NationStates Jolt Archive

You seem to be stereotyping(generalizing w/e) the homosexual male lifestyle...

ooh, ooh, I'm a homosexual male, tell me what my lifestyle is.

Statistically speaking, you will not have a monogamous relationship that lasts for more than 3.5 years... ever … in your entire life. Statistically speaking. I don't know you.


More to the point than about ‘you’ though, there are statistically next to zero homosexual ‘couples’ raising children. That does not mean that there are none. It means that there are not enough of them for us to have yet made ANY meaningful studies of homosexual male couples with children…. So, I we are forced to look at general homosexual male behavior and determine the likelihood of them producing a good home for raising children. Do you want to tell us the likelihood of that?

Statistically speaking, you will not have a monogamous relationship that lasts for more than 3.5 years... ever … in your entire life. Statistically speaking. I don't know you.

You don't know what you are talking about. I already destroyed those sources with some adequate sourcing. Statistically speaking? Statistics from thirty years ago based on a lousy sample!

More to the point than about ‘you’ though, there are statistically next to zero homosexual ‘couples’ raising children. That does not mean that there are none. It means that there are not enough of them for us to have yet made ANY meaningful studies of homosexual male couples with children…. So, I we are forced to look at general homosexual male behavior and determine the likelihood of them producing a good home for raising children. Do you want to tell us the likelihood of that?

There are many homosexual couples raising children. You need to understand there is nothing wrong with a homosexual male couple raising children. YOu just use these wrong studies to back up your ridiculous claims.

Lifestyle is a word people toss around like candy.. it is a misnomer.

He generalizes big time on false statistics. I already proved him false several times. And he runs away.


To you, proof is whether or not you typed it, if you did, then it's proof enough for you. :rolleyes:

There are many homosexual couples raising children. You need to understand there is nothing wrong with a homosexual male couple raising children. YOu just use these wrong studies to back up your ridiculous claims.


You would think so wouldn't you... why don't you go back to at those studies again, while you're thinking of it. You will find that they have a disclaimer (we didn't have a large enough group o homosexual male couples to be included in this study, blah blah blah)....

To you, proof is whether or not you typed it, if you did, then it's proof enough for you. :rolleyes:

wake the fcuk up, I provided counter evidence that showed how your studies and sources were wrong.

You would think so wouldn't you... why don't you go back to at those studies again, while you're thinking of it. You will find that they have a disclaimer (we didn't have a large enough group o homosexual male couples to be included in this study, blah blah blah)....

I discredited your studies, and they don't have credibility. You should think about it. How the hell can you use bad studies for your ridiculous argument?

wake the fcuk up, I provided counter evidence that showed how your studies and sources were wrong.

You sure typed enough posts about one bad study, yes you did. And damn well made sure we knew how you felt about that too, yes you did.

You sure typed enough posts about one bad study, yes you did. And damn well made sure we knew how you felt about that too, yes you did.

Oh no. I discredited the both studies you posted. You certainly harp on about these false studies.

I discredited your studies, and they don't have credibility. You should think about it. How the hell can you use bad studies for your ridiculous argument?

Then why don't you just go right out there and find a nice homosexual male couple family raising children study for us and prove me wrong. Show us how these kids are doing compared to other kids in their areas are doing, you know, compared to children in their biological parents home homes, in single parent homes, in remarried homes heterosexual home and in and in lesbian homes.

No having a standard is not necessarily homophobic, but having a standard does not require that one attempts to coerce others into complying with that standard.

You know, people have responded to my post by saying one of two things: one, there is not a universal standard from the Bible on homosexuality, and two, having standards are not necesarily homophobic. Let me say two things:
1) Any one who takes the Old and New Testament serious can not get away from homosexual acts being sin. Its that simple. This does not make me a religious bigot, just someone who trusts God more than the newest science or social acceptance.
2) Stating what your standards for a good life are is homophobic. It is offensive to tell someone that their choices are wrong. Guess what? It is also OK to be offensive in this life. I don't think people will agree with me on that one.

You can not get rid of temptation whether homosexual or heterosexual temptation. A homosexual (a person who lusts after and/or is attracted to the same sex) is just like an alcoholic where neither can escape their inner drive for doing something wrong. Both may even be genetic. The difference, however, is huge. Society admits that an alcoholic has a drinking problem. Society says homosexuality is OK. Alcoholics do not have parades, demand extra rights, nor claim that driving drunk is OK. The homosexual community flaunts their choices by having gay day at your local amusement park, have parades and protests in DC and NY, demand extra rights in marriage, and claim that their sexual acts are OK.

Here is another problem: if you believe that what someone is doing is wrong and hurtful, shouldn't you say something? If you say a close friend or family member hurting themselves by cutting themselves on a regular basis, wouldn't the loving thing be to step in and help them by pointing out their destructiveness. This is the delimma for those who beleive homosexuality is wrong. We love people and want to help them. We feel compelled out of love to first build a relationship with others, care for them, and then help them out of their destructiveness by stating what they are doing is wrong. I realize though that many skip the part where you have to earn the right to be heard and just force themselves on others out of exuberance.

I don't want my daughter to grow up in a society where people hate. I will teach her that she should love even those who make destructive choices in their lives. The real bigots are those who preach violence and discrimination, not those who hold God's standards high. History has proven that those who hold up God's standards are really those who are targeted for violence and discrimination.

Then why don't you just go right out there and find a nice homosexual male couple family raising children study for us and prove me wrong. Show us how these kids are doing compared to other kids in their areas are doing, you know, compared to children in their biological parents home homes, in single parent homes, in remarried homes heterosexual home and in and in lesbian homes.

You are speaking without facts. I don't have to disprove a statement you can't even back up.

Wait, you posted two studies? where is the second?

I read the one about sexual partners and mentioned sex in public restrooms...I thought it was retarded.

Wait, you posted two studies? where is the second?

I read the one about sexual partners and mentioned sex in public restrooms...I thought it was retarded.

He stated a source that was biased from the late 1970s.. not very credible don't you think?

Oh no. I discredited the both studies you posted. You certainly harp on about these false studies.

Oh you misunderstood... I was talking about the single study that you posted that was even a real study at all... But of course, it didn't say what you said it did. In fact, it had a disclaimer saying what you were saying about it was in fact NOT true... but aw well, that happens when you post a link to a review of study you haven't actually read.

