415 replies to this topic

[shadowhive]

ciriuslea, on 16 March 2013 - 04:39 AM, said:

lol the protest too much is old hat, and is really an attempt to silence any differing opinion, you obviously understand revolting as you state, and I quote "Certainly anal intercourse can have revolting aspects"  
As for the rest of your observations, try not to be all profound about it its really a simple explanation its a reaction similar to paedophillia, you are revolted by that surely ?

The self deception thing, I would assume, like you....if I may, that heterosexual men who say they don't at least hold any dislike what so ever for male homosexuality are the ones with the deception, I may be wrong as really I can only comment from my own perspective
I'm trying to understand why that remark has you so rattled "revolting"...maybe your gay not that it matters but it would explain somewhat.
I understand why you would say that I'm lying to myself because I find male gay sex revolting...this is exactly the type of attitude I was trying to highlight in my original post, the PC crowd pressure, passive aggressive insults to either silence or make you conform. people have a right to feel the way they do and express opinion without intent of insult like we are in a forum (maybe)
I suggest if you don't like others opinions then your in the wrong place.

Why does a hetrosexual man 'have' to hold at least a dislike for male homosexuality? Why do they have to care?

As I've said before, there's two aspects at play here.

First, why is it that the moment you think of homosexuality that you immediatly jump to thinking of the sex?Is there really any need for you to actually do that, especially since most topics about homosexuality have actually nothing to do with the actual sex?

Second, why do you make it a big deal? Everyone has something that they find 'revolting' it can be food, or drink or sport or just about anything else. The thing is most people are mature enough to not think of the thing they find revolting or care that others do the opposite. I think coffee is revoltin, can't stand the stuff. But do I think about it? No.Do I try and stop others from drinking it? No. Do I even care that others drink it? No. If I see other people drinkin it do I make a deal about it or think about it? No. Why is it that those that find homosexual sex revoluting seem incapable of doing one or mre of those things?

Personally I don't think the self deception thing applies to as many as others. It may be the case for some, we've seen it from religious people a few times, but I doubt it applies to all.

Now, I want to go back to an earlier point in your post. The point being pedophilia. Now pedophilia keeps being bought up, so I'm going to comment to explain something rather obvious. There is big diference between homosexuality and pedophilia. The difference being that gay people, much like straight people, have relationships and sex between consenting adults. The key words there are conenting adults. Pedophilia, on the other hand is about someone abusing a child or children sexually. There's no consent and the child isn't an adult, so it doesn't compare to homosexuality or hetrosexuality. You know what it can be compared with? Rape.

In both rape and pedophilia a person is being harmed and abused against their will. That is something that's absolutely worthy of universal revulsion. Sex between consenting adults (regardless of what the sex actually entails) should not in any way EVER be compared to those things. Such a comparison isn't valid, it isn't clever and it doesn't make sense, and it should be opposed wherever it appears.

[Frank Merton]

I try to identify things that revolt me and overcome the revulsion.  After all, it is my problem and only my problem.  So the point is made the pedophilia "revolts" us.  It shouldn't.  It is an evil, wrong, bad, all that -- fine -- something I would not do simply because I have ethical standards, but it doesn't "revolt" me any more than someone taking a gun and stealing my money "revolts" me.  If I let it revolt me, or even make me angry, it is me and only me who suffers.

One other thing: I am unpersuaded by the assertion that straights who are "revolted" are not really engaging in self-deception of their buried feelings.  Otherwise I see no reason for it.  The majority of straight men aren't "revolted."  They may find the idea funny or boring, or something like that.  This revulsion reaction is extremely suspicious.

[ciriuslea]

The whole point of my original comment was to point out its quite ok to be 'homophobic' for whatever reason your are, as long as your not using it to hurt other people, this isn't necessarily being homophobic in the sense of the definition, but from my exp often the homophobe finger gets pointed at any and all differing perspective to PC mentality, we can over analyse the reasons why people are 'homophobic' for weeks,..... the reasons can be varied from person to person. I think we all draw conclusion from personal experiences. I also  think many problems start when we try to use those conclusions as why others feel the way they do.

