NationStates Jolt Archive

The following is another internet test, and I apologise, but I think it's worthwhile:) It's for heterosexuals only...it wouldn't really work with anyone else:

http://www.mun.ca/the/attitudetest.html
Edit: This test is NOT meant to acurately test anything so difficult to measure as your attitude, but rather is meant to raise awareness about questions commonly asked of homosexuals by asking them of heterosexuals. In this context, do these questions make sense to ask of ANY sexuality?

Second Edit: The score is not important. The questions are. This isn't a questionnaire about homophobia, it is a questionnaire about heterosexism.

no, no theyre not

didnt even need to take the test :p

no, no theyre not

didnt even need to take the test :p
Me neither:)

Man...this test is just plain stupid...and I've seen alot of stupid things...but this is ridiculous!

Man...this test is just plain stupid...and I've seen alot of stupid things...but this is ridiculous!
In what way is it ridiculous?

In what way is it ridiculous?
The bias in the questions. The display of your heterosexist points adjacent to the question. This survey is garbage.

http://www.brokennewz.com/displaystory.asp_Q_storyid_E_908gay

I scored 15. but I genuinely believe that was because the questions were badly phrased.

For example to the question: Do you organize social events in a manner which welcomes people of all sexualities?

I answered "don't give it any thought" which is the most accurate answer, because I don't make any special arrangements for people I socialise with over anyone else. I have gay, straight and transgender friends, and when I socialise with them I treat them the same!!!

I think the questions automatically assumed that peoples actions were based on subconsious prejudices towards homosexual people, and was only really appropriate if someone had consiously modified there behaviour to mask such attitudes. Since I don't have such prejudiced attitudes I'm not conscerned about being (incorrectly) labelled as "somewhat heterosexist"

I'd say the 'test' was pretty obvious...I mean, you could see that if you answered a certain way, you'd be penalised. But the ideas brought up I think are valid. For example, we don't say that heteros choose to be that way, but we often say such of homosexuals.

Mostly I think the test has turned questions that are commonly asked of homosexuals around and asked them of heterosexuals, and in that context they sound silly. As they should in the other context.

I'd say the 'test' was pretty obvious...I mean, you could see that if you answered a certain way, you'd be penalised. But the ideas brought up I think are valid. For example, we don't say that heteros choose to be that way, but we often say such of homosexuals.

Mostly I think the test has turned questions that are commonly asked of homosexuals around and asked them of heterosexuals, and in that context they sound silly. As they should in the other context.
Sorry, this test is just homoretarded.

The bias in the questions. The display of your heterosexist points adjacent to the question. This survey is garbage.
Take it with a grain of salt...but were there any questions there you thought didn't make sense to ask about heterosexuals? Do those questions make sense if they are asked of homosexuals?

I scored a 372 and I was honest. The survey still sucked Squaw.

Sorry, this test is just homoretarded.
Hmmm...are you going to give some specifics so we can actually have a discussion or just make up strange words?

Interesting test, but like all tests of this kind it is biased toward its viewpoint. That is, if you don't always agree with the actions of a homosexual you are somehow "bad", heterosexist and "you can change!"
If I "never give it a thought" I am equally penalized as with a "no" answer. Huh? If I don't follow some multi-gender culti mumbo jumbo about being inclusive all the time and if I have ever laughed at a racist joke I am penalized toward being homophobic. Jesus, never laugh at a joke folks!! Always think, does this joke conform with acceptable standards of humor as decided by sensitive people.
I score in the 20's, I guess I'm a bad homophobe and can change my ways. Never mind that I have no problem with homosexuals, in fact don't give them a second thought, I have laughed at some racist jokes so I am homophobic.

I am venting a bit, these kinds of "subtle persuasion" tests annoy me. Yet I took five minutes to take it. . .my own fault I guess.

Take it with a grain of salt...but were there any questions there you thought didn't make sense to ask about heterosexuals? Do those questions make sense if they are asked of homosexuals?
A != B here. They are different things. Not all the questions could be legimately asked of homosexuals or heterosexuals.

I scored a 372 and I was honest. The survey still sucked Squaw.
Ah Johnny, ever sensitive soul that you are. Squaw is a pretty offensive term to me (being a female aboriginal), but even if it wasn't, I don't think the quiz would have sucked me.

Interesting test, but like all tests of this kind it is biased toward its viewpoint. That is, if you don't always agree with the actions of a homosexual you are somehow "bad", heterosexist and "you can change!"
If I "never give it a thought" I am equally penalized as with a "no" answer. Huh? If I don't follow some multi-gender culti mumbo jumbo about being inclusive all the time and if I have ever laughed at a racist joke I am penalized toward being homophobic. Jesus, never laugh at a joke folks!! Always think, does this joke conform with acceptable standards of humor as decided by sensitive people.
I score in the 20's, I guess I'm a bad homophobe and can change my ways. Never mind that I have no problem with homosexuals, in fact don't give them a second thought, I have laughed at some racist jokes so I am homophobic.

I am venting a bit, these kinds of "subtle persuasion" tests annoy me. Yet I took five minutes to take it. . .my own fault I guess.
Yeah...I think the point is less what you scored, than the questions raised by the test. I don't think it is a valid test at all for checking your 'hetero' attitudes.

A != B here. They are different things. Not all the questions could be legimately asked of homosexuals or heterosexuals.
Like....