Oh you misunderstood... I was talking about the single study that you posted that was even a real study at all... But of course, it didn't say what you said it did. In fact, it had a disclaimer saying what you were saying about it was in fact NOT true... but aw well, that happens when you post a link to a review of study you haven't actually read.

Dude, you are making any sense. Damn it, stop harping on old studies from thirty years ago. I'm very tired of it. The study was based on a bad sampling. A study isn't fact if it doesn't go by proper guidelines. Your studies you posted were borderline unethical and I hope the "doctors" in it were censured by the medical community.

Dude, you are making any sense. Damn it, stop harping on old studies from thirty years ago. I'm very tired of it. The study was based on a bad sampling. A study isn't fact if it doesn't go by proper guidelines. Your studies you posted were borderline unethical and I hope the "doctors" in it were censured by the medical community.

You're not very good at this are you? What part of your own study did you not like now?

You're not very good at this are you? What part of your own study did you not like now?

I already stated why it was unethical.

You guys don't seem to be talking about the same study. Mesatecala keeps saying it was Greenlander's, and Greenlander keeps saying it was Mesatecala's.

You guys don't seem to be talking about the same study. Mesatecala keeps saying it was Greenlander's, and Greenlander keeps saying it was Mesatecala's.

I'm talking about his study.

You know, people have responded to my post by saying one of two things: one, there is not a universal standard from the Bible on homosexuality, and two, having standards are not necesarily homophobic. Let me say two things:
1) Any one who takes the Old and New Testament serious can not get away from homosexual acts being sin. Its that simple. This does not make me a religious bigot, just someone who trusts God more than the newest science or social acceptance.
Anyone who takes the teachings of scientology seriously cannot get away from the fact that phsychologists are evil agents in cohorts with the evil Overlord Xanu.
2) Stating what your standards for a good life are is homophobic. It is offensive to tell someone that their choices are wrong. Guess what? It is also OK to be offensive in this life. I don't think people will agree with me on that one.
How exactly is this relevent to my comments? If the manner in which you do so, would not be a breach of your rights, were someone to try the same tactics to get you to change from being a christian to a scientolgist for instance, then I dont see a problem. The standard of bigotry is would this breach my rights if someone were doing this to me in order to get me to accept a standard I do not uphold or believe to be right?

You can not get rid of temptation whether homosexual or heterosexual temptation. A homosexual (a person who lusts after and/or is attracted to the same sex) is just like an alcoholic where neither can escape their inner drive for doing something wrong.
Both may even be genetic. The difference, however, is huge. Society admits that an alcoholic has a drinking problem.
But does society prevent alcoholics from marrying each other?

Society says homosexuality is OK.
Which society? Most societies do not have a unified stance that homosexuality is ok.

Alcoholics do not have parades, demand extra rights, nor claim that driving drunk is OK.
Actually many alcoholics claim that it is fine for them to drive when drunk, and many actually do it. I am not aware of any special rights being claimed by homosexuals, perhaps you can be more specific.

The homosexual community flaunts their choices by having gay day at your local amusement park, have parades and protests in DC and NY, demand extra rights in marriage, and claim that their sexual acts are OK.
Many groups flaunt aspects of their identity, so what? I am not aware of any significant demands for extra rights in marraige, and I see no insurmountable problem with people claiming that their behaviour is OK, more particularly when it appears they are correct in making such a claim.

Here is another problem: if you believe that what someone is doing is wrong and hurtful, shouldn't you say something?
I suggest the context would have a lot to do with whether or not it is best in a particular circumstance to advise others in such a manner. However how is this relevent to my comments, I have not suggested people cannot advise others, I have suggested that any degree of coercion that would be unacceptable when used against you, is probably unacceptable when used against others.

If you say a close friend or family member hurting themselves by cutting themselves on a regular basis, wouldn't the loving thing be to step in and help them by pointing out their destructiveness. This is the delimma for those who beleive homosexuality is wrong. We love people and want to help them. We feel compelled out of love to first build a relationship with others, care for them, and then help them out of their destructiveness by stating what they are doing is wrong.
Er no, it is the dilema for some who think homosexuality is wrong. Many who think it is wrong do so with no love whatsoever. I would find an assertion that those who bash people over just because they are homosexuals, are not doing so out of loving concern.

I realize though that many skip the part where you have to earn the right to be heard and just force themselves on others out of exuberance.
Or out of hatefulness, egoism, or any number of equally 'dubious' motivations.

I don't want my daughter to grow up in a society where people hate. I will teach her that she should love even those who make destructive choices in their lives. The real bigots are those who preach violence and discrimination, not those who hold God's standards high. History has proven that those who hold up God's standards are really those who are targeted for violence and discrimination.
Violence and discrimination are in most instances unacceptable forms of coercion regardless who is being coerced and who is coercing.

personaly, i think the only people who worry about homosexuality is the people who haven't come out yet, or are seceretly oppresing their desires. Otherwise, why do you care about other peoples' orientation? why care? just let it go!

"If you say a close friend or family member hurting themselves by cutting themselves on a regular basis, wouldn't the loving thing be to step in and help them by pointing out their destructiveness. This is the delimma for those who beleive homosexuality is wrong. We love people and want to help them. We feel compelled out of love to first build a relationship with others, care for them, and then help them out of their destructiveness by stating what they are doing is wrong."

There are three things in this world; What a person wants, what a person needs, and what other people thing that person needs.

"If you say a close friend or family member hurting themselves by cutting themselves on a regular basis, wouldn't the loving thing be to step in and help them by pointing out their destructiveness. This is the delimma for those who beleive homosexuality is wrong. We love people and want to help them. We feel compelled out of love to first build a relationship with others, care for them, and then help them out of their destructiveness by stating what they are doing is wrong."

There are three things in this world; What a person wants, what a person needs, and what other people thing that person needs.

I say the same thing. I forget who posted that. But that's a deluded line of thinking. Homosexuality is not wrong. And those who believe it is wrong have the issue of trying to change to us... they don't understand they are causing huge amounts of damage. I'm happy the way I am and there is nothing destructive about the way I am.

Homophobia
Fear of sameness, monotony or of homosexuality or of becoming homosexual.

