NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok this is a new thread because apparently the other one degenerated into flaming.

Is it homophobic to say that I would not wan't to have homosexual sex with someone, because I find it a bit discusting.

Because appaently it is. If this is true, then surely all hetrosexuals are homophobic, because I can't imagine a non bi-sexual who wouldn't mind having sex with someone of the same sex.

No, there's a difference between hating homosexuals, and finding homosexual acts disgusting but not hating. I wouldn't say its homophobic.

Isn't that the exact same question you posted in the now-locked thread? :rolleyes:

But anyway, no, there's nothing wrong with being disgusted at that kind of thing. If it's an honest reacton, then it's your reaction.. a lot of people feel that it's kind of "disgusting." Not sure if that's the right word, but something similar to disgust.

Ok this is a new thread because apparently the other one degenerated into flaming.

Is it homophobic to say that I would not wan't to have homosexual sex with someone, because I find it a bit discusting.

Because appaently it is. If this is true, then surely all hetrosexuals are homophobic, because I can't imagine a non bi-sexual who wouldn't mind having sex with someone of the same sex.

LOL. Of course not. Who said that it is homophobic? Someone high?

LOL. Of course not. Who said that it is homophobic? Someone high?

Well in my other thread, I did put it in a bit of a ruder way. I basicly said: "is it ok to find it discusting?". Which sounded a bit un pc.

Having an aversion towards homosexuality is, per definition, homophobic. (http://www.webster.com/dictionary/homophobia)

Now, "aversion" doesn't just mean you don't want to have gay sex, or that you wouldn't like it. The words you use ("sick, repulsive, disgusting"), apart from being offensive, are much more loaded than "wouldn't like, wouldn't want to, not my cup of tea, not attracted by," and they indicate a true aversion, i.e. "a feeling of repugnance." So your attitude is indeed homophobic.

The sooner you realise you have a problem, the sooner you can fix it by working past this irrational aversion. You just have to take the first step and admit that a person who uses such strong words is indeed expressing repugnance, and not just being uninterested, or being put off, or not wanting something. Your language is way too harsh for it to be something so benign.

Having an aversion towards homosexuality is, per definition, homophobic. (http://www.webster.com/dictionary/homophobia)

Now, "aversion" doesn't just mean you don't want to have gay sex, or that you wouldn't like it. The words you use ("sick, repulsive, disgusting"), apart from being offensive, are much more loaded than "wouldn't like, wouldn't want to, not my cup of tea, not attracted by," and they indicate a true aversion, i.e. "a feeling of repugnance." So your attitude is indeed homophobic.

The sooner you realise you have a problem, the sooner you can fix it by working past this irrational aversion. You just have to take the first step and admit that a person who uses such strong words is indeed expressing repugnance, and not just being uninterested, or being putt off, or not wanting something.

He simply said he wouldn't want to have it with someone.

If this is true, then surely all hetrosexuals are homophobic, because I can't imagine a non bi-sexual who wouldn't mind having sex with someone of the same sex.
Whoa there - you're getting things mixed up here.

There's a huuuuuuuuuuuuuge difference between finding homosexual sex "disgusting" (which I most decidedly do not, quite the contrary) and not wanting to sleep with someone of your own sex (which I do indeed not - not because it disgusts me, as just stated, but simply because it does not turn me on; I wouldn't sleep with a guy who doesn't turn me on sexually, so why would I sleep with a girl when girls don't turn me on sexually?)

For most people, disgusting has a... very negative connotation.


I find intolerance, sewer rats, and Britney Spears disgusting.

Because you used the word "disgusting" and not "I would refrain/abstain from", then yes, it is.


Now it's your decision whether being homophobic is wrong or not.

Having an aversion towards homosexuality is, per definition, homophobic. (http://www.webster.com/dictionary/homophobia)

Now, "aversion" doesn't just mean you don't want to have gay sex, or that you wouldn't like it. The words you use ("sick, repulsive, disgusting"), apart from being offensive, are much more loaded than "wouldn't like, wouldn't want to, not my cup of tea, not attracted by," and they indicate a true aversion, i.e. "a feeling of repugnance." So your attitude is indeed homophobic.

The sooner you realise you have a problem, the sooner you can fix it by working past this irrational aversion. You just have to take the first step and admit that a person who uses such strong words is indeed expressing repugnance, and not just being uninterested, or being put off, or not wanting something. Your language is way too harsh for it to be something so benign.

Maybe you took my words to seriously. When i say sick/repulsive/discusting, i just mean that the thought puts me off a lot.

He simply said he wouldn't want to have it with someone.

No, he said it was "sick, repulsive, disgusting."

He simply said he wouldn't want to have it with someone.

You missed the other thread.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=489193

You missed the other thread.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=489193


No I was there with that one too.

Maybe you took my words to seriously. When i say sick/repulsive/discusting, i just mean that the thought puts me off a lot.

Not just "a lot", but enough for it to be a repugnance. I can only take the words you use by the meaning they have. If you do not like the implication they have on you, use other ones, if they are more appropriate.

Having an aversion towards homosexuality is, per definition, homophobic. (http://www.webster.com/dictionary/homophobia)

Now, "aversion" doesn't just mean you don't want to have gay sex, or that you wouldn't like it. The words you use ("sick, repulsive, disgusting"), apart from being offensive, are much more loaded than "wouldn't like, wouldn't want to, not my cup of tea, not attracted by," and they indicate a true aversion, i.e. "a feeling of repugnance." So your attitude is indeed homophobic.

The sooner you realise you have a problem, the sooner you can fix it by working past this irrational aversion. You just have to take the first step and admit that a person who uses such strong words is indeed expressing repugnance, and not just being uninterested, or being put off, or not wanting something. Your language is way too harsh for it to be something so benign.

I find cabbages discusting. Am I cabbagephobic? Should I realise my problem and start controlled cabbage eating programs?
Another question. Do you find sex with your grandma discusting? Or lets say a really old person, to eliminate the existance of incest. You got old people phobia that needs to be addressed?
Grow a skin!!! He can say whatever he wants as long as he doesnt incite violence.

No I was there with that one too.

Then surely you are capable enough at reading to note that he called it "sick" and "repulsive," rather than merely expressing a lack of desire to engage in it?

What do you think of anal sex with a woman?
It's all just flesh dude. get over it.

Then surely you are capable enough at reading to note that he called it "sick" and "repulsive," rather than merely expressing a lack of desire to engage in it?

But surely that is the reason hetrosexuals do not have any desire for gay sex.

Then surely you are capable enough at reading to note that he called it "sick" and "repulsive," rather than merely expressing a lack of desire to engage in it?

Ok. I find heterosexual sex to be disguisting. That doesn't make me a heterophobe any more than that makes him a homophobe.

Ok. I find heterosexual sex to be disguisting. That doesn't make me a heterophobe any more than that makes him a homophobe.

No, it doesn't. I agree.

No, it doesn't. I agree.

Ok then. My point is proven.

But surely that is the reason hetrosexuals do not have any desire for gay sex.

I don't think so. A lack of attraction does not imply disgust.

I find cabbages discusting. Am I cabbagephobic? Should I realise my problem and start controlled cabbage eating programs?
Another question. Do you find sex with your grandma discusting? Or lets say a really old person, to eliminate the existance of incest. You got old people phobia that needs to be addressed?
Grow a skin!!! He can say whatever he wants as long as he doesnt incite violence.

Off-topic and red-herrings. He has expressed that he does not like the implication that this makes him homophobic on this level, hence my telling him that he should realise the problem he has. It is not comparable at all with someone who is "happy" with his dislikes, or with your attempts to argue the obviously irrelevant.

I don't think so. A lack of attraction does not imply disgust.

Ok, so you just stated that my disguist at heterosexual sex does not make me a heterophobe.
But, his disguist of hetersexual sex makes him a homphobe?
That is a doublestandard.

Grow a skin!!!!! He can say whatever he wants as long as he doesnt incite violence.
You're right.

Which is why we can call you homophobic... we're not inciting violence.

Grow a skin!!!!

Ok, so you just stated that my disguist at heterosexual sex does not make me a heterophobe.

Right.

But, his disguist of hetersexual sex makes him a homphobe?

No. But saying that disgust towards homosexual sex is a necessary condition of heterosexuality doesn't seem accurate to me.

No. But saying that disgust towards homosexual sex is a necessary condition of heterosexuality doesn't seem accurate to me.


I missed him saying that.

Ok then. My point is proven.

No, it isn't. The person that finds heterosexuality repugnant, is averse to it in such a manner, is indeed a "heterophobe," if such a thing can be seen to exist and its meaning extrapolated from the definition of homophobia.

No, it isn't. The person that finds heterosexuality repugnant, is averse to it in such a manner, is indeed a "heterophobe," if such a thing can be seen to exist and its meaning extrapolated from the definition of homophobia.

You are merely looking for another reason to get offended.

Huh, somantics- youv'e gotta love it.

R
But saying that disgust towards homosexual sex is a necessary condition of heterosexuality doesn't seem accurate to me.

Well, it depends how you define discust. If you don't find it a bit sick as a hetrosexual, then you wouldn't mind having sex with someone of the same sex. You just wouldn't get turned on.

I missed him saying that.

No, you didn't. I quoted it in the post you replied to.

But surely that is the reason hetrosexuals do not have any desire for gay sex.

No, you didn't. I quoted it in the post you replied to.

"Then surely you are capable enough at reading to note that he called it "sick" and "repulsive," rather than merely expressing a lack of desire to engage in it?"

That is what I replied to.
That doesn't say he says a condition of heterosexuality is that you have to be disguisted by homosexual sex.

You are merely looking for another reason to get offended.

And you are merely looking not to acknowledge the nature of your attitude because you don't like it. No matter how hard you wish to tell yourself there is no difference between "I'm not interested in having straight sex" and "I am disgusted by straight sex, it is repulsive and sick," it won't make the difference go away, nor will it efface the ugliness of what the latter statement implies.

Off-topic and red-herrings. He has expressed that he does not like the implication that this makes him homophobic on this level, hence my telling him that he should realise the problem he has. It is not comparable at all with someone who is "happy" with his dislikes, or with your attempts to argue the obviously irrelevant.

It was revelant in a way to demonstrate that even if you define Hydesland's position as a phobia, it is not a problem. If you define all phobias as problems that needs to be solved, good luck with phobias like incestphobia, shitphobia, carrotphobia....

Ok this is a new thread because apparently the other one degenerated into flaming.

Is it homophobic to say that I would not wan't to have homosexual sex with someone, because I find it a bit discusting.

Because appaently it is. If this is true, then surely all hetrosexuals are homophobic, because I can't imagine a non bi-sexual who wouldn't mind having sex with someone of the same sex.
There's nothing homophobic about finding particular sex acts unappealing. As long as all parties are consenting, you can like/dislike whatever the hell you want and not be a jackass for it.

Where it becomes homophobic is when you start talking shit about anybody who does enjoy those activities. When it becomes homophobic is when you start acting like your personal opinion is some kind of objective standard by which all sexual activity should be measured.

Examples:

Fine = "I am personally disgusted by the idea of having sex with somebody of my own gender."
Not so fine = "Anybody who wants to have sex wtih somebody of their own gender is disgusting."

Fine = "I am not at all attracted to members of my own gender."
Not so fine = "It is sick and perverted to be attracted to members of your own sex."

Get the idea?

And you are merely looking not to acknowledge the nature of your attitude because you don't like it. No matter how hard you wish to tell yourself there is no difference between "I'm not interested in having straight sex" and "I am disgusted by straight sex, it is repulsive and sick," it won't make the difference go away, nor will it efface the ugliness of what the latter statement implies.


I never said there was not a difference between the two statements. I merely said that does not make me a heterphobe, any more than he is a homophobe.

You're right.

Which is why we can call you homophobic... we're not inciting violence.

Grow a skin!!!!

Sure, you can call me homophobic. That'd be rather amusing actually. Whatever. When you start calling my "phobia" as a problem, expect a response....

There's nothing homophobic about finding particular sex acts unappealing. As long as all parties are consenting, you can like/dislike whatever the hell you want and not be a jackass for it.

Where it becomes homophobic is when you start talking shit about anybody who does enjoy those activities. When it becomes homophobic is when you start acting like your personal opinion is some kind of objective standard by which all sexual activity should be measured.

Examples:

Fine = "I am personally disgusted by the idea of having sex with somebody of my own gender."
Not so fine = "Anybody who wants to have sex wtih somebody of their own gender is disgusting."