Like....
Honestly, I don't care about this. This will be my last post in this thread, as it has ceased to interest me. You can think your test has some sort of legimate point, when in fact it does not. The questions are inherently flawed. The idea, perhaps, is good. The execution fails.

Test was dumb. I scored 87. That puts me in the same category as someone who scored 300. Great. That's like putting the guy who tells the occasional racist joke on a par with Hitler. Plus some of the questions were pointless and just geared to spreading an attitude rather than measuring tolerance. Fuck that test.

Honestly, I don't care about this. This will be my last post in this thread, as it has ceased to interest me. You can think your test has some sort of legimate point, when in fact it does not. The questions are inherently flawed. The idea, perhaps, is good. The execution fails.
Wow...are you crabby today? Not once have I claimed that 'my' test (though it isn't mine) was valid. Nor have I said that the results would be correct. However, I have asked you to provide some feedback other than your constant negativity, but at least you have the decency to leave the thread rather than continue on that vein....

Ah Johnny, ever sensitive soul that you are. Squaw is a pretty offensive term to me (being a female aboriginal), but even if it wasn't, I don't think the quiz would have sucked me.

Yeah I apologize for that word. We use that around here alot, I didn't know it was offensive. We don't have any natives around here that I know of, so I apologize for being insensitive.

About the test though, I don't need a quiz to tell me I dislike queers!

Yeah I apologize for that word. We use that around here alot, I didn't know it was offensive. We don't have any natives around here that I know of, so I apologize for being insensitive.Thanks for the apology. Accepted and forgotten:)

About the test though, I don't need a quiz to tell me I dislike queers!
Neither did we Johnny, neither did we :D

Yeah...I think the point is less what you scored, than the questions raised by the test. I don't think it is a valid test at all for checking your 'hetero' attitudes.

I found turning things 180' interesting. Things homosexuals are criticized for are done as a matter of course by heterosexuals. Something to think about that I had not considered before.

Test was dumb. I scored 87. That puts me in the same category as someone who scored 300. Great. That's like putting the guy who tells the occasional racist joke on a par with Hitler. Plus some of the questions were pointless and just geared to spreading an attitude rather than measuring tolerance. Fuck that test.
Don't you wish you'd eaten some Jello Pudding instead? *Bill Cosby impression* "It's jiggly and wiggly and it's got the goodness and the puddingness and the jiggly wigglyness..."

I found turning things 180' interesting. Things homosexuals are criticized for are done as a matter of course by heterosexuals. Something to think about that I had not considered before.
Wow...thank you so much for being the first one not to fly off the handle and miss the point completely....

Thanks for the apology. Accepted and forgotten:)


Neither did we Johnny, neither did we :D

Thank you!

BTW:At least you can't say I'm biased, cause I really dislike everyone of all breeds.

Wow...thank you so much for being the first one not to fly off the handle and miss the point completely....

I didn't miss the point or fly off the handle, I merely pointed out that the questions only work if you take the reverse attitude, since I don't, I believe my score to be unreflective of my actual attitudes!

Don't you wish you'd eaten some Jello Pudding instead? *Bill Cosby impression* "It's jiggly and wiggly and it's got the goodness and the puddingness and the jiggly wigglyness..."
Sure, if they make tapioca pudding.

I scored a 372 and I was honest. The survey still sucked Squaw.
Wow, 372? What, did you write that homosexuals should be put in death camps or something?

I didn't miss the point or fly off the handle, I merely pointed out that the questions only work if you take the reverse attitude, since I don't, I believe my score to be unreflective of my actual attitudes!
Sorry...not the ONLY one then:) You're right...you didn't either.

Someone called me a 'Squaw' once but I didn't know what it meant :p

Someone called me a 'Squaw' once but I didn't know what it meant :p
Now you know, you female aboriginal you!

About the test though, I don't need a quiz to tell me I dislike queers!
See this is why I hate conservatism more than socialism. At least socialists aren't intolerant hypocrites.

See this is why I hate conservatism more than socialism. At least socialists aren't intolerant hypocrites.


How am I a hypocrite, and how am I a conservative by saying I dislike queerness?

Wow, 372? What, did you write that homosexuals should be put in death camps or something?


I don't wish death on them, but we should ship all US homosexuals to California and make it sort of like a leper colony. :)

Now you know, you female aboriginal you!
Hehe... I'm Arabic. I didn't know how Squaw came up in the fight.

Wow...thank you so much for being the first one not to fly off the handle and miss the point completely....

Two things I fear are being hypocritical and losing the ability to listen to other people's arguments. Homosexuality has been a rough idea to come to grips with for me. I am a Christian, in the Christian faith homosexuality is a sin. But I have known and liked quite a few homosexuals and cannot hate them as a group. I also do not agree with physical and verbal attacks upon them. If someone has a reasonable argument about homosexuality then fine, but simply saying you hate them or they are child molesters or something carries no wieght and is wrong.
As a Christian I also consider my own sins to be equal to anything a homosexual does and so do not feel it is right to judge them.
That sounds terribly negative, the whole, we are all sinful, but I choose not to worry about being sinful and to not see it as this pervasive evil in humanity. We are what we are, we are as God intended us to be and we should not go around feeling guilt over it all the time. Live in moderation and be reasonable and we will all be much happier.

I got a 39 *yawn*

See this is why I hate conservatism more than socialism. At least socialists aren't intolerant hypocrites.

