NationStates Jolt Archive

There have been many threads about whether homosexuality is a natural development or a choice. Here is an alternate question.

NOTE: This is a thread discussing homophobes, not homosexuals.

Doubtful, all of the phobias I know of have underlying reasons behind them.

Doubtful, all of the phobias I know of have underlying reasons behind them.
prove it.

Are we talking about being repulsed by the thought of homosexual sex, or repulsed simply by homosexuals? One I think can be natural - the other is natural in that people are always afraid of the unknown, but is pretty much societal.

Define "phobia" first... so that those who do not approve of homosexuality are not necessarily grouped with those who attempt to avoid or are genuinely bothered/afraid of homosexuals and/or homosexuality.

I think people can be naturally repulsed by homosexual activity. I'm repulsed by heterosexual activity.

Doubtful, all of the phobias I know of have underlying reasons behind them.

Not even the physical attraction of homosexuality? Can someone be naturally repulsed by the idea of sexual intercourse with a member of their own sex, or is it all ingrained by society?

yes.. hehe... depends on the appearance of the heterosexual/homosexual i suppose. hehe

I don't know. As someone who was "repulsed" by my own gayness in the beginning, I know that my "repulsion" was something I had been taught. I don't know about other people.

Well... define "repulsed?"

In our civilized, language speaking, abstract thought having context, it is natural for us to build rocket ships.

In the natural world I'm not sure how animals or people would react to things they themselves would not partake of, that isn't threatening to eat or otherwise disturb them. I think no; I think when you take away what are called "human sensibilities" no one is repulsed, in the "OMG thats disgusting/I disapprove and will try to stop it/I turn my head and feel awkward" way.

From a genetic standpoint, homosexuality in members of your species and sex can only be a GOOD thing for you. Less competitors for your genetic survival! So it's really only when you add crap like 'morals' that 'repulsion to homosexuality' can be found.

I think people can be naturally repulsed by homosexual activity. I'm repulsed by heterosexual activity.

Ah, the truth of it all... not that heterosexuals shouldn't be free to engage in those acts, I'd just rather not see it.

Actually I will say that it's possible by reason of pheremones ( they can be just as much a repulsant as the can an attractant )

Humans are naturally afraid of things they don't understand, don't know, or don't want to hold for real. Why someone would be afraid that someone else happens to be attracted to the same gender rather than the opposite one is a mystery to me, though. To answer the question, in my opinion it's all a matter of how you're raised and what people you've gotten to know during that time. Someone raised in the "bible belt" where people show an open disgust and even hate towards homosexuality would without a doubt be the same. Someone raised in San Francisco, where a two digit percentage of men and women are homosexual, will most likely be tolerant toward it, because it won't be anything "strange" and they'll be more likely to understand it.

Are we talking about being repulsed by the thought of homosexual sex, or repulsed simply by homosexuals? One I think can be natural - the other is natural in that people are always afraid of the unknown, but is pretty much societal.

Are homosexuals not defined by their sexual attraction to members of their own sex. I would say that the only reason for being a homophobe would be a reaction to being repulsed by the sexual component.

I feel repulsed when I see two dudes kissing all "freaky" on the street, however There are also times when I feel repulsed when I see a heterosexual couple kissing "freaky" on the street. Some people need to learn how to do that stuff at home, or just not in front of children. :p

Main Entry: 1re·pulse
Pronunciation: ri-'p&ls
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): re·pulsed; re·puls·ing
Etymology: Latin repulsus, past participle of repellere to repel
1 : to drive or beat back : REPEL
2 : to repel by discourtesy, coldness, or denial
3 : to cause repulsion in

thats from merriam webster. the gays on here see that word denial, and BANG! they are going to tell you are in denial, brad. i think you may have used the wrong word.

Someone raised in the "bible belt" where people show an open disgust and even hate towards homosexuality would without a doubt be the same.

Without a doubt? Sorry, but I just have a problem with this wording. There are "straight allies" in the Bible Belt who don't have a disgust/hate for gays.

Wow, I dislike homosexuals even more now I've read this thread.

Actually, I find all sexual activity unpleasant. Its just all so...sticky.

But I've found that gay people are 3 times more likely to be annoying than striaght people.

I feel repulsed when I see two dudes kissing all "freaky" on the street, however There are also times when I feel repulsed when I see a heterosexual couple kissing "freaky" on the street. Some people need to learn how to do that stuff at home, or just not in front of children. :p

I know what you're talking about. I wish people like that would just get a frickin' room!

Are we talking about being repulsed by the thought of homosexual sex, or repulsed simply by homosexuals? One I think can be natural - the other is natural in that people are always afraid of the unknown, but is pretty much societal.

Well put. The thought of homosexual sex is probably an inbuilt aversion, much like most people's wariness of snakes. Our progression as a race through time has given us some pointers with regards to how we act. Clearly a completely homosexual species would be unable to procreate, effectively wiping itself out..

Homophobia is simply a construct of society. Most men are scared of homosexuals because they think that homosexuals will try it on with them..

prove it.
Did you notice the words 'that I know of'? I do know at the very least that most are. Whether all of them are? Dunno.

Wow, I dislike homosexuals even more now I've read this thread.

Actually, I find all sexual activity unpleasant. Its just all so...sticky.

But I've found that gay people are 3 times more likely to be annoying than striaght people.

Way to pull out some ridiculous statistics, there. Have you had those published in any major psychiatric journals?

Well... define "repulsed?"

In our civilized, language speaking, abstract thought having context, it is natural for us to build rocket ships.

In the natural world I'm not sure how animals or people would react to things they themselves would not partake of, that isn't threatening to eat or otherwise disturb them. I think no; I think when you take away what are called "human sensibilities" no one is repulsed, in the "OMG thats disgusting/I disapprove and will try to stop it/I turn my head and feel awkward" way.

From a genetic standpoint, homosexuality in members of your species and sex can only be a GOOD thing for you. Less competitors for your genetic survival! So it's really only when you add crap like 'morals' that 'repulsion to homosexuality' can be found.
explain what happens when the race dies out, and there is 9 elderly, inbreds to sleep with.

Wow, I dislike homosexuals even more now I've read this thread.

Well, we don't like you either. So there.

But I've found that gay people are 3 times more likely to be annoying than striaght people.

Look in the mirror.