Fine = "I am not at all attracted to members of my own gender."
Not so fine = "It is sick and perverted to be attracted to members of your own sex."

Get the idea?


Finally, someone with some sanity.

Then surely you are capable enough at reading to note that he called it "sick" and "repulsive," rather than merely expressing a lack of desire to engage in it?But surely that is the reason hetrosexuals do not have any desire for gay sex.

No!

I don't want to have sex with other women because I'm not into women. Women don't interest me sexually.

I don't want to have sex with someone who doesn't interest me sexually.

And yes, if you would ask me to have sex with a woman, I would not want to do it, because I would indeed find it off-putting. Some acts I could perform anyway, others I would indeed find "repulsive", as you say.

BUT that is not the same thing as finding sex between women as such repulsive. Why should I? That's just silly. There is nothing there that is objectively repulsive, so why should I find it repulsive? Just because I, personally, am not into it doesn't make me look at it and think "Eww!". I just think, "Eh, not for me".

No, it's not homophobic. At all. I myself find the homosexual sexual ACT disgusting. I have, however, no problem with homosexuals as persons. Since I'm not forced to have gay sex I can't really see any problem with this. I find very old people sex, animal sex and pee sex disgusting as well...but as long as no one forces me to have it I'm all good with old people, animals and most other people as well. Except with Germans...the bastards just beat my footy team =)

There's nothing homophobic about finding particular sex acts unappealing. As long as all parties are consenting, you can like/dislike whatever the hell you want and not be a jackass for it.

Where it becomes homophobic is when you start talking shit about anybody who does enjoy those activities. When it becomes homophobic is when you start acting like your personal opinion is some kind of objective standard by which all sexual activity should be measured.

Examples:

Fine = "I am personally disgusted by the idea of having sex with somebody of my own gender."
Not so fine = "Anybody who wants to have sex wtih somebody of their own gender is disgusting."

Fine = "I am not at all attracted to members of my own gender."
Not so fine = "It is sick and perverted to be attracted to members of your own sex."

Get the idea?

Thats exactly how i feel, i am the: "I am personally disgusted by the idea of having sex with somebody of my own gender." I do not find those people who do it discusting, but in my opinion I would find the act discusting.

"Then surely you are capable enough at reading to note that he called it "sick" and "repulsive," rather than merely expressing a lack of desire to engage in it?"

That is what I replied to.
That doesn't say he says a condition of heterosexuality is that you have to be disguisted by homosexual sex.

Read the thread again.

Well, it depends how you define discust. If you don't find it a bit sick as a hetrosexual, then you wouldn't mind having sex with someone of the same sex. You just wouldn't get turned on.

There are other reasons a person would mind having sex with someone aside from "disgust."

Anyway, it seems to me that such "disgust" is more a cultural phenomenon than a heterosexual one; that is the point I am making.

It was revelant in a way to demonstrate that even if you define Hydesland's position as a phobia, it is not a problem. If you define all phobias as problems that needs to be solved, good luck with phobias like incestphobia, shitphobia, carrotphobia....

Again, "he has expressed that he does not like the implication that this makes him homophobic on this level, hence my telling him that he should realise the problem he has."

There's nothing homophobic about finding particular sex acts unappealing. As long as all parties are consenting, you can like/dislike whatever the hell you want and not be a jackass for it.

Where it becomes homophobic is when you start talking shit about anybody who does enjoy those activities. When it becomes homophobic is when you start acting like your personal opinion is some kind of objective standard by which all sexual activity should be measured.

Examples:

Fine = "I am personally disgusted by the idea of having sex with somebody of my own gender."
Not so fine = "Anybody who wants to have sex wtih somebody of their own gender is disgusting."

Fine = "I am not at all attracted to members of my own gender."
Not so fine = "It is sick and perverted to be attracted to members of your own sex."

Get the idea?

You are exactly correct. However those "not so fine" opinions should be allowed to be practiced as part of free speech...

Examples:

Fine = "I am personally disgusted by the idea of having sex with somebody of my own gender."
Not so fine = "Anybody who wants to have sex wtih somebody of their own gender is disgusting."


Yeah, well, except what he's saying is not

"I am personally disgusted by the idea of having sex with somebody of my own gender"

but

"I am personally disgusted by the idea of anybody having sex with somebody of their own gender."

I.e. he's not just saying "Meh, I don't wanna do it, it squicks me out", he's saying "How can anybody do that? It's disgusting!"

Thats exactly how i feel, i am the: "I am personally disgusted by the idea of having sex with somebody of my own gender." I do not find those people who do it discusting, but in my opinion I would find the act discusting.
Well, you might want to be more specific. I mean, "homosexuality" is not an act. Homosexual sex is not confined to one particular act, any more than heterosexual sex is.

If, for instance, you are really turned off by the idea of having anal sex, then that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with homosexuality. One of my best friends is a gay man who hates anal sex. I am totally grossed out by anal sex, and I've had quite a lot of gay sex.

If it's just the idea of having sex with somebody of the same gender, then I guess that's up to you. To me, that's no different than you saying you're grossed out by having sex with somebody of your same ethnicity...it sounds weird and kind of mean to me, but at the same time I also don't really care what other consenting adults choose to do with their genitalia.

Yeah, well, except what he's saying is not

"I am personally disgusted by the idea of having sex with somebody of my own gender"

but

"I am personally disgusted by the idea of anybody having sex with somebody of their own gender."

I.e. he's not just saying "Meh, I don't wanna do it, it squicks me out", he's saying "How can anybody do that? It's disgusting!"

No i'm not, when did i ever say that?

Again, "he has expressed that he does not like the implication that this makes him homophobic on this level, hence my telling him that he should realise the problem he has."

Still, you define his "phobia" as a problem which he should realise. This is stupid.
Another point is that arguing only dictionary definitions is hardly correct. If we look to the definition of aversion:

1. A turning away.
2. Opposition or repugnance of mind; fixed dislike; antipathy; disinclination; reluctance.
3. The object of dislike or repugnance. the act of turning yourself away; "averting her gaze meant that she was angry".
4. a feeling of intense dislike. . the act of turning yourself away; "averting her gaze meant that she was angry".

Does this mean any one who dislikes gay sex (all heterosexuals) or anyone who turns away from gay sex (heterosexuals; bi and homosexuals who doesnt like to peep) has an aversion to gay sex and hence homophobic? Absurd.

To me, that's no different than you saying you're grossed out by having sex with somebody of your same ethnicity.

If that was true, then everyone would be bisexual, because there would be no reason to not be attracted to people of the same sex.

Still, you define his "phobia" as a problem which he should realise.

Again, "he has expressed that he does not like the implication that this makes him homophobic on this level, hence my telling him that he should realise the problem he has."

I will repeat that until you read it, and understand it.

Edit: Oh, I just realised you were Ny Nordland. Scratch that. I won't be addressing you further.

If that was true, then everyone would be bisexual, because there would be no reason to not be attracted to people of the same sex.
Again, I'm just talking about how I feel on the subject. Saying that you could never be attracted to a person because of their gender is (to me) pretty much the same as saying you couldn't be attracted to a person because of their race. I don't understand it, and it sounds kind of close-minded and rude to me, but at the same time I don't feel like passing judgment on who people are attracted to. As far as I know, I can't feel physical attraction toward people who have really frizzy hair, so who am I to judge?

Again, I'm just talking about how I feel on the subject. Saying that you could never be attracted to a person because of their gender is (to me) pretty much the same as saying you couldn't be attracted to a person because of their race. I don't understand it, and it sounds kind of close-minded and rude to me, but at the same time I don't feel like passing judgment on who people are attracted to. As far as I know, I can't feel physical attraction toward people who have really frizzy hair, so who am I to judge?

Ok, does that mean your bisexual?

Again, I'm just talking about how I feel on the subject. Saying that you could never be attracted to a person because of their gender is (to me) pretty much the same as saying you couldn't be attracted to a person because of their race. I don't understand it, and it sounds kind of close-minded and rude to me, but at the same time I don't feel like passing judgment on who people are attracted to. As far as I know, I can't feel physical attraction toward people who have really frizzy hair, so who am I to judge?

But does frizzy hair "disgust" you? Is frizzy hair "sick, repulsive?" The words we use tell an awful lot about our attitudes, and to what extent they stretch.

Ok, does that mean your bisexual?
That seems to be the term most other people are comfortable with, yes.

Personally, I don't see any reason to define my sexuality based on the gender of my partners. That would be as silly as defining my sexuality based on the skin color of my partners. "I'm a multiracialsexual!" Odd.

But does frizzy hair "disgust" you? Is frizzy hair "sick, repulsive?" The words we use tell an awful lot about our attitudes, and to what extent they stretch.

We've discussed this, you just misunderstood what i meant with those words.

We've discussed this, you just misunderstood what i meant with those words.

Those words have no small meanings. They are very loaded words that express an intense negativity. Ask yourself why you used them, instead of trying to claim they do not mean what they mean.

But does frizzy hair "disgust" you? Is frizzy hair "sick, repulsive?" The words we use tell an awful lot about our attitudes, and to what extent they stretch.
That is true. I do not find people with frizzy hair to be disgusting, nor would I say that the idea of sex with a frizzy-haired person is necessarily disgusting to me. I'm sure I could come up with a way to picture such sex in a way that would be pleasing to me, if I really tried.

You do have a point, I think, about the word choice. I think there IS a difference between saying, "I don't personally find the idea of gay sex appealing," and "I find gay sex disgusting."

Think about if you were turning somebody down, somebody who you thought was pretty cool. Would you want to tell them, "I just don't feel attracted to you that way," or "I find you disgusting"? The word choice DOES matter, and what word you choose does say something about you and your feelings on the subject in question.

That said, I just don't think it's worth getting upset over. Some people are clumsy with their word choice, and some people just don't have much tact. Meh.

Again, "he has expressed that he does not like the implication that this makes him homophobic on this level, hence my telling him that he should realise the problem he has."

I will repeat that until you read it, and understand it.

Edit: Oh, I just realised you were Ny Nordland. Scratch that. I won't be addressing you further.

Excellent. I wouldnt want to cause you to commit suicide or something since you are so easily offended and I might say something wrong.

That is true. I do not find people with frizzy hair to be disgusting, nor would I say that the idea of sex with a frizzy-haired person is necessarily disgusting to me. I'm sure I could come up with a way to picture such sex in a way that would be pleasing to me, if I really tried.

You do have a point, I think, about the word choice. I think there IS a difference between saying, "I don't personally find the idea of gay sex appealing," and "I find gay sex disgusting."

Think about if you were turning somebody down, somebody who you thought was pretty cool. Would you want to tell them, "I just don't feel attracted to you that way," or "I find you disgusting"? The word choice DOES matter, and what word you choose does say something about you and your feelings on the subject in question.

Dont you think that to be branded some label (homophobic) when we say something without considering our words with great care (which happens in most of the things we say) is rather stupid?

Ok this is a new thread because apparently the other one degenerated into flaming.

Is it homophobic to say that I would not wan't to have homosexual sex with someone, because I find it a bit discusting.

Because appaently it is. If this is true, then surely all hetrosexuals are homophobic, because I can't imagine a non bi-sexual who wouldn't mind having sex with someone of the same sex.

I'd find it disgusting to have sex with a few women I've known in my life just because of what kind of woman they are - doesn't mean I'm heterophobic, I'm straight.

Jesus, queers are annoying.

All I can say is, if you think your sexual preferences are so important that you let yourself be defined by them, well, you're shallow and you're boring.

Jesus, queers are annoying.

All I can say is, if you think your sexual preferences are so important that you let yourself be defined by them, well, you're shallow and you're boring.
To be fair, have you ever met a guy who didn't discuss the sort of women he prefers or his favourite position?

No i'm not, when did i ever say that?
I should apologize, because in this thread, you did indeed refrain from saying so. I may be forgiven my reaction, though, considering that the original thread stated your opinion as follows:

You take it as if i am saying that the person is sick or "wrong". I never said that, i just think that homosexual sex is just pretty sick. Like people who think marmite is sick or violent movies are sick.

Fine your "offended", so what, does that mean im not allowed to think that homosexual sex is sick. Im sure there are many people who find stuff i do as "sick", and i respect their opinion.

Again, i don't find your sexuality sick, just homosexual sex.


If this does not adequately describe what you mean, then you should make sure to phrase it in a way that does.

Dont you think that to be branded some label (homophobic) when we say something without considering our words with great care (which happens in most of the things we say) is rather stupid?
If you choose to talk about people in certain ways, then others will make certain judgments about you. That's just how it works when you interact with other people.

