This is the dumbest argument that the gay movement have come up with.
A person can be disgusted by an act and not have a secret desire to perform said act. If all homophobes are closet gays then just about everyone on the planet is a closet necrophile, zoophile, and / or possibly into scat.
Although this does play into the psychological fact that everyone has to potential to commit homosexual acts and even the idea that everyone is possibly bisexual to one degree or another. The whole thing is an ad hominem straw man that's meant to discredit people that disagree with the homosexual identity / lifestyle.
This is the dumbest argument that the gay movement have come up with. A person can be disgusted by an act and not have a secret desire to perform said act. If all homophobes are closet gays then just about everyone on the planet is a closet necrophile, zoophile, and / or possibly into scat. Although this does play into the psychological fact that everyone has to potential to commit homosexual acts and even the idea that everyone is possibly bisexual to one degree or another. The whole thing is an ad hominem straw man that's meant to discredit people that disagree with the homosexual identity / lifestyle.
I've always thought that everyone is bisexual to some degree or another. I have a feeling that's where a lot of the hatred towards gays is founded. People don't want to face up to their true feelings, so they instead turn on others who are able to be open about it.
I'm not sure how you conclude that this has anything to do with the "gay movement" though. I've always found this topic pretty interesting, from a human behavior interest, and I'm straight. I also listen to the radio a lot and Neal Boortz cites these studies. He gets a lot of hate mail from listeners to his radio show because he defends gay rights. So, he just tells the homophobes to come out of the closet and quit turning their self loathing into bad times for others.
Homosexuals don't bother me, hating them is stupid, I got better things to do than hate on people who have never done me any harm. Homosexual sex bothers me, but it's not like I have to ever witness it, just the thought is off-putting to me. A friend of mine recently came out of the closet, guess how I reacted, no different to before, I didn't even mention it.
Now lesbians, thats a different story, I'm absolutely addicted to lesbian porn.
I do not mean this as an insult, nor as a way of degrading you in anyway porgie, so do not take it as such, but in all honesty, with your seeming fascination; dare I say borderline obsession with homosexual topics, and their defense, I've honestly wondered whether or not you are heterosexual.
I'm happily married and my wife and I are about to explode from joy (and also a little fear) with our first child on the way. So, I'm pretty sure I dig the females.
Nope, I just have a family member who is gay and get fighting mad having to see what he goes through. It's not fair, doesn't make sense, and I believe in educating people so I can do what I can to make things better for him and others like him. It's really quite simple.
I would be tempted to play devil's advocate in relation to your response. But then I feel that that possibly could be degrading, and if not a bit childish. So I'll leave it at that, and appreciate your response. It was a question that I had wondered at times with your topics.
in relation to others posts/responses. I am what alot would consider a homophobe. Except I neither hate, nor am afraid of homosexuals. I have worked around a few, I have had to deal with alot in my different jobs, and as any of my bosses current or former can tell you, I have always been very curteous to everyone. My nature is not to randomly attack people. I am passive. And in my personal life, my girlfriend's father is a homosexual, so all in all, I've had to deal with it alot.
Now why I say I am what alot would consider me a homophobe, is because I adamantly am against homosexuality, I think it is for lack of a more correct word, wrong. Not in the sense of differing ideologies, but in the sense of a moral incorrectnes, a natural abnormality; as a man of logic, it serves no purpose but that of a miasmas end, I think that falling prey to the urges are greedy in nature. Many have used the defense, "Well, what is wrong about a someone loving the same sex". My retort is that, nothing is wrong with that. Love is a beauteous thing, it is God's gift to man. We can love each other, we can love so much. Love is pure, love is wonderful. But to love someone, is not nearly the same as having sex with someone. You can have sex without love, and love without sex, they are separate entities, and to mix the two is fallacy, and self-deceit.
That would be my lengthy two cents.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
I do not mean this as an insult, nor as a way of degrading you in anyway porgie, so do not take it as such, but in all honesty, with your seeming fascination; dare I say borderline obsession with homosexual topics, and their defense, I've honestly wondered whether or not you are heterosexual.
I'm happily married and my wife and I are about to explode from joy (and also a little fear) with our first child on the way. So, I'm pretty sure I dig the females.
Nope, I just have a family member who is gay and get fighting mad having to see what he goes through. It's not fair, doesn't make sense, and I believe in educating people so I can do what I can to make things better for him and others like him. It's really quite simple.
I would be tempted to play devil's advocate in relation to your response. But then I feel that that possibly could be degrading, and if not a bit childish. So I'll leave it at that, and appreciate your response. It was a question that I had wondered at times with your topics.
in relation to others posts/responses. I am what alot would consider a homophobe. Except I neither hate, nor am afraid of homosexuals. I have worked around a few, I have had to deal with alot in my different jobs, and as any of my bosses current or former can tell you, I have always been very curteous to everyone. My nature is not to randomly attack people. I am passive. And in my personal life, my girlfriend's father is a homosexual, so all in all, I've had to deal with it alot.
Now why I say I am what alot would consider me a homophobe, is because I adamantly am against homosexuality, I think it is for lack of a more correct word, wrong. Not in the sense of differing ideologies, but in the sense of a moral incorrectnes, a natural abnormality; as a man of logic, it serves no purpose but that of a miasmas end, I think that falling prey to the urges are greedy in nature. Many have used the defense, "Well, what is wrong about a someone loving the same sex". My retort is that, nothing is wrong with that. Love is a beauteous thing, it is God's gift to man. We can love each other, we can love so much. Love is pure, love is wonderful. But to love someone, is not nearly the same as having sex with someone. You can have sex without love, and love without sex, they are separate entities, and to mix the two is fallacy, and self-deceit.
That would be my lengthy two cents.
If you say that love is different to sex and the two dont necessarily co-exist.
Then if you are a man of logic why cant you distinguish between sexuality and sexual intercourse ?
What exactly are you saying?
Are you presuming that I judge a man who commits homosexual acts and a man who has homosexual tendencies all the same, or what exactly?
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
I do not mean this as an insult, nor as a way of degrading you in anyway porgie, so do not take it as such, but in all honesty, with your seeming fascination; dare I say borderline obsession with homosexual topics, and their defense, I've honestly wondered whether or not you are heterosexual.
I'm happily married and my wife and I are about to explode from joy (and also a little fear) with our first child on the way. So, I'm pretty sure I dig the females.
Nope, I just have a family member who is gay and get fighting mad having to see what he goes through. It's not fair, doesn't make sense, and I believe in educating people so I can do what I can to make things better for him and others like him. It's really quite simple.
I would be tempted to play devil's advocate in relation to your response. But then I feel that that possibly could be degrading, and if not a bit childish. So I'll leave it at that, and appreciate your response. It was a question that I had wondered at times with your topics.
in relation to others posts/responses. I am what alot would consider a homophobe. Except I neither hate, nor am afraid of homosexuals. I have worked around a few, I have had to deal with alot in my different jobs, and as any of my bosses current or former can tell you, I have always been very curteous to everyone. My nature is not to randomly attack people. I am passive. And in my personal life, my girlfriend's father is a homosexual, so all in all, I've had to deal with it alot.