I believe that a 'natural' repulsive instinct to alternative sexuality can only be something brought about as a result of someone's twisted upbringing, most likely those influenced by outdated and irrelevent (predominately Christian) cultural ideas.

When I first heard the word 'gay' at about age 5 (not sure where from), I just asked my mum what it meant. She basically explained it as simply being "when a man loves a man, or a woman loves a woman" - neutral, non-bigoted terms. And I believe it is as a result of this matter of fact explanation that I have absolutely no feelings of disgust, repulsion, misplaced anger or resentment against those who practice any form of alternate sexuality. I just accepted it as a different kind of love at the time, and I still do.

Main Entry: 1re·pulse
Pronunciation: ri-'p&ls
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): re·pulsed; re·puls·ing
Etymology: Latin repulsus, past participle of repellere to repel
1 : to drive or beat back : REPEL
2 : to repel by discourtesy, coldness, or denial
3 : to cause repulsion in

thats from merriam webster. the gays on here see that word denial, and BANG! they are going to tell you are in denial, brad. i think you may have used the wrong word.

Definition three is what we are going for:

To cause repulsion,

Repulsion - Extreme aversion.

explain what happens when the race dies out, and there is 9 elderly, inbreds to sleep with.

West Virginia.

Way to pull out some ridiculous statistics, there. Have you had those published in any major psychiatric journals?

60% of all statistics are pulled out of someone's... :D

I believe that a 'natural' repulsive instinct to alternative sexuality can only be something brought about as a result of someone's twisted upbringing, most likely those influenced by outdated and irrelevent (predominately Christian) cultural ideas.

When I first heard the word 'gay' at about age 5 (not sure where from), I just asked my mum what it meant. She basically explained it as simply being "when a man loves a man, or a woman loves a woman" - neutral, non-bigoted terms. And I believe it is as a result of this matter of fact explanation that I have absolutely no feelings of disgust, repulsion, misplaced anger or resentment against those who practice any form of alternate sexuality. I just accepted it as a different kind of love at the time, and I still do.
Very good! *thumbs up* :D

Did you notice the words 'that I know of'? I do know at the very least that most are. Whether all of them are? Dunno.
well, i dont think its fair to say that thinking gayness is gross means you have a phobia- defined here-
Main Entry: pho·bia
Pronunciation: 'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
Etymology: -phobia
: an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation (merriam webster)

i just think its nasty. i am not scared of it, just sickened. like how i get when i think about having sex with a 300 pound hairy guy with no teeth.

I don't think homophobia is a natural occurance. I think it is something that society has pounded into many otherwise good human beings' brains, and very few people actually break through and remove from their minds.

West Virginia.
hahhahahhahhahha. i dont expect you to sa something that funny. hear my applause.

well, i dont think its fair to say that thinking gayness is gross means you have a phobia- defined here-
Main Entry: pho·bia
Pronunciation: 'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
Etymology: -phobia
: an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation (merriam webster)

i just think its nasty. i am not scared of it, just sickened. like how i get when i think about having sex with a 300 pound hairy guy with no teeth.
i always have to quote myself on Vitt- whoops, Internet tough guys threads. he taught me how. any how, aposter said his/her mum explained it in very simple terms. well, it was explained to me basically the same text, and i still think its just wrong. minds are developed in different ways.

I believe that a 'natural' repulsive instinct to alternative sexuality can only be something brought about as a result of someone's twisted upbringing, most likely those influenced by outdated and irrelevent (predominately Christian) cultural ideas.

When I first heard the word 'gay' at about age 5 (not sure where from), I just asked my mum what it meant. She basically explained it as simply being "when a man loves a man, or a woman loves a woman" - neutral, non-bigoted terms. And I believe it is as a result of this matter of fact explanation that I have absolutely no feelings of disgust, repulsion, misplaced anger or resentment against those who practice any form of alternate sexuality. I just accepted it as a different kind of love at the time, and I still do.

What I am asking is, if someone can be naturally sexually attracted to a member of their own sex, why would it not be possible to be naturally sexually repulsed by members of their own sex.

I understand that it could be a societal brainwashing, but why couldn't it be natural.

I don't think homophobia is a natural occurance. I think it is something that society has pounded into many otherwise good human beings' brains, and very few people actually break through and remove from their minds.

Then could we say that homosexuals are raised in a situation that would promote sexuality?

I think you should hold both homosexuals and homophobes to the same standard.

i started noticing homophobia a lot more in 7th grade. when my dad came out. by the time i got into high school, i was bristling at every utterence of the word "fag", though i've calmed a good deal since.

Then could we say that homosexuals are raised in a situation that would promote sexuality?

I think you should hold both homosexuals and homophobes to the same standard.
I think a good bit of homosexuals who accept their sexuality and "come out" do so because they are in an enviroment accepting of this. I mean, if you live in a state like... I dunno... Alabama... ;) ...your chances of accepting this and being a part of the GLBT community are not as good, I would think. You're forced to be "normal". You're forced to be homophobic. I hope you got my point this time. I can get all passionate in a discussion and forget to make sense. :D

I think people can be naturally repulsed by homosexual activity. I'm repulsed by heterosexual activity.

Makes sense to me. I'm repulsed by people having sex with animals.

Are homosexuals not defined by their sexual attraction to members of their own sex. I would say that the only reason for being a homophobe would be a reaction to being repulsed by the sexual component.

Homosexuals are attracted to members of their own sex, yes. And guess what? Many are repulsed by the thought of heterosexual sex. The very thought disgusts them. That doesn't mean that they are repulsed by heterosexuals themselves.

Most homophobes are repulsed by homosexuals themselves. This is due to social conditioning telling them that there is something "wrong" with homosexuals.

Personally, I am not repulsed by the thought of sex with either gender, but I guess I'm lucky that way. =) Certain sexual acts, however, completely repulse me. I don't know if that is social conditioning or not, but I don't worry about it too much, because it doesn't change my relationships with *people* at all.

Humans are naturally afraid of things they don't understand, don't know, or don't want to hold for real. Why someone would be afraid that someone else happens to be attracted to the same gender rather than the opposite one is a mystery to me, though. To answer the question, in my opinion it's all a matter of how you're raised and what people you've gotten to know during that time. Someone raised in the "bible belt" where people show an open disgust and even hate towards homosexuality would without a doubt be the same. Someone raised in San Francisco, where a two digit percentage of men and women are homosexual, will most likely be tolerant toward it, because it won't be anything "strange" and they'll be more likely to understand it.