As an example, if you forget to carefully consider your words and you refer to black people as "niggers," a lot of people are going to suspect you of being a racist. Hell, if you have to carefully consider your words to keep yourself from saying "******," then a lot of people will think you're a racist.

Same goes for homosexuality and related issues. I'm not going to leap to call people homophobes for expressing individual preferences, but if somebody ASKS ME FOR MY OPINION (as this thread starter did) about their choice of words, I will give them feedback as to what impression I think they are giving.

I think refering to homosexuality as "disgusting" could lead a reasonable person to suspect you are homophobic, just like a reasonable person might suspect you're racist if you say that sex with black people is "disgusting" to you. I don't happen to feel that this thread founder is particularly homophobic, but I can easily see why his initial post would lead some people to feel that he is.

phobia: is an irrational and intense fear of a situation or object. See our leaflet on Anxiety and Phobias for further information.
www.rcpsych.ac.uk/info/glosConds.htm

Being sick of something and being afraid are different things. I'm sick of cabbages, but I'm not really afraid of them.

I don't like it when you click on homosexual porn by accident on the 'web. But it's not like i feel ill or anything, just a bit insecure:p

Those words have no small meanings. They are very loaded words that express an intense negativity. Ask yourself why you used them, instead of trying to claim they do not mean what they mean.
Indeed. That would go a long way towards not having to defend yourself over several pages because "that's not what you meant".

Next time, if you want to say "Personally, I wouldn't want to have sex with another guy because I would find it repulsive" then do so. Don't say "I have nothing against gays, but I find homosexual sex disgusting".

Heterosexual acts are pretty disgusting too.

Just..I want to do heterosexual acts, and have no desire to do homosexual acts.

Sex is a disgusting thing. Except when you're doing it.

Heterosexual acts are pretty disgusting too.

Just..I want to do heterosexual acts, and have no desire to do homosexual acts.

Sex is a disgusting thing. Except when you're doing it.
Hey, you actually kind of lived up to your user name. :p

Ok this is a new thread because apparently the other one degenerated into flaming.

Is it homophobic to say that I would not wan't to have homosexual sex with someone, because I find it a bit discusting.

Because appaently it is. If this is true, then surely all hetrosexuals are homophobic, because I can't imagine a non bi-sexual who wouldn't mind having sex with someone of the same sex.I can understand where you are coming from as I find the idea of having sex with a member of the opposite gender to be equally disgusting.

phobia: is an irrational and intense fear of a situation or object. See our leaflet on Anxiety and Phobias for further information.
www.rcpsych.ac.uk/info/glosConds.htm

Being sick of something and being afraid are different things. I'm sick of cabbages, but I'm not really afraid of them.
If memory serves, I have had a discussion about the -phobia suffix with you before. The word "homophobic" refers to "a fear of or contempt for homosexuals and/or homosexuality." Fear is one possible element, but is not required for a person to qualify as "homophobic."

You may not like the term "homophobic," and you may feel it is misleading because you think it implies fear, but the definition of the term includes those who merely hold homosexuals/homosexuality in contempt.

If you choose to talk about people in certain ways, then others will make certain judgments about you. That's just how it works when you interact with other people.

As an example, if you forget to carefully consider your words and you refer to black people as "niggers," a lot of people are going to suspect you of being a racist. Hell, if you have to carefully consider your words to keep yourself from saying "******," then a lot of people will think you're a racist.

Same goes for homosexuality and related issues. I'm not going to leap to call people homophobes for expressing individual preferences, but if somebody ASKS ME FOR MY OPINION (as this thread starter did) about their choice of words, I will give them feedback as to what impression I think they are giving.

I think refering to homosexuality as "disgusting" could lead a reasonable person to suspect you are homophobic, just like a reasonable person might suspect you're racist if you say that sex with black people is "disgusting" to you. I don't happen to feel that this thread founder is particularly homophobic, but I can easily see why his initial post would lead some people to feel that he is.

But you should be very careful with those -phobia words. Certain homophobic actions are banned in Sweden and punished by law. If people jump too quickly to phobias, political systems might jump too quickly to censorship....

Ok this is a new thread because apparently the other one degenerated into flaming.

Is it homophobic to say that I would not wan't to have homosexual sex with someone, because I find it a bit discusting.

Because appaently it is. If this is true, then surely all hetrosexuals are homophobic, because I can't imagine a non bi-sexual who wouldn't mind having sex with someone of the same sex.

The part about saying you don't want to have sex with a homosexual isn't, but the part where you call it disgusting IS.

But you should be very careful with those -phobia words. Certain homophobic actions are banned in Sweden and punished by law. If people jump too quickly to phobias, political systems might jump too quickly to censorship....
That is seriously flawed logic. Identifying particular language as homophobic does not in any way require that you restrict or ban such language. In turn, banning particular forms of speech does not automatically link to those forms of speech being -phobic in one way or another.

I believe we should not hesitate to identify particular actions or language as homophobic, just as we would not hesitate to identify racist actions or language. However, we also should recognize that racism and homophobia are protected as much as any other kind of personal expression, and we should not feel that we can restrict speech ONLY because it is racist or homophobic.

If memory serves, I have had a discussion about the -phobia suffix with you before. The word "homophobic" refers to "a fear of or contempt for homosexuals and/or homosexuality." Fear is one possible element, but is not required for a person to qualify as "homophobic."

You may not like the term "homophobic," and you may feel it is misleading because you think it implies fear, but the definition of the term includes those who merely hold homosexuals/homosexuality in contempt.

Is this stretching of phobia in homophobia not hypocritical? I wouldnt really mind it at all actually if in many countries homophobia wasnt seen as something to be fought with and punished by law. While punishing someone for beating a gay person for being gay is perfectly ok, setting boundries of homophobia too large is dangerous and detrimental to the very democracy & human rights these "pc people" try to uphold.

Is this stretching of phobia in homophobia not hypocritical?

No. The same standard is applied to plenty of other terms with the -phobia suffix, including "xenophobia." Furthermore, the word "phobia" can refer to a strong fear, aversion, or dislike. Fear is only one of several definitions of "phobia."

To put it as simply as I can.

The personal belief that homosexual sex is disgusting is NOT homophobic.
The personal belief that homosexuals are disgusting IS homophobic.

Announcing to people that you find the sex disgusting is NOT homophobic.
Announcing to people that you find homosexuals disgusting IS homophobic.

Not wanting to personally engage in homosexual acts is NOT homophobic.
Believing that anybody that does engage in homosexual acts IS homophobic.

Letting homosexuals be by trying to ignore the fact you think the sex is disgusting is NOT homophobic.
Actively participating in anti-gay causes because you think the sex is disgusting IS homophobic.

And so on and so forth. I think you see a pattern.

All you fellow queens out there getting all het-up need to get a grip. It needed no further answer than that.

So on the one side we have

One up the bum, no harm done
A mouth, is a mouth, is a mouth

and on the other side we have

Beard on beard velcro kiss effect
Whatever we do to ourselves, we do to God, and He doesn't like it up Him

hmmm

There's nothing homophobic about finding particular sex acts unappealing. As long as all parties are consenting, you can like/dislike whatever the hell you want and not be a jackass for it.

Where it becomes homophobic is when you start talking shit about anybody who does enjoy those activities. When it becomes homophobic is when you start acting like your personal opinion is some kind of objective standard by which all sexual activity should be measured.

Examples:

Fine = "I am personally disgusted by the idea of having sex with somebody of my own gender."
Not so fine = "Anybody who wants to have sex wtih somebody of their own gender is disgusting."

Fine = "I am not at all attracted to members of my own gender."
Not so fine = "It is sick and perverted to be attracted to members of your own sex."

Get the idea?

exactly.

its no more wrong for a man to not want sex with a man than it is for him to not want sex with a woman. thats why they are sexual preferences

but if you find yourself creeped out by gay men in non-sexual situation (at a party with friends perhaps) because you keep thinking about how they engage in <whatever kind of sex you think gay men engage in> and you cant get those images out of your head, you have a problem.

Ok this is a new thread because apparently the other one degenerated into flaming.

Is it homophobic to say that I would not wan't to have homosexual sex with someone, because I find it a bit discusting.

Because appaently it is. If this is true, then surely all hetrosexuals are homophobic, because I can't imagine a non bi-sexual who wouldn't mind having sex with someone of the same sex.

Unless you fear gay people, you aren't homophobic.

Ok this is a new thread because apparently the other one degenerated into flaming.

Is it homophobic to say that I would not wan't to have homosexual sex with someone, because I find it a bit discusting.

Because appaently it is. If this is true, then surely all hetrosexuals are homophobic, because I can't imagine a non bi-sexual who wouldn't mind having sex with someone of the same sex.


No, It just means your straight.

Ok this is a new thread because apparently the other one degenerated into flaming.

Is it homophobic to say that I would not wan't to have homosexual sex with someone, because I find it a bit discusting.

Because appaently it is. If this is true, then surely all hetrosexuals are homophobic, because I can't imagine a non bi-sexual who wouldn't mind having sex with someone of the same sex.

"Homophobia" is a pseudo-scientific concept concoc(k)ted by the sexual-deviant lobby, their supporters, enablers and apologists as a term of abuse to be hurled at anyone who doesn't express slavish approval of same-sex behavior. No such condition in fact exists. Thus, the answer is, "No."

To the contrary, it's a healthy, normal response. It's your genes' way of telling you, "Don't prevent us from returning to the gene pool!"

I'm sure French bread-boy will disagree, but since he will go to any length to rationalize and justify his own deviance and Darwinian unfitness, that's to be expected.

Hmm.. I don't like the idea of homosexual sex, so I don't make a habit of thinking about it lots. I have many homosexual friends though.

The thing is, for most heterosexual people "disgust" accurately sums it up. When put into words, it ends up being something bland such as "Not interested in..." for public consumption, but the reality is revulsion. And it is not really something one can reasonably criticise. It is a natural, common response with no deliberate malice behind it. It is not a symptom of a "problem", any more than finding any other sexual act unpleasant to contemplate is a "problem".

Now if people condemn completely homosexuality as a lifestyle, or otherwise attack someone's behaviour, that is something one could debate and challenge, but as far as I am concerned, an individual's inward response to specific acts is above reproach.

The thing is, for most heterosexual people "disgust" accurately sums it up. When put into words, it ends up being something bland such as "Not interested in..." for public consumption, but the reality is revulsion.

Well, I for one, give heterosexuals more credit than that, so "for most heterosexual people" will have to stand for you.

It is a natural, common response

Even here I beg to differ, because none of the children of my straight friends who've raised them properly have had this "natural, common response." Anecdotal, yes, but it would suggest the response seems to be anything but "natural," and much more something instilled. That explains why even some gay people have this "response" when they figure out their own sexuality; they were indoctrinated into that "it's icky."

with no deliberate malice behind it.

I am of the opinion that the malice steps in when one refuses to overcome this conditioning towards revulsion, and becomes content with it as a "natural state" that one is willing to propagate and exclaim.

but as far as I am concerned, an individual's inward response to specific acts is above reproach.

When they express it, it becomes something very reproachable. Just like when racists of yore would claim their "revulsion" at interracial coupling, this is reproachable, and something one should work to overcome. Not that I am all that convinced many who harbour these "responses" do wish to do that - I suppose it will just in most cases be a waiting game for them to be replaced with newer generations, like it has been many times in the past.

The OP has the right to his opinion. Is it homophobic? Perhaps, on a personal level. Is it offensive or dangerous? No. It's merely a personal belief.

Fine = "I am not at all attracted to members of my own gender."
Not so fine = "It is sick and perverted to be attracted to members of your own sex."

Get the idea?

Eh, I don't. I see no reason why I can't clearly say, "The homosexual act is a perversion." This is a heck of a lot different than saying, "Anybody who commits a homosexual act, and does not repent, and thinks its fine, will go to Hell." I say the former freely, because I believe it's true. I say the latter less freely, even though I believe it's true, because it's usually tactless, doesn't help anything, and people who know me realize I probably do believe that, and will therefore respect me more (although why anyone would respect me, I don't quite understand ;)) for not rubbing their faces in it - but occasionally it is necessary to state my beliefs that bluntly. Like, if someone asks me straight up.