Now why I say I am what alot would consider me a homophobe, is because I adamantly am against homosexuality, I think it is for lack of a more correct word, wrong. Not in the sense of differing ideologies, but in the sense of a moral incorrectnes, a natural abnormality; as a man of logic, it serves no purpose but that of a miasmas end, I think that falling prey to the urges are greedy in nature. Many have used the defense, "Well, what is wrong about a someone loving the same sex". My retort is that, nothing is wrong with that. Love is a beauteous thing, it is God's gift to man. We can love each other, we can love so much. Love is pure, love is wonderful. But to love someone, is not nearly the same as having sex with someone. You can have sex without love, and love without sex, they are separate entities, and to mix the two is fallacy, and self-deceit.
That would be my lengthy two cents.
I really have tried so hard to understand people like you, but I can't. I mean, seriously think about what you have said about me. Where do you get off calling me a problem in nature? And not only that, but you say me and my love serve no purpose???
I have a lot of friends. I work hard in my life and I try as much as I can to do the right things to people. I take my relationships and acquaintances very seriously and keep them all in a special place in my heart. I want to be a positive influence on the world around me. And I think I do a pretty good job. There are a lot of people who come to me with their problems and talk about them. And where I may not be the smartest guy in the world, I at least give them the respect to listen and do what I can to help them. And plenty of them had said they appreciate me for that.
The reason I say all that is because I think that all of us serve a purpose for each other in this world if we are able to maintain that outlook. I am a Christian and I believe in the teachings of Christ to love one another and support one another. And most importantly to cherish human life and creation. Everything around us is Gods creation. Even me. And I assure you, I have no control over who I am able to fall in love with. Not have sex with, but fall in love with. There is a big difference.
As far as the sex in a homosexual relationship goes, it does serve a purpose for me. It gives me and my partner a chance to express our love for each other the same way it does in a heterosexual relationship. Now, you may say it serves no purpose because there is no procreation, but then to say that I think you are disregarding the fact that not ever heterosexual is able to reproduce. There are varying statistics on the rate of infertility in America, but from what I can find it's around 9% of all people who should be in the reproductive stages of life. Are you saying that if those people marry that they and their sexuality serves no purpose? That they are a disease in nature? I disagree, I think that everyone is just as important as the next person regardless of how God made them.
Like I said, I really have trouble understanding where you're coming from. It seems like you have a really callous perspective on humans and life. You think people are supposed to just give up on love and live a lonely life just because they don't fit into your rigid view of right and wrong???? I feel I deserve the chance to have that feeling of being with someone just as much as you or the next person does. It's a HUGE part of life. A very important part of life that can give you a whole new positive look on things.
What's next, you saying that infertile people should not seek a partner to be with? Or that maybe they should only be restricted to marrying or being with other infertile people???
I think the study was a waste of money. Who cares if a person is uncomfortable around homosexuals, and a study needs to be made to show that they can potentially be homosexual by using a questionable stimuli based on a questionable theory that homosexuality is genetic? Its like when a man is acting macho, and people say he is overcompensating for things. I think this is really about immasculating society. BTW there has been a study that an immasculated society is easier to control.
I think you are assuming that all homosexuals are not masculine. I can promise you that if you met me I would not fit your idea of a homosexual in any way other than I like men. Same with my partner that I am with.
I rebuild old classic trucks for a living. I spend a lot of time in small towns digging through auto junk yards and talking to bubba's and country boys. It cracks me up knowing that probably a very large majority of them think that gays are all sissy's. Yet, they all have no idea that they trade and drink with one all the time.
So, if you're so certain of your stereotype, yet you find it to not be true, then I would bet that some of your other preconceived notions are on shaky ground as well.
I didn't mean that homosexuals are immasculine. I meant it as a comparison as to why this study was a waste of money. On the contrary most gay men I know are also masculine, and the feminine ones are few between.
However, it is a manly instinct to question change and be wary of difference.
I think the study was a waste of money. Who cares if a person is uncomfortable around homosexuals, and a study needs to be made to show that they can potentially be homosexual by using a questionable stimuli based on a questionable theory that homosexuality is genetic? Its like when a man is acting macho, and people say he is overcompensating for things. I think this is really about immasculating society. BTW there has been a study that an immasculated society is easier to control.
I think you are assuming that all homosexuals are not masculine. I can promise you that if you met me I would not fit your idea of a homosexual in any way other than I like men. Same with my partner that I am with.
I rebuild old classic trucks for a living. I spend a lot of time in small towns digging through auto junk yards and talking to bubba's and country boys. It cracks me up knowing that probably a very large majority of them think that gays are all sissy's. Yet, they all have no idea that they trade and drink with one all the time.
So, if you're so certain of your stereotype, yet you find it to not be true, then I would bet that some of your other preconceived notions are on shaky ground as well.
I didn't mean that homosexuals are immasculine. I meant it as a comparison as to why this study was a waste of money. On the contrary most gay men I know are also masculine, and the feminine ones are few between.
However, it is a manly instinct to question change and be wary of difference.
I don't really think that it was that much of a waste of money. You hear all the time that people who are ultra homophobes are really harboring their own homosexual tendencies. Now there is proof. It is sort of a way to get them to STFU and leave us alone. Now we all know the truth about them.
Besides that, how much can it cost to throw up some provocative images and measure penis responses?
Now why I say I am what alot would consider me a homophobe, is because I adamantly am against homosexuality, I think it is for lack of a more correct word, wrong. Not in the sense of differing ideologies, but in the sense of a moral incorrectnes, a natural abnormality; as a man of logic, it serves no purpose but that of a miasmas end, I think that falling prey to the urges are greedy in nature. Many have used the defense, "Well, what is wrong about a someone loving the same sex". My retort is that, nothing is wrong with that. Love is a beauteous thing, it is God's gift to man. We can love each other, we can love so much. Love is pure, love is wonderful. But to love someone, is not nearly the same as having sex with someone. You can have sex without love, and love without sex, they are separate entities, and to mix the two is fallacy, and self-deceit. That would be my lengthy two cents.
First, let me say that I agree that love and sex are certainly not mutually exclusive. However, one can and will enhance the other if both are present in a relationship.
Your post is quite interesting. Aside from the religious undertones, it also carries a certain scientific baseline that leads me to believe you consider some sexual acts as strictly for procreation. The specific cases you seem to view through this lens are the homosexual sex acts which cannot lead to procreation (ironic, huh?). This seems to be flawed logic to me and is more likely a rationalization to defend your homophobia.
Here's an exercise for you. We can remove the religious disposition and determine if it is what governs your thought process. There are many heterosexuals unable to have children. Do you consider it a waste of time for them to have an active sex life? Or, would having sex with a sterile partner be morally incorrect? A miasmal end? Greedy in nature?