Very True. This reason is why we also have Terrorists, Crime, Gangs, Cannibals, Tyrants, Genocide, World Wars and Beastiality. Oh, and John Kerry. Things adapt to their enviroment. Maybe if you grew up in Iraq 10-20 years ago, with wars going in your country and all sorts of bad stuff going on, you might have been one of the Terrorists in 9/11.

Just because a person/or persons has adapted to a different lifestyle, doesn't mean it's right. Even though it may appear right to them.

Criminals & Terrorists have jails and conseling, why don't gays?

i dont think its natural to be repulsed

there are societys where homosexual acts are a perfectly accepted part of society that everyone does

Well put. The thought of homosexual sex is probably an inbuilt aversion, much like most people's wariness of snakes. Our progression as a race through time has given us some pointers with regards to how we act. Clearly a completely homosexual species would be unable to procreate, effectively wiping itself out..

That's not what I said at all. Don't project your bigotry onto me.

The thought of homosexual sex in *heterosexuals* being an inbuilt aversion makes sense - as it is not something they want to do. The thought of heterosexual sex in homosexuals is the same. In those of us who swing at least partially both ways, we have no aversion to sex with either, but may have aversions to certain sexual acts.

Very True. This reason is why we also have Terrorists, Crime, Gangs, Cannibals, Tyrants, Genocide, World Wars and Beastiality. Oh, and John Kerry. Things adapt to their enviroment. Maybe if you grew up in Iraq 10-20 years ago, with wars going in your country and all sorts of bad stuff going on, you might have been one of the Terrorists in 9/11.

Just because a person/or persons has adapted to a different lifestyle, doesn't mean it's right. Even though it may appear right to them.

Criminals & Terrorists have jails and conseling, why don't gays?

1. There are a good bit of people who don't believe that homosexuality is wrong, immoral, or a crime in any way.
2. There are camps and counselors and psychologist that will try to "cure" homosexuality as though it's a disease.

There have been many threads about whether homosexuality is a natural development or a choice. Here is an alternate question.

NOTE: This is a thread discussing homophobes, not homosexuals.

If we're talking actual repulsion, then yes. I have two very dear friends who are gay and have no problem hugging them or being in their presence, but I most certainly do not want to see the two of them engaged in the act of sex.

However, homophobia would be an irrational fear, not a repulsion. I would be rather disgusted seeing a man having sex with a sheep, but that doesn't mean I have a fear of it.

So are we talking about fear or repulsion here?

Very True. This reason is why we also have Terrorists, Crime, Gangs, Cannibals, Tyrants, Genocide, World Wars and Beastiality. Oh, and John Kerry. Things adapt to their enviroment. Maybe if you grew up in Iraq 10-20 years ago, with wars going in your country and all sorts of bad stuff going on, you might have been one of the Terrorists in 9/11.

Just because a person/or persons has adapted to a different lifestyle, doesn't mean it's right. Even though it may appear right to them.

Criminals & Terrorists have jails and conseling, why don't gays?
i like him. he's silly.

Criminals & Terrorists have jails and conseling, why don't gays?
Perhaps because they aren't doing anything that would merit being thrown in jail?

Very True. This reason is why we also have Terrorists, Crime, Gangs, Cannibals, Tyrants, Genocide, World Wars and Beastiality. Oh, and John Kerry. Things adapt to their enviroment. Maybe if you grew up in Iraq 10-20 years ago, with wars going in your country and all sorts of bad stuff going on, you might have been one of the Terrorists in 9/11.

Just because a person/or persons has adapted to a different lifestyle, doesn't mean it's right. Even though it may appear right to them.

Criminals & Terrorists have jails and conseling, why don't gays?

Because we aren't harming other people. Also, the APA's stance on the subject of homosexuality is that it is not chosen, and they are right.

1. There are a good bit of people who don't believe that homosexuality is wrong, immoral, or a crime in any way.
2. There are camps and counselors and psychologist that will try to "cure" homosexuality as though it's a disease.

Well, don't miscontrue my argument.

The point I'm making is that ALOT of people who have been terrorists, tyrants, soldiers who have participated in genocide and world war believe/believed that what they were doing was also right.

Also, there are camps and counselors and psychologists that will try to cure murders, terrorists, etc also. But it's not a disease, IS IT?!

Because we aren't harming other people. Also, the APA's stance on the subject of homosexuality is that it is not chosen, and they are right.
are you saying, ABSOLUTLEY no one choose to be gay? i think that is bull shit. what about gays that choose to be straight? getting married, having kids, etc?

There have been many threads about whether homosexuality is a natural development or a choice. Here is an alternate question.

NOTE: This is a thread discussing homophobes, not homosexuals.

People are weird, I don't think it's impossible, just highly improbable. Most virulent Homophobes are that way, because they've got other issues-everything from molestation issues ,to being 'closeted', to just being unthinkingly accepting of their local prejudices.
There was this kid I knew in high school who just hated gay people... I ran into him a few months ago, and he's in a steady relationship with a nice younger gentleman in central seattle. They seem happy together.
I wouldn't call that typical, though.

I think a person might be naturally repulsed by some forms of sexual play-but that's not a matter of orientation. (I'm sorry, taking a really big crap hurts, and it smells bad down there... ick.)

are you saying, ABSOLUTLEY no one choose to be gay? i think that is bull shit. what about gays that choose to be straight? getting married, having kids, etc?

Actually, the bullshit is assuming that you are either gay or straight. Sexuality, much like skin color, is a spectrum. Most people are further towards one side or the other, but quite a few exist nearer the middle.

Perhaps because they aren't doing anything that would merit being thrown in jail?

So if someone grew up in the south ghetto around the life of gangs and crime and that became a part of there life and how they exist.

You would throw them in jail for doing that is natural to them?

So if someone grew up in the south ghetto around the life of gangs and crime and that became a part of there life and how they exist.

You would throw them in jail for doing that is natural to them?
Where'd you get that from?
That has literally nothing to do with what I said.
Read it again, and try again.

So if someone grew up in the south ghetto around the life of gangs and crime and that became a part of there life and how they exist.