On the other hand, neither of the above two statements implies any hatred for a gay/lesbian person. Rather, they are statements of what I believe to be fact which, since some people find them uncomfortable, should usually be avoided. Neither statement is "hate-speech" on the order of "All you fags are jerks and I hate you all and you will burn in Hell forever omg!!!!" - which is an example of something I would consider "not so fine" as Bottle says. All the gays I've met are nice guys (well, Phil's weird, but Phil would be weird regardless), so I don't see any reason to hate homosexuals. Think they're wrong? Yeah. Occasionally say something about it? Yeah. What's the big deal?

I don't need to overcome shit.

I don't ask homosexuals to overcome their thoughts, or that their thoughts are reproachable, so they can't tell me to overcome mine.

Regarding inter-racial coupling, guess what, coloured women don't do it for me. It's a matter of personal taste, a question of aesthetics, and has fuck all to do with politics.

But I guess you are too much of a campaigner to let people's opinions be. :rolleyes:

Ok this is a new thread because apparently the other one degenerated into flaming.

Is it homophobic to say that I would not wan't to have homosexual sex with someone, because I find it a bit discusting.

Because appaently it is. If this is true, then surely all hetrosexuals are homophobic, because I can't imagine a non bi-sexual who wouldn't mind having sex with someone of the same sex.
No it's not. I'm mildly disgusted with heterosexual sex myself, or at least certain practices of heterosexual sex (for example oral sex on women). That doesn't make me heterophobic.

Try to see it like this: it's like you liking spinach as a favorite vegetable, and me liking brocoli. You might hate brocoli, but not be an ass about it and diss me for liking it. Likewise, I can choose not to focus on the fact that you like that disgusting spinach thing and refrain from going postal and hitting you with a shovel in the face for it. So you still get to like spinach, I get to like brocoli, without either of us having to eat the dish we can't stomach. It's win-win, too, as it makes more spinach for you, and more brocoli to me.

The problems only arise when one of us tries to force the other eat the food he doesn't like because we think the same thing is right for everyone. And, unfortunately enough, it's more often the spinach-lovers that try to shove their disgusting spinachs down our throats.

This food metaphor was brought to you by the Canadian Food Guide, which recommends eating at least 5 to 10 portions of vegetables a day.

I don't need to overcome shit.

As I wrote, "not that I am all that convinced many who harbour these "responses" do wish to do that - I suppose it will just in most cases be a waiting game for them to be replaced with newer generations, like it has been many times in the past."

I don't ask homosexuals to overcome their thoughts, or that their thoughts are reproachable, so they can't tell me to overcome mine.

Homosexuals' thoughts of you don't tend to be geared towards how icky the way you have sex is. At least, I hope they're not.

Regarding inter-racial coupling, guess what, coloured women don't do it for me.

You should know that "coloured" is often seen as an archaic slur, and I know many black people who resent its use. Just an FYI and a heads-up.

t's a matter of personal taste, a question of aesthetics, and has fuck all to do with politics.

I didn't mention politics. But does the thought of a white man having sex with a black woman (or a black man with a white woman) cause "revulsion" in you? I sincerely hope not, but that was what racists of yore claimed to be a "natural response."

But I guess you are too much of a campaigner to let people's opinions be. :rolleyes:

Where does this notion come from that just because you have an opinion that that opinion is sacrosanct and cannot be criticised and that criticising it is somehow diminishing your right to have it?

I think your opinion is wrong. There is nothing "natural" (or, for a better term, comme il faut) about the "response" and stance you are defending, and I am not of the opinion that just because it's your opinion that it cannot be questioned or contradicted or examined.

I don't need to overcome shit.

I don't ask homosexuals to overcome their thoughts, or that their thoughts are reproachable, so they can't tell me to overcome mine.

Regarding inter-racial coupling, guess what, coloured women don't do it for me. It's a matter of personal taste, a question of aesthetics, and has fuck all to do with politics.

But I guess you are too much of a campaigner to let people's opinions be. :rolleyes:

Looks like we have a flaming mod, maybe he thinks denial will quench his thoughts.*

*Hello there nice mod person. Please understand this remark is for entertainment purposes only and is not valid in a court of law.

You should know that "coloured" is often seen as an archaic slur, and I know many black people who resent its use. Just an FYI and a heads-up.
Plainly it's not, so I don't give a fuck.

I didn't mention politics. But does the thought of a white man having sex with a black woman (or a black man with a white woman) cause "revulsion" in you? I sincerely hope not, but that was what racists of yore claimed to be a "natural response."
Actually, no. But I wouldn't place myself there. There's the difference. It's about me, not other people. I am entitled to hold opinions about what I would like to do, and what I would not like to do. If you feel the need to extrapolate it to yourself, to other people, that's some self-importance you have going on there.

Where does this notion come from that just because you have an opinion that that opinion is sacrosanct and cannot be criticised and that criticising it is somehow diminishing your right to have it? I think your opinion is wrong. There is nothing "natural" about the "response" and stance you are defending, and I am not of the opinion that just because it's your opinion that it cannot be questioned or contradicted or examined.
You can think what you like about my opinion. It is there, you can find its expression regrettable if you wish, but there is nothing wrong with holding it. There is no such thing as thoughtcrime. What stays in your head, what concerns one's own identity, is your own. Seeing as I do not preach any course of action, your objections are futile.

Keep banging the drum and waving the banner, it won't change my preferences any more than some homophobe is going to change yours.

Homosexuals' thoughts of you don't tend to be geared towards how icky the way you have sex is. At least, I hope they're not.

No, our thoughts usually aren't. At least mine aren't, and it's as valid as any anecdotal evidence is.

However, aren't you going down hard on TG? I admitted in a previous post I'm also disgusted by certain things heterosexuals do. From his posts, I don't think he was saying he felt a deep , visceral, inborn disgust for anything gay. More like it's something he'd rather not think about because he's not into it.

As long as he doesn't vomit on sight of any homosexuals because all he can do is focus on what they do in bed, it's still alright. I mean, I for one don't like to picture what all of my friends do in their bedroom. If he can live with gays and not mind them, he doesn't have to like what they do in bed.

Just like those brocoli-lovers don't need to constantly picture people gurgling down spinach if they find it disgusting.

(Oh, of course, feel free to correct my interpretations of your words, TacticalGrace)

(Oh, of course, feel free to correct my interpretations of your words, TacticalGrace)
No, that's about right. I don't care what activities people choose to perform, I just don't like the thought of myself being party to some of them. Yes, there's a 'yuck' factor, but it's only natural, because that's what defines what a person is interested in, or is not interested in. The 'interest' is defined by polar feelings of desire or revulsion, and stuff in between.

If militant individuals get annoyed by a feeling of revulsion on someone else's part, then they really need to get over themselves, because they clearly have a mistaken belief that it has something to do with them. It's personal choice, same as the one they have. I don't tell people to update their identity to stay in line with some perceived social ideal, so they can get stuffed if they feel they can tell me.

I can't imagine a non bi-sexual who wouldn't mind having sex with someone of the same sex.

You've clearly never seen girls gone wild...
and you bring up a good point the thought of having sex with a man is very disgusting ot me but I'm for same sex marrige so what am I?

Plainly it's not, so I don't give a fuck.

Actually, it is widely seen as potentially derogatory, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colored) sort of like "Negro."

I know that my Swedish-English dictionary notes that the term is "old-fashioned, and should be avoided because of its racist connotations."

Now you may choose not to give a shit as always, but should you come across a black person, especially an African-American, who is bigger than you IRL, I would advise you against calling or referring to him/her as "coloured." :)

Actually, no. But I wouldn't place myself there. There's the difference. It's about me, not other people. I am entitled to hold opinions about what I would like to do, and what I would not like to do. If you feel the need to extrapolate it to yourself, to other people, that's some self-importance you have going on there.

Extrapolating and self-importance? And what do you call referring to it as a "natural response?"

You can think what you like about my opinion. It is there, you can find its expression regrettable if you wish, but there is nothing wrong with holding it.

A lot of people have liked to tell themselves there's "nothing wrong with this opinion," and we've often as a society come to the conclusion that if at least not "wrong," then indicative of closed-mindedness and a penchant for the socially antediluvian. That may very well happen again with regard to this attitude. That's what I hope, at least.

There is no such thing as thoughtcrime.

No, but there is no such thing as immunity from having the thoughts one expresses criticised or questioned or challenged, either, as I thought we'd agreed on.

What stays in your head, what concerns one's own identity, is your own. Seeing as I do not preach any course of action, your objections are futile.

You may not preach a "course of action," but you do have an attitude that you have expressed. Similar attitudes have been shown to be changeable or marginalisable in the past. Just 'cause it's your attitude doesn't mean it cannot face a similar fate, or that others cannot push for the boundaries of the socially acceptable to be moved in that direction.

Keep banging the drum and waving the banner, it won't change my preferences any more than some homophobe is going to change yours.

I guess I'll have to repeat myself about not having that much faith in you that you would change, but, then again, this is NS and such an occurrence is rare no matter the subject discussed. Doesn't mean the discussion shouldn't take place. If it did, well, what'd become of online discussion fora?

No, that's about right. I don't care what activities people choose to perform, I just don't like the thought of myself being party to some of them. Yes, there's a 'yuck' factor, but it's only natural, because that's what defines what a person is interested in, or is not interested in. The 'interest' is defined by polar feelings of desire or revulsion, and stuff in between.

If militant individuals get annoyed by a feeling of revulsion on someone else's part, then they really need to get over themselves, because they clearly have a mistaken belief that it has something to do with them. It's personal choice, same as the one they have. I don't tell people to update their identity to stay in line with some perceived social ideal, so they can get stuffed if they feel they can tell me.

I agree, and I'm a gay man. Like I said, I don't really fancy the thought of a man doing oral sex on a woman myself: but I'm still able not to picture it everytime I see heterosexuals walking down the street holding hands. So I can easily understand how you might not enjoy spending long evenings imagining hot sweaty gay sex in your head just to "prove to others you're not homophobic" :p

The sex life of others is, after all, a trivial thing in our life. It's not like we're subjected to it, or need to know about it. We can still all live in good neighbourhood without having to know every sordid detail, and that's perfectly fine as it is.

You've clearly never seen girls gone wild...
and you bring up a good point the thought of having sex with a man is very disgusting ot me but I'm for same sex marrige so what am I?
You're straight, I guess. :p

Seriously guys, enjoying lenghty evenings of watching gay porn is not a requirement if you don't want to be homophobic. It's alright not to like imagining what gay men do with each other in bed. Just like it's all right not wanting to picture your own parents doing it, or not wanting to imagine what your two straight friends into S&M or any other fetish like to do.

Take my word for it, I know what I'm talking about.

I agree, and I'm a gay man. Like I said, I don't really fancy the thought of a man doing oral sex on a woman myself: but I'm still able not to picture it everytime I see heterosexuals walking down the street holding hands. So I can easily understand how you might not enjoy spending long evenings imagining hot sweaty gay sex in your head just to "prove to others you're not homophobic" :p

The sex life of others is, after all, a trivial thing in our life. It's not like we're subjected to it, or need to know about it. We can still all live in good neighbourhood without having to know every sordid detail, and that's perfectly fine as it is.
Quite true, and I completely agree, but here we have Fass' incarnation telling me that the terms in which I reason about my sexuality are invalid. Not even my individual lifestyle itself, but the manner in which I understand it. How absurd is that. It's a step further than the prejudiced go, beyond objection to the details of one's life, all the way to objecting to the details of inner expression.

However, aren't you going down hard on TG=

I wasn't aware I was "going down on" him at all, let alone hard. We're just having a discussion, and I've not been particularly forceful or "hard," IMO. Apologies to TG if I came across as that.

I admitted in a previous post I'm also disgusted by certain things heterosexuals do. From his posts, I don't think he was saying he felt a deep , visceral, inborn disgust for anything gay. More like it's something he'd rather not think about because he's not into it.

This I have to disagree with, somewhat, because the word "revulsion" does indeed imply a "deep, visceral, inborn disgust." It may have been too powerful a word to use (that's up to TG to decide - it's his sentiment), like the OP's proved to be, perhaps, but it was nevertheless the word used and the meaning conveyed.

Actually, it is widely seen as potentially derogatory, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colored) sort of like "Negro."

I know that my Swedish-English dictionary notes that the term is "old-fashioned, and should be avoided because of its racist connotations."

Now you may choose not to give a shit as always, but should you come across a black person, especially an African-American, who is bigger than you IRL, I would advise you against calling or referring to him/her as "coloured." :)


If he came across a black person could he describe them as "looking like a painters radio."? You won't find that one in your dictionary.

