Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

why is homophobia commonplace?


  • Please log in to reply
415 replies to this topic

#256    Detective Mystery 2014

Detective Mystery 2014

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,797 posts
  • Joined:31 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:twilight zone's outer limits

  • Mysteries are tomorrow's history.

Posted 11 March 2013 - 04:10 AM

We part company there. I will fight long and hard against any group that tries to censor what words can be spoken in church. That includes speech with which I don't agree. You just want to force people to agree with your version of the world. I've seen where that can lead in Canadian and European churches where pastors are punished for telling the truth as they see it. Well, that kind of authoritarianism is not welcome in my country. Activists, who seek the destruction of the First Amendment, are misguided at best. You ignored all of my comments in favor of civil rights because I don't agree with violating Christians' civil rights when they choose to obey their conscience, and that's all that needs to be said to show where you really want to take this.

There is one reality with billions of versions.

#257    Odd Requiem

Odd Requiem

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 558 posts
  • Joined:27 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male

  • "All God does is watch us and kill us when we get boring. We must never, ever be boring."

Posted 11 March 2013 - 04:36 AM

If two people love each other, regardless of sex, race, age, religion, etc., etc...what business is it of anyone else's? People need to worry about themselves. Quit turning  mole hills into a mountains. How would "straight" people feel if they were told who they could and couldn't marry? Two brown-eyed people can't marry because they have the 'same' eye color. Homophobia is a made up word...created by an egotistical control freak. I have no problem with the lgbt community. They're just people.

I may be completely off topic...but I didn't have the attention span to read all 18 pages lol.

-I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity.//

#258    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,886 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 11 March 2013 - 07:18 AM

View PostDetective Mystery 2013, on 11 March 2013 - 04:10 AM, said:

We part company there. I will fight long and hard against any group that tries to censor what words can be spoken in church. That includes speech with which I don't agree. You just want to force people to agree with your version of the world. I've seen where that can lead in Canadian and European churches where pastors are punished for telling the truth as they see it. Well, that kind of authoritarianism is not welcome in my country. Activists, who seek the destruction of the First Amendment, are misguided at best. You ignored all of my comments in favor of civil rights because I don't agree with violating Christians' civil rights when they choose to obey their conscience, and that's all that needs to be said to show where you really want to take this.

The difference between you and me is that you think free speech shouldn't come with any form of responsibility whatsoever. When churches are used to encourage disrimination against ANY group that crosses the line and, I'm sorry, but churches have shown that they will wilfully cross that lie repeatedly when it comes to gay people. I don't believe that sort of behaviour should be encouragedd, I don't believe that churches should be able to get away with it scot free.

No, it's not about getting them to aree with my version of thhe world, it's getting them to deal with this little thing called the reality of the world. I don't see why gettin churches to deal with reality is considered to be the worst thing ever.

The problem is (something that you don't seem to be able to get your hed aroud) is that christian's 'conscience' is often used as their excuse to violate other people's rights and get away with it. It always seems that the 'conscience' of religious people seems to far outweigh the realities of the world. That's why you have Westboro hiding behind the first amendment to protest funerals and you lot are too spineless to actual label it as wrong even when it's obvious that it is.

I just don't think treating another group as inferior should be given an ok if the reason is religious based.

It all makes me thankful I'm not American.

View PostOdd Requiem, on 11 March 2013 - 04:36 AM, said:

If two people love each other, regardless of sex, race, age, religion, etc., etc...what business is it of anyone else's? People need to worry about themselves. Quit turning  mole hills into a mountains. How would "straight" people feel if they were told who they could and couldn't marry? Two brown-eyed people can't marry because they have the 'same' eye color. Homophobia is a made up word...created by an egotistical control freak. I have no problem with the lgbt community. They're just people.

I may be completely off topic...but I didn't have the attention span to read all 18 pages lol.

That's pretty much what it boils down too yeah. I just wish people would see it as that obvious but sadly religion gets in the way.

Edited by shadowhive, 11 March 2013 - 07:28 AM.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#259    Odd Requiem

Odd Requiem

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 558 posts
  • Joined:27 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male

  • "All God does is watch us and kill us when we get boring. We must never, ever be boring."

Posted 11 March 2013 - 08:00 AM

View Postshadowhive, on 11 March 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:


That's pretty much what it boils down too yeah. I just wish people would see it as that obvious but sadly religion gets in the way.

I agree. I could go off on a tangent about religion. However, that would take us way off topic. I will say, I was raised in a pretty religious family. I listened to what they said, yet remained a free-thinker. So many people are influenced so easily. They have no spine.