I am a conservative and am not intolerant and hypocritical. This is a sweeping generalization. There are plenty of socialists who are intolerant hypocrites, ever attended university and listened to half the professors or students groups? All groups have their fringe people. Just sigh and shake your head, don't think your side is immune.

I'm more bothered by the fact that you had to count the points up yourself.... wonder what that says about me as a person?

Two things I fear are being hypocritical and losing the ability to listen to other people's arguments. Homosexuality has been a rough idea to come to grips with for me. I am a Christian, in the Christian faith homosexuality is a sin. But I have known and liked quite a few homosexuals and cannot hate them as a group. I also do not agree with physical and verbal attacks upon them. If someone has a reasonable argument about homosexuality then fine, but simply saying you hate them or they are child molesters or something carries no wieght and is wrong.
As a Christian I also consider my own sins to be equal to anything a homosexual does and so do not feel it is right to judge them.
That sounds terribly negative, the whole, we are all sinful, but I choose not to worry about being sinful and to not see it as this pervasive evil in humanity. We are what we are, we are as God intended us to be and we should not go around feeling guilt over it all the time. Live in moderation and be reasonable and we will all be much happier.

Yes, homosexuality is a sin in the christian religion, but remember, its only God's job to judge, so no matter what sins people do, you are not allowed to judge them. So better be happy and let them be happy too.

Yes, homosexuality is a sin in the christian religion, but remember, its only God's job to judge, so no matter what sins people do, you are not allowed to judge them. So better be happy and let them be happy too.

That's what I said.

The following is another internet test, and I apologise, but I think it's worthwhile:) It's for heterosexuals only...it wouldn't really work with anyone else:

http://www.mun.ca/the/attitudetest.html
Edit: This test is NOT meant to acurately test anything so difficult to measure as your attitude, but rather is meant to raise awareness about questions commonly asked of homosexuals by asking them of heterosexuals. In this context, do these questions make sense to ask of ANY sexuality?


Now that's a load of bullshit questions if I ever saw one. Wow.

Didn't even need to take the "test". It looks like a bunch of Mensa idiots got together and decided to do this. Fucking worthless, it is.

that test doesn't work for bisexuals :(. we're always left out, the unwanted middle child of the Human Sexuality Family.

that test doesn't work for bisexuals :(. we're always left out, the unwanted middle child of the Human Sexuality Family.


I thought that was the Hermophrodite.

How am I a hypocrite, and how am I a conservative by saying I dislike queerness?
Firstly, I've seen your other posts here. I'm pretty sure that you are conservative.

You're a hypocrite because you are for economic freedom but not personal freedom. American conservatives like you enjoy talking about "freedom" while restricting it for people who are not like them (i.e. male, straight, traditionalist Christian, etc.).

And disliking "queers" doesn't make you conservative, but I notice that many of your fellow American Republicans are homophobic.

I am a conservative and am not intolerant and hypocritical. This is a sweeping generalization. There are plenty of socialists who are intolerant hypocrites, ever attended university and listened to half the professors or students groups? All groups have their fringe people. Just sigh and shake your head, don't think your side is immune.
Yes, I'm sorry that my post sounded generalising and flamey. It's just that homophobia annoys me so much.

Don't think that socialism is "my side". Socialists tend to be very naive and misinformed people. But at least they are tolerant.

I thought that was the Hermophrodite.
"hermaphrodite" is not a sexual orientation, it is a physical state. hermaphrodites may be bisexual or they may be "unisexual" (only attracted to members of one sex).

that test doesn't work for bisexuals :(. we're always left out, the unwanted middle child of the Human Sexuality Family.
What is so attractive about both women and men to you bis?

(I'm not "phobic" against bisexuals... merely envious of them ;))

Go me. I got a 300-something, probably a 360-something.
Frankly, after completing the darned thing, I was laughing so much/so annoyed at it that I just didn't feel like wasting anymore of my valuable time by adding the numbers up.

This is not a test, it is propaganda. According to it, I am homophobic. But I am not homophobic, I just do not approve of homosexual behaior, as I believe it to be unnatural. I do not fear homosexuals.

It calls my views "heterosexist." I call my views "normal."

Oh well....

*prepares to get flamed to death*

"hermaphrodite" is not a sexual orientation, it is a physical state. hermaphrodites may be bisexual or they may be "unisexual" (only attracted to members of one sex).


Yeah, I guess that's why it's so different from just being "bisexual".

What is so attractive about both women and men to you bis?

erm, what isn't? men's and women's bodies are attractive in very different ways. it's like how the ocean and the desert are both beautiful even though there are so many differences between them. i could no more ignore the attractiveness of one gender than i could overlook the beauty of a desert sunset or an ocean vista.

According to it, I am homophobic. But I am not homophobic, I just do not approve of heterosexual behaior, as I believe it to be unnatural. I do not fear homosexuals.

It calls my views "heterosexist." I call my views "normal."

<---is confused.

<---is confused.

ACK! Typo. Should read homosexual in there.

Sorry.

*is still expecting flames*

ACK! Typo. Should read homosexual in there.

Sorry.

*is still expecting flames*
ahh, that's pretty much what i figured, but you never know around here...some people are pretty nutty. :)

ahh, that's pretty much what i figured, but you never know around here...some people are pretty nutty. :)

Sorry for the confusion. It's fixed now.

And after giving it some thought, I think I forgot to say one very important thing: I do not hate homosexual individuals, I only disapprove of their actions.