As you said. Homosexual behaviour 'serves no purpose' but later argue that there is nothing wrong with someone loving someone else of the same sex.
This leads to the assumption that it is the sexual intercourse between two men that 'serves no purpose' as loves purpose is clearly defined by yourself as a gift from god.
Im not entirely sure what you are saying, i am only trying to seek clarification, hence my post eing formatted as a question. I can understand if you find the act of homosexual sexual intercourse to be repulsive, homosexuals may or may not find hetrosexual sexual intercourse to be repulsive. But i doubt any homosexual would go as far as to claim that it is miasma in nature.
If i were to put forward an argument, i would agree with you that nothing is wrong with the love of two people. I would also have to agree that any repulsion to homosexual intercourse would be defined by homophobia, but i would never go as far as to presume that that particular attitude should be the norm and henceforth be know as immoral and abonormal by any natural definition.
Loving someone of the same sex is not homosexual.
That seems to be really the only question you had for me, or am I missing something? The rest seem to be statements of a personal opinion you hold.
But here's a question. If you saw two men having sex, what would your reaction be?
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
I do not mean this as an insult, nor as a way of degrading you in anyway porgie, so do not take it as such, but in all honesty, with your seeming fascination; dare I say borderline obsession with homosexual topics, and their defense, I've honestly wondered whether or not you are heterosexual.
I'm happily married and my wife and I are about to explode from joy (and also a little fear) with our first child on the way. So, I'm pretty sure I dig the females.
Nope, I just have a family member who is gay and get fighting mad having to see what he goes through. It's not fair, doesn't make sense, and I believe in educating people so I can do what I can to make things better for him and others like him. It's really quite simple.
I would be tempted to play devil's advocate in relation to your response. But then I feel that that possibly could be degrading, and if not a bit childish. So I'll leave it at that, and appreciate your response. It was a question that I had wondered at times with your topics.
in relation to others posts/responses. I am what alot would consider a homophobe. Except I neither hate, nor am afraid of homosexuals. I have worked around a few, I have had to deal with alot in my different jobs, and as any of my bosses current or former can tell you, I have always been very curteous to everyone. My nature is not to randomly attack people. I am passive. And in my personal life, my girlfriend's father is a homosexual, so all in all, I've had to deal with it alot.
Now why I say I am what alot would consider me a homophobe, is because I adamantly am against homosexuality, I think it is for lack of a more correct word, wrong. Not in the sense of differing ideologies, but in the sense of a moral incorrectnes, a natural abnormality; as a man of logic, it serves no purpose but that of a miasmas end, I think that falling prey to the urges are greedy in nature. Many have used the defense, "Well, what is wrong about a someone loving the same sex". My retort is that, nothing is wrong with that. Love is a beauteous thing, it is God's gift to man. We can love each other, we can love so much. Love is pure, love is wonderful. But to love someone, is not nearly the same as having sex with someone. You can have sex without love, and love without sex, they are separate entities, and to mix the two is fallacy, and self-deceit.
That would be my lengthy two cents.
I really have tried so hard to understand people like you, but I can't. I mean, seriously think about what you have said about me. Where do you get off calling me a problem in nature? And not only that, but you say me and my love serve no purpose???
I have a lot of friends. I work hard in my life and I try as much as I can to do the right things to people. I take my relationships and acquaintances very seriously and keep them all in a special place in my heart. I want to be a positive influence on the world around me. And I think I do a pretty good job. There are a lot of people who come to me with their problems and talk about them. And where I may not be the smartest guy in the world, I at least give them the respect to listen and do what I can to help them. And plenty of them had said they appreciate me for that.
The reason I say all that is because I think that all of us serve a purpose for each other in this world if we are able to maintain that outlook. I am a Christian and I believe in the teachings of Christ to love one another and support one another. And most importantly to cherish human life and creation. Everything around us is Gods creation. Even me. And I assure you, I have no control over who I am able to fall in love with. Not have sex with, but fall in love with. There is a big difference.
As far as the sex in a homosexual relationship goes, it does serve a purpose for me. It gives me and my partner a chance to express our love for each other the same way it does in a heterosexual relationship. Now, you may say it serves no purpose because there is no procreation, but then to say that I think you are disregarding the fact that not ever heterosexual is able to reproduce. There are varying statistics on the rate of infertility in America, but from what I can find it's around 9% of all people who should be in the reproductive stages of life. Are you saying that if those people marry that they and their sexuality serves no purpose? That they are a disease in nature? I disagree, I think that everyone is just as important as the next person regardless of how God made them.
Like I said, I really have trouble understanding where you're coming from. It seems like you have a really callous perspective on humans and life. You think people are supposed to just give up on love and live a lonely life just because they don't fit into your rigid view of right and wrong???? I feel I deserve the chance to have that feeling of being with someone just as much as you or the next person does. It's a HUGE part of life. A very important part of life that can give you a whole new positive look on things.
What's next, you saying that infertile people should not seek a partner to be with? Or that maybe they should only be restricted to marrying or being with other infertile people???
Where did I say your love served no purpose?
I didn't. That's a distortion of my message.
And yes, there is a big difference between having sex and having love. As I stated. I don't know why you said that as an almost declarative argument.
As for infertile people, they are a group of people that try to procreate, but because of a disability of some such, they are unable. They are not willingly going against nature, there is a difference.
Also, where did I say you should live alone? What does having homosexual sex have to do with living alone? Your logic does not hold water.
Lastly, I don't mean this offensively, but don't you find it a bit chicaning to label yourself as a Christian, but only follow aspects that you find comfortable following, and not the ones that require you to make sacrifice? It seems almost...artificial.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
Now why I say I am what alot would consider me a homophobe, is because I adamantly am against homosexuality, I think it is for lack of a more correct word, wrong. Not in the sense of differing ideologies, but in the sense of a moral incorrectnes, a natural abnormality; as a man of logic, it serves no purpose but that of a miasmas end, I think that falling prey to the urges are greedy in nature. Many have used the defense, "Well, what is wrong about a someone loving the same sex". My retort is that, nothing is wrong with that. Love is a beauteous thing, it is God's gift to man. We can love each other, we can love so much. Love is pure, love is wonderful. But to love someone, is not nearly the same as having sex with someone. You can have sex without love, and love without sex, they are separate entities, and to mix the two is fallacy, and self-deceit. That would be my lengthy two cents.
First, let me say that I agree that love and sex are certainly not mutually exclusive. However, one can and will enhance the other if both are present in a relationship.
Your post is quite interesting. Aside from the religious undertones, it also carries a certain scientific baseline that leads me to believe you consider some sexual acts as strictly for procreation. The specific cases you seem to view through this lens are the homosexual sex acts which cannot lead to procreation (ironic, huh?). This seems to be flawed logic to me and is more likely a rationalization to defend your homophobia.
Here's an exercise for you. We can remove the religious disposition and determine if it is what governs your thought process. There are many heterosexuals unable to have children. Do you consider it a waste of time for them to have an active sex life? Or, would having sex with a sterile partner be morally incorrect? A miasmal end? Greedy in nature?