Plus, if "God" was so against homosexuality,  wouldn't he strike all the "sinners" down? People preach of their God amd claim he makes all the final decisions, yet, they feel the need to judge. There's a lot of flaws. I'm not claiming to be perfect, but I'm also not trying to justify who somebody can and can't love.

-I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity.//

#260    Detective Mystery 2014

Detective Mystery 2014

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,797 posts
  • Joined:31 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:twilight zone's outer limits

  • Mysteries are tomorrow's history.

Posted 12 March 2013 - 03:18 AM

View Postshadowhive, on 11 March 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:

The difference between you and me is that you think free speech shouldn't come with any form of responsibility whatsoever. When churches are used to encourage disrimination against ANY group that crosses the line and, I'm sorry, but churches have shown that they will wilfully cross that lie repeatedly when it comes to gay people. I don't believe that sort of behaviour should be encouragedd, I don't believe that churches should be able to get away with it scot free.

No, it's not about getting them to aree with my version of thhe world, it's getting them to deal with this little thing called the reality of the world. I don't see why gettin churches to deal with reality is considered to be the worst thing ever.

The problem is (something that you don't seem to be able to get your hed aroud) is that christian's 'conscience' is often used as their excuse to violate other people's rights and get away with it. It always seems that the 'conscience' of religious people seems to far outweigh the realities of the world. That's why you have Westboro hiding behind the first amendment to protest funerals and you lot are too spineless to actual label it as wrong even when it's obvious that it is.

I just don't think treating another group as inferior should be given an ok if the reason is religious based.

It all makes me thankful I'm not American.

I'm thankful that you're not an American too. As far as reality is concerned, preach that sermon to yourself. You don't know what you're talking about when it comes to our laws and our life. For example, most folks here, regardless of their religion, can't stand the Westboro Cult. It has next to no defenders or supporters. Its critics range from Southern Baptists to Hell's Angels. They're universally detested. They're an infinitesimal part of our religious scene, and they don't represent 99.8% of us.

Here's where we truly differ. I believe in freedom of speech and worship within the law. You don't. That's all there is to it. Many of us left your country so that we wouldn't be jailed or killed for our beliefs, so most of us don't care for would-be censors. "Offensive" speech still is protected speech. A crazy racist at a Nation of Islam temple may preach that the Mother Ship will return to zap "White devils". He has the right to say that, even though it might cater to bigots in his cult. I would never try to ban or censor such speech, even if it insults me. Along the same lines, mainstream conservative Christian churches have the same right to condemn gay relationships. We can't be selective when it comes to deciding what speech should be protected. You repeatedly ignored the fact that I said that gay Americans should have the same rights as straight Americans. I just don't want to violate one group's rights while defending another group's rights. I try to be consistent as a libertarian. BTW, polygamists can be fined or jailed here if they marry, so I'm sure that you support their rights too. If not, you're a "polygaphobe".

There is one reality with billions of versions.

#261    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,886 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 12 March 2013 - 03:56 AM

View PostDetective Mystery 2013, on 12 March 2013 - 03:18 AM, said:

I'm thankful that you're not an American too. As far as reality is concerned, preach that sermon to yourself. You don't know what you're talking about when it comes to our laws and our life. For example, most folks here, regardless of their religion, can't stand the Westboro Cult. It has next to no defenders or supporters. Its critics range from Southern Baptists to Hell's Angels. They're universally detested. They're an infinitesimal part of our religious scene, and they don't represent 99.8% of us.

Here's where we truly differ. I believe in freedom of speech and worship within the law. You don't. That's all there is to it. Many of us left your country so that we wouldn't be jailed or killed for our beliefs, so most of us don't care for would-be censors. "Offensive" speech still is protected speech. A crazy racist at a Nation of Islam temple may preach that the Mother Ship will return to zap "White devils". He has the right to say that, even though it might cater to bigots in his cult. I would never try to ban or censor such speech, even if it insults me. Along the same lines, mainstream conservative Christian churches have the same right to condemn gay relationships. We can't be selective when it comes to deciding what speech should be protected. You repeatedly ignored the fact that I said that gay Americans should have the same rights as straight Americans. I just don't want to violate one group's rights while defending another group's rights. I try to be consistent as a libertarian. BTW, polygamists can be fined or jailed here if they marry, so I'm sure that you support their rights too. If not, you're a "polygaphobe".

Yes, most people can't stand westboro, but they use that freedom of speech to defend protesting funerals and, worse, win every time. If folks are so against them, you'd think they'd be putting laws in place to actualy stop them but no.