Quite true, and I completely agree, but here we have Fass' incarnation telling me that the terms in which I reason about my sexuality are invalid. Not even my individual lifestyle itself, but the manner in which I understand it. How absurd is that. It's a step further than the prejudiced go, beyond objection to the details of one's life, all the way to objecting to the details of inner expression.

Inner expression stops being "inner" as soon as one voices it, and it was not at your sexuality towards which you claimed to direct revulsion. Hence the entire discussion of whether or not such sentiments are homophobic when the OP voiced them and asked for opinions. It's a bit late in the game to lament that opinion was given, I think.

If he came across a black person could he describe them as "looking like a painters radio."? You won't find that one in your dictionary.

I find it in this (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Painters+Radio), but I don't know why he'd have cause to refer to the black person as such, now that he's said that he doesn't find black people sexually attractive.

(Yes, I know...)

This I have to disagree with, somewhat, because the word "revulsion" does indeed imply a "deep, visceral, inborn disgust." It may have been too powerful a word to use (that's up to TG to decide - it's his sentiment), like the OP's proved to be, perhaps, but it was nevertheless the word used and the meaning conveyed.
Well, either way, I do sometimes get a similar feeling when put into contact with sexual practices I'm not into.

I don't think it's really a problem for anyone, as long as they don't reduce others to what they like to do sexually. For example, nowhere in TG's posts did it seem apparent to me he reduced gay men to what they did in bed. If he can get along fine with gays as long as he's not forced to think about hot sweaty gay sex, as I like to put it, it's all fine.

I find it in this (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Painters+Radio), but I don't know why he'd have cause to refer to the black person as such, now that he's said that he doesn't find black people sexually attractive.


Meh, it could be a dominance thing. You never know what you'd get up to in prison.

Meh, it could be a dominance thing. You never know what you'd get up to in prison.

Why would TG and the black person be in prison?

Why would TG and the black person be in prison?
Why, what've you heard?

Why, what've you heard?

Nothing but filth and loose conjecture, which is of course the best kind

Now, this might seemed uncivilized of me... but why do we consider homosexuality as a decent thing? I am not even talking from a religious point of view; i am talking from a purely sociological point of view. What will help our culture endure? Offspring or no offspring?


Offspring.

I may have came out with guns blazing.. but ... oh well.

For any culture to endure, the culture has to be passed from one generation to the next. If homosexuality is a contemporary, working, okay thing, then I am assuming it is okay if everyone in the culture is homosexual. If everyone is homosexual, no one is going to have babies. No babies, no more culture.

The end.

Now, this might seemed uncivilized of me... but why do we consider homosexuality as a decent thing? I am not even talking from a religious point of view; i am talking from a purely sociological point of view. What will help our culture endure? Offspring or no offspring?

Offspring.

I may have came out with guns blazing.. but ... oh well.

For any culture to endure, the culture has to be passed from one generation to the next. If homosexuality is a contemporary, working, okay thing, then I am assuming it is okay if everyone in the culture is homosexual. If everyone is homosexual, no one is going to have babies. No babies, no more culture.

The end.

"Everyone" has never been homosexual. "Everyone" is not homosexual. "Everyone" will never be homosexual (just like "everyone" has never been heterosexual, "everyone" is not heterosexual, and "everyone" will never be heterosexual). That, and being gay doesn't make you sterile or somehow magically make you forget how babies are made, so your post is not only off-topic for the thread, it's also very moot and irrelevant.

"Everyone" has never been homosexual. "Everyone" is not homosexual. "Everyone" will never be homosexual. That, and being gay doesn't make you sterile or somehow magically make you forget how babies are made, so your post is not only off-topic for the thread, it's also very moot and irrelevant.

Whoa... I am sorry, but you just responded to my post with more irrelevant opinions. What makes it okay for you to be off-topic *by responding* and not okay for me?


In concern to what you said, to illustrate a cell of a living creature... what do you do? shrink it? no. You magnify it. I magnified what most people believe and showed the end results of believing that homosexuality is appropriate for a society that wants to endure.

In relation to the original, original post... yes, it's probably homophobic to go against homosexuals, however is it unnatural? Hmm... probably not. Should you change it? Hmm.. will promoting it help the culture?

In concern to what you said, to illustrate a cell of a living creature... what do you do? shrink it? no. You magnify it. I magnified what most people believe and showed the end results of believing that homosexuality is appropriate for a society that wants to endure.

And I blew your flawed reasoning out of the water by showing how it is flawed (by hypothesising the impossible of everyone being gay, just like it's impossible for everyone to be straight, and by assuming for some reason that gay people are sterile and incapable of getting a sperm to meet an egg inside a fallopian tube/uterus - I mean, such a feat! It's not like pimply-faced 14-year olds have been known to manage it...). "Magnify" detritus all you want - it'll still be detritus, and it'll still have nothing do to with the subject of the OP and thread.

In relation to the original, original post... yes, it's probably homophobic to go against homosexuals, however is it unnatural? Hmm... probably not. Should you change it? Hmm.. will promoting it help the culture?
It's fucking Rainman

And I blew your flawed reasoning out of the water by showing how it is flawed (by hypothesising the impossible of everyone being gay, just like it's impossible for everyone to be straight, and by assuming for some reason that gay people are sterile and incapable of getting a sperm to meet an egg inside a fallopian tube/uterus - I mean, such a feat! It's not like pimply-faced 14-year olds have been known to manage it...). "Magnify" detritus all you want - it'll still be detritus, and it'll still have nothing do to with the subject of the OP and thread.

You seem upset.

Well, if homosexuals must continue to conceive the heterosexual way (at least in relation to a sperm meeting an egg).. why have homosexuality? You seem to be arguing for me, and no, I am not going to pretend I know what detritus means.

Once again you continue to venture off-topic by responding.

In concern to what you said, to illustrate a cell of a living creature... what do you do? shrink it? no. You magnify it. I magnified what most people believe and showed the end results of believing that homosexuality is appropriate for a society that wants to endure.

I cannot help but notice how you chose to ignore the fact homosexuals can, and in fact DO, reproduce and have offsprings. It's quite frequent.


In relation to the original, original post... yes, it's probably homophobic to go against homosexuals, however is it unnatural? Hmm... probably not. Should you change it? Hmm.. will promoting it help the culture?
My dear fellow, homosexuals are responsible for a good portion of the culture you speak of. Perhaps you should consider that human beings can offer more to society than just mindlessly spawn children. Heterosexuals and homosexuals alike can leave a legacy to society by their work, art, financial contributions, and so on.

So no, homosexuality does not go against the betterment of culture or society as a whole.

Well, if homosexuals must continue to conceive the heterosexual way (at least in relation to a sperm meeting an egg).. why have homosexuality?

You seem to forget human emotion cannot be explained. Neither can it be rationalized.

Why do people like the color blue? Why do some people laugh at a joke, and others don't? There's no explanation of this. And it's useless to try to explain it, too.

The correct question question would rather be: why not? If homosexuals can and still do find ways to procreate if they so choose, why should they not be homosexual if such is their way?

You seem upset.

Well, if homosexuals must continue to conceive the heterosexual way (at least in relation to a sperm meeting an egg).. why have homosexuality?

Why have heterosexuality - what good is it for? - if you don't need to be heterosexual to manage to have babies? Methinks you should find yourself a new, less feeble justification for your sexuality, because the one you have now is amateurish, at best. :rolleyes:

Or, the much more pertinent question: why not have both? And all that's in between? Well, you know what? That's what we have. And it seems to be working rather well, indeed.

You seem to be arguing for me, and no, I am not going to pretend I know what detritus means.

It means waste.

Once again you continue to venture off-topic by responding.

That ends now. Find yourself a new thread and someone else to pull the floor from under your "reasonings." I'm off to bed, anyway.

I cannot help but notice how you chose to ignore the fact homosexuals can, and in fact DO, reproduce and have offsprings. It's quite frequent.



My dear fellow, homosexuals are responsible for a good portion of the culture you speak of. Perhaps you should consider that human beings can offer more to society than just mindlessly spawn children. Heterosexuals and homosexuals alike can leave a legacy to society by their work, art, financial contributions, and so on.


So no, homosexuality does not go against the betterment of culture or society as a whole.

I like you... very good response.

I concur that homosexuals and heterosexuals and whoever else can contribute to society in many different ways, however they must rely on heterosexual means to produce children. Once again, if everyone were homosexual, society would have no means of producing children, because by definition, homosexuals do not want to have heterosexual sex. If we aren't talking scientifically, heterosexual sex is the only way to produce children. Anyways, I don't wish to degrade the homosexual person, for they are human, and humans rock.

I don't think it is necessarily true that one who finds homosexuality repugnant is also homophobic. There are plenty of people who find abstract art ugly, but don't necessarily believe it to not be art or that is not a worthwhile endeavor.


But to be clear on this one can say that it is ok to be repulsed by the act of homosexual intercourse as long as one allows for the same to hold true of the reverse wherein another is repulsed by the act of heteroosexual intercourse.


This all said I think its a very quick path to go from repugnance to bias or moral condemnation. Leon Kass is a testament to this.

NT

Or, the much more pertinent question: why not have both? And all that's in between? Well, you know what? That's what we have. And it seems to be working rather well, indeed.



Let's use an extreme example that might be offensive. Try not to take it that way. We have producers; we have looters. Producers make all the money, make all the goods, keep everything running. Looters steal the money, take the goods, and fudge up how everything runs.

What you are arguing is that we should have both producers and looters; that everything will run fine. What I am arguing is that what if everyone decide that fudge it all.. i am gonna be a looter. I am sick of working hard.

Well, there'd be no one to produce any money, goods, and keep everything running dandy. So while the money and goods that remain will hold the nation for awhile, eventually, the looters will end up with nothing to keep them alive, bringing an end to the whole deal.

Because heterosexuals can be destructive through murdering and so forth, the example isn't perfect... however, I hope you see where I am coming from.

Because heterosexuals can be destructive through murdering and so forth, the example isn't perfect... however, I hope you see where I am coming from.

No, because it really is ungifted nonsense. Good night.

I like you... very good response.

I concur that homosexuals and heterosexuals and whoever else can contribute to society in many different ways, however they must rely on heterosexual means to produce children. Once again, if everyone were homosexual, society would have no means of producing children, because by definition, homosexuals do not want to have heterosexual sex. If we aren't talking scientifically, heterosexual sex is the only way to produce children. Anyways, I don't wish to degrade the homosexual person, for they are human, and humans rock.
And what's your point, exactly? Granted, homosexuals don't engage in heterosexual acts for pleasure, but they sometimes do it as a mean of achieveing something important to them: giving life to a new, unique human being.

It's like someone not liking to do construction work, but doing it anyway to build himself a house: the how, however unpleasant for him, is still a sacrifice he's willing to make in order to get the end result.

Even if everyone in this world turned homosexual, which is downright impossible and quite a bit crazy, if you ask me, we would still manage to maintain the human race. It wouldn't be any less important, it would just be done out of duty rather than pleasure, and pleasure could then be had according to everyone's preference.

Again, all of this is purely hypothetical: homosexuality and bisexuality have always existed, and always at pretty much the same occurence in human beings. The only that has changed throughout history is the acceptance of homosexuality in society, and the need to hide it if acceptance was low. There is no reason for that to change.

Let's use an extreme example that might be offensive. Try not to take it that way. We have producers; we have looters. Producers make all the money, make all the goods, keep everything running. Looters steal the money, take the goods, and fudge up how everything runs.

What you are arguing is that we should have both producers and looters; that everything will run fine. What I am arguing is that what if everyone decide that fudge it all.. i am gonna be a looter. I am sick of working hard.

Well, there'd be no one to produce any money, goods, and keep everything running dandy. So while the money and goods that remain will hold the nation for awhile, eventually, the looters will end up with nothing to keep them alive, bringing an end to the whole deal.

I find your simile rather weak, because in reality, homosexuals(even those who do not have children) do not take anything from heterosexuals.

However, I will humor you with this: what do you think happens when the looters realize nobody's producing anything anymore? All right, maybe some are dumb and just starve to death. But the clever ones will figure out they have to go out and actually work for themselves if they want anything done.

So, if everyone in society turned gay, and realized there were no more heterosexuals to produce the offsprings needed for the continuation of our species, then some would open their eyes and realize the need to act. And they would naturally take care of the problem by having children themselves.

See, I really don't know why you seem so intent in presenting these apocalyptic scenarios. 8-10% of gays and lesbians is not gonna make the end of the world happen. If you're that worried about the continuation of our specy, global warming, pollution, wars, famine and overpopulation are much more serious obstacles to overcome.