Honestly, I'm just curious.
Yes, they can, and will enhance, if it is a purity on both parts.
Love is a peculiar thing, and we often mistake other things as love.
Maybe I am obtuse, but I fail to see the irony. Could you extrapolate?
As for the last paragraph, I explained that in my last post. If you need a further rationalization just say so and I will try to provide, but to repeat myself as of this moment would be futile.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
I always had a question for people like Finwe, what's the problem in 2 men or women loving each other and having sex because of their love and relationship mostly like an heterosexual couple?
If nature created homosexuals with those inborn/outborn (not discussing it right now, dont want to highjack the topic more than it is) but still unchangeable tendencies why should their sexual behaviour be "against nature" this doesnt make sense. Should they live a lonely life, or worst, marry the oposite sex and be in a horrible relationship for both of them?
And even morally, if the APA (American Psychological Association) says with rigorous studies that homosexuality isnt a psychological disorder, why should people condemn them, is the common knowledge superior to studies? If so, earth would still be believed as flat...
Why should people judge gay people and make their lives miserable by saying their love isnt worth as much as their heterosexual counterpart? because, that's exactly what you are saying.
Yes, they can, and will enhance, if it is a purity on both parts.
Love is a peculiar thing, and we often mistake other things as love. Maybe I am obtuse, but I fail to see the irony. Could you extrapolate? As for the last paragraph, I explained that in my last post. If you need a further rationalization just say so and I will try to provide, but to repeat myself as of this moment would be futile.
The irony would be (from my interpretation of your post) if you consider sex as strictly a method to propagate the species. Your post led me to believe that this is your stance for homosexuals but not for heterosexuals. Seeing as how homosexuals cannot reproduce, this makes them unable to satisfy your requirement for a "natural" relationship. The same argument could be raised for sterile couples as well. This was the reasoning behind my question list at the end of my post. Your answers to these questions contradict your original post.
Apparently you are a person who believes that homosexuals make a choice to defy nature and practice a lifestyle that isn't beneficial to society. If I have learned one thing through discourse, it's that debating this topic with people who have taken such a stance is time better spent doing . . . well, anything else really. The problem with this is your post was misleading as to what you believe. If you had stated this to begin with there would've been no dispute. You say it's not differing ideology, but that's precisely what it is.
I do not mean this as an insult, nor as a way of degrading you in anyway porgie, so do not take it as such, but in all honesty, with your seeming fascination; dare I say borderline obsession with homosexual topics, and their defense, I've honestly wondered whether or not you are heterosexual.
I'm happily married and my wife and I are about to explode from joy (and also a little fear) with our first child on the way. So, I'm pretty sure I dig the females.
Nope, I just have a family member who is gay and get fighting mad having to see what he goes through. It's not fair, doesn't make sense, and I believe in educating people so I can do what I can to make things better for him and others like him. It's really quite simple.
I would be tempted to play devil's advocate in relation to your response. But then I feel that that possibly could be degrading, and if not a bit childish. So I'll leave it at that, and appreciate your response. It was a question that I had wondered at times with your topics.
in relation to others posts/responses. I am what alot would consider a homophobe. Except I neither hate, nor am afraid of homosexuals. I have worked around a few, I have had to deal with alot in my different jobs, and as any of my bosses current or former can tell you, I have always been very curteous to everyone. My nature is not to randomly attack people. I am passive. And in my personal life, my girlfriend's father is a homosexual, so all in all, I've had to deal with it alot.
Now why I say I am what alot would consider me a homophobe, is because I adamantly am against homosexuality, I think it is for lack of a more correct word, wrong. Not in the sense of differing ideologies, but in the sense of a moral incorrectnes, a natural abnormality; as a man of logic, it serves no purpose but that of a miasmas end, I think that falling prey to the urges are greedy in nature. Many have used the defense, "Well, what is wrong about a someone loving the same sex". My retort is that, nothing is wrong with that. Love is a beauteous thing, it is God's gift to man. We can love each other, we can love so much. Love is pure, love is wonderful. But to love someone, is not nearly the same as having sex with someone. You can have sex without love, and love without sex, they are separate entities, and to mix the two is fallacy, and self-deceit.
That would be my lengthy two cents.
I really have tried so hard to understand people like you, but I can't. I mean, seriously think about what you have said about me. Where do you get off calling me a problem in nature? And not only that, but you say me and my love serve no purpose???
I have a lot of friends. I work hard in my life and I try as much as I can to do the right things to people. I take my relationships and acquaintances very seriously and keep them all in a special place in my heart. I want to be a positive influence on the world around me. And I think I do a pretty good job. There are a lot of people who come to me with their problems and talk about them. And where I may not be the smartest guy in the world, I at least give them the respect to listen and do what I can to help them. And plenty of them had said they appreciate me for that.
The reason I say all that is because I think that all of us serve a purpose for each other in this world if we are able to maintain that outlook. I am a Christian and I believe in the teachings of Christ to love one another and support one another. And most importantly to cherish human life and creation. Everything around us is Gods creation. Even me. And I assure you, I have no control over who I am able to fall in love with. Not have sex with, but fall in love with. There is a big difference.
As far as the sex in a homosexual relationship goes, it does serve a purpose for me. It gives me and my partner a chance to express our love for each other the same way it does in a heterosexual relationship. Now, you may say it serves no purpose because there is no procreation, but then to say that I think you are disregarding the fact that not ever heterosexual is able to reproduce. There are varying statistics on the rate of infertility in America, but from what I can find it's around 9% of all people who should be in the reproductive stages of life. Are you saying that if those people marry that they and their sexuality serves no purpose? That they are a disease in nature? I disagree, I think that everyone is just as important as the next person regardless of how God made them.
Like I said, I really have trouble understanding where you're coming from. It seems like you have a really callous perspective on humans and life. You think people are supposed to just give up on love and live a lonely life just because they don't fit into your rigid view of right and wrong???? I feel I deserve the chance to have that feeling of being with someone just as much as you or the next person does. It's a HUGE part of life. A very important part of life that can give you a whole new positive look on things.
What's next, you saying that infertile people should not seek a partner to be with? Or that maybe they should only be restricted to marrying or being with other infertile people???
Where did I say your love served no purpose?
I didn't. That's a distortion of my message.
And yes, there is a big difference between having sex and having love. As I stated. I don't know why you said that as an almost declarative argument.
As for infertile people, they are a group of people that try to procreate, but because of a disability of some such, they are unable. They are not willingly going against nature, there is a difference.
Also, where did I say you should live alone? What does having homosexual sex have to do with living alone? Your logic does not hold water.
Lastly, I don't mean this offensively, but don't you find it a bit chicaning to label yourself as a Christian, but only follow aspects that you find comfortable following, and not the ones that require you to make sacrifice? It seems almost...artificial.