No. Where we differ is what 'within the law' actually means. Where we differ is also not because the speech is offensive. No. My big problem is that you have these churches and what are they doing? They are preaching that one group is inferior. And what happens? The bigots in the group (and sometimes even the ones that aren't) take that speech to heart and go out into the world. Whenever they encounter people belonging to that group they treat them as inferior. Whenever that group tries to gain rights, they make it their duty to stop them. And why? It all goes back to the churches and the preacher.

So many gay people have been harmed first hand by such teachings (and in the past, other groups as well). They have been harmed physically, psychologically, spiritually, mentally. But none of that matters, because all it is to you is 'offensive speech'. That's very easy for you to say, but that's because you've never been tormented close to death because a moron's religion has told them to.

I don't 'ignore' the fact you say gay Americans should have the same rights as straight ones. I simply state that for those gay Americans to gain their rights, the religious position on the subject should be ignored entirely. But is it? No, because religious groups like to get nice and load about this issue (and only, it seems, this issue). You'd think from the way they were acting that being against same sex relationships was on the same level as jesus' divinity.

And yes, I am for polygamists rights too (among other things). I always find it odd why people thing it's such a terrible thing (and why same sex relationships seem to trigger the urge to discuss it).

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#262    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,886 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 12 March 2013 - 04:01 AM

View PostOdd Requiem, on 11 March 2013 - 08:00 AM, said:

I agree. I could go off on a tangent about religion. However, that would take us way off topic. I will say, I was raised in a pretty religious family. I listened to what they said, yet remained a free-thinker. So many people are influenced so easily. They have no spine.

Plus, if "God" was so against homosexuality,  wouldn't he strike all the "sinners" down? People preach of their God amd claim he makes all the final decisions, yet, they feel the need to judge. There's a lot of flaws. I'm not claiming to be perfect, but I'm also not trying to justify who somebody can and can't love.

It is a shame that religion is allowed to get it's claws into people liek that. It's irrational really. I'm glad you've remained a free thinker, not everyone does.

Homosexuality is mentioned so little in the bible (and even then it can be taken to have another meaning most of the time) that you have to wonder if 'god' cares at all about it. I was lead to believe that helping others was a more important thing to god, yet it seems christians forget that so easily. It disgusts me the billions christian groups have put into fighting gay rights when it could have gone to a much more beneficial use.

It's all crazy really.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#263    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 12,544 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • I dunno --

Posted 12 March 2013 - 04:49 AM

There are legal limits on free speech, and one of them is that if you slander someone they can sue you.  As I understand it slander need only be malicious.  Truth is not even an absolute defense.

There is also the concept of hate speech and the right of society to control it.

Where do these things and freedom of religion intersect?  If freedom of religion always to get priority?  Is what is said on the pulpit never subject to legal restraint?  The pulpit is exempt from taxes so long as it stays out of commerce and politics.  What is the role of that concept?


#264    Detective Mystery 2014

Detective Mystery 2014

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,797 posts
  • Joined:31 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:twilight zone's outer limits

  • Mysteries are tomorrow's history.

Posted 13 March 2013 - 01:14 AM

View Postshadowhive, on 12 March 2013 - 04:01 AM, said:

It is a shame that religion is allowed to get it's claws into people liek that. It's irrational really. I'm glad you've remained a free thinker, not everyone does.

Homosexuality is mentioned so little in the bible (and even then it can be taken to have another meaning most of the time) that you have to wonder if 'god' cares at all about it. I was lead to believe that helping others was a more important thing to god, yet it seems christians forget that so easily. It disgusts me the billions christian groups have put into fighting gay rights when it could have gone to a much more beneficial use.

It's all crazy really.

What would you have our government do? Should they tell all pastors, priests, rabbis, etc. to never read scriptures or sermons that might offend gay people or impact gay rights? That intolerance goes both ways, and there may come a time when the State tells the Church to censor beliefs that you support. I'll take my chances with freedom of speech. I don't want to live in a country where police arrest clergy for preaching ideas that aren't PC. This has happened in Canadian and varied European churches. No thanks. I'll take our First Amendment, and that goes for religious cults that claim that Detective Mystery is the Antichrist.

There is one reality with billions of versions.

#265    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,886 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 13 March 2013 - 02:40 PM

View PostDetective Mystery 2013, on 13 March 2013 - 01:14 AM, said:

What would you have our government do? Should they tell all pastors, priests, rabbis, etc. to never read scriptures or sermons that might offend gay people or impact gay rights? That intolerance goes both ways, and there may come a time when the State tells the Church to censor beliefs that you support. I'll take my chances with freedom of speech. I don't want to live in a country where police arrest clergy for preaching ideas that aren't PC. This has happened in Canadian and varied European churches. No thanks. I'll take our First Amendment, and that goes for religious cults that claim that Detective Mystery is the Antichrist.