The term homophobia often seems to be misused. How scary is gayness? Ridiculous maybe but not scary.


I am not against people being gay (altho the act does seem a bit violent), go ahead if you must, but damn stop with slapping the old homophobe tag around as soon as there is even the slightest hint of anti-gayness.

People hate what they fear. thats all i have to say on the subject.

I say the same thing. I forget who posted that. But that's a deluded line of thinking. Homosexuality is not wrong. And those who believe it is wrong have the issue of trying to change to us... they don't understand they are causing huge amounts of damage. I'm happy the way I am and there is nothing destructive about the way I am.

Exactly, that's the difference between what a person needs and what other people think he needs.

I say the same thing. I forget who posted that. But that's a deluded line of thinking. Homosexuality is not wrong. And those who believe it is wrong have the issue of trying to change to us... they don't understand they are causing huge amounts of damage. I'm happy the way I am and there is nothing destructive about the way I am.

o, so by being HAPPY AND CONTENT, they are cause problems? only if you believe that being gay is a problem in the first place.

People hate what they fear. thats all i have to say on the subject.

"Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering."

-Yoda

I say the same thing. I forget who posted that. But that's a deluded line of thinking. Homosexuality is not wrong. And those who believe it is wrong have the issue of trying to change to us... they don't understand they are causing huge amounts of damage. I'm happy the way I am and there is nothing destructive about the way I am.

I agree 100%

I may not be completely happy with myself, and some of my habits are destructive, but these are unrelated to my gay-ness.

The people who have issues with homosexuality need to take care of those issues.

Trying to "fix" what's not broken is not the right way to go about it, however.

o, so by being HAPPY AND CONTENT, they are cause problems? only if you believe that being gay is a problem in the first place.

They believe the fact that i'm in a loving relationship that it is bad.. and evil.. and that god told them it is wrong (when really a book and religious fundies did).

They don't have a basis for their line of thought.

okie dokie. here's one perspective in ze melting pot.


I'm gay, I wish I wasn't. Doesn't mean I'm not proud of it, and doesn't mean I won't express my love of men. I do it because I know that there is no changing, and I express it (I'm out there however I don't light dry brush on fire as I pass) because I'm proud of who I am. Given the chance, sure I'd want to be straight, but even the brainwashing that "gay fixing" does doesn't make them straight, it makes them think they can be straight. Sorry babe, you're made the way you are, deal. Homophobia is yes the fear of homosexuals. People will refute that saying they aren't scared of them, they just don't like them. That my friends is homophobia. People say all homophobic people are just denying themselves. Most people, are at least partly bi. Some people are completely behind one door. Not liking gay people doesn't make you gay, but it doesn't make you not gay either. Same as hating black people. Or hating all women. Or hating straight people (yes there are heterophobes) The term is used same as racism. Racism can be used as fear as well as hate. The name just doesn't imply it. You aren't gay, fine, don't be gay. You don't like us, shut up and don't like us over there. You want to hurt us, we'll sick our lesbians on you ^_^. We honestly couldn't care less about your opinion, it will only confuse us, not change us. Therefore my final words are, love who you love, hate who you hate, don't confuse the two, and don't push either. GAY POWER! :fluffle:

This definition, although legitimate perhaps, is a load of crap. It makes it sound as though if you even have a thought against homosexuality, you're a homophobe and that's just bullshit. A phobia isn't just a fear, its an irrational fear, usually one that the owner of the fear cannot cope with. To use this term to describe an aversion is simplistic and excessively liberal in its use. I don't care for the TV show Fear Factor, this doesn't make me phobic of it. You can disagree and even dislike something without the term phobia applying to you.

I guess it depends on what you see is part of homosexuality.

Sure, not everyone is into pride parades; heck for me, all parades are about, are a group of attention seeking tossers looking at getting their ugly mug spread accross the television news.

With that being said, some who doesn't like pride parades, doesn't automatically make them a homophobe - what makes them a homophobe is if they come along with a bloody big sign with 'Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve'.

why do people even start these threads... they always turn out the same, both sides pumping out info to prove theyre right, not budging or listening to reason presented by the other.

why do people even start these threads... they always turn out the same, both sides pumping out info to prove theyre right, not budging or listening to reason presented by the other.

No excuse me, the people screaming that homosexuality is a choice and homophobia is good does not have any reason.

No excuse me, the people screaming that homosexuality is a choice and homophobia is good does not have any reason.


O.O

Who said homophobia is good? And whether or not homosexuality is a choice has no bearing on the topic at all. This was supposed to be a discussion about the definition of homophobic, and also brought into it is how the definition is often used too liberally by people such as yourself. Whether or not somebody chooses to be homosexual has no bearing on the definition of homophobe, nor does it make any homophobe(person that disagrees with you) change their opinion about homosexuality.

Pointless anyone?

Who said homophobia is good? And whether or not homosexuality is a choice has no bearing on the topic at all. This was supposed to be a discussion about the definition of homophobic, and also brought into it is how the definition is often used too liberally by people such as yourself. Whether or not somebody chooses to be homosexual has no bearing on the definition of homophobe, nor does it make any homophobe(person that disagrees with you) change their opinion about homosexuality.


I think it has a lot of bearing on this topic. Homophobe is not used too liberally. It is used adequately, in fact inadequately. By people such as myself? You should really lay the hell off me. It very well has a big part of this debate. I'm accusing anybody who disagrees with me of being a homophobe? Really? I'm accusing those who hate gay people of being homophobes.

I think it has a lot of bearing on this topic. Homophobe is not used too liberally. It is used adequately, in fact inadequately. By people such as myself? You should really lay the hell off me. It very well has a big part of this debate. I'm accusing anybody who disagrees with me of being a homophobe? Really? I'm accusing those who hate gay people of being homophobes.

Riddle me this, do you think that I'm a homophobe?

Riddle me this, do you think that I'm a homophobe?

I don't know because you don't explain yourself well enough.

I don't know because you don't explain yourself well enough.

Fair enough. ^_^

Although I've said this many times in the past, it looks like I'll need to say it again. I don't hate homosexuals. I'm in support of gay rights, because there is no logical reason to deny them those rights. However, I believe that homosexuality is a sin, (or rather, it seems lately, committing homosexual acts or dwelling on thoughts of homosexuality) and is something that will be brought up on judgment day. I know you've had difficulty understanding this point in the past, and insisted that you don't want me to support gay rights since I don't accept that there's nothing wrong with it, however that isn't my problem. You've also called me a backstabber for this, and a liar....but again...this isn't a problem with me.