You would throw them in jail for doing that is natural to them?
hee hee. hilarious. i know there's some kind of thought process going into this. i jsut don't know what it is.

Actually, the bullshit is assuming that you are either gay or straight. Sexuality, much like skin color, is a spectrum. Most people are further towards one side or the other, but quite a few exist nearer the middle.
what.

Actually, the bullshit is assuming that you are either gay or straight. Sexuality, much like skin color, is a spectrum. Most people are further towards one side or the other, but quite a few exist nearer the middle.
And that describes me, for one.

are you saying, ABSOLUTLEY no one choose to be gay? i think that is bull shit. what about gays that choose to be straight? getting married, having kids, etc?

Yes I am. You can be gay, yet engage in a heterosexual act, marry a person of the opposite sex, and have kids. Just because they've decided to live their lives that way does not defeat the fact they are gay. If you are gay, you have an attraction to your own sex. That attraction does not go away, but people decide to supress their desires because society tells them the way they feel is wrong.

what.

Sexuality is a spectrum, with completely gay on one side and completely straight on the other. Most people are not 100% either way, although a great deal are 90-99% one way or the other. The rest of us are more in the middle. I would say that I am probably 60-70% straight. I have ended up in a long-term relationship with a member of the opposite sex, but it could have possibly gone the other way. Thus, I had a choice of which gender I would date. However, I did not *choose* my place on the spectrum.

what.

I think the idea being presented, is that most people are somewhat bisexual on a 'natural' level, but are further to one side of the spectrum than the others.
Instead of "Black and White" you get varying shades of 'Gray".

Given some of the more...unusual porn on the INternet, there may be a point to this.

Yes I am. You can be gay, yet engage in a heterosexual act, marry a person of the opposite sex, and have kids. Just because they've decided to live their lives that way does not defeat the fact they are gay. If you are gay, you have an attraction to your own sex. That attraction does not go away, but people decide to supress their desires because society tells them the way they feel is wrong.
kinda like my father. thank god for denial, is all i got to say. it would suck to not exist.

Where'd you get that from?
That has literally nothing to do with what I said.
Read it again, and try again.


A life of gang and crime naturally merits jail time. Sorry for confusion.

If we're talking actual repulsion, then yes. I have two very dear friends who are gay and have no problem hugging them or being in their presence, but I most certainly do not want to see the two of them engaged in the act of sex.

However, homophobia would be an irrational fear, not a repulsion. I would be rather disgusted seeing a man having sex with a sheep, but that doesn't mean I have a fear of it.

So are we talking about fear or repulsion here?

It is about the natural repulsion.

The point of the note was to remind people this discussion wasn't about homosexuals.

I think the irrational fear comes from the repulsion, so I distinguished homophobes since they are the most noticeable group who are repulsed by homosexuality.

Sexuality is a spectrum, with completely gay on one side and completely straight on the other. Most people are not 100% either way, although a great deal are 90-99% one way or the other. The rest of us are more in the middle. I would say that I am probably 60-70% straight. I have ended up in a long-term relationship with a member of the opposite sex, but it could have possibly gone the other way. Thus, I had a choice of which gender I would date. However, I did not *choose* my place on the spectrum.
define most. this is completely ridiculous. bisexuality is so popular now a days, they should make jeans.

who you have sex with, and who you can fall in love with...two diff. things. dumb drunk teenage girls making out for attention when they are drunk , usually are in no way gay. if you fuck sheep, would you marry one? want it for a wife? no. its a sexual devianism. and that is how i think most bi sexuals are. IMHO, the middle of the spectrum just cant make strong choices.

Well, don't miscontrue my argument.

The point I'm making is that ALOT of people who have been terrorists, tyrants, soldiers who have participated in genocide and world war believe/believed that what they were doing was also right.

Also, there are camps and counselors and psychologists that will try to cure murders, terrorists, etc also. But it's not a disease, IS IT?!
Ooh... sorry, I have to do the numbered debate thing again. ;)

1. I never said homosexuals nessecarily believe that homosexuality is "right".
2. I never said that homosexuality is a disease. I said there were places that "treat" homosexuality as though it is a disease. I also never said murderous tendencies were a disease, but many people do believe such things are an indication of bad mental health, just as many believe the same about homosexuality.
3. These places exist because there is demand. People do believe you can rehabilitate homosexuals as though they are murderers, drug abusers, etc. They do believe homosexuality is wrong. I was just pointing this out to you.

kinda like my father. thank god for denial, is all i got to say. it would suck to not exist.

:) Yeah, I can see where you come from on the thank god for denial ;) I have a friend in my daily life who wouldn't exist if it wasn't for that. Of course his dad is out now, divorced, and looking.

And the scale that Dem is talking about is the Kinsey scale. Feel free to google it if you wish.

:) Yeah, I can see where you come from on the thank god for denial ;) I have a friend in my daily life who wouldn't exist if it wasn't for that. Of course his dad is out now, divorced, and looking.

And the scale that Dem is talking about is the Kinsey scale. Feel free to google it if you wish.
yeah. my dad found a nice texan. i'm not sure what his middle name is, but it starts with a d. making his full name Durrell D. Dew. Not a joke. Poor bastard was doomed from the start.

define most.

Most=majority. The vast majority are in the 90-99% straight range. Something like 10% are in the 1-10% range. And some of us lie somewhere in between.

who you have sex with, and who you can fall in love with...two diff. things.

Who you are *attracted to* is what describes sexuality - and those who you are sexually attracted to are those you can fall in love with.

Two teenage girls making out are probably not attracted to each other - most of them do it for attention or to make the boys around them horny. However, some girls are attracted to girls - and there is nothing wrong with that in the least.

IMHO, the middle of the spectrum just cant make strong choices.

