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

#346    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 14,762 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 21 March 2013 - 04:03 AM

View Postshadowhive, on 20 March 2013 - 02:31 AM, said:

(Especially when someone's sexuality, unlike religion, isn't a choice.)
Sexuality is definately a choice. There is a genetic element, but science has not shown to what degree that is. Those who CHOSE to assume that it is 100% have an agenda.

View PostProfessor Buzzkill, on 20 March 2013 - 11:46 PM, said:

WHAT RIGHTS ARE HOMOSEXUALS DENIED???

Also, civil unions have exactly the same status as marriages in my country. Can you post the differences in rights between marriage and civil unions in your country?
I believe that gays today can already get the legal rights of a married couple, and the Whole stink is about simply making getting those rights Easier, automatic in most cases. It is not about rights, it is about making those rights easier to get. That they can't have rights is a myth.

Quote

Even when the defintion of marriage gets changed legally, gay marriages will still be termed "gay marriage" not "marriage" by the common person.  
I agree that gay marriage will be legal soon, but there is nothing that can be done except wait to make people drop the "gay" from gay marriage. Could be 20 years, could be 100.

View PostThe Silver Thong, on 21 March 2013 - 03:11 AM, said:

In 20 yrs gays will be as common as all of us none so called gays.
I think homosexuality has been linked to overcrowding so you're probably right, since almost everyone will live in crowded urban areas.

Edited by DieChecker, 21 March 2013 - 04:04 AM.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#347    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,012 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 21 March 2013 - 04:24 AM

Diechecker

Homosexuality has been around far longer than religion let alone over population.


Gee what happened when the first white and black mirrage happened. I guess back then it was the end of times lol

Edited by The Silver Thong, 21 March 2013 - 04:25 AM.

Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?

#348    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 28,243 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 21 March 2013 - 05:02 AM

View Postshadowhive, on 19 March 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

Hey psyche, it's been awhile, hope you're ok.

Gidday Shadowhive

Thanks  for asking, not too bad just keeping one's head above water :D Hope you have been well yourself.

View Postshadowhive, on 19 March 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

I agree the abuse of another (espeially a child) is certainly something worthy of revulsion.

Indeed, whilst I appreciate a Buddhist insight very much as I like to know how people think, I do feel that levels of tolerance with regards to crime do, and should exist. Some crimes are just worse than others.

View Postshadowhive, on 19 March 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

I think it gets bought up like that because the nature of homosexuality. I mean you can't be a racist against black people while being black yourself, because skin colour is an obvious trait that can be seen by anyone that looks at you. Whereas with homosexuality, you can't tell simply by looking at someone. So a person can be homophobic while being gay themselves and you can't tell (unlike the rascist example). Personally? I don't buy that every homophobic person is secretly gay themselves. I do think they are those which are (a number of vocal anti-gay rights people have been caught having secret affairs with men which I think is where all this comes from).


Our previous discussions sort of made me think of the way Jake Brigance (Matthew McConaughey) is treated in a time to kill. Whilst people claim to be tolerant to differences it does not actually seem to be the case for the larger part. Trying to understand a different lifestyle can see one branded as having embraced it. I guess the the fear people claim one has is one that many have to deal with themselves.
I can see prejudice, and of the type we used to consider "normal" when interracial relationships were considered taboo. Looking back, I do feel my own parents were racist to an extant when I look back at life, which annoys me a bit. I might have missed a good part of life thanks to their ideals. I would not have gone home with a dark skinned woman because my mother would have been upset with me, but honestly, I find the look very alluring and quite sexy. I wish I had not taken notice of her prejudice.
I am a regular aussie tradie though, we say, how do you make a pound of fat look good? Put a nipple on it!

View Postshadowhive, on 19 March 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

As for putting things to the polls as I said before to you, should civil rights really be put to the popular vote in a such a manner?

You do have a point. However, it's the decision of the majority, which even if not right, has to be taken for the sake of social order I think.

View Postshadowhive, on 19 March 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

Yeah it's odd you can be accused either way. In that respect it's 'guilt' by association and  pretty cheap shot.

Indeed it is, and the people who take such cheap shots have no inkling of the repercussions of such childish antics.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#349    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 28,243 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 21 March 2013 - 06:52 AM

View PostThe Silver Thong, on 21 March 2013 - 03:11 AM, said:

In 20 yrs gays will be as common as all of us none so called gays. However I bet there will be a flood of bi sexuals sooner. Its a loosing stance to try to put legal terms to gays. It`s pointless and I feel most closet gay or bi sexuals that are of a religious nature or political bigotry will flood out and suprise the very gay church and republican party.

Do you really think so? That implies that at least half of the people today would be happy to consider a gay relationship, yet some of us are not wired that way at all. I can see myself having a beer with someone gay, but not getting physical, not in this lifetime. Even if I was paid enough money to attempt physical contact, and I assure you that would have to be an obscene amount, I could not 'perform" in that situation. I could maybe see acceptance in time, after all we let Scientologists use escalators and lifts just like real people these days. Why not the gay community? Cannot be worse than Scientoligists or *shudders* Raellians.

Edited by psyche101, 21 March 2013 - 06:53 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#350    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 28,243 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 21 March 2013 - 07:06 AM

View PostThe Silver Thong, on 21 March 2013 - 03:27 AM, said:

Christians did not invent the term or meaning of marriage nore do they have a right to define it in any sort let alone legalize it. They need to wake up along with quit a few other religious secs.