Someone brought a pamphlet into our GSA meeting (Gay-Straight Alliance) one time. On it was that entire list of questions, minus the ones that ask if you've ever done/felt/been anything against another group.

We looked at it, laughed, and then used it at our next Straight Talk (a panel of gays, bis, lesbians, and straight supporters in front of a class or group of people to ask questions at). You'd be amazed at how many of those questions we got, with the word "homosexual" replacing "heterosexual." I always find it funny that people actually ask these questions and never realize how ridiculous it would sound if someone else asked them the same question.

"When did you realize you were gay?"
"Well, when did you realize you were straight?"
"Ummm..."

"When did you realize you were gay?"
"Well, when did you realize you were straight?"
"Ummm..."

Now, in my opinion, that conversation would go like this:

"When did you realize you were gay?"
"Well, when did you realize you were straight?"
"What kind of question is that? That's like asking 'When did you realize you were alive?'!"

Heterosexuality is, in my opinion, the natural state of humans, and homosexuality is a chosen diversion from this norm.

However, that is only my opinion.

Now, in my opinion, that conversation would go like this:

"When did you realize you were gay?"
"Well, when did you realize you were straight?"
"What kind of question is that? That's like asking 'When did you realize you were alive?'!"

Heterosexuality is, in my opinion, the natural state of humans, and homosexuality is a chosen diversion from this norm.

However, that is only my opinion.
could you choose to be attracted to members of the same sex?

All babies are born with blue eyes. That must be the natural state of eyes. I wonder at what age most non-blue-eyed people chose to change their eye colour, and why? I disapprove of non-blue eyes.

All babies are born with blue eyes. That must be the natural state of eyes. I wonder at what age most non-blue-eyed people chose to change their eye colour, and why? I disapprove of non-blue eyes.
ooh, i like you. :)

I have blue eyes... Not that it matters, but I hear it's rather difficult for blue-eyed people to get damaged eyes from sunlight.

All babies are born with blue eyes. That must be the natural state of eyes. I wonder at what age most non-blue-eyed people chose to change their eye colour, and why? I disapprove of non-blue eyes.
its a rare thing, intelligence, but you seem to have plenty

All babies are born with blue eyes. That must be the natural state of eyes. I wonder at what age most non-blue-eyed people chose to change their eye colour, and why? I disapprove of non-blue eyes.
'pizown3d'

Hmm...interesting comparison with eye-color. However, it still comes down to my belief that homosexuality is a choice. You do not get to choose your eye-color.

Yes, I do believe that homosexuality is a choice. I believe it is the wrong choice, the same way I believe smoking is the wrong choice.

Call me uninformed, ultra-conservative, even puritanical, but I do not believe that homosexuality is in any way genetic/determined at birth. As of yet, the evidence for this opinion has seemed unconvincing to me.

Hmm...interesting comparison with eye-color. However, it still comes down to my belief that homosexuality is a choice. You do not get to choose your eye-color.

Yes, I do believe that homosexuality is a choice. I believe it is the wrong choice, the same way I believe smoking is the wrong choice.

Call me uninformed, ultra-conservative, even puritanical, but I do not believe that homosexuality is in any way genetic/determined at birth. As of yet, the evidence for this opinion has seemed unconvincing to me.


So, you're saying that girl across the street somehow chose to look like Dick Clark?

Hmm...interesting comparison with eye-color. However, it still comes down to my belief that homosexuality is a choice. You do not get to choose your eye-color.

Yes, I do believe that homosexuality is a choice. I believe it is the wrong choice, the same way I believe smoking is the wrong choice.

Call me uninformed, ultra-conservative, even puritanical, but I do not believe that homosexuality is in any way genetic/determined at birth. As of yet, the evidence for this opinion has seemed unconvincing to me.
you still haven't told me if you have the ability to choose to be gay.

So, you're saying that girl across the street somehow chose to look like Dick Clark?
:confused: What? Am I missing something obvious here, or does that not make any sense?

Physical appearance is genetic and not a matter of choice.

Behavior is not genetic and is a matter of choice.

Behavior is not genetic and is a matter of choice.
so you consciously choose who you are physically attracted to, then? when a girl walks by, you think: "hmm, i think i shall resolve to find that female physically appealing."

you still haven't told me if you have the ability to choose to be gay.

Yes. I could choose to be gay in the same way that I could choose to jump off a cliff, to eat a can of salted peanuts, or to cut class. However, I do not choose to do these things.

so you consciously choose who you are physically attracted to, then? when a girl walks by, you think: "hmm, i think i shall resolve to find that female physically appealing."


Amazing! Somebody got my subliminal message!

And it was so hard to decode! I mean, I spent thirty minutes just thinking of it.

Yes. I could choose to be gay in the same way that I could choose to jump off a cliff, to eat a can of salted peanuts, or to cut class. However, I do not choose to do these things.
those are actions; clearly, any of us can choose to do things we do not like. but could you choose to find pleasure in jumping off a cliff? could you choose to find pleasure in homosexual sex or a homosexual relationship, equal to the pleasure you find in a heterosexual relationship?

if homosexuality is a choice, then so is heterosexuality...that would make everyone naturally bisexual, homo/heterosexuals just choose not to act on certain impulses.

so you consciously choose who you are physically attracted to, then? when a girl walks by, you think: "hmm, i think i shall resolve to find that female physically appealing."

Yes and no. Conscious thought does play a role in deciding whom I find attractive, and it definitely determines wether or not I act upon those feelings.

