many things that I could bring up such as, leading back to my friend, he has has seven boyfriends and has had sex with them all. And romantic love should only be reserved for one person and not for many, which is counted as lusting and greeding. And lusting and greeding after someone is not a healthy thing (even in the straight life style).

It also condones sex bofore marraige(Sp?), which can lead to the possible threat of STD's, which is not healthy for either persons.(Also either way).

View from a non religious stand point:

The human bodies (male and female) were made to reproduce, and in the grand scheme of things a humans sole purpose is to make offspring in order to sustain human life. Socially, yes, gays can contribute. Biologicaly, no they cannot.

But thats for another debate.

Again not all gays are like that(Socialy), but these a points that had come to mind.

Unless the human race is on the verge of dying out, how is having a minority of people not reproducing going to effect sustaining human life?

I find it baffling that this argument is even relevant to today's human status regarding population. The world is over populated as far I see it!!

(This is not a casual statement one drops in and then replies that this for another debate. I find this part of it since this argument influences the perception people have on homosexual's role within society and/or acceptance)

But the thing is, you also have to factor in how many people are getting abortions instead of just how many people are not having kids.

It is relavent because there is a slowly decreasing population, in the USA, and it will take affect when the next census arrives for the next generation of people.

Can you site where the number of abortions, straight couples not having children, deaths, and gay's unable to reproduce is decreasing population at a 'dangerous' rate?

Is the total popluation of the human race below what it should be? (what ever 'should be' is). Or is the world over populated and this is natures way of trying to deal with the situation? what is part of a natural or unnatural rate of population decreasing or increasing?

otherwise your last statement comes off as one of fear. "It is relavent because there is a slowly decreasing population, in the USA, and it will take affect when the next census arrives for the next generation of people" <---this statement might give one the impression that we should jump on the baby-making wagon

Welcome to Gaia! ::

Quick Reply

More Information