I stil insist that whether or not it is a person's choice to be homosexual has no bearing on this particular argument. What a homophobe is has nothing to do with how a homosexual got to be a homosexual, so really don't see where this comes into play. Perhaps if you explained it to me I'd understand?

Fair enough. ^_^

Although I've said this many times in the past, it looks like I'll need to say it again. I don't hate homosexuals. I'm in support of gay rights, because there is no logical reason to deny them those rights. However, I believe that homosexuality is a sin, (or rather, it seems lately, committing homosexual acts or dwelling on thoughts of homosexuality) and is something that will be brought up on judgment day. I know you've had difficulty understanding this point in the past, and insisted that you don't want me to support gay rights since I don't accept that there's nothing wrong with it, however that isn't my problem. You've also called me a backstabber for this, and a liar....but again...this isn't a problem with me.

Well yes then I do think you're a backstabber. I do believe you are a homophobe. But that's my own personal perspective on you. i don't think I can hang out with someone who tells me I'll go to hell for being gay. But hey what am I saying.. I don't believe in god.

Homophobia = bad got it

Well yes then I do think you're a backstabber. I do believe you are a homophobe. But that's my own personal perspective on you. i don't think I can hang out with someone who tells me I'll go to hell for being gay. But hey what am I saying.. I don't believe in god.

So, in your book, a homophobe is a person who has no problem with gay people, but holds the belief that commiting acts of homosexuality is wrong. Let's look at the definition again,

Homophobia (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=homophobia)

Main Entry: ho·mo·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals


Breaking this apart piece by piece.

Irrational Fear of Homosexuals:

I think it's clear that I do not have a fear of homosexuals, as I've befriended them in the past, and have no problems befriending one now.

Irrational fear of Homosexuality:

I'm not afraid of homosexuality, I simply believe it's wrong.

Aversion to Homosexuals:

I believe this is also covered above...moving on.

Aversion to Homosexuality:

If this 'aversion' is taken to mean that I do not wish to be homosexual, then yes, I'm a homophobe. Otherwise, I have no real aversion towards it.

Discrimination against homosexuals:

I support gay rights...I do not believe that to be discrimination.

Discrimination against Homosexuality:

You may have something here...in thinking that homosexuality is wrong, I'm
discriminating against homosexual acts....so it looks like I AM a homophobe...

Good call, Mesa!

So, in your book, a homophobe is a person who has no problem with gay people, but holds the belief that commiting acts of homosexuality is wrong. Let's look at the definition again,

That's a contradiction.

How can you support a gay person if you think they are going to hell?

That's a contradiction.

How can you support a gay person if you think they are going to hell?

I've explained it to you about 3 times, if you don't understand then you aren't going to. Note that if you actually read the post I agree with you about my being a homophobe anyway, so who on earth really cares?

I've explained it to you about 3 times, if you don't understand then you aren't going to. Note that if you actually read the post I agree with you about my being a homophobe anyway, so who on earth really cares?

Well I guess I don't. But really the matter is just more personal to me. Let me explain.. I have a boyfriend who i'm in total love with.. I get condemned by you for having that. Well, I guess it doesn't matter to me what you think.

I support homosexuals, I don't believe in hell, however I have an aversion to homosexuality myself because I find males unattractive, albeit a rational reason, it's still covered by aversion, so I guess that would make every heterosexual person a homophobe? I'm still trying to grasp the overall view on this definition as some have given it to mean that just getting along with homosexuals makes you not a homophobe. Please clarify.

I support homosexuals, I don't believe in hell, however I have an aversion to homosexuality myself because I find males unattractive, albeit a rational reason, it's still covered by aversion, so I guess that would make every heterosexual person a homophobe? I'm still trying to grasp the overall view on this definition as some have given it to mean that just getting along with homosexuals makes you not a homophobe. Please clarify.

If you are talking to me.. I never said that. I fully respect someone being attracted to the opposite gender.

I propose that we strike "Aversion to Homosexuality" from the definition of Homophobe, the main reason being that this includes all heterosexuals, and makes the definition far broader than its intention. Or perhaps we word it different, to say that it's.

1. A person with an irrational fear of homosexuals or homosexuality.

2. A person who has an aversion to, or discriminates against homosexuals.

or something similar...I'm not very good with language, but it seems to me that this is a whole lot more inclusive of the people who need to be associated with the label of homophobe....or are we no longer discussing this?

Homophobia
Fear of sameness, monotony or of homosexuality or of becoming homosexual.

The term homophobia often seems to be misused. How scary is gayness? Ridiculous maybe but not scary.


I am not against people being gay (altho the act does seem a bit violent), go ahead if you must, but damn stop with slapping the old homophobe tag around as soon as there is even the slightest hint of anti-gayness.

Why wouldn't you like gay people?

Wasn't trying to say you didn't or anything, just looking for a 100% definition on the topic, so other people here won't be as confused about the usage of this word as I am at times. Because according to textbook definition I am a homophobe, due to my aversion. Not that it really matters, I just can't sleep and I'm trying to stimulate a mild curiousity for word usage.

seems to be demagogy around!
I like no one and I'm happy.

Why should I like gay, fat, small, jew, french, ugly, nice, catholic, nacked chimp, human, pizzas, flowers or dogs?

I do not like you all.
What a law can do about it?

And what I like is not of your business.
That's a daziboa here or what?


Love me, vote for me.
WHAT? That's the way it works, no?

:fluffle:

Well I'm an Italian, Catholic, Republican Male but don't really care if people are gay. Guess my life long best friend being bi-sexual has something to do with that.

Although, don't much appreciate getting hit on.... those situations are always "fun". Or when I go to Armani to get a new suit, and the Gay tailor keeps taking my inseam...

Granted, I also don't want the gay lifestyle thrown onto me, or into my life.

I propose that we strike "Aversion to Homosexuality" from the definition of Homophobe, the main reason being that this includes all heterosexuals, and makes the definition far broader than its intention. Or perhaps we word it different, to say that it's.