Exactly.

Which is why all of this bullshit against homosexuals should stop immediately.

EDIT --- This post was in response to Nadkor's.

if homosexuality is a choice, then so is heterosexuality...that would make everyone naturally bisexual, homo/heterosexuals just choose not to act on certain impulses.
that is, interestingly, the conclusion that science seems to be leaning towards at this point. studies of primates suggest that human beings are probably "biologically" wired to be bisexual, but that we adjust the expression of our sexuality based on our environment during a critical developmental period. there are also suggestions that womb environment may yield a "predisposition" toward one end of the sexuality spectrum or the other, but these suggestions have not been solidly confirmed.

that is, interestingly, the conclusion that science seems to be leaning towards at this point. studies of primates suggest that human beings are probably "biologically" wired to be bisexual, but that we adjust the expression of our sexuality based on our environment during a critical developmental period.
bah, science. all we needed was someone to say homosexuality was a choice and then me to come in with some idea that i didnt think made sense.

but it does

those are actions; clearly, any of us can choose to do things we do not like. but could you choose to find pleasure in jumping off a cliff? could you choose to find pleasure in homosexual sex or a homosexual relationship, equal to the pleasure you find in a heterosexual relationship?

Yes, given a sufficient amount of mental disorders, I could choose to take pleasure in those actions.

Apparently so.

EDIT --- Once again directed in response to Nadkor's post. Damn you, Supreme Coolness!

Apparently so.

EDIT --- Once again directed in response to Nadkor's post. Damn you, Supreme Coolness!
you can use the quote button, you know...i find it the safest way usually

*slaps forehead*

I forgot. Silly me.

Yes and no. Conscious thought does play a role in deciding whom I find attractive, and it definitely determines wether or not I act upon those feelings.
you are dodging the question. you seem to be admitting that you are not consciously in control of all your feelings of attraction, and therefore you must admit there is an aspect of sexual attraction that is NOT a choice. nobody is arguing that we are able to consciously choose how to ACT on our attractions...that's a non-issue, here.

if homosexuality is a choice, then so is heterosexuality...that would make everyone naturally bisexual, homo/heterosexuals just choose not to act on certain impulses.

Personally, I believe that heterosexuality is the natural norm, as it is kind of necessary for the continuation of the species. (cf. natural selection)

Yes, given a sufficient amount of mental disorders, I could choose to take pleasure in those actions.
so you could not, as you currently are, choose to find pleasure in those things.

you seem to have a lot of trouble answering straight forward questions in a straight forward manner. why is that?

I think it's because he knows he's wrong about the subject, and he just doesn't want to admit it.

Personally, I believe that heterosexuality is the natural norm, as it is kind of necessary for the continuation of the species. (cf. natural selection)
but that doesnt stop homosexuality being an impulse rather than a choice. it would make it a hormonal or genetic defect, but not a choice...if people are born heterosexual then they are attracted to the opposite sex and no amount of choosing would make you attracted to the same sex

ignoring the fact that you wouldnt want to, do you feel like you could "choose", or force yourself, to be attracted to the opposite sex?

if the answers no, then homosexuality isnt a choice

Personally, I believe that heterosexuality is the natural norm, as it is kind of necessary for the continuation of the species. (cf. natural selection)
there are numerous explanations for how homosexuality can be perfectly consistent with natural selection. in many species, there have been well-documented situations in which homosexual behavior is more effective at getting the individual's genes into the next generation than heterosexuality would have been in that situation.

you are dodging the question. you seem to be admitting that you are not consciously in control of all your feelings of attraction, and therefore you must admit there is an aspect of sexual attraction that is NOT a choice. nobody is arguing that we are able to consciously choose how to ACT on our attractions...that's a non-issue, here.

What you say is true.
This is how I see the matter:

Homosexuality is not the state of being attracted to members of the same sex, it is the state of acting upon those desires. Therefore, I choose to not be homosexual.

But regardless, I am out of time for such arguments, as I must now be off.
Thank you all for the engaging conversation, no hard feelings. (yes, I'm serious)

What you say is true.
This is how I see the matter:

Homosexuality is not the state of being attracted to members of the same sex, it is the state of acting upon those desires. Therefore, I choose to not be homosexual.Therefore, I choose to not be homosexual.
you lose.

homosexuality is attraction...it has nothing or nothing to do with actually acting upon it

so youve admitted that being attracted to members of the same sex isnt a choice...?

oh, too late, youve run away....

What you say is true.
This is how I see the matter:

Homosexuality is not the state of being attracted to members of the same sex, it is the state of acting upon those desires. Therefore, I choose to not be homosexual.

does the same apply to heterosexuality? that would mean that all virgins are "asexual." that any person who is currently refraining from sex has no sexual orientation at all. it seems to lead to the conclusion that anybody who isn't having sexual contact AT THIS MOMENT has no sexual orientation, and that we each only have a sexual orientation when we are in the midst of a physical encounter.


But regardless, I am out of time for such arguments, as I must now be off.
Thank you all for the engaging conversation, no hard feelings. (yes, I'm serious)
how disappointing. i hope you will develop enough character for more substantial conversation in the future.

you lose.

homosexuality is attraction...it has nothing or nothing to do with actually acting upon it

so youve admitted that being attracted to members of the same sex isnt a choice...?

oh, too late, youve run away....


You deserve an award for this. I like anybody who can do what you have done. Want a cookie?