I've said before what I'd prefer. I'll say it here for clarity.

Homosexuality is listed as a sin by these beliefs. Personally I hate that, I think that's a twisted belief to hold. However, that's not what I've got against the church. You see, the bible lists many other things as a sin and all sins are meant to be the same level. Another sin is sex before marriage. Now these two are meant to be the same 'level' but you look at churches. They call compare gay people to pedophiles, but not such cmparion is made against those that have sex before marriage. Churches campaign for gay cures, to keep gay people from having equal rights under the law. Tell me, do they do anything remotely similar for sex before marriage? The answer is no.

Now they can prach against the other sins and do it in even language. The trouble here is they don't use such language for gay people. They seem to like portaying them as if they're monsters and that leads to violence and discrimination, something that doesn''t seem to occur for any of the other sins (again, although they are meant to be the same).

Ideally, I'd want hmosexuality being a sin remved entirely. But I'll settle for it treated in the same manner they treat the rest.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#266    Detective Mystery 2014

Detective Mystery 2014

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,797 posts
  • Joined:31 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:twilight zone's outer limits

  • Mysteries are tomorrow's history.

Posted 14 March 2013 - 02:43 AM

View Postshadowhive, on 13 March 2013 - 02:40 PM, said:

I've said before what I'd prefer. I'll say it here for clarity.

Homosexuality is listed as a sin by these beliefs. Personally I hate that, I think that's a twisted belief to hold. However, that's not what I've got against the church. You see, the bible lists many other things as a sin and all sins are meant to be the same level. Another sin is sex before marriage. Now these two are meant to be the same 'level' but you look at churches. They call compare gay people to pedophiles, but not such cmparion is made against those that have sex before marriage. Churches campaign for gay cures, to keep gay people from having equal rights under the law. Tell me, do they do anything remotely similar for sex before marriage? The answer is no.

Now they can prach against the other sins and do it in even language. The trouble here is they don't use such language for gay people. They seem to like portaying them as if they're monsters and that leads to violence and discrimination, something that doesn''t seem to occur for any of the other sins (again, although they are meant to be the same).

Ideally, I'd want hmosexuality being a sin remved entirely. But I'll settle for it treated in the same manner they treat the rest.

That's a huge generalization on your part. You're doing what you accuse churches and clergy of doing. As you know, not all denominations preach the same things. There are vast variations on what they teach. Some ministers do what you say. Yes, I agree that it's wrong to make it seem like adultery and fornication are okay by comparison. Not all houses of worship do that, though. Still, I support the rights of those that do. They have a right to preach and teach what they want within our laws. Do you think that their rights should be denied? I'm curious (but not in a sexual way).

There is one reality with billions of versions.

#267    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,886 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 14 March 2013 - 08:48 AM

View PostDetective Mystery 2013, on 14 March 2013 - 02:43 AM, said:

That's a huge generalization on your part. You're doing what you accuse churches and clergy of doing. As you know, not all denominations preach the same things. There are vast variations on what they teach. Some ministers do what you say. Yes, I agree that it's wrong to make it seem like adultery and fornication are okay by comparison. Not all houses of worship do that, though. Still, I support the rights of those that do. They have a right to preach and teach what they want within our laws. Do you think that their rights should be denied? I'm curious (but not in a sexual way).

Ah, I didn't say all churches do it. Sadly, enough do that it is a serious problem, to the point where it has to be actually dealt with seriously.

I have tried to make it clear what I think. I have said it, time and time again. It's simple. To me, there is a line. Now what many churches are doing, quite openly, is encouraging vilence and discrimination against a group of people. Should there 'rights' to encourage that be taken away? Absolutely, because it could mean saving lives and reducing suffering. To me, thats a no brainer. Like I've said that applies to any group, not just gay people. Churches have, in the past, been hotbed of encouraging discrimination against pretty much every group of people (even other denominations) and it seems absurd that they still get away with it.

Now I'll ask you something, related to the example you gave here:

View PostDetective Mystery 2013, on 13 March 2013 - 01:14 AM, said:

I'll take our First Amendment, and that goes for religious cults that claim that Detective Mystery is the Antichrist.

Ok, so here you say you'd be ok with cults calling you an antichrist. Now first off that to me sounds absurd (both anyone calling you it and you being ok with it) but Ill go with it for a second.