1. A person with an irrational fear of homosexuals or homosexuality.

2. A person who has an aversion to, or discriminates against homosexuals.

or something similar...I'm not very good with language, but it seems to me that this is a whole lot more inclusive of the people who need to be associated with the label of homophobe....or are we no longer discussing this?

This seems to be the common usage of the word. So you see how the textbook can be a bit misdirecting compared to the common usage.

Well I'm an Italian, Catholic, Republican Male but don't really care if people are gay. Guess my life long best friend being bi-sexual has something to do with that.

Although, don't much appreciate getting hit on.... those situations are always "fun". Or when I go to Armani to get a new suit, and the Gay tailor keeps taking my inseam...

Granted, I also don't want the gay lifestyle thrown onto me, or into my life.
Getting hit on isn't so bad, to me it's the same as if a morbidly obese woman said the same thing, non-appealing. However, touching is a bit of a different story. It shows a lack of respect. I wouldn't go up and grab a woman's butt out of the blue just because I find her attractive. There are some guys who would though. You will always have the types that will get away with what they can no matter the sexual orientation.

Seriously, Mesatecala, you need to get a grip. You are doing to others what you claim to hate done to yourself - imposing your belief on others. I think Nights is being very reasonable - even if he/she does not believe it is correct to do, he/she does not wish to impose his or her beliefs on you which in my opinion deserves a lot of respect.

I know it's a subject close to your heart but that doesn't give you the right to be rude. You're making gay people look super-aggressive and equally as intolerant as some fundamentalists.

Getting hit on isn't so bad, to me it's the same as if a morbidly obese woman said the same thing, non-appealing. However, touching is a bit of a different story. It shows a lack of respect. I wouldn't go up and grab a woman's butt out of the blue just because I find her attractive. There are some guys who would though. You will always have the types that will get away with what they can no matter the sexual orientation.

Getting hit on is bad, when the gay people I know all tend to be the stereotype (think Jack from Will & Grace or Carson from Queer Eye) so when they hit on me it's full force. And well the touching, yeah, not so fun, then again if I want my suit done right I have to live with them doing my inseam over and over....and over. :rolleyes:

Fair enough. ^_^

Although I've said this many times in the past, it looks like I'll need to say it again. I don't hate homosexuals. I'm in support of gay rights, because there is no logical reason to deny them those rights. However, I believe that homosexuality is a sin, (or rather, it seems lately, committing homosexual acts or dwelling on thoughts of homosexuality) and is something that will be brought up on judgment day. I know you've had difficulty understanding this point in the past, and insisted that you don't want me to support gay rights since I don't accept that there's nothing wrong with it, however that isn't my problem. You've also called me a backstabber for this, and a liar....but again...this isn't a problem with me.

I stil insist that whether or not it is a person's choice to be homosexual has no bearing on this particular argument. What a homophobe is has nothing to do with how a homosexual got to be a homosexual, so really don't see where this comes into play. Perhaps if you explained it to me I'd understand?

I like your view to be quite frank. You hold the belief that it is wrong, this is held by many people. I respect your right to your opinion and though I see it as woefully wrong, I would never wish to do anything that would cause you to be unable to have that opinion. That you see that regardless of your belief on the issue, that there in no reason to deny them their rights. So while people attack you for your beliefs, I would wish to speak with you honestly wanting to understand your stance and I thank you for your sensibility in not confusing personal belief with law for the people.

I'm actually having a bit of trouble with Amaranthine's view as well. Please don't take this as an attack though.

How can you support gay people is you think homosexuality is a sin?

Wouldn't helping a "sinner" commit a sin be morally wrong?

I'm sorry, I consider myself Christian too, but I still just don't understand how a person can hold these two views at once.

They seem mutually exclusive to me.

Homophobia is a lousy word.

A much better word is "hippotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia".

Wow, you want to break that word down into it's components and tell us what it means?

Amarathine's view is a breath of fresh air, though I disagree that homosexuality is a sin, i wish that most christians who felt that way had the sense to realize there is no logical reason to deny them human rights.

I'm actually having a bit of trouble with Amaranthine's view as well. Please don't take this as an attack though.

How can you support gay people is you think homosexuality is a sin?

Wouldn't helping a "sinner" commit a sin be morally wrong?

I'm sorry, I consider myself Christian too, but I still just don't understand how a person can hold these two views at once.

They seem mutually exclusive to me.

Well, hate the sin not the sinner, oh and i doubt any straight men on this forum would like to "help" in a gay act.

I didn't mean actually help two guys to have sex, but by psupporting the passing of legislation that allows something like gay marriage, you would be furthering the "homosexual agenda"[plug=barlibgil thread]ooh, do a search for homosexual agenda, and look for a thread started by yours truly. It's a good read[/end plug] which would contribute to the ease with which we "sin".

I didn't mean actually help two guys to have sex, but by psupporting the passing of legislation that allows something like gay marriage, you would be furthering the "homosexual agenda"[plug=barlibgil thread]ooh, do a search for homosexual agenda, and look for a thread started by yours truly. It's a good read[/end plug] which would contribute to the ease with which we "sin".

I suppose, but that is akin to say, jail time.
By not sentencing a criminal to death after his first infringement you are allowing for a second, but i doubt many people would support capitol punishment for jaywalking.

It's basic religious freedom, people have the right to live their lives with full legal rights and without people from various religions "helping" them avoid sinning. I wouldn't want to go shopping for meat in a supermarket while a Buddhist, Jew , Hindu and Muslim followed me around, helpfully explaining that everything I try to pick up is sinful...

Seriously, Mesatecala, you need to get a grip. You are doing to others what you claim to hate done to yourself - imposing your belief on others. I think Nights is being very reasonable - even if he/she does not believe it is correct to do, he/she does not wish to impose his or her beliefs on you which in my opinion deserves a lot of respect.

I know it's a subject close to your heart but that doesn't give you the right to be rude. You're making gay people look super-aggressive and equally as intolerant as some fundamentalists.

No, I have a pretty strong grip on the reality I think. I'm not hating anyone. I'm simply saying I don't see how someone could support gay rights while thinking gay people are going to hell. Isn't it a contradiction?

I'm not making gay people look intolerant and I'm not being rude. I'm just wondering how someone could hold such beliefs.