[Frank Merton]

I don't see how it can be okay to be homophobic.  It may be harmless if you keep it to yourself, but there is still yourself to worry about.

Let's say there is something you really hate -- we all have such things -- for example I hate durrian.  Just mentioning it makes me have a little shudder.  Bring me some on a plate and I vomit.

I ask, who is doing the shuddering; who is losing dinner?  The only one suffering is me; others around me without the hate think its funny, so I have to be careful to only associate with fellow durrian-haters, and that limits my social life -- not much though cause there are a lot of durrian haters.  We sit around and talk about how much we hate durrian.

By Buddha's teaching I should overcome my revulsion.  I should force myself to confront the stuff and -- well you get the idea -- although I don't think it would work, I just ain't gonna.  I'll put up with the occasional shudder when the thought, "durrian" enters my head and otherwise avoid the stuff.

Homosexual aversion is a harder one for me to imagine.  Most straight guys, once they are over their pubscent silliness, just don't get it.  Why should a man want another man when women are so much better?  There it is -- a little puzzlement but no hate or aversion or any such problem.  So I conclude that someone who says they are homophobic has a problem with their own sexuality, and needs to figure it out for their own happiness.  Even if that is not really the case, remember that feelings of revulsion or hate or whatever don't effect them -- they effect you and your personal wellness.

[Detective Mystery 2013]

shadowhive, on 16 March 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

The 'innumerable positives' aren't that innumerable and don't change the fact that all those negatives are done and continue to be done in the name of religion. Why the hell is that so ok with you? If I went and stabbed someone to death, the fact that the rest of my life had been 'good'wouldn't get me off the punishment of murdering the person. So why does it seem to be acceptable for the church to use that excuse?

The problem with that is that we have tangible proof that the homosexuality is a sin (and all that comes with it) harms people. Can the same be said in any way about supporters of homosexuality? Nope. Sothat arguement holds absolutely no weight. To me it just seems like you're content to ignore the obvious harm that the church does to people,, because the rights of the church to cause that harm are more important than then victims of it.

That's complete and total nonsense. You can't be serious. You whine about mischaracterizing gay people, but you do the same thing to Christians. I'll play your game. All homosexuals are pedophiles and serial murderers since some of them are. They're obviously dangers to society so I don't see how you could support them. Any clergy who supports gay rights should be censored because he/she promotes the end of our healthy, normal social order. That's how your posts sound to me when you refuse to see the millions of great things that Christians have brought to our world. They've fed the hungry, clothed the naked, sheltered the homeless, healed the sick, taught the unschooled, aided the poor, and many other good things. They were at the forefront of abolition and civil rights, as well as peace movements. Millions of Christians have helped millions of people, and that's a *fact*. They're under no obligation to ignore their conscience when it conflicts with gay dogma, nor should they be.

[Frank Merton]

There are good and bad in all groups, even the blind.  That's how I see Christians.

[Detective Mystery 2013]

Frank Merton, on 17 March 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

There are good and bad in all groups, even the blind.  That's how I see Christians.

I agree. That's how I see homosexuals.

[ciriuslea]

Frank Merton, on 16 March 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

I don't see how it can be okay to be homophobic.

I don't see why everyone has to accept homosexuality,
I often think the homophobe slur to all and any negativity towards it, is tantamount to holding a gun to the head, its a method of control to force people to conform,

[shadowhive]

Detective Mystery 2013, on 17 March 2013 - 06:22 AM, said:

That's complete and total nonsense. You can't be serious. You whine about mischaracterizing gay people, but you do the same thing to Christians. I'll play your game. All homosexuals are pedophiles and serial murderers since some of them are. They're obviously dangers to society so I don't see how you could support them. Any clergy who supports gay rights should be censored because he/she promotes the end of our healthy, normal social order. That's how your posts sound to me when you refuse to see the millions of great things that Christians have brought to our world. They've fed the hungry, clothed the naked, sheltered the homeless, healed the sick, taught the unschooled, aided the poor, and many other good things. They were at the forefront of abolition and civil rights, as well as peace movements. Millions of Christians have helped millions of people, and that's a *fact*. They're under no obligation to ignore their conscience when it conflicts with gay dogma, nor should they be.