Holy fuck, when doesn't homosexuality pop up in these forums?

Holy fuck, when doesn't homosexuality pop up in these forums?
How's never for an answer?

Well, the day it stops being an issue, and people just start not caring, is the day of my victory. Meanwhile, I'm stuck to educating the ignorant, discussing with the well-intentionned, and exposing the bigoted for what they are.

And what's your point, exactly? Granted, homosexuals don't engage in heterosexual acts for pleasure, but they sometimes do it as a mean of achieveing something important to them: giving life to a new, unique human being.

It's like someone not liking to do construction work, but doing it anyway to build himself a house: the how, however unpleasant for him, is still a sacrifice he's willing to make in order to get the end result.

Even if everyone in this world turned homosexual, which is downright impossible and quite a bit crazy, if you ask me, we would still manage to maintain the human race. It wouldn't be any less important, it would just be done out of duty rather than pleasure, and pleasure could then be had according to everyone's preference.

Again, all of this is purely hypothetical: homosexuality and bisexuality have always existed, and always at pretty much the same occurence in human beings. The only that has changed throughout history is the acceptance of homosexuality in society, and the need to hide it if acceptance was low. There is no reason for that to change.

Brilliant argument.

Brilliant argument.
Thank you. I try to answer at the best of my abilities.

How's never for an answer?

Well, the day it stops being an issue, and people just start not caring, is the day of my victory. Meanwhile, I'm stuck to educating the ignorant, discussing with the well-intentionned, and exposing the bigoted for what they are.

Who on these forums are you still trying to convince?
These threads and responses seem basically like;
"Gay Pride Worldwide"
Opposed to, say, educating people.

I find your simile rather weak, because in reality, homosexuals(even those who do not have children) do not take anything from heterosexuals.

However, I will humor you with this: what do you think happens when the looters realize nobody's producing anything anymore? All right, maybe some are dumb and just starve to death. But the clever ones will figure out they have to go out and actually work for themselves if they want anything done.

I highly doubt that. When someone's only character trait is to take from others, they will continue to do so until the very end. The quantities may get smaller, but the actions won't change.


So, if everyone in society turned gay, and realized there were no more heterosexuals to produce the offsprings needed for the continuation of our species, then some would open their eyes and realize the need to act. And they would naturally take care of the problem by having children themselves.
So those that acted realized that heterosexuality is the way to keep things running?


See, I really don't know why you seem so intent in presenting these apocalyptic scenarios. 8-10% of gays and lesbians is not gonna make the end of the world happen. If you're that worried about the continuation of our specy, global warming, pollution, wars, famine and overpopulation are much more serious obstacles to overcome.

What I am trying to do is figure out by exaggerating to the limit what is being said. Homosexuality is okay. Well if it's okay for one person, it's okay for all persons. Why shouldn't it be? That's why i brought it to the extremes, because that's how you can make a decision on whether it's okay or not when encountering a small minority.

Homosexuals are gay

Who on these forums are you still trying to convince?
These threads and responses seem basically like;
"Gay Pride Worldwide"
Opposed to, say, educating people.
Well, read my posts on this thread, and any other really, and judge for yourself.

I know convincing anyone of anything is pure idealism on NS general; but still, I'm unable not to go ahead and do what seems right to me.

What I am trying to do is figure out by exaggerating to the limit what is being said. Homosexuality is okay. Well if it's okay for one person, it's okay for all persons. Why shouldn't it be? That's why i brought it to the extremes, because that's how you can make a decision on whether it's okay or not when encountering a small minority.
That's a faulty logic. Homosexuality is not a choice. Were it one, I would agree with your logic in that it may prove a threat to society's propagation if all were to be in favour of non-reproductive behaviours. That is not so though. Hence, homosexuality will always be confined to an extreme minority.

Homosexuals are gay

Yes.

Homosexuals are gay
Pure genius, I must say.

That's a faulty logic. Homosexuality is not a choice. Were it one, I would agree with your logic in that it may prove a threat to society's propagation if all were to be in favour of non-reproductive behaviours. That is not so though. Hence, homosexuality will always be confined to an extreme minority.

Okay so wait, homosexuality is not a choice but it's not a mental disorder(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology) so what is it?

Okay so wait, homosexuality is not a choice but it's not a mental disorder(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology) so what is it?
A form of sexuality, most probably genetically determined, with hormonal and other potential influences. It lacks the proper criteria to be labelled a disorder. It simply means one has feminine (or masculine) sexual preferences.

What I am trying to do is figure out by exaggerating to the limit what is being said. Homosexuality is okay. Well if it's okay for one person, it's okay for all persons. Why shouldn't it be? That's why i brought it to the extremes, because that's how you can make a decision on whether it's okay or not when encountering a small minority.

Forgive me, but that's absurd. Is it okay for some people to be painters? Novelists? Advertising executives? Pizza deliverers? Wedding planners? Of course. Would it be okay for every single person in the world to be an advertising executive, thus leaving us with no farmers, no teachers, no government, and so forth? Probably not. Thus, by your rationale, we must deduce that it is not okay for anyone to be a painter or an advertising executive, or in fact to hold any profession, since a world where no one did anything but farm would also have some rather serious problems. See how your reasoning doesn't work?

A form of sexuality, most probably genetically determined, with hormonal and other potential influences. It lacks the proper criteria to be labelled a disorder. It simply means one has feminine (or masculine) sexual preferences.

Well I thought it was a choice, I don't see how if somebody's bodily hormones react far different than usual, how that can't be classified as a disorder.

dis·or·der (ds-ôrdr)
n.

A disturbance or derangement that affects the function of mind or body, such as an eating disorder or the abuse of a drug.

..

?

I highly doubt that. When someone's only character trait is to take from others, they will continue to do so until the very end. The quantities may get smaller, but the actions won't change.

Someone's character can never be defined by only a single trait. Human beings a complex and complete, not two-dimensionnal cartoon characters. If faced between starvation or working for survival, with no option of an easy solution, most human beings choose life. Trust our self-preservation instinct: it's worked for us so far.

So those that acted realized that heterosexuality is the way to keep things running?

At this point in speculation, I would hardly agree that homosexuals having sex with the opposite sex for express purpose of procreation hardly constitutes acts of heterosexuality. In fact, if the all the world's population was homosexual and still managed to have babies, it could then be that homosexuality is in fact the way to keep things running.

Remember there are always more than one way to do things. You might not go around cleaning your house in the same manner than I do mine. As long as both our houses are equally clean, who is to judge which method is superior to the other? It would instead spring to mind that both ways to do it are equally valid, but just different.



What I am trying to do is figure out by exaggerating to the limit what is being said. Homosexuality is okay. Well if it's okay for one person, it's okay for all persons. Why shouldn't it be? That's why i brought it to the extremes, because that's how you can make a decision on whether it's okay or not when encountering a small minority.
Again, I find this rather irrelevant, because this is an impossibility to begin with.

If I were to put your rationale to the test, I could say this: "Programming computers is an acceptable way to earn your life. But if it's good for me, then it's okay for everyone, too. But what will we eat, what will we wear, and where will we sleep if everyone starts computer programming?"

Bear in mind that mankind's greatest strenght lies in its diversity. There is absolutely nothing in the world that would benefit us if we all shared that trait or preference. Just like biodiversity is preferable in nature, I believe social diversity is preferable for humankind.

Forgive me, but that's absurd. Is it okay for some people to be painters? Novelists? Advertising executives? Pizza deliverers? Wedding planners? Of course. Would it be okay for every single person in the world to be an advertising executive, thus leaving us with no farmers, no teachers, no government, and so forth? Probably not. Thus, by your rationale, we must deduce that it is not okay for anyone to be a painter or an advertising executive, or in fact to hold any profession, since a world where no one did anything but farm would also have some rather serious problems. See how your reasoning doesn't work?
Be damned, for you beat me to it.

*sigh* Here, have my cookie.

Well I thought it was a choice, I don't see how if somebody's bodily hormones react far different than usual, how that can't be classified as a disorder.

If it were a choice, a) there would be no constant ratio of homosexuality among animals (including humans, at around 10% for males, 5% for females) and b) no one would elect it, as it has negative social consequences.

Classifying something as a disorder is nowhere near that simple. Homosexuality is perfectly natural in that it is a biological mechanism there to help limit population growth. Ideally. Humans though have found ways around this.

Forgive me, but that's absurd. Is it okay for some people to be painters? Novelists? Advertising executives? Pizza deliverers? Wedding planners? Of course. Would it be okay for every single person in the world to be an advertising executive, thus leaving us with no farmers, no teachers, no government, and so forth? Probably not. Thus, by your rationale, we must deduce that it is not okay for anyone to be a painter or an advertising executive, or in fact to hold any profession, since a world where no one did anything but farm would also have some rather serious problems. See how your reasoning doesn't work?

You're forgiven. ;)

I see what you're arguing, but I am not sure I acknowledge it. Like we're not actually addressing what we're talking about. What I am saying is in order for anything to continue forth, heterosexuality needs to exist. Because it is the only way without science to conceive children, a culture wanting to win the big race better hope they have heterosexuals on their team.

Well I thought it was a choice, I don't see how if somebody's bodily hormones react far different than usual, how that can't be classified as a disorder.

It's not anymore a choice than heterosexuality is. When did you wake up and choose to be attracted to women/men? Nobody chooses the object of their attraction, just like we don't consciously choose our tastes in food or clothes or colors consciously either. We don't really understand how it happens, but we ackowledge that we have preferences.

The sad thing is that this particular preference, for some reason, seems unreasonably seen as invalid. It makes about as much sense to me as having a strong social taboo and prejudice against people who like, say, the color green.


dis·or·der (ds-ôrdr)
n.

A disturbance or derangement that affects the function of mind or body, such as an eating disorder or the abuse of a drug.

..

?
The word difference comes to mind. Someone can be different without being disordered. Human diversity at its best.

If it were a choice, a) there would be no constant ratio of homosexuality among animals (including humans, at around 10% for males, 5% for females) and b) no one would elect it, as it has negative social consequences.

Classifying something as a disorder is nowhere near that simple. Homosexuality is perfectly natural in that it is a biological mechanism there to help limit population growth. Ideally. Humans though have found ways around this.

Yes I see that it can't be a choice but if we cross off;
Choice
Mental Disorder

What are we left with?
What is making them different?
It just seems to me that if somebody's body reacts so differently biologically, it would be some kind of mental/physical disorder (Not to say a disorder is negative just to say it is unnatural).

You're forgiven. ;)

I see what you're arguing, but I am not sure I acknowledge it. Like we're not actually addressing what we're talking about. What I am saying is in order for anything to continue forth, heterosexuality needs to exist. Because it is the only way without science to conceive children, a culture wanting to win the big race better hope they have heterosexuals on their team.
Yes, but like we've said many times over, nobody's ever suggested that the world should turn to homosexuality en masse. The only thing proposed is to lay the f*ck off those who are already homosexual, for there is no reason to target them specifically.

You're the one who seems intent on assuming everyone would like to turn gay. I mean, it's all well and good, but it's not everyone's thing. Just because our society lets homosexuals live freely and openly without fear of prejudice or discrimination will not make heterosexuality disappear. See my previous posts for how your rationale of extending it to everyone is flawed, anyway.

The sad thing is that this particular preference, for some reason, seems unreasonably seen as invalid. It makes about as much sense to me as having a strong social taboo and prejudice against people who like, say, the color green.


You exemplify a harmless thing such as having a preference to the color green. what if we used a stronger example? How about murderers. Some people argue that murderers are by mental state or birth more inclined to commit murders. Do we accept that behavior as decent and right?

Yes I see that it can't be a choice but if we cross off;
Choice
Mental Disorder

What are we left with?
What is making them different?
It just seems to me that if somebody's body reacts so differently biologically, it would be some kind of mental/physical disorder (Not to say a disorder is negative just to say it is unnatural).
It's just a different form of sexuality. Not a disorder and not unnatural. Like Skaladora put it, it is a form of diversity. A mutation? Perhaps, but I doubt it. To say it is a disorder is analogous to saying white skin is a disorder if black is the norm. That is wrong. White skin arose from particular environmental adaptation. Likewise, homosexuality is the result of particular biological necessities.