Well, most bigots like to place stereotypes on those they don't like. You go right ahead and have fun. I wonder though, my strong choice to be in a monogomous relationship with someone doesn't count?

yes its natural

when you were prepubescent and learned "how babies are made" you found it DISGUSTING. most people refuse to believe that their parents did THAT. most refuse to believe they did it more than once (or once for each child), with their eyes closed, retching the whole time, just so they could get that baby started.

then you hit puberty, hormones kicked in and it started seeming like not such a bad idea. once you go to the point where you could actually rub up against a girl, it seemed like a great idea.

if you dont get a charge of of the thought of gay sex, it still seems disgusting. it really is only the "transport of passion" that makes physical sex seem like a better idea than artificial insemination.

people get obsessed with the thought of what gay people "do". as if those sex acts are all that is involved in who they are. because YOU wouldnt do it, THEY shouldnt do it. that they insist on doing it, makes them bad bad people.

its not until you know a gay person as an individual that you get past it. his or her sex life is none of your business, just as the sex life of your straight friends is none of your business. you see him for who he is, not what he does "in bed". you see the pain that homophobia causes him and you realize that its wrong.

are you saying, ABSOLUTLEY no one choose to be gay? i think that is bull shit. what about gays that choose to be straight? getting married, having kids, etc?

Choosing to act straight != "choosing to" be straight.

Most=majority. The vast majority are in the 90-99% straight range. Something like 10% are in the 1-10% range. And some of us lie somewhere in between.



Who you are *attracted to* is what describes sexuality - and those who you are sexually attracted to are those you can fall in love with.

Two teenage girls making out are probably not attracted to each other - most of them do it for attention or to make the boys around them horny. However, some girls are attracted to girls - and there is nothing wrong with that in the least.



Well, most bigots like to place stereotypes on those they don't like. You go right ahead and have fun. I wonder though, my strong choice to be in a monogomous relationship with someone doesn't count? your strong choice will cease to be strong once you decide that you are slipping to the other side of that spectrum, and think you may be attracted more to the sex opposite the one you are dating now. how selfish.i would have had fun debating- but now i am a bigot. gays cry too easy. is that biggoted enough for you?

Choosing to act straight != "choosing to" be straight.
how are they acting straight if they are never sexually attracted to the hetero they married, and are just going through the motions?

"Can Someone Be Naturally Repulsed By Homosexuality?"

Of course. Where the problem comes in is when they fail to separate their repulstion towards homsexuality from those who practice it.

"Can Someone Be Naturally Repulsed By Homosexuality?"

Of course. Where the problem comes in is when they fail to separate their repulstion towards homsexuality from those who practice it.
the old guy ALWAYS has something smart to say. :)

"Can Someone Be Naturally Repulsed By Homosexuality?"

Of course. Where the problem comes in is when they fail to separate their repulstion towards homsexuality from those who practice it.
shit. you are centrist.

your strong choice will cease to be strong once you decide that you are slipping to the other side of that spectrum, and think you may be attracted more to the sex opposite the one you are dating now. how selfish.i would have had fun debating- but now i am a bigot. gays cry too easy. is that biggoted enough for you?

So you assume that just because Dem is in the middle region that he's going to be more licentious than people who aren't? After all, once you start dating someone, you start to think you may be attracted to a different person of the same gender that your current one is now more than that person you're with. How selfish.

your strong choice will cease to be strong once you decide that you are slipping to the other side of that spectrum, and think you may be attracted more to the sex opposite the one you are dating now. how selfish.i would have had fun debating- but now i am a bigot. gays cry too easy. is that biggoted enough for you?

Actually, it won't, as the choice to be with someone precludes all other attractions. Sure, I see other girls I am attracted to. I see guys other than my boyfriend I am attracted to. However, I have fallen in love with someone already - the rest of those people don't count.

Meanwhile, who said anything about changing position on the spectrum? I specifically stated that no one chooses where they are on it.

Yes, you are a bigot. If you don't want to be one, then stop being one.

Wow, I'm pretty amazed at the amount of bigotry directed at the people who are neither completey gay or completely straight. Apparently it's not ok to be prejudicial against gay people, but it's ok to be prejudicial against people in the middle. I am not saying bisexual because I think that term does imply a bit of 'looseness.'

I can say for a fact that I know that sexuality is a spectrum. I am attracted to both sexes. I'm just attracted to women a little more than I am to men. I have been in a monogamous relationship with my girlfriend for over three years.

As far as choice goes, I don't know about everyone, but I could choose to be straight or gay.

Someone earlier said they found gay people three times more likely to be annoying than straight people. I can see where they are coming from. What is up with the strange voice affects? I'll be honest, I don't like people who talk in annoying voices no matter what their sexual persuasion.

"Can Someone Be Naturally Repulsed By Homosexuality?"

Of course. Where the problem comes in is when they fail to separate their repulstion towards homsexuality from those who practice it.

Exactly.

I am completely repulsed by mayonaise. I think it is disgusting. However, I don't protest against people who eat it.

Wow, I'm pretty amazed at the amount of bigotry directed at the people who are neither completey gay or completely straight. Apparently it's not ok to be prejudicial against gay people, but it's ok to be prejudicial against people in the middle. I am not saying bisexual because I think that term does imply a bit of 'looseness.'

I can say for a fact that I know that sexuality is a spectrum. I am attracted to both sexes. I'm just attracted to women a little more than I am to men. I have been in a monogamous relationship with my girlfriend for over three years.

As far as choice goes, I don't know about everyone, but I could choose to be straight or gay.

Someone earlier said they found gay people three times more likely to be annoying than straight people. I can see where they are coming from. What is up with the strange voice affects? I'll be honest, I don't like people who talk in annoying voices no matter what their sexual persuasion.

Wow... I'm amazed at your stereotyping seeing as not all of us have that voice, nor is it limited to gay people. And it wouldn't be a choice to be straight or gay, it would be a choice to be in a gay relationship or a straight relationship. It doesn't change where you lie on the spectrum and thus your sexuality, it just changes which way you are choosing to act on.

Wow... I'm amazed at your stereotyping seeing as not all of us have that voice, nor is it limited to gay people. And it wouldn't be a choice to be straight or gay, it would be a choice to be in a gay relationship or a straight relationship. It doesn't change where you lie on the spectrum and thus your sexuality, it just changes which way you are choosing to act on.

I never said all gay people have that voice. However, I think that most people who do have that voice are gay. It really must suck for the straight people with that voice, because it is clearly recognized by most people as a sign of homosexuality.

On the other hand, I haven't noticed any real outward signs common for lesbians.

"Can Someone Be Naturally Repulsed By Homosexuality?"

Of course. Where the problem comes in is when they fail to separate their repulstion towards homsexuality from those who practice it.

Congratulations, I agree with you completely.

I personally find the idea of engaging in homosexual intercourse to be highly repulsive. I shuddeded just writing this post. But I'm not repulsed in the slightest by homosexuals themselves, and indeed I support equal rights for them. I'm not sure if that's what you were asking, but there you go.