So I assume by what you say you'd be alright with said cult calling you the antichrist in a passing manner. What I'm curious about is that at what point does it become 'not ok' to you for them to say that you're the antichrist. Now let's say the cult takes the next step up, comparing you to murderers, rapists etc. Would that be ok? How about if they said 'you're the antichrist and it's our duty to stop you' and they go about doing it anyway they deem necessary. Does it only become 'not ok' when they cross the line into criminal behaviour ie kidnapping/killing? And even then, is it only the people involved directly and not the cult leader who started it all?

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#268    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Validating
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 14 March 2013 - 09:41 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 04 March 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

If memory serves, there is actually very little mention of homosexuality in the Bible, and then always in terms subject to various interpretations.  You would think, if it were such a sin, that Jesus at least would have given a sermon about it.

I've wondered at times about Jesus and the "beloved Apostle" John.  Then there is the relationship between David and somebody (I forget the name -- you can tell I've gotten my Christianity second-hand).  Such things are suggestive.

The Apostle Paul strikes me as a closet homosexual with serious problems about women, something we don't see in the Jesus story at all.

No, Paul stole Christianity from Jesus way back, if you look at the Bible you will find that quotes attributed to Jesus are very few, if memory serves the Bible only mentions some four hundred words to him and most all those are in the first four books of the New Testament. Practically the rest of that was written by Paul, who was the biggest prosecutor of Christians before he was miraculously transformed by God himself on the road to Damascus. Personally, it should be called the religion of Paul rather than "Christianity" after Christ. Then too, when you look at Paul and compare him to Jesus, you discover that were Paul alive today he'd most likely be the leader of some cult. The man would accurately be described as a zealot and zealots aren't really known for being "inclusive". My own personal belief is Paul didn't change anything on the road to Damascus except his tactics in order to fornicate with this fledgling cult. Making so strict and hard as to make it die on the vine so to speak. If you read what Jesus is supposed to have taught, then turn around and read what Paul has written you hear two different things.

Then too, I always thought it odd that our Lord and Savior never bothered to actually write down his words by means of setting pen to paper and yet Paul and the other Apostles wrote abundantly later on in their ministries. However, the guy I really wanted to hear from apparently couldn't be bothered to do that, so you have to wonder if we really got what he was actually teaching or not?


#269    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 12,544 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • I dunno --

Posted 14 March 2013 - 11:05 AM

What we have from Paul (not all of what is attributed to him is really Pauline) is considerably earler than the words we have attributed to Jesus.  Indeed, Paul only knows Jesus as a sortof mythyical being who lived on Earth once and was betrayed and died and resurrected and is in Heaven, soon (Paul thought in his lifetime) to return.  The story of Jesus' ministry on earth seems to have developed elsewhere and after Paul.

The way I (and a lot of scholars) read this is that Jesus was first an invention of Greeks, probably in Asia minor since the earliest churches are all there, modeled after classical mystery religions but adopting the Jewish Messiah prophesied in Isaiah.  At this point Paul.  Then a generation or so later the Jesus story of the figure preaching Palestine, and the production of the Gospels.

All this is so contrary to the way Christians have it that they are astonished, but if one reads the NT with an open mind and without all the presuppositions, it seems obvious.


#270    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,535 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 14 March 2013 - 04:03 PM

View Postcaptain pish, on 06 March 2013 - 07:27 PM, said:

I think that homosexuality is a malfunction. The very basic instincts of a male and female of any species is to procreate is it not? If that instinct is obscured or altered in any way it is a malfunction. Wether hormonal or chemical in nature the urge to mate with the same sex is completely un natural in any species. I feel that there is an elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about in today's society and people are frightened to be labelled homophobic and smeared as right wing for ever daring mention the possibilities never mind researching them.
What I can never get my head around is that people say that it is simply a preference. I have never seen a preference come with so many common symptoms. I'd say that 95% of gay males I have ever met all present these symptoms, the feminine swivel of the hips whilst walking, the over elaborate hand gestures a floppy wrists, the softly spoken words with an emphasis on the sssssss, the attention grabbing mannerisms and overall just the feminization of a male.
I don't understand how simply preferring having sex with the same sex could make somebody display different physiological traits. Same goes for the female homosexuals, a huge majority tend to display male traits.
I'm not trying to say that homosexuals should be diagnosed and treated but it should be recognized  that it is some form of physiological or biological disorder. I really don't think that it is psychological, I genuinely believe that they feel how they feel but the question is, what is causing it?
After all the human being isn't operating how nature intended it to.
This is completely incorrect. These mannerism are picked up on as a cultural trait for gay men, they are not inherent. Nor are they feminine, I don't know any women who act like that, and there are plenty of gay men that do not display them.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users