Yes I see that it can't be a choice but if we cross off;
Choice
Mental Disorder

What are we left with?
What is making them different?
It just seems to me that if somebody's body reacts so differently biologically, it would be some kind of mental/physical disorder (Not to say a disorder is negative just to say it is unnatural).
Again, let me direct your thoughts to another similar human behaviour:

Why are some people left-handed? Their body and brains react differently than the majority. Would you consider it a disorder? No, because it doesn't impact their life negatively: they just go around doing the same things in a different manner. What is making them different? We have no idea, but I ask of you another question: why should we care, if they can still live their life as happily and normally as everyone else with their difference?

Then, take everything I just said here, and apply it to homosexuality. You have your answer.

It's not anymore a choice than heterosexuality is. When did you wake up and choose to be attracted to women/men? Nobody chooses the object of their attraction, just like we don't consciously choose our tastes in food or clothes or colors consciously either. We don't really understand how it happens, but we ackowledge that we have preferences.

The sad thing is that this particular preference, for some reason, seems unreasonably seen as invalid. It makes about as much sense to me as having a strong social taboo and prejudice against people who like, say, the color green.


The word difference comes to mind. Someone can be different without being disordered. Human diversity at its best.

I'm not debating it either way.
I'm just a confused youngling with bare grasping at human psychology at best.

Hell, with my current stance you could easily say that heterosexuality is the mental disorder and that homosexual hormones are the natural way - just that the rest of us were born defective.

Yes, but like we've said many times over, nobody's ever suggested that the world should turn to homosexuality en masse. The only thing proposed is to lay the f*ck off those who are already homosexual, for there is no reason to target them specifically.

You're the one who seems intent on assuming everyone would like to turn gay. I mean, it's all well and good, but it's not everyone's thing. Just because our society lets homosexuals live freely and openly without fear of prejudice or discrimination will not make heterosexuality disappear. See my previous posts for how your rationale of extending it to everyone is flawed, anyway.

In response to your painter example, what that proves is that everyone can be a painter and there is a need for diversity in the careers people have. In response to my argument, what that proves is that everyone can't be homosexual; there is a need for heterosexuality. What I was trying to do was extend that conclusion to a more specific conclusion that heterosexuality, by need, is what should be promoted and approved of.

You exemplify a harmless thing such as having a preference to the color green. what if we used a stronger example? How about murderers. Some people argue that murderers are by mental state or birth more inclined to commit murders. Do we accept that behavior as decent and right?
No, we don't. Why? Because murder leaves a victim. It is an action that, when performed, rains harm upon another human being without it's consentment.

Does liking the color green leave any victims? No. Does a man falling in love with another man leaves victims? No. So you have your answer as for why we chose to restrict murderous behaviour.

And, if I may, please try to refrain from comparing homosexuality to murder or other criminal behaviours. It's quite insulting. Nobody's hurt by love between consenting adults.

In response to your painter example, what that proves is that everyone can be a painter and there is a need for diversity in the careers people have. In response to my argument, what that proves is that everyone can't be homosexual; there is a need for heterosexuality. What I was trying to do was extend that conclusion to a more specific conclusion that heterosexuality, by need, is what should be promoted and approved of.
And I could counter by saying that in the current world situation, with sprawling overpopulation and the depletion of our natural ressources caused by this, homosexuality is what should be promoted and approved of. And I would be quite right about it.

But that would be overlooking one very important, major fact: sexual orientation is not a choice. Whatever we might approve of or promote will have no consequence on the sexual orientation of anyone. In the light, it is totally useless to try and promote one over the other. The only logical thing to do is treat both as equally valid, but different sexual orientation, aknowledging the fact that heterosexuality is by far the more frequent of the two along the way. That a human trait is more frequent than another is not a sign of superiority or inforiority. Having brown hair, for example, is neither better nor worse than having red hair. It's just different.

No, we don't. Why? Because murder leaves a victim. It is an action that, when performed, rains harm upon another human being without it's consentment.

Does liking the color green leave any victims? No. Does a man falling in love with another man leaves victims? No. So you have your answer as for why we chose to restrict murderous behaviour.

And, if I may, please try to refrain from comparing homosexuality to murder or other criminal behaviours. It's quite insulting. Nobody's hurt by love between consenting adults.

Would you say you appreciate your existence? That if you didn't have it *this is way hypothetical* that you would be sadden or hurt? Imagine now if your dad was homosexual instead of heterosexual. You would never have been born unless we get into homosexuals using heterosexual means or science to produce you.

Not only is homosexuality doing what I was arguing before *preventing the spread of society cough cough cough* it's also harming a child that could have existed. But hopefully you will refute me on this one.

My God, people! I've been reading this thread for a while now. When are you going to learn? :headbang:

You can't blame homosexuals for the way they are. In this sense, they are just like the mentally challenged kid drooling and soiling himself. They just can't help it! In this sense, homosexuality is a mental and/or physiological disorder.

They do, however, have a choice whether or not to flaunt it in public. :fluffle: :eek:

Lay off of them. As long as they don't try to feel you up, whats the harm? :rolleyes:

And I could counter by saying that in the current world situation, with sprawling overpopulation and the depletion of our natural ressources caused by this, homosexuality is what should be promoted and approved of. And I would be quite right about it.

But that would be overlooking one very important, major fact: sexual orientation is not a choice. Whatever we might approve of or promote will have no consequence on the sexual orientation of anyone. In the light, it is totally useless to try and promote one over the other. The only logical thing to do is treat both as equally valid, but different sexual orientation, aknowledging the fact that heterosexuality is by far the more frequent of the two along the way. That a human trait is more frequent than another is not a sign of superiority or inforiority. Having brown hair, for example, is neither better nor worse than having red hair. It's just different.

Yes they can be treated as equals.
However they will always be the minority based on numbers.
In terms of power over the media, for example.

Let's say there is a town of 100 people.
3 of those people are green.
Those 3 people may have the same respect, rights, etc as the other people but they are still the minority.

whats the harm? :rolleyes:

I think I have been arguing the harm of it the whole time. :headbang:

Would you say you appreciate your existence? That if you didn't have it *this is way hypothetical* that you would be sadden or hurt? Imagine now if your dad was homosexual instead of heterosexual. You would never have been born unless we get into homosexuals using heterosexual means or science to produce you.

Not only is homosexuality doing what I was arguing before *preventing the spread of society cough cough cough* it's also harming a child that could have existed. But hopefully you will refute me on this one.

Every time I menstruate, I am, by this definition, "harming a child that could have existed." Should I feel obligated to become pregnant every nine months to avoid harming any of these potential children?

Here's the thing. There's a big difference between saying "I personally wouldn't have sex with someone of my gender, it puts me off" and "homosexual sex is disgusting". If you meant the former, and were simply talking about personal preference, then no, I wouldn't say you're homophobic. As long as you're not saying that all homosexual sex is disgusting, or that homosexuals themselves are disgusting, I don't see the problem. Kinda the same way that it wouldn't be a problem if you said, "I think that girl over there is ugly, I could never sleep with her!", but it would be a problem if you said "that girl over there is ugly, no one should sleep with her!"

Meh. I'm tired and that probably didn't make any sense. I also haven't read all the posts in the thread, so my apologies if I've repeated other people's points. I'm off to sleep now.

Would you say you appreciate your existence? That if you didn't have it *this is way hypothetical* that you would be sadden or hurt? Imagine now if your dad was homosexual instead of heterosexual. You would never have been born unless we get into homosexuals using heterosexual means or science to produce you.

Please, you must be desperate if you're trying to get me by base appeal to emotions.

Unless you're gonna argue that you cry every night because every male ejaculation contains millions of potention children, or that every period cycle for females does the same, your above statement seems pretty hypocritical.

No human being in the world has a duty to produce as many children as s/he can just for the sake of those "potential" humans. The fact of the matter is that if I'd never been born, I wouldn't(couldn't!) mind, because I would never have existed in the first place. Existence precedes essence.


Not only is homosexuality doing what I was arguing before *preventing the spread of society cough cough cough* it's also harming a child that could have existed. But hopefully you will refute me on this one.
You seem to choose to ignore the fact I very convincingly showed that homosexuality did in no way prevent the spread of society, and that you had nothing to disprove my arguments. I find that disappointing, because that's not a sign of intellectual honesty on your part.

And, again, if homosexuality harms a child that could have existed, then so do you and millions of others every time you masturbate, have sex, wet dreams, or have your period if you're female. That's not a course of thinking I want to sustain, so we'll stop it right there.

Yes they can be treated as equals.
However they will always be the minority based on numbers.
In terms of power over the media, for example.

Let's say there is a town of 100 people.
3 of those people are green.
Those 3 people may have the same respect, rights, etc as the other people but they are still the minority.
Indeed. Has anyone ever tried/wanted to pretend homosexuality was the majority and heterosexuality the minority? If so, that person certainly wasn't me.

I really don't get what your point is with this.

Be damned, for you beat me to it.

*sigh* Here, have my cookie.

Aw, we can share it. *offers half a cookie* :)

I think I have been arguing the harm of it the whole time. :headbang:

Look, we know who's right here. You're not going to change the way they think. To them, homosexuality is perfectly normal.

They didn't just wake up one day and decide to be gay, something went wrong in their fetal developement way down on the gene level and, hence, they really cant be held liable for their lifestyle.

Please, you must be desperate if you're trying to get me by base appeal to emotions.

Unless you're gonna argue that you cry every night because every male ejaculation contains millions of potention children, or that every period cycle for females does the same, your above statement seems pretty hypocritical.

No human being in the world has a duty to produce as many children as s/he can just for the sake of those "potential" humans. The fact of the matter is that if I'd never been born, I wouldn't(couldn't!) mind, because I would never have existed in the first place. Existence precedes essence.

I love you. You're so good at this.

Flaw: you're argument of not allowing one group above the others as far as being right is based off of emotions. I don't want to put homosexuals down because that will be mean and harmful. It has nothing to do with facts, just not being the bad guy. If you can do it, I can too.


You seem to choose to ignore the fact I very convincingly showed that homosexuality did in no way prevent the spread of society, and that you had nothing to disprove my arguments. I find that disappointing, because that's not a sign of intellectual honesty on your part.


Geesh. I said brilliant argument. I just said I love you. What else do you need.. high maintenance intellect.

I think I have been arguing the harm of it the whole time. :headbang:
And your fears have been disproved every time by my own arguments. You need to stop, think on it a bit, and realize your fears are unfounded. Homosexuality does not impact negatively on society. That two persons of the same gender fall in love with each other really does not affect your own life in the least. It's not like anyone is trying to convince you to have sex with a person of your own gender; just that maybe you should let others live their lives as they see fit. What is right for you may not be right for your neighbour.

Live and let live, my friend.

To them, homosexuality is perfectly normal..

If by that you mean normal in society - then no.
I don't think any homosexual could be ignorant of all of society's quarrels with them.

Unless said person lives under a rock, in a cave, under the sea..

Look, we know who's right here. You're not going to change the way they think. To them, homosexuality is perfectly normal.

They didn't just wake up one day and decide to be gay, something went wrong in their fetal developement way down on the gene level and, hence, they really cant be held liable for their lifestyle.

That's a flawed argument. You can be held responsible for your lifestyle. I am born with the urge to sleep with anything that moves and has a vagina, yet I can resist it. My point in this specific argument isn't to make homosexuals stop having sex with homosexuals *that's a different argument* my point is that you can be held responsible for urges and lifestyles.

That's a flawed argument. You can be held responsible for your lifestyle. I am born with the urge to sleep with anything that moves and has a vagina, yet I can resist it. My point in this specific argument isn't to make homosexuals stop having sex with homosexuals *that's a different argument* my point is that you can be held responsible for urges and lifestyles.


Sorry, Bad choice of words. I did mean urges. Sociopathic killers, while also born genetically flawed, are held accountable for their actions. They can urge all they want.

Sorry, Bad choice of words. I did mean urges. Sociopathic killers, while also born genetically flawed, are held accountable for their actions. They can urge all they want.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with what i said?

That's a flawed argument. You can be held responsible for your lifestyle. I am born with the urge to sleep with anything that moves and has a vagina, yet I can resist it. My point in this specific argument isn't to make homosexuals stop having sex with homosexuals *that's a different argument* my point is that you can be held responsible for urges and lifestyles.

I'd like to say at this point; no shit.
Of course you can be held responsible for urges and lifestyles, just because I was born heterosexual doesn't mean I'm forced to drink beer, stare at women and refuse to put the toilet seat down.

Who the hell are you trying to prove that simple point to?

I think we are missing the bigger issue here people.

What about those who like mayonaiss on chips instead of Ketchup or Brown sauce?