Doesn't it seem like a trick for you to choose not to realize that there are different ways of interpreting that great big religion we call Christianity? Or is it a form of trickery to call your way of viewing it right and mine wrong? Why do you think there are so many different orders of the religion? I think the only person to judge who is right or wrong is God himself. Are you going to take that upon yourself and put down my church now???
My church does not preach that homosexual love is wrong. It teaches us that just running out and having sex is bad, just like in the heterosexual case it is. But being in a loving homosexual relationship is just fine in my church. Not artificial at all. It's real. Just like my love for Christ and his message of forgiveness.
I think the study was a waste of money. Who cares if a person is uncomfortable around homosexuals, and a study needs to be made to show that they can potentially be homosexual by using a questionable stimuli based on a questionable theory that homosexuality is genetic? Its like when a man is acting macho, and people say he is overcompensating for things. I think this is really about immasculating society. BTW there has been a study that an immasculated society is easier to control.
I think you are assuming that all homosexuals are not masculine. I can promise you that if you met me I would not fit your idea of a homosexual in any way other than I like men. Same with my partner that I am with.
I rebuild old classic trucks for a living. I spend a lot of time in small towns digging through auto junk yards and talking to bubba's and country boys. It cracks me up knowing that probably a very large majority of them think that gays are all sissy's. Yet, they all have no idea that they trade and drink with one all the time.
So, if you're so certain of your stereotype, yet you find it to not be true, then I would bet that some of your other preconceived notions are on shaky ground as well.
I didn't mean that homosexuals are immasculine. I meant it as a comparison as to why this study was a waste of money. On the contrary most gay men I know are also masculine, and the feminine ones are few between.
However, it is a manly instinct to question change and be wary of difference.
I don't really think that it was that much of a waste of money. You hear all the time that people who are ultra homophobes are really harboring their own homosexual tendencies. Now there is proof. It is sort of a way to get them to STFU and leave us alone. Now we all know the truth about them.
Besides that, how much can it cost to throw up some provocative images and measure penis responses?
One, two, or five studies are not PROOF. If you're gay, that's fine. I don't care. To say that the results of a study is proof, especially if based on the link provided by the OP which didn't show a shred of proof concerning their study, is absolute nonsense.
Take a former political science major with a goatee, some 15 year olds, and a few people that have no issues with them there "queers", and one or two people that are actually trying to have a discussion and you get something like this.
I remember in college these type of discussions would always be going on in the cafeteria. There were always one or two guys that thought that they were somehow unique by just being a**holes.
*trying to remember why I even came to these forums again*
Listen to the Spouse Aggro podcast at spouseaggro.com. Twitter: spouseaggro
Short and Clear answer... Homophobia doesnt mean a thing....
Some people are homophobic because their culture and way they grow up...
Some others hate gay people because they want more guys to help up screwing up girls.. if you know what I mean... and then they get mad when someone doesnt help with that...
Comments
This is the dumbest argument that the gay movement have come up with.
A person can be disgusted by an act and not have a secret desire to perform said act. If all homophobes are closet gays then just about everyone on the planet is a closet necrophile, zoophile, and / or possibly into scat.
Although this does play into the psychological fact that everyone has to potential to commit homosexual acts and even the idea that everyone is possibly bisexual to one degree or another. The whole thing is an ad hominem straw man that's meant to discredit people that disagree with the homosexual identity / lifestyle.
I've always thought that everyone is bisexual to some degree or another. I have a feeling that's where a lot of the hatred towards gays is founded. People don't want to face up to their true feelings, so they instead turn on others who are able to be open about it.
I'm not sure how you conclude that this has anything to do with the "gay movement" though. I've always found this topic pretty interesting, from a human behavior interest, and I'm straight. I also listen to the radio a lot and Neal Boortz cites these studies. He gets a lot of hate mail from listeners to his radio show because he defends gay rights. So, he just tells the homophobes to come out of the closet and quit turning their self loathing into bad times for others.
Example of Neal Boortz and Homosexuality - I love Neal Boortz!
===============================
Homosexuals don't bother me, hating them is stupid, I got better things to do than hate on people who have never done me any harm. Homosexual sex bothers me, but it's not like I have to ever witness it, just the thought is off-putting to me. A friend of mine recently came out of the closet, guess how I reacted, no different to before, I didn't even mention it.
Now lesbians, thats a different story, I'm absolutely addicted to lesbian porn.
O_o o_O
I'm happily married and my wife and I are about to explode from joy (and also a little fear) with our first child on the way. So, I'm pretty sure I dig the females.
Nope, I just have a family member who is gay and get fighting mad having to see what he goes through. It's not fair, doesn't make sense, and I believe in educating people so I can do what I can to make things better for him and others like him. It's really quite simple.
I would be tempted to play devil's advocate in relation to your response. But then I feel that that possibly could be degrading, and if not a bit childish. So I'll leave it at that, and appreciate your response. It was a question that I had wondered at times with your topics.
in relation to others posts/responses. I am what alot would consider a homophobe. Except I neither hate, nor am afraid of homosexuals. I have worked around a few, I have had to deal with alot in my different jobs, and as any of my bosses current or former can tell you, I have always been very curteous to everyone. My nature is not to randomly attack people. I am passive. And in my personal life, my girlfriend's father is a homosexual, so all in all, I've had to deal with it alot.
Now why I say I am what alot would consider me a homophobe, is because I adamantly am against homosexuality, I think it is for lack of a more correct word, wrong. Not in the sense of differing ideologies, but in the sense of a moral incorrectnes, a natural abnormality; as a man of logic, it serves no purpose but that of a miasmas end, I think that falling prey to the urges are greedy in nature. Many have used the defense, "Well, what is wrong about a someone loving the same sex". My retort is that, nothing is wrong with that. Love is a beauteous thing, it is God's gift to man. We can love each other, we can love so much. Love is pure, love is wonderful. But to love someone, is not nearly the same as having sex with someone. You can have sex without love, and love without sex, they are separate entities, and to mix the two is fallacy, and self-deceit.
That would be my lengthy two cents.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
I'm happily married and my wife and I are about to explode from joy (and also a little fear) with our first child on the way. So, I'm pretty sure I dig the females.
Nope, I just have a family member who is gay and get fighting mad having to see what he goes through. It's not fair, doesn't make sense, and I believe in educating people so I can do what I can to make things better for him and others like him. It's really quite simple.
I would be tempted to play devil's advocate in relation to your response. But then I feel that that possibly could be degrading, and if not a bit childish. So I'll leave it at that, and appreciate your response. It was a question that I had wondered at times with your topics.
in relation to others posts/responses. I am what alot would consider a homophobe. Except I neither hate, nor am afraid of homosexuals. I have worked around a few, I have had to deal with alot in my different jobs, and as any of my bosses current or former can tell you, I have always been very curteous to everyone. My nature is not to randomly attack people. I am passive. And in my personal life, my girlfriend's father is a homosexual, so all in all, I've had to deal with it alot.