It's not mischaracterising when so many of members of the church leadership demonise gay people because of their pathetic little dogma. I'm not going to say 'Oh, you've done a few good things? Ok then, that makes you can treat gay people like ****'. The world doesn't work like that.

Like I said before, look at all the bad christianity has historically bought to the world. Destruction of cultures, war, increasing the suffering of the people in Africa because of their teachings. Most of the social ills you seem to praise them for solving were caused by them in the first place. But yeah, let's ignore thatfor the 'good' they're doing.

If they were at the 'forefront of civil rights' they wouldn't be working very hard to deny gay people theirs and yet here we are, they're doing just that.

Edited by shadowhive, 17 March 2013 - 01:16 PM.

[himalyanmystic]

Homophobia is just one reflection of our insenstivity ,amplified by the opinions of our friends who all take part in making fun of the gay guy,
The dilemma of a person not even gay but worried of being considered gay in case he is not seen going around with a woman,
The power of society and religious taboos on our psyche,A gay person can find acceptance .But any common parent wants straight children  in general.

Lesbians are more accepted ,well we have to agree women are beautiful and two women tend to still look asthetically pleasing,
Men can look a little strange in similar situations,
Plus if a couple is gay ,i don't understand why they have to parade all around why not be natural and simple about it atleast i mean it is
difficult for many orthodox ppl to accept gay ppl at first so they can help by acting natural,displaying their affection decently and so on,
whatever anyone does gay population is only inceasing as ppl experiment more or seek to find fulfilment in all ways possible,
So it doesent matter what we think ,phobia's are all meant to be destroyed for they occlude our fine snses and cloud observation,
The word homo and gay appear derogatory more subtle words need to replace them ,also exposure to alternative sexuality,
temporary gay encounters ,permanent fixations ,since the days of sodom theirs so much to say about the religious views on something.
If gay guys were a minority it would be fine but now we have so many ,i think its quite fine ,and 20 years from now it will be as good as being straight possibly.

[shadowhive]

ciriuslea, on 17 March 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

I don't see why everyone has to accept homosexuality,
I often think the homophobe slur to all and any negativity towards it, is tantamount to holding a gun to the head, its a method of control to force people to conform,

It depends what you mean by accept. People have to accept that gay people exist and deserve equal rights. (In the same sense a christian has to accept that atheists exists and deserve equal rights.)

When you look at what the negative people want to do to gay people (imprison/cure/kill/beat up/generally discriminate against) you can see why people that are homophobic need to be tackled and labelled as such. I don't see why we should put up with it. By the same token should we put up with people that think black people, women or atheists are inferior because of what makes them different? I don't see why homophobia should be accepted in a way rascism and sexism isn't.

[shadowhive]

himalyanmystic, on 17 March 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

Homophobia is just one reflection of our insenstivity ,amplified by the opinions of our friends who all take part in making fun of the gay guy,
The dilemma of a person not even gay but worried of being considered gay in case he is not seen going around with a woman,
The power of society and religious taboos on our psyche,A gay person can find acceptance .But any common parent wants straight children  in general.

Lesbians are more accepted ,well we have to agree women are beautiful and two women tend to still look asthetically pleasing,
Men can look a little strange in similar situations,
Plus if a couple is gay ,i don't understand why they have to parade all around why not be natural and simple about it atleast i mean it is
difficult for many orthodox ppl to accept gay ppl at first so they can help by acting natural,displaying their affection decently and so on,
whatever anyone does gay population is only inceasing as ppl experiment more or seek to find fulfilment in all ways possible,
So it doesent matter what we think ,phobia's are all meant to be destroyed for they occlude our fine snses and cloud observation,
The word homo and gay appear derogatory more subtle words need to replace them ,also exposure to alternative sexuality,
temporary gay encounters ,permanent fixations ,since the days of sodom theirs so much to say about the religious views on something.
If gay guys were a minority it would be fine but now we have so many ,i think its quite fine ,and 20 years from now it will be as good as being straight possibly.