I mean

eeewwwwww!


These people are clearly mentally ill! and if the government would just give me the funds to build an army of robots then I could cure them

these days queers have bassically made it so that if you aint gay, or at least dont act gay to a questionable manner, you are a total homophobe who wants to kill all the gays. and since your a homophobe, you are also queer to, so they have effectivley made a parodox and the universe will soon b destroyed thanks to the gays.:)

I love you. You're so good at this.

Thank you. I certainly hope you mean this in a platonic way.

Flaw: you're argument of not allowing one group above the others as far as being right is based off of emotions. I don't want to put homosexuals down because that will be mean and harmful. It has nothing to do with facts, just not being the bad guy. If you can do it, I can too.

I'm not trying to make you look like the right guy: just pointing out that your reasoning doesn't work. Again, just because something happens more frequently doesn't make it any better or worse. Being right-handed isn't better or worse than being left-handed, it's just a different way to do things, even if we all know right-handed is more frequent. Likewise, heterosexuality is neither better nor worse than homosexuality: the two are just different ways to live your life and find a significant other, even if we know that heterosexuality is far more frequent than homosexuality.

There need not be a hierarchy for sexual orientations.


Geesh. I said brilliant argument. I just said I love you. What else do you need.. high maintenance intellect.
Well, for starters, a simple change in your discourse would suffice... for example, not continuing using arguments I have countered. I'm glad you like me and think I'm good at this, but you should also look inward and be honest with yourself: using argumentations that have been disproven by me, and you not being able to show they were valid after my interventions, show that even though you admit some of my points make sense and disprove yours, you're unwilling to stop using them. That would mean you keep saying things you know to be false.

I'm not really a high maintenance intellect... keep in mind I don't really do this for the recognition(obviously, this being an internet forum after all. I seldom get praise here). On this note, I have to leave the boards for today, as it is well past 3 AM here. Have a good night.

I think we are missing the bigger issue here people.

What about those who like mayonaiss on chips instead of Ketchup or Brown sauce?


I mean

eeewwwwww!


These people are clearly mentally ill! and if the government would just give me the funds to build an army of robots then I could cure them

Said argument has been used too much.
You lose one cookie.

these days queers have bassically made it so that if you aint gay, or at least dont act gay to a questionable manner, you are a total homophobe who wants to kill all the gays. and since your a homophobe, you are also queer to, so they have effectivley made a parodox and the universe will soon b destroyed thanks to the gays.:)
You related to Phelps in any way? :)

:( All I really want is an army of robots

Every time I menstruate, I am, by this definition, "harming a child that could have existed." Should I feel obligated to become pregnant every nine months to avoid harming any of these potential children?

;)

Probably not since it's something that you can't control.

However, everytime a guy "pleasures" himself might be a crime!

You related to Phelps in any way? :)

actually I pourpesly made that way more offensive than I should've just to laugh if anyone freaked out, though I still think that people are real quick to call someone a homophobe if you dont act "gay" becuase then they call you insecure cuz you dont act gay which means you are gay, its something thats popular among adolecents these days.

Thank you. I certainly hope you mean this in a platonic way. wouldn't anything but a platonic way be out of character for me ;)




Well, for starters, a simple change in your discourse would suffice... for example, not continuing using arguments I have countered. I'm glad you like me and think I'm good at this, but you should also look inward and be honest with yourself: using argumentations that have been disproven by me, and you not being able to show they were valid after my interventions, show that even though you admit some of my points make sense and disprove yours, you're unwilling to stop using them. That would mean you keep saying things you know to be false.

I don't give up on the arguments, because although you present a great argument, something seems funky. I am not the greatest thinker on the spot or at 3 in the morning either.. so that's why I continue to be stubborn. I apologize for that.

anyways, goodnight to you.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with what i said?

Agreeing with you. And while I do find homos disgusting, they also retain basic rights as Americans.

Until Judgment Day, that is. Then they'll find out just how bad they f* up.

;)

However, everytime a guy "pleasures" himself might be a crime!

Hence why there are frequent genocides of boys ranging from 12-19.
The government just doesn't let you know.

these days queers have bassically made it so that if you aint gay, or at least dont act gay to a questionable manner, you are a total homophobe who wants to kill all the gays. and since your a homophobe, you are also queer to, so they have effectivley made a parodox and the universe will soon b destroyed thanks to the gays.:)

Ah. Of course. Funny how I know a great many entirely straight people (including myself) who have never been accused of being homophobic, apparently by the simple expedient of not denigrating gay people or attempting to curtail their rights. I had no idea that "live and let live" was a particularly "gay" philosophy...

You can be held responsible for your lifestyle.

Who is doing the holding?

Barbaric Tribes

How does one "act gay"

I'm guessing he means Acting Camp... though a lot of people are camp without being gay and a great deal of gay men are anything but camp.

I only know one gay guy and, well, you wouldn't want to knock over his pint...

Barbaric Tribes

How does one "act gay"

I'm guessing he means Acting Camp... though a lot of people are camp without being gay and a great deal of gay men are anything but camp.

I only know one gay guy and, well, you wouldn't want to knock over his pint...

the navy.

Agreeing with you. And while I do find homos disgusting, they also retain basic rights as Americans.

Until Judgment Day, that is. Then they'll find out just how bad they f* up.

Well geesh. that was a highly controversial thing you just said.

Who is doing the holding?

Are we gonna get into objective or subjective standards in this thread too? :headbang:

;)

Probably not since it's something that you can't control.


Well, I could control it, sort of. I mean, I could have unprotected sex with random guys nonstop in hopes that one of them would impregnate me and save my poor little eggs' "potential life" from being wasted. It just doesn't seem like a very sensible way to live. :p

Agreeing with you. And while I do find homos disgusting, they also retain basic rights as Americans.

Until Judgment Day, that is. Then they'll find out just how bad they f* up.
Sarcasm or insanity? I can't tell which.

the navy.

...well I guess that is true.

The Navy are always trying to get people to join...








:rolleyes:

Until Judgment Day, that is. Then they'll find out just how bad they f* up.

Religion = Dumb.

Enough said.

Well geesh. that was a highly controversial thing you just said.

Only if you're overly sensitive or gay. But seriously, about them chip condiments...

Are we gonna get into objective or subjective standards in this thread too? :headbang:

Well you said "You can be held responsible for your lifestyle." held responsible by whom? Anyone can live their lives without being assesed or judged by anyone else. So who'll hold me resposible for my lifestyle? You?

Religion = Dumb.

Enough said.
Don't blame religion for a very human affliction.

Well you said "You can be held responsible for your lifestyle." held responsible by whom? Anyone can live their lives without being assesed or judged by anyone else. So who'll hold me resposible for my lifestyle? You?

Yes. I could hold you responsible, if it was my kingdom, by killing you. If America decided to make you responsible for your lifestyle and you broke the law somehow, they could surely assess your crime, then judge you, and then kill you. A lot of people could hold you responsible.

Or is that not your question?

Don't blame religion for a very human affliction.

The whole "when the world ends only the Christians will be spared" argument tends to annoy me.

Well you said "You can be held responsible for your lifestyle." held responsible by whom? Anyone can live their lives without being assesed or judged by anyone else. So who'll hold me resposible for my lifestyle? You?

Well, not just anyone can live their lives without being judged... serial rapists, those who abuse the elderly, and people who chew with their mouth open are a few that come to mind as quickly judged by society as a whole.

Ok this is a new thread because apparently the other one degenerated into flaming.

Is it homophobic to say that I would not wan't to have homosexual sex with someone, because I find it a bit discusting.

Because appaently it is. If this is true, then surely all hetrosexuals are homophobic, because I can't imagine a non bi-sexual who wouldn't mind having sex with someone of the same sex.

No, that isn't homophobic. I personally couldn't imagine doing it either, but I respect the rights of others to do so. That's the important part..

I reckon it is - except if you find the act of anal sex discusting - whether performed by hetero- or homosexuals. If you don't have a problem with anal sex, then you're homophopic, because the thought of man-man sex (I'm sure you're lusting over woman-woman) discusts you. The discust is purely ideological and I think can thereforefore be qualified as homophobic, yep.

But, yeah, maybe it's the anal sex part - then say so, and do not narrow it down to homosexual sex.

Well, not just anyone can live their lives without being judged... serial rapists, those who abuse the elderly, and people who chew with their mouth open are a few that come to mind as quickly judged by society as a whole.

Yes but judgement in court is reserved for those who break the laws of society and arbitrage. In these cases the judgement is usually on a single point and rarely involves aspects of ones lifestyle outside the immediate case.

Regular citizens are supposed to be unmolested by excessive responsibility judging.* Treatment meeted out to criminals is not acceptable to the citizen. Perhaps you are a monarchist?



* Except in the US of course where the NSA judges everyone in realtime.

Perhaps you are a monarchist?

Well I am one. A minarchist-monarchist in particular.

I reckon it is - except if you find the act of anal sex discusting - whether performed by hetero- or homosexuals. If you don't have a problem with anal sex, then you're homophopic, because the thought of man-man sex (I'm sure you're lusting over woman-woman) discusts you. The discust is purely ideological and I think can thereforefore be qualified as homophobic, yep.

But, yeah, maybe it's the anal sex part - then say so, and do not narrow it down to homosexual sex.

It's not necessarily homophobic at all. If he finds it objectionable, then that is it his right to do so. People don't like others smoking, but as long as we don't stop them doing it, then we're not infringing on their rights. Like every household superhero, I have a gay best friend, and he actually finds anal sex quite an unpleasant concept. But, people are individuals. If they find something disgusting, then who are we to judge them? I find polystyrine disgusting for some reason..

Regular citizens are supposed to be unmolested by excessive responsibility judging.* Treatment meeted out to criminals is not acceptable to the citizen. Perhaps you are a monarchist?



* Except in the US of course where the NSA judges everyone in realtime.


I agree with you... citizens are not supposed to be judged by others for their habits or lifestyles, but we all do it. You see a fat person waddling out of a Mickey D's and you think "Damn, he/she could stand to miss a meal," or you read a post full of typos and think "What an illiterate moron!" You pass judgment on your fellow citizens all the time, so get off of your high horse.

And I'm libertarian, if you really couldn't tell. Let our British brothers have their monarchy. It's worked so well for them so far.

And I'm libertarian, if you really couldn't tell. Let our British brothers have their monarchy. It's worked so well for them so far.

Especially that whole gun-control thing... But that's another thread. :rolleyes:

You see a fat person waddling out of a Mickey D's and you think "Damn, he/she could stand to miss a meal," or you read a post full of typos and think "What an illiterate moron!"

I don't do that.

And I'm libertarian, if you really couldn't tell. Let our British brothers have their monarchy. It's worked so well for them so far.
You do realise one can be monarchist and libertarian, I hope. As for Britain, it is its Parliamentary system that works reasonably well. Its Monarchy is ceremonial in nature.

Why be a subject when one can be a citizen?

Why be a subject when one can be a citizen?
Why would one even give a damn about such idiotic semantics when one's rights and economic freedom are guaranteed (assuming a minarchist monarchy)? To me the difference is notional, and that is it.

My thread seems to have been hijacked.

I don't do that.

Ever? I have yet to meet anybody who never passes judgement on some other person's lifestyle, at least in jest. I do it myself, not always "consciously", but sort of half-noticed that wow, that guy's messed up, or that girl's a ho, or whatever... I'm not particularly proud of it, but it's very human. 'Sides, if you don't judge at all, how do you pick your friends?

Ok this is a new thread because apparently the other one degenerated into flaming.

Is it homophobic to say that I would not wan't to have homosexual sex with someone, because I find it a bit discusting.

Because appaently it is. If this is true, then surely all hetrosexuals are homophobic, because I can't imagine a non bi-sexual who wouldn't mind having sex with someone of the same sex.

They'd be turned off by your awful spelling anyway.

They'd be turned off by your awful spelling anyway.

Yawn.

Thats so old now. Who gives a shit about a most 2 spelling mistakes.

Ever? I have yet to meet anybody who never passes judgement on some other person's lifestyle, at least in jest. I do it myself, not always "consciously", but sort of half-noticed that wow, that guy's messed up, or that girl's a ho, or whatever... I'm not particularly proud of it, but it's very human. 'Sides, if you don't judge at all, how do you pick your friends?


I go into a deep meditative state for several hours and then throw darts at random at pages torn from the phone book. Once I have my twenty names and addresses I call into their houses with my mask and toolkit. We make friends and then I leave.