I never said all gay people have that voice. However, I think that most people who do have that voice are gay. It really must suck for the straight people with that voice, because it is clearly recognized by most people as a sign of homosexuality.

On the other hand, I haven't noticed any real outward signs common for lesbians.

Butch hair cuts would be an outward sign, although not all who do that are lesbian, but a good portion, but I wouldn't say the butch haircut is prominant among the large portion. At least the ones I know mainly have the normal feminine hair style.

I personally find the idea of engaging in homosexual intercourse to be highly repulsive. I shuddeded just writing this post. But I'm not repulsed in the slightest by homosexuals themselves, and indeed I support equal rights for them. I'm not sure if that's what you were asking, but there you go.

Would oral or anal sex with a member of the opposite gender offend you?

It's fun. ;)

I personally find the idea of engaging in homosexual intercourse to be highly repulsive. I shuddeded just writing this post. But I'm not repulsed in the slightest by homosexuals themselves, and indeed I support equal rights for them. I'm not sure if that's what you were asking, but there you go.

Your obvious desire to show that you DON'T LIKE homosexuality makes me wonder whether you don't have some repressed homosexuality in you.

Any posts directed to me here after may not get a reply. I'm heading off to work... meh.

I never said all gay people have that voice. However, I think that most people who do have that voice are gay. It really must suck for the straight people with that voice, because it is clearly recognized by most people as a sign of homosexuality.

On the other hand, I haven't noticed any real outward signs common for lesbians.
Okay, time to go to my own personal experience.

There once was a boy named Zach who looked like a nerd and talked in a stereotypically gay voice. However, Zach was in the 6th grade and sucked up to all the right people and was very, very popular. Zach dated all the popular girls for some reason (Zotona) could not understand. Zach is most likely not gay, and is for whatever reason very popular, but Zach has the highest voice in the entire school. (Zotona) hates Zach for having a much girlier voice than her.

True story. On the other hand, the one kid stupid enough to "come out" in middle school (6th grade, when I ended my public schooling years and started homeschooling.) had a rough, masculine voice. Interesting, that. I hereby conclude that voice has nothing to do with sexuality.

Sorry, had to add my twenty five cents to the conversation.

Your obvious desire to show that you DON'T LIKE homosexuality makes me wonder whether you don't have some repressed homosexuality in you.

You can wonder whatever you want, you won't get a 'rise' out of me.

Your obvious desire to show that you DON'T LIKE homosexuality makes me wonder whether you don't have some repressed homosexuality in you.

That's an accusation I hear a lot, and I think it's bunk. The purpose of that accusation is to keep people form saying they don't like homosexuality unless they want to be labled homosexual. Total bullshit. :headbang:

You can wonder whatever you want, you won't get a 'rise' out of me.

I never add smileys, but that one would have gotten a razz if I did. I was just giving you a hard time.

That's an accusation I hear a lot, and I think it's bunk. The purpose of that accusation is to keep people form saying they don't like homosexuality unless they want to be labled homosexual. Total bullshit.

There have been psychological studies that have shown that many homophobes are sexually aroused by seeing other men in sexual situations. So there is definitely a correlation between homophobic behavior and repressed homosexual feelings.

As for Mykonians, I don't want to imply that he is a homophobe, I don't think he is. I also am nowhere near qualified or informed enough to make a comment on his sexuality. I just was giving him a hard time.

I never add smileys, but that one would have gotten a razz if I did. I was just giving you a hard time.

I just can't resist opportunities for crude jokes :D

Just a funny little side note about homophobia, my friends and i have a new meaning for it "the fear of..." the ... is a person's name. He is straight, who knows, he may be bi, but as his gf i'm pretty sure he's straight, lol, but anyways, he has several males completely terrified of him because he likes to touch them and hug them a lot and people find it uncomfortable, i find it hilarious to see him hit on some guys from school and then see them run away in terror, lol

something else about homophobia, people don't believe it is possible for homosexuals to be homophobe, but i think it is entirely possible. it's all about society i think, society has said it's bad so people see it as bad and are therefore "repulsed" by it.

and now, i would like to say more but unfortnately i have to run!!! :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: ;) ;) ;)

I just can't resist opportunities for crude jokes :D

Not only did I miss the obvious pun in your reply, but I posted another completely unintentional pun in mine.

something else about homophobia, people don't believe it is possible for homosexuals to be homophobe, but i think it is entirely possible. it's all about society i think, society has said it's bad so people see it as bad and are therefore "repulsed" by it.
Yes, I'll agree with that.

There have been many threads about whether homosexuality is a natural development or a choice. Here is an alternate question.

NOTE: This is a thread discussing homophobes, not homosexuals.


Someone can be naturally "repulsed" by homosexuality. I can only speak for myself in saying that I am repulsed by a "flagrant display" of homosexuality-ie-two people of the same gender going overboard with displays of affection in public. I dont care to see a heterosexual couple going overboard in public either. I dont need public proof of someone's orientation, the same way I dont swagger and scratch myself and grope my wife and stick my toungue down her throat in public. I'm open minded-if thats someone's preference, its fine with me.If its a natural development or a choice doesnt matter-it is what it is. I hope as a heterosexual, I am not repulsing anyone myself.
I live and let others live, until its in my face. I hope I'm not a "homophobe"-I'm not scared of them, nor do I discrininate against them. I am friends with two guys that are married to each other. Both of them are well educated,ambitious and successful. They are obviously wery happy together. And I am happy for them. They are refined and not swishing and lisping and putting on a whole broadway show-quite the opposite. I am envious of how well they have done-they dont have to worry about taking care of three kids like me, so they have nicer stuff than I do. *L*

i personally think i is MOSTLY taught because of socity and possible religion saying homosexuality is wrong i mean mom let me hang around gay stairght and bi people and told me it was ok and im not bothered when a chick hits on me i just play along even though im mostly straight i think parents should at least teach their kids that homosexualty is not wrong or a sin so if their kid turns out to be gay they wont have to go to a syche *i cant spell* :rolleyes:

Are homosexuals not defined by their sexual attraction to members of their own sex. I would say that the only reason for being a homophobe would be a reaction to being repulsed by the sexual component.