You deserve an award for this. I like anybody who can do what you have done. Want a cookie?
thanks :)

cookie :cool:

Yes. I could choose to be gay in the same way that I could choose to jump off a cliff, to eat a can of salted peanuts, or to cut class. However, I do not choose to do these things.

You are equating choosing to partake in gay actions with "being" gay. A street hustler who performs oral sex on men for money so he can buy food may be 100% heterosexual. He chooses to perform a gay action, but he is not made gay by doing so. I could go down on a woman, but that would not make me any less gay.

If, as you say, you feel that you could "choose" to be gay, it seems crystal clear that you are bisexual and have simply chosen not to act on part of your sexual impulses. A completely straight person could no more "choose" to be gay than I could "choose" to be straight. Believe me, with the HIV crisis and Matthew Shepherd crucifixions going on around us, NOBODY would choose to be gay.

But, are you sure you want it? You don't even know what kind it is...

*hint*

Starts with "Chocolate"
Ends with "Chip"

...Oh damnit, I always do that.

But, are you sure you want it? You don't even know what kind it is...

*hint*

Starts with "Chocolate"
Ends with "Chip"

...Oh damnit, I always do that.
:eek:

:D

(im still not entirely sure what i did to earn a cookie, but im not gonna turn it down)

isn't it disappointing when homophobes simply choose to re-define terms to suit themselves?

a sexual orientation is "the direction of one's sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes." this says nothing about how one ACTS upon one's sexual interest. a homosexual is one who has "a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex." thus, a homosexual is a person who has "sexual interest toward members of the same sex." this has nothing to do with how the homosexual choosed to act upon his/her interest.

if only people would pick up a book from time to time. they would save me so much effort.

They'd also save us a lot of time, though our post counts wouldn't be quite as high...

And the memories. It's really about the memories.

Way to much work to add it all up. But I can say that I am homophobic, I don't like gay men, it disturbs me, I'm fine with lesbians though, so I'm rather selective. I support gay marriage beside being slightly homophobic for three reasons: To get them to shut up; Spite the Pope; Why deny someone the right to sign a legal document.

how disappointing. i hope you will develop enough character for more substantial conversation in the future.

Yes, I am sorry. I will admit that my argument was poorly formulated, not well thought-out, as full of holes as swiss-cheese, and frankly, extremely crappy. I really should have known better than to try to argue something and translate Latin at the same time. Hopefully I will have a chance to reformulate my opinions on the matter in a coherent, non-contradictory manner.

In conclusion, I am not running off because I'm scared to admit I was bested in this argument. I admit it now, I lost this debate. Now please just don't flame me for running off without finishing the argument or answering the questions straightforwardly. Given more time, I'd love to do so.

Once again, I lose. This time. Hasta la vista.

if only people would pick up a book from time to time. they would save me so much effort.

If only people would admit that what they believe is baseless. Then the world would be better off.

Yes, I am sorry. I will admit that my argument was poorly formulated, not well thought-out, as full of holes as swiss-cheese, and frankly, extremely crappy. I really should have known better than to try to argue something and translate Latin at the same time. Hopefully I will have a chance to reformulate my opinions on the matter in a coherent, non-contradictory manner.

In conclusion, I am not running off because I'm scared to admit I was bested in this argument. I admit it now, I lost this debate. Now please just don't flame me for running off without finishing the argument or answering the questions straightforwardly. Given more time, I'd love to do so.

Once again, I lose. This time. Hasta la vista.
at least you can admit when you lose a debate, most people cant, and i doubt anyone will be flaming you

:)

Nup, I'm not heterosexist... w00t. :D

Yes, I am sorry. I will admit that my argument was poorly formulated, not well thought-out, as full of holes as swiss-cheese, and frankly, extremely crappy. I really should have known better than to try to argue something and translate Latin at the same time. Hopefully I will have a chance to reformulate my opinions on the matter in a coherent, non-contradictory manner.

In conclusion, I am not running off because I'm scared to admit I was bested in this argument. I admit it now, I lost this debate. Now please just don't flame me for running off without finishing the argument or answering the questions straightforwardly. Given more time, I'd love to do so.

Once again, I lose. This time. Hasta la vista.

Gained my respect simply for admiting to losing.

Nup, I'm not heterosexist... w00t. :D


Good! One less person to argue with. Well, that's a double-edged sword, really.

Yes. I could choose to be gay in the same way that I could choose to jump off a cliff, to eat a can of salted peanuts, or to cut class. However, I do not choose to do these things.

Whoa. Hold the phone. What the HELL is wrong with salted peanuts? {well besides the high salt content obviously}

Seriously though....Heterosexist? Are people just throwing words together these days to come up with new 'buzz' terms? Seriously, what next?

Metrophobic?
Omni-sexual?
Hermaphrodiety?

I've actually heard omni-sexual used to describe someone who loved everyone.

And pansexual too.

What if I don't feel like acknowledging and learning?

The following is another internet test, and I apologise, but I think it's worthwhile:) It's for heterosexuals only...it wouldn't really work with anyone else:

http://www.mun.ca/the/attitudetest.html
Edit: This test is NOT meant to acurately test anything so difficult to measure as your attitude, but rather is meant to raise awareness about questions commonly asked of homosexuals by asking them of heterosexuals. In this context, do these questions make sense to ask of ANY sexuality?
What a load of bollocks. Even given your edit, this is the most nonsensical and loaded quiz I've ever seen. I doubt even the head of the gay and lesbian alliance would pass this one.
Homosexuality IS unusual behaviour. Expect some/most people to react to you you somewhat differently. It doesn't make them some kind of monsters, it's just a normal human reaction to that which if different or unusual.