No, I have a pretty strong grip on the reality I think. I'm not hating anyone. I'm simply saying I don't see how someone could support gay rights while thinking gay people are going to hell. Isn't it a contradiction?

I'm not making gay people look intolerant and I'm not being rude. I'm just wondering how someone could hold such beliefs.

Calling me a hypocrit and a backstabber was pretty rude, but I suppose I brought it on myself. I think what you have a real problem with is understanding seperation of church and state. Gay rights is a matter of the state, and I support them, because my beliefs about homosexuality is a matter of the church. I keep them seperate, because that's how our country works, and it's the right thing to do. If a person cannot hold both beliefs, then our country was founded years ago on an impossibility, and your real beef is with the founding fathers. I seperate my church beliefs from the law we abide by, because Seperation of church and state is what keeps us from becoming a theocracy.

Calling me a hypocrit and a backstabber was pretty rude, but I suppose I brought it on myself. I think what you have a real problem with is understanding seperation of church and state. Gay rights is a matter of the state, and I support them, because my beliefs about homosexuality is a matter of the church. I keep them seperate, because that's how our country works, and it's the right thing to do.

Look that was harsh and I apologize. But I just don't see how someone could hold such beliefs.. isn't there a conflict of interests?

Look that was harsh and I apologize. But I just don't see how someone could hold such beliefs.. isn't there a conflict of interests?

Thanks for the apology, and I accept...and I've explained myself as best as I could, so to keep going on about it at this point wouldn't be worth anyone's time, neither mine to write it, or yours to read it.....so you can think I'm a weirdo with a conflict of interest, and it won't bother me. I've done my best, and that's all I really can do.

Look that was harsh and I apologize. But I just don't see how someone could hold such beliefs.. isn't there a conflict of interests?

I suppose one could have a general benign view of something while still believing in it's bad fate.
Simply stating that, according to your beliefs, bad things are likely to happen to homosexuals doesn't have to mean that you personally dislike them, it's just a matter of fact. In fact, one does not even have to agree with this fate, or can even oppose it.


Consider the following: I'm driving home from work, and at some point I pass a bird flying low across the road, and a big truck driving across it.
At that point, I know the truck will (most likely) squish the bird. Yet at the same time I can feel pity for the bird, and support it in any way I can (which, granted, isn't much), without this conflicting with my knowledge of it's fate.
When I say 'the bird will get squished by the truck' I am in no way saying something bad about the bird or supporting it's demise, but am merely stating fact.
Likewise, when I say 'I hope the bird comes out fine' that does not conflict with the fact it will likely get squished.


And so, someone can say 'I believe homosexuals will go to hell' and still bear them no ill whatsoever. One is simply stating his beliefs as to their ultimate fate, regardless of one's feelings towards that fate.

Simply stating that, according to your beliefs, bad things are likely to happen to homosexuals doesn't have to mean that you personally dislike them, it's just a matter of fact. In fact, one does not even have to agree with this fate, or can even oppose it.



Well to think about it, I'm atheist and gay.. and my life is just fine. So I'll continue opposing his faith.

Well to think about it, I'm atheist and gay.. and my life is just fine. So I'll continue opposing his faith.

Why oppose his fate when it does not effect you? After all, you know he's wrong, right? So as long as he's not doing the 'Mesatecala is Going to Burn in Hell Dance', why would you care?

I’m called a Homophobe around here because I’ve said the homosexual lifestyle is bad for children, bad for society, bad for the community it openly exists in AND it is bad for the individuals that participate in it.

I’ve said these things because I believe that a good community and good society (self sustaining and healthier happier citizens etc.,) encourages and promotes more long term partnering and life-long commitments between individuals, both to each other and for their progeny, and a place that their children can be raised so that they are encouraged to participate in it as well when they grow older.

But the homosexual lifestyle in the west (America and Europe and elsewhere) does not encourage this behavior, it is tantamount to all out attack against not just those ideals, but the very right for non-homosexuals to choose their own community standards.

~ 70% of homosexuals admit to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners.

~ The average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year. And this is encouraged by the fact that many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting .

~ Many homosexuals don't pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: "Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior".

~ Although homosexuals only account for 2-4% of the general population they represent a disproportionate percentage of the ailments in society that are brought about by their lifestyle choices, such as; Homosexuals account for 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States.

~ 73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists.

~ 41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs…




Damn! they are promiscuous buggers.

Damn! they are promiscuous buggers.

The study isn't credible, and so are heterosexuals....let's just drop it and move on.

Damn! they are promiscuous buggers.

I already discredited that study, and I will discredit anymore false ones that come up. You must also realize how small the sample was of that study and how poor it was conducted.. it was done in the 1970s too, when everybody was fucking everybody. You know.. sex, drugs and rock and roll. :rolleyes:

I already discredited that study, and I will discredit anymore false ones that come up. You must also realize how small the sample was of that study and how poor it was conducted.. it was done in the 1970s too, when everybody was fucking everybody. You know.. sex, drugs and rock and roll. :rolleyes:

But apparently it doesn't matter when hetero's do it.

I already discredited that study, and I will discredit anymore false ones that come up. You must also realize how small the sample was of that study and how poor it was conducted.. it was done in the 1970s too, when everybody was fucking everybody. You know.. sex, drugs and rock and roll. :rolleyes:

Obviously you didn't actually live through the seventies... why don't you go talk to a homosexual male that lived through the seventies while they were in their twenties (or so, no reason for two year olds etc.,) and made choices then and then tell us what they say about it, okay?

Obviously you didn't actually live through the seventies... why don't you go talk to a homosexual male that lived through the twenties and made choices then and then tell us what they say about it, okay?

I didn't live in the seventies. But I know what the culture was like because I read books of the time. Tell me, can I discredit you even more because you are now resorting to weak attacks...

I didn't live in the seventies. But I know what the culture was like because I read books of the time. Tell me, can I discredit you even more because you are now resorting to weak attacks...


How's that an attack? It's asking for clarification... you said the seventies was sex drugs and rock and roll... But I think that was the sixties.

the seventies was Disco, Dukes of Hazzard and Jimmy Carter

But apparently it doesn't matter when hetero's do it.