No, homosexuals are not defined solely by sexual attraction. Is heterosexual love just about sex with people of the opposite gender? NO!

Neither is homosexuality.

Its about love, about commitment, about passion, about laughter, about feeling no so alone in the world. And yes, there is a sexual component. However, that is hardly all there is too it. I say its a disgrace to reduce either homosexuality or heterosexuality down to being only about carnality.

No, homosexuals are not defined solely by sexual attraction. Is heterosexual love just about sex with people of the opposite gender? NO!

It is this attraction, however, which determines who you look for romantic love with.

Your sexuality is determined by who you are attracted to. Whether or not you find love, commitment, etc. in that attraction is dicated by who you are.

Yes.

There have been many threads about whether homosexuality is a natural development or a choice. Here is an alternate question.

NOTE: This is a thread discussing homophobes, not homosexuals.
it depends on what you mean by "naturally."

it is highly unlikely that there is some genetic basis for homophobia, and it is equally unlikely that any in utero events cause a person to become a homophobe. however, it is possible that a person's upbringing and personal experience will cause them to develop homophobia; this is as "natural" as somebody developing a fear of enclosed spaces after a traumatic experience in a cave or something. in this sense it is also "natural" for a child born into a racist family to be racist in their adulthood, even though the racism wasn't passed on genetically.

i don't think most homophobes woke up one day and said, "i think i'm going to hate gay people now." whether or not their bigotry is "natural" doesn't really concern me.

Ignorance really is bliss, i see. :headbang:

Social behaviors are learned. An avoidance of homosexuals - perhaps a palpable disgust for them - is not vital to one's evolution or survival, and so is probably not genetically encoded into the individual. It must then be a learned, social behavior. Little boys call each other "gay" and "fag" as huge insults before they even learn what they mean; grown men beat and kill other men whom they discover are homosexual. These aren't natural acts. They're the result of a social stigma.

Before Christianity hopped along, in it's attempt to demonize the Romans, homosexuality wasn't all that bad in most of the world. It was common practice. That's not a normative endorsement of homosexuality; I'm simply saying that up until a certain point in human history, humans had no problem with homosexuality. Thus disgust with homosexuals is, historically speaking, a recent development. And so if it is "natural", we must have evolved pretty quickly there.

I find homosexual acts icky, does that count?

I think it's possible, just as people can be repulsed by, I dunno, beans and such.

Can Someone Be Naturally Repulsed By Homosexuality ?

Homosexual sex: possibly. As someone already pointed out children are often repulsed by the idea of sex alltogether, gay sex is no exception to this. But.. this could to a degree (the thought of two sweating moaning people does "not particulary arouse me" to use an eufemism) be due to the fact that things like poop and pee are considered dirty. Sex afterall is the act of inserting organs associated with excrement and urine into eachother (and a vagina after sex can be argued to not be very aestetically pleasing to look at).

Since poop is in general considered more dirty than pee, anal sex would probably be considered even more repulsive than vaginal sex to people.

it depends on what you mean by "naturally."

it is highly unlikely that there is some genetic basis for homophobia, and it is equally unlikely that any in utero events cause a person to become a homophobe. however, it is possible that a person's upbringing and personal experience will cause them to develop homophobia; this is as "natural" as somebody developing a fear of enclosed spaces after a traumatic experience in a cave or something. in this sense it is also "natural" for a child born into a racist family to be racist in their adulthood, even though the racism wasn't passed on genetically.

i don't think most homophobes woke up one day and said, "i think i'm going to hate gay people now." whether or not their bigotry is "natural" doesn't really concern me.

Social behaviors are learned. An avoidance of homosexuals - perhaps a palpable disgust for them - is not vital to one's evolution or survival, and so is probably not genetically encoded into the individual. It must then be a learned, social behavior. Little boys call each other "gay" and "fag" as huge insults before they even learn what they mean; grown men beat and kill other men whom they discover are homosexual. These aren't natural acts. They're the result of a social stigma.

Before Christianity hopped along, in it's attempt to demonize the Romans, homosexuality wasn't all that bad in most of the world. It was common practice. That's not a normative endorsement of homosexuality; I'm simply saying that up until a certain point in human history, humans had no problem with homosexuality. Thus disgust with homosexuals is, historically speaking, a recent development. And so if it is "natural", we must have evolved pretty quickly there.

Amen.

Homosexual sex: possibly. As someone already pointed out children are often repulsed by the idea of sex alltogether, gay sex is no exception to this. But.. this could to a degree (the thought of two sweating moaning people does "not particulary arouse me" to use an eufemism) be due to the fact that things like poop and pee are considered dirty. Sex afterall is the act of inserting organs associated with excrement and urine into eachother (and a vagina after sex can be argued to not be very aestetically pleasing to look at).

Since poop is in general considered more dirty than pee, anal sex would probably be considered even more repulsive than vaginal sex to people.

As viewing bodily functions as "dirty" is largely (if not entirely) a learned behavior, you have pretty much answered your own point.

Social behaviors are learned. An avoidance of homosexuals - perhaps a palpable disgust for them - is not vital to one's evolution or survival, and so is probably not genetically encoded into the individual. It must then be a learned, social behavior. Little boys call each other "gay" and "fag" as huge insults before they even learn what they mean; grown men beat and kill other men whom they discover are homosexual. These aren't natural acts. They're the result of a social stigma.

Before Christianity hopped along, in it's attempt to demonize the Romans, homosexuality wasn't all that bad in most of the world. It was common practice. That's not a normative endorsement of homosexuality; I'm simply saying that up until a certain point in human history, humans had no problem with homosexuality. Thus disgust with homosexuals is, historically speaking, a recent development. And so if it is "natural", we must have evolved pretty quickly there.
Yeah, besides whichI don't really see a gene for "repulsion towards homosexuality..." I suppose someone could argue that it was paired with the gene for heterosexuality, but I'm straight and I'm not repulsed by lesbians...

As viewing bodily functions as "dirty" is largely (if not entirely) a learned behavior, you have pretty much answered your own point.

I know - but it was a viewpoint that was missing so far. And it is not entirely learned behaviour- I am quite certain few people consider the aroma of poop pleasing for instance.
Though I have seen kids play with it.

I am quite certain few people consider the aroma of poop pleasing for instance.
Though I have seen kids play with it.
Yay! Shit pies for all!