Firstly, I've seen your other posts here. I'm pretty sure that you are conservative.

You're a hypocrite because you are for economic freedom but not personal freedom. American conservatives like you enjoy talking about "freedom" while restricting it for people who are not like them (i.e. male, straight, traditionalist Christian, etc.).

And disliking "queers" doesn't make you conservative, but I notice that many of your fellow American Republicans are homophobic.




I hold no political viewpoint. I am in the middle. You know what happens when you assume, don't you?

Economic freedom and personal freedoms are two different things. That is not hypocritical. Hypocritcal would be saying that I'm for personal freedom, so long as you are white. I'm only for personal freedom in regards to me and my family.

I am not a christian in any sense, so I don't know what you speak of. I just dislike the queer agenda, and the disgusting sexual acts that they commit.

Since when has "heterosexist" even been a word anyway?

Yay! I'm not homophobic, But I didnt need a test to tell me that. People are people and those who cant recognize that need to take a good long look in the mirror. Besides I try to shy away from "ists" and "isims". :D

Yay! I'm not homophobic, But I didnt need a test to tell me that. People are people and those who cant recognize that need to take a good long look in the mirror. Besides I try to shy away from "ists" and "isims". :D
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

I'd like to preface this by saying that I don't consider myself homophobic. I scored 24 on the silly test (I laugh at gay/racist jokes and don't give concious thought to sexuality in most my decisions). But...

I think it's sort of odd that some people seem so insistent that sexuality is somehow a fixed essential character trait, and not something that could ever be changed intentionally. Though I'm straight and generally feel no attraction to men, I can put myself in a mindset where I find men attractive and women not, and I really don't think it would be all that difficult to make that my normal state. I think that to a large degree my sexuality is socially determined and maleable.

Now maybe that's not the case for everyone, but I think that insisting that everyone's sexuality is somehow an invariant property is going too far. Maybe some people feel a stronger pull to one side or the other, and maybe some people are less flexible in these things, but there's a lot of give too. And have known homosexuals/bisexuals who were definitely so by choice, not nature.

I think that insisting that homosexuality is never a choice suggests that you feel that if it were, it would be the wrong choice, and I find that disturbing.

BTW, can anyone explain how laughing at racist jokes makes you heterosexist? The logic there has got me stumped! :confused:

It doesn't. It doesn't make you one bit Heterosexist.

There is a word for people who are bi-sexual by choice....GREEDY :)


Through my shitty typing I discover an extremely cool word....bi-seZual! I'm easily amused.

I thought it was a little bit dumb. I got 12 points - the four checkboxes I got were not giving any particular thought to two of the last three questions, and wanting to ask people when they knew they were gay and if their parents knew.
That puts me at the beginning of the heterosexist range, and quite frankly I think that's a little bit bullshit. At least half, maybe more than that of the people in the high school at my school are GLBT. It's reasonable to ask "do your parents know" because a lot of people don't think they can tell their parents. On the first question, when did you know, well, for me it was actually an issue. I was given all the possibilities, messed around with the different ideas, and concluded I was straight during 8th grade. It's interesting to ask. As far as not giving much thought to stuff, well, that's the same as what the other person said that it's assuming you'll cater in a prejudiced way if you don't think about it.

What a waste of time that poll was! It didn't event tally up my score for me! Now I'll never know....

that test doesn't work for bisexuals :(. we're always left out, the unwanted middle child of the Human Sexuality Family.
Yeah...I guess both 'sides' are afraid you'll defect...

Now that's a load of bullshit questions if I ever saw one. Wow.

Didn't even need to take the "test". It looks like a bunch of Mensa idiots got together and decided to do this. Fucking worthless, it is.
Mensa...interesting.

Well, the test in my opinion, is as useful as you MAKE it...

But thanks for completely avoiding the question itself. Are you attitudes heterosexist?

But I am not homophobic, I just do not approve of homosexual behaior, as I believe it to be unnatural. I do not fear homosexuals.


This is one of the most common arguments I've heard about why someone "isn't homophobic". Homophobia does not just mean a 'fear' of homosexuals.

Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

You believe homosexuality to be unnatural. You have an AVERSION to homosexuality. To me, that is less important than the question of, "Do you discriminate against homosexuals"? By believing them to be unnatural, and believing YOUR sexuality to be the only 'natural' sexuality, then I would say most definately that your attitudes are heterosexist. Whether or not you are an active or passive homophobe is not the question (though I think you've answered it anyway).

Sorry for the confusion. It's fixed now.

And after giving it some thought, I think I forgot to say one very important thing: I do not hate homosexual individuals, I only disapprove of their actions.
Thanks for the thought actually.

As long as you can refrain from actively discriminating against them, I think you're still moving in a positive direction. Tolerance can be a difficult thing (I think most of us have had our tolerence sorely tried at some point). I guess though that this "test" wouldn't really have been appropriate for you though, since it was trying to get you to analyse certain assumptions that are often made about homosexuals (such as, they choose to be homosexual, they were abused and so chose their own sex and so on). If you already believe that their preferences are unnatural...wait...do you believe they choose to be homosexual or not? I guess I shouldn't assume what you base your views on homosexuality on...