Nah, that's not true. It matters when they do it too. Scumbag businessmen who leave their wives and children to have sex on an island with their secretaries should be pummeled and castrated.

How's that an attack? It's asking for clarification... you said the seventies was sex drugs and rock and roll... But I think that was the sixties.

the seventies was Disco, Dukes of Hazzard and Jimmy Carter

Drugs very much carried on into the 1970s. Rock and roll carried onto that era too, despite deaths of several key figures.

http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/press/global/archive/2000/april/gi10413.htm

"Drug usage rates remain steadily below the high rate of usage documented in the late 1970s."

In fact that those were the years when drug usage peaked.

Drugs very much carried on into the 1970s. Rock and roll carried onto that era too, despite deaths of several key figures.

http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/press/global/archive/2000/april/gi10413.htm

"Drug usage rates remain steadily below the high rate of usage documented in the late 1970s."

In fact that those were the years when drug usage peaked.


So after all of this, it affected the homosexual community how? And how are they so different now? I think heterosexual sex then and heterosexual sex now is about the same, why would it be different for the homosexual community?

the seventies was Disco, Dukes of Hazzard and Jimmy Carter


...and as well the latter part of the sexual revolution. Techincally, in the US and Canada etc., homosexuality was still a criminal offense in the 1960's.

...and as well the latter part of the sexual revolution. Techincally, in the US and Canada etc., homosexuality was still a criminal offense in the 1960's.

I refer you to the post just above this one...

How is the homosexual community different now than then? The heterosexuals have changed little, (John Travolta comes to mind) why are we to assume without proof that the homosexual male community is so vastly different now... and also, go find a homosexual male that remembers the seventies and knows now and we can let them tell us what they see to be different.

So after all of this, it affected the homosexual community how? And how are they so different now? I think heterosexual sex then and heterosexual sex now is about the same, why would it be different for the homosexual community?

Drugs can often lead to more sex... everybody was screwing each other in that period. You can't reject this.

How is the homosexual community different now than then? The heterosexuals have changed little, (John Travolta comes to mind) why are we to assume without proof that the homosexual male community is so vastly different now... and also, go find a homosexual male that remembers the seventies and knows now and we can let them tell us what they see to be different.

Less sex. You need to get over your biases and your blatant rejection of the facts. Secondly, homosexuals are not the same as in the 1970s, and the same thing goes for heterosexuals. You are the one who never presents any proof your ridiculous, outlandish statements. In fact I think you have nothing.

Drugs can often lead to more sex... everybody was screwing each other in that period. You can't reject this.

Are you suggesting that the homosexual community no longer uses drugs?

Less sex. You need to get over your biases and your blatant rejection of the facts. Secondly, homosexuals are not the same as in the 1970s, and the same thing goes for heterosexuals. You are the one who never presents any proof your ridiculous, outlandish statements. In fact I think you have nothing.


Any proofs...? Proofs of what? Proofs that people from the seventies are STILL HERE? How old are your professors? They didn't all die off did they?

Are you suggesting that the homosexual community no longer uses drugs?

Actually I never said that. In fact both the heterosexual and homosexual community use drugs.

Any proofs...? Proofs of what? Proofs that people from the seventies are STILL HERE? How old are your professors? They didn't all die off did they?

Why don't you present some proof? I know plenty of older gay guys from the 1970s who are still here. Some of which are professors at my school. Saying that all gay people from the 1970s era died off is a misnomer and is very ridiculous. You speak with ZERO EVIDENCE, I repeat:

ZERO EVIDENCE

I refer you to the post just above this one...

How is the homosexual community different now than then? The heterosexuals have changed little, (John Travolta comes to mind) why are we to assume without proof that the homosexual male community is so vastly different now... and also, go find a homosexual male that remembers the seventies and knows now and we can let them tell us what they see to be different.

May I ask what is this "homosexual community"? Why should it be any different now than 30+ years ago?

Who the feck cares about invidual's level of promiscuity, drug use and etc.?

As I said earlier, homosexuality was largely prohibited and pathologized in the 1960's to early 70's. That came to an abrupt end and unlike the 'heterosexual community' there was no 'moral' paradigm to follow unilke for the 'heterosexual community'. Yes I mean marriage (or whatever) social acceptance and whathaveyou.

This all occurred during the sexual revolution when even holier than thou heteros were having cocaine encrusted key parties and various other forms of orgiastic bonding. Now in that environment are you to expect a 'community' what was just decriminalized and without a 'moal' framework to display more upright behavior than its counterpart when even with its moral conventions displayed exactly the same behavior?

Of course it still goes on, gay or straight but only one side actually has a rule set to follow and the other is nearly totally individualistic.

Us gay guys really rose out of oppression. It is now said gay males make more money and have more education then their heterosexual counterparts.

*snip*
*snip*

New Fuglies, meet Mesatecala, Mesatecala, meet New Fuglies. Now the two of you settle whether or not the argument is that the homosexuals behaved the same or different in the seventies and then let me know who I am to debate with...

I'll come back tomorrow and check out the results, church in the morning, of to bed for tonight :)

New Fuglies, meet Mesatecala, Mesatecala, meet New Fuglies. Now the two of you settle whether or not the argument is that the homosexuals behavied the same or different in the seventies and then let me know who I am to debate with...

I'll come back tomorrow and check out the results, church in the morning, of to bed for tonight :)

Oh... looks like someone can't counter the fact that he's wrong. We gay guys have more education and make more money then straight guys do. That's one of the huge differences. We aren't sex crazed like homosexuals were in the 1970s.

So what you learn at church? Which sect? The southern baptists?

New Fuglies, meet Mesatecala, Mesatecala, meet New Fuglies. Now the two of you settle whether or not the argument is that the homosexuals behaved the same or different in the seventies and then let me know who I am to debate with...

I'll come back tomorrow and check out the results, church in the morning, of to bed for tonight
:)


As I said who cares and I am not all too sure what is your point. Try to bring it with you after church.

Gotta hand it to Mesatecala, I've never before encountered any single poster with such an uncanny ability to kill threads. Even shitty ones.

Gotta hand it to Mesatecala, I've never before encountered any single poster with such an uncanny ability to kill threads. Even shitty ones.

I've killed quite a few in my day. :)

Gotta hand it to Mesatecala, I've never before encountered any single poster with such an uncanny ability to kill threads. Even shitty ones.