I agree it's a reflection of those things.
I always find it troubling, however when a child is judged by what a parent 'wants' for that child. Why isn't it enough for a child to be happy and healthy? Why do some parents have to have this weird hold over their children.

Well we've come around full circle in that way a little. Now there's a good portion of women that have similar thoughts to men with lesbians (ie they find two men going at it hot).
By and large gay people don't 'parade' it around. But the odd thing is this: how many straight couples do you know that act in a stereotypical straight way or effectively parade around their hetrosexuality? If a man parades around his hetrosexuality, no one has an issue, but it doesn't take much for a gay person to be labelled as parading it even if they abrelly do anything.
I think the problem is that orthodox people seem to have a problem with any orm of same sex affection, even something as simple as holding hands or kissing.

Sexuality isn't simply just gay and straight, there's asexuality, bisexuality and pansexuality too (as well as a few more) so that's already happening to an extent.

I hope so.

Edited by shadowhive, 17 March 2013 - 01:45 PM.

[ciriuslea]

shadowhive, on 17 March 2013 - 01:21 PM, said:

It depends what you mean by accept. People have to accept that gay people exist and deserve equal rights. (In the same sense a christian has to accept that atheists exists and deserve equal rights.)

When you look at what the negative people want to do to gay people (imprison/cure/kill/beat up/generally discriminate against) you can see why people that are homophobic need to be tackled and labelled as such. I don't see why we should put up with it. By the same token should we put up with people that think black people, women or atheists are inferior because of what makes them different? I don't see why homophobia should be accepted in a way rascism and sexism isn't.

That's all well and good and if you take the time to read my posts you would have read that not in any of them did I say gay people don't deserve equal rights or endorse any discrimination or violence against them, when we speak about rights, its not something we can pick and choose, and so everyone has the right to feel the way they do, even if they don't agree with homosexuality, I don't know how to put it any plainer,  
My argument is that the homophobe slur and label is then used to ostracize people who don't agree with homosexuality...its quite within our rights not to agree with homosexuality..or do you disagree ?

I just want to add, the crime a homophobic person would commit would be assault or sexual discrimination, or abuse of some kind, I don't think homophobia is a crime just yet (but I suspect some people would prefer it) I think the moment we start punishing people for how they feel is the day we realize we are all ****ed.

[psyche101]

Frank Merton, on 16 March 2013 - 01:08 PM, said:

I try to identify things that revolt me and overcome the revulsion.  After all, it is my problem and only my problem.  So the point is made the pedophilia "revolts" us.  It shouldn't.  It is an evil, wrong, bad, all that -- fine -- something I would not do simply because I have ethical standards, but it doesn't "revolt" me any more than someone taking a gun and stealing my money "revolts" me.  If I let it revolt me, or even make me angry, it is me and only me who suffers.

One other thing: I am unpersuaded by the assertion that straights who are "revolted" are not really engaging in self-deception of their buried feelings.  Otherwise I see no reason for it.  The majority of straight men aren't "revolted."  They may find the idea funny or boring, or something like that.  This revulsion reaction is extremely suspicious.

I do not think there is anything wrong with being revolted at the abuse of another person. Physical violence and deprivation of liberty is OK to be revolted by IMHO. A Pedo does revolt me more than a thief, a thief might even feel remorse and might need to be stealing to feed children. A pedo in my opinion has forfeited his right to existence in a social group.
Gay people I have nothing to say on. When I did approach the subject in a similar fashion to DM, I was accused of being gay. You're better off leaving well enough alone and dealing with the situation through the voting polls. They make the laws we all have to live by wether we like it or not anyway. Might as well tread the legal path.

Edited by psyche101, 18 March 2013 - 06:03 AM.

[Frank Merton]

Defending gay rights can result in one being accused of being gay.  Kinda funny; I also defend women's rights and no one accuses me of being a woman.