Heterosexuality is, in my opinion, the natural state of humans, and homosexuality is a chosen diversion from this norm.

However, that is only my opinion.
Oh.

Never mind:) I'll read the rest of the posts before replying now!

Seriously though....Heterosexist? Are people just throwing words together these days to come up with new 'buzz' terms? Seriously, what next?


No, people are coming up with new words for things that were never named before, even though they existed. That's how language evolves. I think heterosexist is a valid word...heterosexism is viewing the world from the assumed position of normalcy as a heterosexual...assuming that the people you meet are heterosexual, finding nothing strange about public expressions of affection by heterosexual couples, and so on...while NOT applying those views of normalcy to other sexualities. It's a lens through which you view the world. That is has been the undisputed lens for so long is why this word is new...heterosexism has always existed, but the freedom to be homosexual has not, despite the fact that homosexuality has ALSO always existed.

What a load of bollocks. Even given your edit, this is the most nonsensical and loaded quiz I've ever seen. I doubt even the head of the gay and lesbian alliance would pass this one.
The head of the gay and lesbian alliance? Like there's only ONE alliance? (You've left out the B and the TT by the way) Talk about bollocks...

Homosexuality IS unusual behaviour. Expect some/most people to react to you you somewhat differently. It doesn't make them some kind of monsters, it's just a normal human reaction to that which if different or unusual.
Are you sure you actually read that test?

1. At what age did you realize that you were heterosexual?
2. How do you think you became heterosexual?
3. Is it possible that your heterosexuality is just a phase you may grow out of?*
4. Is it possible that your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of others of the same sex?*
5. If you have never slept with a person of the same sex, is it possible that all you need is a good Gay lover?*
6. Do your parents know that you are straight?*
7. Why do you insist on flaunting your heterosexuality? Can't you just be who you are & keep it quiet?*
8. Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?*
9. Why do heterosexuals feel compelled to seduce others into their lifestyle?*
10. A disproportionate majority of child molesters are heterosexual. Do you consider it safe to expose children to heterosexual teachers?*
11. Just what do men & women do in bed together? How can they truly know how to please each other, being so anatomically different?*
12. With all the societal support marriage receives, the divorce rate is spiraling. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?*
13. Considering the menace of overpopulation, how could the human race survive if everyone were heterosexual?*
I didn't quote them all, but these are the questions that are commonly asked of homosexuals. DO YOU THINK, PUT INTO THIS CONTEXT THAT THE QUESTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE? If not, why then are they appropriate to ask of homosexuals?

I don't care if you think homosexuality is unusual, or even if you like or dislike homosexuals. I care about whether your attitudes are based on anything other than that dislike. Do these questions make sense, asked of ANY sexual orientation?

BTW, can anyone explain how laughing at racist jokes makes you heterosexist? The logic there has got me stumped! :confused:
I think that one is a stretch too...but I think they were trying to show that while racist jokes are generally not acceptable for general audiences, homophobic jokes are still 'ok'. Take your office for example...could you get away with a racist joke? Could you get away with a homophobic joke? I know in MY workplace (a school), homophobic jokes are STILL 'fine'. Why is that exactly? I think it's because we recognise one mindset as flawed (racism) or at least not acceptable on a wider social level, while the other mindset (homophobia) is still supported by many.

that test doesn't work for bisexuals :(. we're always left out, the unwanted middle child of the Human Sexuality Family.
Poor you. i have a friend that is bi. might have more. So if you ask gay people questions about what they think of stuff that makes you homophobic? it makes no sense. i am not homophobic because i have gay friends and dont care, but according to this i am!
I mean the question
1. At what age did you realize that you were heterosexual?

a. infancy to age 4 (0)
b. age 5 to age 9 (0)
c. age 10 to age 12 (0)
d. age 13 to age 18 (0)
e. 18 or older (0)
f. what do you mean? I was always this way! (0)

If you have asked, or wanted to ask, a similar question to someone who is not heterosexual, check. (3)
So me asking my friend "when did you realise you where gay" is homophobic? Well i guess i must be a huge homophobe according to this. Most pointless test ever.

Poor you. i have a friend that is bi. might have more. So if you ask gay people questions about what they think of stuff that makes you homophobic? it makes no sense. i am not homophobic because i have gay friends and dont care, but according to this i am!
I mean the question
1. At what age did you realize that you were heterosexual?

a. infancy to age 4 (0)
b. age 5 to age 9 (0)
c. age 10 to age 12 (0)
d. age 13 to age 18 (0)
e. 18 or older (0)
f. what do you mean? I was always this way! (0)

If you have asked, or wanted to ask, a similar question to someone who is not heterosexual, check. (3)
So me asking my friend "when did you realise you where gay" is homophobic? Well i guess i must be a huge homophobe according to this. Most pointless test ever.
:rolleyes: Sorry, I hate rolling my eyes at people, but I find the lack of ability to take this test as anything but purely literal quite annoying. I think it was designed with a point system because for whatever reason, people tend to prefer to complete questionnaires when there is some sort of 'reward' at the end (points). The score is not the point of the test, the questions are.

Asking you friend, "when did you realise you were gay" is not homphobic. This is not a questionnaire about homophobia. It is a questionnaire about heterosexism. Have you ever asked a straight friend, "when did you realise you were straight?" If not, why not? If you would ask that of a gay friend, but not of a straight one, it implies that you consider one to be a choice, or something you 'realise' while the other just IS.