Now why I say I am what alot would consider me a homophobe, is because I adamantly am against homosexuality, I think it is for lack of a more correct word, wrong. Not in the sense of differing ideologies, but in the sense of a moral incorrectnes, a natural abnormality; as a man of logic, it serves no purpose but that of a miasmas end, I think that falling prey to the urges are greedy in nature. Many have used the defense, "Well, what is wrong about a someone loving the same sex". My retort is that, nothing is wrong with that. Love is a beauteous thing, it is God's gift to man. We can love each other, we can love so much. Love is pure, love is wonderful. But to love someone, is not nearly the same as having sex with someone. You can have sex without love, and love without sex, they are separate entities, and to mix the two is fallacy, and self-deceit.
That would be my lengthy two cents.
If you say that love is different to sex and the two dont necessarily co-exist.Then if you are a man of logic why cant you distinguish between sexuality and sexual intercourse ?
What exactly are you saying?
Are you presuming that I judge a man who commits homosexual acts and a man who has homosexual tendencies all the same, or what exactly?
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
Yes it is. Many different researches have prooven that.
If you throw in a straith man into a gay marrage party, he will think "YAY free beer".
Throw in a homophobic man and he will think " damn, they can find out about me, best to be hostile so they think i hate them all".
I'm happily married and my wife and I are about to explode from joy (and also a little fear) with our first child on the way. So, I'm pretty sure I dig the females.
Nope, I just have a family member who is gay and get fighting mad having to see what he goes through. It's not fair, doesn't make sense, and I believe in educating people so I can do what I can to make things better for him and others like him. It's really quite simple.
I would be tempted to play devil's advocate in relation to your response. But then I feel that that possibly could be degrading, and if not a bit childish. So I'll leave it at that, and appreciate your response. It was a question that I had wondered at times with your topics.
in relation to others posts/responses. I am what alot would consider a homophobe. Except I neither hate, nor am afraid of homosexuals. I have worked around a few, I have had to deal with alot in my different jobs, and as any of my bosses current or former can tell you, I have always been very curteous to everyone. My nature is not to randomly attack people. I am passive. And in my personal life, my girlfriend's father is a homosexual, so all in all, I've had to deal with it alot.
Now why I say I am what alot would consider me a homophobe, is because I adamantly am against homosexuality, I think it is for lack of a more correct word, wrong. Not in the sense of differing ideologies, but in the sense of a moral incorrectnes, a natural abnormality; as a man of logic, it serves no purpose but that of a miasmas end, I think that falling prey to the urges are greedy in nature. Many have used the defense, "Well, what is wrong about a someone loving the same sex". My retort is that, nothing is wrong with that. Love is a beauteous thing, it is God's gift to man. We can love each other, we can love so much. Love is pure, love is wonderful. But to love someone, is not nearly the same as having sex with someone. You can have sex without love, and love without sex, they are separate entities, and to mix the two is fallacy, and self-deceit.
That would be my lengthy two cents.
I really have tried so hard to understand people like you, but I can't. I mean, seriously think about what you have said about me. Where do you get off calling me a problem in nature? And not only that, but you say me and my love serve no purpose???I have a lot of friends. I work hard in my life and I try as much as I can to do the right things to people. I take my relationships and acquaintances very seriously and keep them all in a special place in my heart. I want to be a positive influence on the world around me. And I think I do a pretty good job. There are a lot of people who come to me with their problems and talk about them. And where I may not be the smartest guy in the world, I at least give them the respect to listen and do what I can to help them. And plenty of them had said they appreciate me for that.
The reason I say all that is because I think that all of us serve a purpose for each other in this world if we are able to maintain that outlook. I am a Christian and I believe in the teachings of Christ to love one another and support one another. And most importantly to cherish human life and creation. Everything around us is Gods creation. Even me. And I assure you, I have no control over who I am able to fall in love with. Not have sex with, but fall in love with. There is a big difference.
As far as the sex in a homosexual relationship goes, it does serve a purpose for me. It gives me and my partner a chance to express our love for each other the same way it does in a heterosexual relationship. Now, you may say it serves no purpose because there is no procreation, but then to say that I think you are disregarding the fact that not ever heterosexual is able to reproduce. There are varying statistics on the rate of infertility in America, but from what I can find it's around 9% of all people who should be in the reproductive stages of life. Are you saying that if those people marry that they and their sexuality serves no purpose? That they are a disease in nature? I disagree, I think that everyone is just as important as the next person regardless of how God made them.
Like I said, I really have trouble understanding where you're coming from. It seems like you have a really callous perspective on humans and life. You think people are supposed to just give up on love and live a lonely life just because they don't fit into your rigid view of right and wrong???? I feel I deserve the chance to have that feeling of being with someone just as much as you or the next person does. It's a HUGE part of life. A very important part of life that can give you a whole new positive look on things.
What's next, you saying that infertile people should not seek a partner to be with? Or that maybe they should only be restricted to marrying or being with other infertile people???
--------------------------------------
I don't use the world "homophobia" lightly... but yes, the few homophobes I've known have been pretty gay.
Run DMC
not bad meaning bad but bad meaning good?
chips, dips chains & whips.
I think you are assuming that all homosexuals are not masculine. I can promise you that if you met me I would not fit your idea of a homosexual in any way other than I like men. Same with my partner that I am with.
I rebuild old classic trucks for a living. I spend a lot of time in small towns digging through auto junk yards and talking to bubba's and country boys. It cracks me up knowing that probably a very large majority of them think that gays are all sissy's. Yet, they all have no idea that they trade and drink with one all the time.
So, if you're so certain of your stereotype, yet you find it to not be true, then I would bet that some of your other preconceived notions are on shaky ground as well.
I didn't mean that homosexuals are immasculine. I meant it as a comparison as to why this study was a waste of money. On the contrary most gay men I know are also masculine, and the feminine ones are few between.
However, it is a manly instinct to question change and be wary of difference.
I think you are assuming that all homosexuals are not masculine. I can promise you that if you met me I would not fit your idea of a homosexual in any way other than I like men. Same with my partner that I am with.
I rebuild old classic trucks for a living. I spend a lot of time in small towns digging through auto junk yards and talking to bubba's and country boys. It cracks me up knowing that probably a very large majority of them think that gays are all sissy's. Yet, they all have no idea that they trade and drink with one all the time.
So, if you're so certain of your stereotype, yet you find it to not be true, then I would bet that some of your other preconceived notions are on shaky ground as well.
I didn't mean that homosexuals are immasculine. I meant it as a comparison as to why this study was a waste of money. On the contrary most gay men I know are also masculine, and the feminine ones are few between.
However, it is a manly instinct to question change and be wary of difference.
I don't really think that it was that much of a waste of money. You hear all the time that people who are ultra homophobes are really harboring their own homosexual tendencies. Now there is proof. It is sort of a way to get them to STFU and leave us alone. Now we all know the truth about them.Besides that, how much can it cost to throw up some provocative images and measure penis responses?