That attack has been reported.

That attack has been reported.


I don't think being called a thread killer is a personal attack. I'd consider it a compliment. :)

That attack has been reported.
Oh, goody.

I don't think being called a thread killer is a personal attack. I'd consider it a compliment. :)

Since I think I am doing good talking with people, I take it offensively. I also take time on some of my posts.

Since I think I am doing good talking with people, I take it offensively. I also take time on some of my posts.

I'm not sure why you bother with Grennlander. He's been paddling in circles ever since he's been here.

I'm not sure why you bother with Grennlander. He's been paddling in circles ever since he's been here.

It is just fun... I like seeing him run away when I discredit his "studies".

I'm not sure why you bother with Grennlander. He's been paddling in circles ever since he's been here.
He's not the only one, Fuglies... :rolleyes:

It is just fun... I like seeing him run away when I discredit his "studies".


If you cut and paste some of it into a search engine you'll find out where he's getting it, then attack the source.

He's not the only one, Fuglies... :rolleyes:

Oh do tell. :)

Oh do tell. :)
Oh but if I did that, a certain junior hall-monitor wannabe'll go wiping his sleeve at the mods on me.

No thanks.

Oh but if I did that, a certain junior hall-monitor wannabe'll go wiping his sleeve at the mods on me.

No thanks.

heheheheee!!! :D

If you cut and paste some of it into a search engine you'll find out where he's getting it, then attack the source.

I like posting specific criticisms that show evidence against his source. I could care less where he got it from.. I can do the discrediting myself.

yes but Homosexuals seem to label people THEY don't like homophobes.


This is a verry good point its all give and take just leave eachother alone!

We label those who hate us as homophobes.

We label those who hate us as homophobes.

Do you TRY to do that or are you just honestly that way?

Do you TRY to do that or are you just honestly that way?

I'm honestly that way. If someone hates gay people they are homophobes. That simple.

I'm honestly that way. If someone hates gay people they are homophobes. That simple.

Not just that, i mean your entire argument. You attack pepole for doing the same thing you do. Is it honestly your opinion that you are never follied or are you just saying that to rile people up?

What if someone dislikes you in spite of your gender preference? Do you make that distinction readily?

Not just that, i mean your entire argument. You attack pepole for doing the same thing you do. Is it honestly your opinion that you are never follied or are you just saying that to rile people up?

What are you talking about? I'm saying those who hate gay people are homophobes. I never said anything about me in particular. I'm gay and if someone hates me for my sexuality they are a homophobe. That is as personal as it gets. That goes for you too, dobbs. I can't say I don't like you as a person.. I never met you personally.

What are you talking about? I'm saying those who hate gay people are homophobes. I never said anything about me in particular. I'm gay and if someone hates me for my sexuality they are a homophobe. That is as personal as it gets. That goes for you too, dobbs. I can't say I don't like you as a person.. I never met you personally.

I mean in all arguments. In this you argue, but don't make a point either way. I'm gay, I know what a homophobe is dear. however what I'm asking is, why do you hurt your cause by arguments such as this one for instance:

Intelligent Design is totally bogus. I'm sorry but I'm not going into that again. I've already explained why its authors are just really creationists trying to abuse science for their own goals. I'm not accepting that theory as it has zero evidence.

We can explain the universe by the big bang. Hopefully in the future religion will serve no purpose. Religion was used as a form of coercion and control."

when instead you can make a point, and prove that there is a reason that we deserve anything. It's the same as someone making a ridiculous argument that has no strength against gays. I say this not in offense, but as advice in how to get ANY idea through to people, you have to make a hole, not just throw wet noodles. (I know weird analogy but oh well, it works....O.o)

I mean in all arguments. In this you argue, but don't make a point either way. I'm gay, I know what a homophobe is dear. however what I'm asking is, why do you hurt your cause by arguments such as this one for instance:

Please don't try to mock my arguments where I clearly do provide evidence. So please, don't try to minimize me. I'm not arguing with you any further. I don't hurt my cause ever. I provide solid evidence.

when instead you can make a point, and prove that there is a reason that we deserve anything. It's the same as someone making a ridiculous argument that has no strength against gays. I say this not in offense, but as advice in how to get ANY idea through to people, you have to make a hole, not just throw wet noodles. (I know weird analogy but oh well, it works....O.o)

Please don't bring up other threads where I did provide evidence to back myself up into this thread. It isn't relevant nor is it valid. What you are saying isn't offensive, but it is based on logical error.

Please don't try to mock my arguments where I clearly do provide evidence. So please, don't try to minimize me. I'm not arguing with you any further. I don't hurt my cause ever. I provide solid evidence.



Please don't bring up other threads where I did provide evidence to back myself up into this thread. It isn't relevant nor is it valid. What you are saying isn't offensive, but it is based on logical error.

I brought other threads because I was lazy and it was open. I could run back in this one and search for it if you'd like. I'm not trying to minimize you in any way, I'm trying to say, flaming isn't going to do anything but get flaming.

What if someone dislikes you in spite of your gender preference? Do you make that distinction readily?
You mean like Mods?

I brought other threads because I was lazy and it was open. I could run back in this one and search for it if you'd like. I'm not trying to minimize you in any way, I'm trying to say, flaming isn't going to do anything but get flaming.

I'm telling you I did provide evidence. If you want to flame me, fine. I will put you on my ignore list gladly. I didn't flame the intelligent design advocate.

I'm telling you I did provide evidence. If you want to flame me, fine. I will put you on my ignore list gladly. I didn't flame the intelligent design advocate.

...not in that post. I read the thread, and you would provide inconclusive evidence, they would then do the same, you attack snippets of theirs, they attack snippets of yours. I'm not trying to flame you as I said. But I'm done with this one.

...not in that post. I read the thread, and you would provide inconclusive evidence, they would then do the same, you attack snippets of theirs, they attack snippets of yours. I'm not trying to flame you as I said. But I'm done with this one.

I do not provide inconclusive evidence. I'm sorry but you cannot just come in this forum and start bashing people. just understand that. Good, I'm ignoring you now.

You mean like Mods?
Could be. Could be Mods. Could be all kinds of things, I don't know what I should say anymore.

I know... there's only one thing to say in this case:

Splunge!