It is this attraction, however, which determines who you look for romantic love with.

Your sexuality is determined by who you are attracted to. Whether or not you find love, commitment, etc. in that attraction is dicated by who you are.

Or maybe my sexual attraction is determined by whom it is that I look for romance and emotional fulfillment from? It's the chicken or the egg.

My point is that homosexuality is NOT just about sex.

My point is that homosexuality is NOT just about sex.
That is one of those annoying, evil myths! Now where's that thread...

Or maybe my sexual attraction is determined by whom it is that I look for romance and emotional fulfillment from? It's the chicken or the egg.

My point is that homosexuality is NOT just about sex.

I never meant to say that homosexuality is just about sex. A homosexual relationship is exactly the same as a heterosexual relationship except for one defining difference, which is the gender that you find sexually or romantically attractive.

For the homosexual individuals on NS, do you find members of the opposite sex sexually repulsive?

I never meant to say that homosexuality is just about sex. A homosexual relationship is exactly the same as a heterosexual relationship except for one defining difference, which is the gender that you find sexually or romantically attractive.

For the homosexual individuals on NS, do you find members of the opposite sex sexually repulsive?


I don't. Indeed, I can derive quite a lot of pleasure from the aesthetic beauty of the female form. However, there is nothing there for me--nothing sexual or romantic. Women are good friends to me, but that is all.

And it is not entirely learned behaviour- I am quite certain few people consider the aroma of poop pleasing for instance. Though I have seen kids play with it.Finding feces repugnant is a natural behavior, or so some scientists believe. Throughout our evolution, people who didn't have a problem with being near feces or having feces in their general vicinity usually died from rather unpleasant diseases, whereas those who found feces undesirable tended to live more often.

The point of this poop-talk is just that there are certain things we avoid because it has been historically/scientifically beneficial for us to do so. It is not useful to us to avoid or be aggressive towards a homosexual, however, so it doesn't make sense that we would do that naturally.

Edit: I would note, however, that when it comes to finding actual sexual acts disgusting, those feelings are based on inclination, not on evolutionary tendencies. Some people find heterosexual anal sex just as disgusting as homosexual anal sex. Same can go for oral sex. Same can go for sex in general! It's a matter of how you're brought up.

I am repulsed by homosexuals in general. More precisely, that one we tied up to that tree and thrashed quite badly. Heck, if he didn't want to get beat, why did he show up at that party?

Oops, did I type that out loud?

I am repulsed by homosexuals in general. More precisely, that one we tied up to that tree and thrashed quite badly. Heck, if he didn't want to get beat, why did he show up at that party?

Tell me you were trying to make a horrible joke much gone awry.

Tell me you were trying to make a horrible joke much gone awry.Wadd is satirical. Relax. ;)

Wadd is satirical. Relax. ;)

Am I.

We were arrested for that though. He was tied to that tree for almost a week before they found him. He healed really good.

I guess what I am saying is that my community and myself don't really like "abnormal" types.

*looks at the thread*

Oh what the...

*is very disgusted*

*looks at the thread*

Oh what the...

*is very disgusted*

I'm sorry if I was too crass for your liberal PC sensibilities. :(

I'm sorry if I was too crass for your liberal PC sensibilities. :(

Eh?

I don't think you get what I mean. Feel free to think however you wish --- But I'll feel just as free to call you out for it. Not always directly, but still.

Eh?

I don't think you get what I mean. Feel free to think however you wish --- But I'll feel just as free to call you out for it. Not always directly, but still.

See, that's the problem with most lefties. You just aren't decisive. Instead of beating around the bush, strike back. You see in this world, there is only black and white, so it isn't too hard to call them as you see them.

See, that's the problem with most lefties. You just aren't decisive. Instead of beating around the bush, strike back. You see in this world, there is only black and white, so it isn't too hard to call them as you see them.

Ah, I get it. I have to conform to your views on the world. Yeah, I'll do that.

Just as soon as I thank George W. Bush for his hundreds of wonderful deeds.

Ah, I get it. I have to conform to your views on the world. Yeah, I'll do that.

Just as soon as I thank George W. Bush for his hundreds of wonderful deeds.

This has nothing to do with Bush. Why do you kinds of people have to bring Bush up? In my mind he is a traitor to the nation, just like all previous modern presidents. Bush, like all modern presidents have sold "us" out. As in "us" I mean the rightful citizens of this once great nation.

If you saw the world from my eyes. You'd be curled up in the corner, balling.

This has nothing to do with Bush. Why do you kinds of people have to bring Bush up? In my mind he is a traitor to the nation, just like all previous modern presidents. Bush, like all modern presidents have sold "us" out. As in "us" I mean the rightful citizens of this once great nation.

If you saw the world from my eyes. You'd be curled up in the corner, balling.
*shifty*

*shifty*


Balling means crying. Shut your sewer, you scum.

Balling? That sounds... Disturbing.

...Fucking hell, ANOTHER screwy mental image! Damnit, I'm pissed.

Balling means crying. Shut your sewer, you scum.

My, aren't we friendly.

Balling means crying. Shut your sewer, you scum.
you mean Bawling?

you mean Bawling?
Yeah, that one.

Yeah, that one.
balling seems alot more painful than bawling

I've got a pretty good idea of what "balling" is...

...

you mean Bawling?

No I mean Balling as, you'll be crying when she does stomps on your testicles. That is Balling, and I always cry after that treatment.

Actually, it won't, as the choice to be with someone precludes all other attractions. Sure, I see other girls I am attracted to. I see guys other than my boyfriend I am attracted to. However, I have fallen in love with someone already - the rest of those people don't count.

Meanwhile, who said anything about changing position on the spectrum? I specifically stated that no one chooses where they are on it.

Yes, you are a bigot. If you don't want to be one, then stop being one.
i, apparently, am a bigot because i am not bisexual . great. how all inclusive of you.

No I mean Balling as, you'll be crying when she does stomps on your testicles. That is Balling, and I always cry after that treatment.
that would be Bawling then

meh...different spellings for the same word

i, apparently, am a bigot because i am not bisexual . great. how all inclusive of you.

Wrong again. You are a bigot because you have a quite obvious prejudice against bisexuals. I don't care what your sexuality is, nor would I say something as stupid as you did like "All homosexuals are X" or "All heterosexuals are Y" if I *did* know.