--------------------------------------
Your post is quite interesting. Aside from the religious undertones, it also carries a certain scientific baseline that leads me to believe you consider some sexual acts as strictly for procreation. The specific cases you seem to view through this lens are the homosexual sex acts which cannot lead to procreation (ironic, huh?). This seems to be flawed logic to me and is more likely a rationalization to defend your homophobia.
Here's an exercise for you. We can remove the religious disposition and determine if it is what governs your thought process. There are many heterosexuals unable to have children. Do you consider it a waste of time for them to have an active sex life? Or, would having sex with a sterile partner be morally incorrect? A miasmal end? Greedy in nature?
Honestly, I'm just curious.
That seems to be really the only question you had for me, or am I missing something? The rest seem to be statements of a personal opinion you hold.
But here's a question. If you saw two men having sex, what would your reaction be?
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
I'm happily married and my wife and I are about to explode from joy (and also a little fear) with our first child on the way. So, I'm pretty sure I dig the females.
Nope, I just have a family member who is gay and get fighting mad having to see what he goes through. It's not fair, doesn't make sense, and I believe in educating people so I can do what I can to make things better for him and others like him. It's really quite simple.
I would be tempted to play devil's advocate in relation to your response. But then I feel that that possibly could be degrading, and if not a bit childish. So I'll leave it at that, and appreciate your response. It was a question that I had wondered at times with your topics.
in relation to others posts/responses. I am what alot would consider a homophobe. Except I neither hate, nor am afraid of homosexuals. I have worked around a few, I have had to deal with alot in my different jobs, and as any of my bosses current or former can tell you, I have always been very curteous to everyone. My nature is not to randomly attack people. I am passive. And in my personal life, my girlfriend's father is a homosexual, so all in all, I've had to deal with it alot.
Now why I say I am what alot would consider me a homophobe, is because I adamantly am against homosexuality, I think it is for lack of a more correct word, wrong. Not in the sense of differing ideologies, but in the sense of a moral incorrectnes, a natural abnormality; as a man of logic, it serves no purpose but that of a miasmas end, I think that falling prey to the urges are greedy in nature. Many have used the defense, "Well, what is wrong about a someone loving the same sex". My retort is that, nothing is wrong with that. Love is a beauteous thing, it is God's gift to man. We can love each other, we can love so much. Love is pure, love is wonderful. But to love someone, is not nearly the same as having sex with someone. You can have sex without love, and love without sex, they are separate entities, and to mix the two is fallacy, and self-deceit.
That would be my lengthy two cents.
I really have tried so hard to understand people like you, but I can't. I mean, seriously think about what you have said about me. Where do you get off calling me a problem in nature? And not only that, but you say me and my love serve no purpose???I have a lot of friends. I work hard in my life and I try as much as I can to do the right things to people. I take my relationships and acquaintances very seriously and keep them all in a special place in my heart. I want to be a positive influence on the world around me. And I think I do a pretty good job. There are a lot of people who come to me with their problems and talk about them. And where I may not be the smartest guy in the world, I at least give them the respect to listen and do what I can to help them. And plenty of them had said they appreciate me for that.
The reason I say all that is because I think that all of us serve a purpose for each other in this world if we are able to maintain that outlook. I am a Christian and I believe in the teachings of Christ to love one another and support one another. And most importantly to cherish human life and creation. Everything around us is Gods creation. Even me. And I assure you, I have no control over who I am able to fall in love with. Not have sex with, but fall in love with. There is a big difference.
As far as the sex in a homosexual relationship goes, it does serve a purpose for me. It gives me and my partner a chance to express our love for each other the same way it does in a heterosexual relationship. Now, you may say it serves no purpose because there is no procreation, but then to say that I think you are disregarding the fact that not ever heterosexual is able to reproduce. There are varying statistics on the rate of infertility in America, but from what I can find it's around 9% of all people who should be in the reproductive stages of life. Are you saying that if those people marry that they and their sexuality serves no purpose? That they are a disease in nature? I disagree, I think that everyone is just as important as the next person regardless of how God made them.
Like I said, I really have trouble understanding where you're coming from. It seems like you have a really callous perspective on humans and life. You think people are supposed to just give up on love and live a lonely life just because they don't fit into your rigid view of right and wrong???? I feel I deserve the chance to have that feeling of being with someone just as much as you or the next person does. It's a HUGE part of life. A very important part of life that can give you a whole new positive look on things.
What's next, you saying that infertile people should not seek a partner to be with? Or that maybe they should only be restricted to marrying or being with other infertile people???
Where did I say your love served no purpose?
I didn't. That's a distortion of my message.
And yes, there is a big difference between having sex and having love. As I stated. I don't know why you said that as an almost declarative argument.
As for infertile people, they are a group of people that try to procreate, but because of a disability of some such, they are unable. They are not willingly going against nature, there is a difference.
Also, where did I say you should live alone? What does having homosexual sex have to do with living alone? Your logic does not hold water.
Lastly, I don't mean this offensively, but don't you find it a bit chicaning to label yourself as a Christian, but only follow aspects that you find comfortable following, and not the ones that require you to make sacrifice? It seems almost...artificial.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
Your post is quite interesting. Aside from the religious undertones, it also carries a certain scientific baseline that leads me to believe you consider some sexual acts as strictly for procreation. The specific cases you seem to view through this lens are the homosexual sex acts which cannot lead to procreation (ironic, huh?). This seems to be flawed logic to me and is more likely a rationalization to defend your homophobia.
Here's an exercise for you. We can remove the religious disposition and determine if it is what governs your thought process. There are many heterosexuals unable to have children. Do you consider it a waste of time for them to have an active sex life? Or, would having sex with a sterile partner be morally incorrect? A miasmal end? Greedy in nature?
Honestly, I'm just curious.
Yes, they can, and will enhance, if it is a purity on both parts.
Love is a peculiar thing, and we often mistake other things as love.
Maybe I am obtuse, but I fail to see the irony. Could you extrapolate?
As for the last paragraph, I explained that in my last post. If you need a further rationalization just say so and I will try to provide, but to repeat myself as of this moment would be futile.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
LOL
I always had a question for people like Finwe, what's the problem in 2 men or women loving each other and having sex because of their love and relationship mostly like an heterosexual couple?
If nature created homosexuals with those inborn/outborn (not discussing it right now, dont want to highjack the topic more than it is) but still unchangeable tendencies why should their sexual behaviour be "against nature" this doesnt make sense. Should they live a lonely life, or worst, marry the oposite sex and be in a horrible relationship for both of them?
And even morally, if the APA (American Psychological Association) says with rigorous studies that homosexuality isnt a psychological disorder, why should people condemn them, is the common knowledge superior to studies? If so, earth would still be believed as flat...
Why should people judge gay people and make their lives miserable by saying their love isnt worth as much as their heterosexual counterpart? because, that's exactly what you are saying.
Apparently you are a person who believes that homosexuals make a choice to defy nature and practice a lifestyle that isn't beneficial to society. If I have learned one thing through discourse, it's that debating this topic with people who have taken such a stance is time better spent doing . . . well, anything else really. The problem with this is your post was misleading as to what you believe. If you had stated this to begin with there would've been no dispute. You say it's not differing ideology, but that's precisely what it is.
I'm happily married and my wife and I are about to explode from joy (and also a little fear) with our first child on the way. So, I'm pretty sure I dig the females.
Nope, I just have a family member who is gay and get fighting mad having to see what he goes through. It's not fair, doesn't make sense, and I believe in educating people so I can do what I can to make things better for him and others like him. It's really quite simple.
I would be tempted to play devil's advocate in relation to your response. But then I feel that that possibly could be degrading, and if not a bit childish. So I'll leave it at that, and appreciate your response. It was a question that I had wondered at times with your topics.
in relation to others posts/responses. I am what alot would consider a homophobe. Except I neither hate, nor am afraid of homosexuals. I have worked around a few, I have had to deal with alot in my different jobs, and as any of my bosses current or former can tell you, I have always been very curteous to everyone. My nature is not to randomly attack people. I am passive. And in my personal life, my girlfriend's father is a homosexual, so all in all, I've had to deal with it alot.
Now why I say I am what alot would consider me a homophobe, is because I adamantly am against homosexuality, I think it is for lack of a more correct word, wrong. Not in the sense of differing ideologies, but in the sense of a moral incorrectnes, a natural abnormality; as a man of logic, it serves no purpose but that of a miasmas end, I think that falling prey to the urges are greedy in nature. Many have used the defense, "Well, what is wrong about a someone loving the same sex". My retort is that, nothing is wrong with that. Love is a beauteous thing, it is God's gift to man. We can love each other, we can love so much. Love is pure, love is wonderful. But to love someone, is not nearly the same as having sex with someone. You can have sex without love, and love without sex, they are separate entities, and to mix the two is fallacy, and self-deceit.
That would be my lengthy two cents.
I really have tried so hard to understand people like you, but I can't. I mean, seriously think about what you have said about me. Where do you get off calling me a problem in nature? And not only that, but you say me and my love serve no purpose???I have a lot of friends. I work hard in my life and I try as much as I can to do the right things to people. I take my relationships and acquaintances very seriously and keep them all in a special place in my heart. I want to be a positive influence on the world around me. And I think I do a pretty good job. There are a lot of people who come to me with their problems and talk about them. And where I may not be the smartest guy in the world, I at least give them the respect to listen and do what I can to help them. And plenty of them had said they appreciate me for that.
The reason I say all that is because I think that all of us serve a purpose for each other in this world if we are able to maintain that outlook. I am a Christian and I believe in the teachings of Christ to love one another and support one another. And most importantly to cherish human life and creation. Everything around us is Gods creation. Even me. And I assure you, I have no control over who I am able to fall in love with. Not have sex with, but fall in love with. There is a big difference.
As far as the sex in a homosexual relationship goes, it does serve a purpose for me. It gives me and my partner a chance to express our love for each other the same way it does in a heterosexual relationship. Now, you may say it serves no purpose because there is no procreation, but then to say that I think you are disregarding the fact that not ever heterosexual is able to reproduce. There are varying statistics on the rate of infertility in America, but from what I can find it's around 9% of all people who should be in the reproductive stages of life. Are you saying that if those people marry that they and their sexuality serves no purpose? That they are a disease in nature? I disagree, I think that everyone is just as important as the next person regardless of how God made them.
Like I said, I really have trouble understanding where you're coming from. It seems like you have a really callous perspective on humans and life. You think people are supposed to just give up on love and live a lonely life just because they don't fit into your rigid view of right and wrong???? I feel I deserve the chance to have that feeling of being with someone just as much as you or the next person does. It's a HUGE part of life. A very important part of life that can give you a whole new positive look on things.
What's next, you saying that infertile people should not seek a partner to be with? Or that maybe they should only be restricted to marrying or being with other infertile people???
Where did I say your love served no purpose?
I didn't. That's a distortion of my message.
And yes, there is a big difference between having sex and having love. As I stated. I don't know why you said that as an almost declarative argument.
As for infertile people, they are a group of people that try to procreate, but because of a disability of some such, they are unable. They are not willingly going against nature, there is a difference.
Also, where did I say you should live alone? What does having homosexual sex have to do with living alone? Your logic does not hold water.
Lastly, I don't mean this offensively, but don't you find it a bit chicaning to label yourself as a Christian, but only follow aspects that you find comfortable following, and not the ones that require you to make sacrifice? It seems almost...artificial.
Doesn't it seem like a trick for you to choose not to realize that there are different ways of interpreting that great big religion we call Christianity? Or is it a form of trickery to call your way of viewing it right and mine wrong? Why do you think there are so many different orders of the religion? I think the only person to judge who is right or wrong is God himself. Are you going to take that upon yourself and put down my church now???My church does not preach that homosexual love is wrong. It teaches us that just running out and having sex is bad, just like in the heterosexual case it is. But being in a loving homosexual relationship is just fine in my church. Not artificial at all. It's real. Just like my love for Christ and his message of forgiveness.
--------------------------------------
I think you are assuming that all homosexuals are not masculine. I can promise you that if you met me I would not fit your idea of a homosexual in any way other than I like men. Same with my partner that I am with.
I rebuild old classic trucks for a living. I spend a lot of time in small towns digging through auto junk yards and talking to bubba's and country boys. It cracks me up knowing that probably a very large majority of them think that gays are all sissy's. Yet, they all have no idea that they trade and drink with one all the time.
So, if you're so certain of your stereotype, yet you find it to not be true, then I would bet that some of your other preconceived notions are on shaky ground as well.
I didn't mean that homosexuals are immasculine. I meant it as a comparison as to why this study was a waste of money. On the contrary most gay men I know are also masculine, and the feminine ones are few between.
However, it is a manly instinct to question change and be wary of difference.
I don't really think that it was that much of a waste of money. You hear all the time that people who are ultra homophobes are really harboring their own homosexual tendencies. Now there is proof. It is sort of a way to get them to STFU and leave us alone. Now we all know the truth about them.Besides that, how much can it cost to throw up some provocative images and measure penis responses?
One, two, or five studies are not PROOF. If you're gay, that's fine. I don't care. To say that the results of a study is proof, especially if based on the link provided by the OP which didn't show a shred of proof concerning their study, is absolute nonsense.
Wow, this thread is just brilliant.
Take a former political science major with a goatee, some 15 year olds, and a few people that have no issues with them there "queers", and one or two people that are actually trying to have a discussion and you get something like this.
I remember in college these type of discussions would always be going on in the cafeteria. There were always one or two guys that thought that they were somehow unique by just being a**holes.
*trying to remember why I even came to these forums again*
Listen to the Spouse Aggro podcast at spouseaggro.com. Twitter: spouseaggro
Short and Clear answer... Homophobia doesnt mean a thing....
Some people are homophobic because their culture and way they grow up...
Some others hate gay people because they want more guys to help up screwing up girls.. if you know what I mean... and then they get mad when someone doesnt help with that...