I do not think that was what he was saying though was it? He said it is the legal definition, which is not under Church control. The situation of Gay Unions goes to a vote, which is determined by Government, and if the majority of people are against gay unions, be it for religious reasons or not, the politician has to bow to public pressure, as that is what his job is - considering the wishes of the majority, or he will lose office at the next election. If the majority of people are Christian, and that is why they feel that way, that is superfluous isn't it? Rather than religion, it's social order, and few communities accept same sex relationships. Marriage is the word he was getting at, and I have to agree, it's a word, not a right, the word depicts a union between a man and a woman, I feel a word that depict a union between same sexes would be an appropriate term, and such do exist, but can be hard to pronounce, and most of the ritual lost to antiquity. Humans have made the situation what it is, as such, it seems only fair the humans work it out by majority? That is what we treasure about democracy? The majority have not ever been comfortable with the term "same sex marriage" because it really makes no sense at all when you break the actual definition down, that being a union between a man and a woman, except that with same sex in front it's between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Long winded, silly, not appropriate. Gay unions have the same rights, they do where I live anyway, and have had for at least a year so such is indeed possible, so it's really just the romance associated with the word, and the fact that a new term has an uphill battle of making a new term sounds as romantic when there is two of the same sexes involved. It's almost a form of identity theft. I really do not understand the opposition to a new term. It's a new way of looking at the social community  a new phase in understanding, a new lifestyle being accepted, new rights being realised, so why not a new term to go with it all? It seems almost too easy, but yet not acceptable.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#351    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 28,243 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 21 March 2013 - 07:11 AM

View PostThe Silver Thong, on 21 March 2013 - 03:30 AM, said:

I think you might be suprised how sexually open society has become and I think its cool.

I sort of agree........................................

Posted Image



:rofl:

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#352    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 10,406 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • I dunno --

Posted 21 March 2013 - 07:24 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 21 March 2013 - 06:52 AM, said:

Do you really think so? That implies that at least half of the people today would be happy to consider a gay relationship, yet some of us are not wired that way at all. I can see myself having a beer with someone gay, but not getting physical, not in this lifetime. Even if I was paid enough money to attempt physical contact, and I assure you that would have to be an obscene amount, I could not 'perform" in that situation. I could maybe see acceptance in time, after all we let Scientologists use escalators and lifts just like real people these days. Why not the gay community? Cannot be worse than Scientoligists or *shudders* Raellians.
I think when I was young and before I got married and made a commitment, and knowing what I know now, it would not have taken all that obscene an offer to get me to try it out.  Whether or not I could "perform" (probably a matter of getting it up) would depend on other things -- like how much I was able to make my own fantasy.  I don't think I could be the passive partner -- now that would have taken obscene amounts.  No one ever offered, probably because at the time I was oblivious.  Indeed, I still am; I talk about these things but I know no gays even though I assume they must be around me here and there (correction -- I do know one very obviously masculine lesbian, but the neighborhood treats her as a man).


#353    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 28,243 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 21 March 2013 - 08:37 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 21 March 2013 - 07:24 AM, said:

I think when I was young and before I got married and made a commitment, and knowing what I know now, it would not have taken all that obscene an offer to get me to try it out.  Whether or not I could "perform" (probably a matter of getting it up) would depend on other things -- like how much I was able to make my own fantasy.  I don't think I could be the passive partner -- now that would have taken obscene amounts.  No one ever offered, probably because at the time I was oblivious.  Indeed, I still am; I talk about these things but I know no gays even though I assume they must be around me here and there (correction -- I do know one very obviously masculine lesbian, but the neighborhood treats her as a man).

I truly find it hard to believe 50% of people have this opinion, I too have a gay lesbian friend, deep down I can understand a lesbian, women are just beautiful creatures that smell nice, nice bumps in the right places, even sound good (Susan Sarandon singing There's a Light Over At The Frankenstein Place gives me sensual chills up and down my spine when I hear her sing)  they are just yummy to look at, smell and just be around, I mean lingerie! Crikey Moses a lady can look stunning, dazzling and all good terms at once, but a man? What could one possibly see as attractive about a man? Smelly, scratchy loud, and fart a lot and a very, very boring body with little in the way of soft bumps and curves, I know I have one myself. I do not even understand what women see in men, maybe I am a lesbian trapped in a mans body, and it just worked out real well for me? :lol: In fact, God was kind enough to even make sure I brag in the shower, so maybe not but I just cannot fathom what makes a man attractive, I simply thought it was more good personality, being a good provider, being supportive and when it's time to "do the deed" lots of alcohol and most importantly, kids. Other than that, I do not see why anyone would sleep with a male. It is so not in my nature, that I think ST might be a bit generous with such statistics. I really doubt that I am in the minority with this.

Posted Image

vs



Posted Image


Not even close.

Edited by psyche101, 21 March 2013 - 08:45 AM.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#354    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,861 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 21 March 2013 - 08:43 AM

View PostDieChecker, on 21 March 2013 - 04:03 AM, said:

Sexuality is definately a choice. There is a genetic element, but science has not shown to what degree that is. Those who CHOSE to assume that it is 100% have an agenda.

It's very easy for you to say that. You're straight, always have been without question. You never 'chose' to be straight, and yet you assume that people choose to be gay even though you didn't choose your orientation.

Quote

I believe that gays today can already get the legal rights of a married couple, and the Whole stink is about simply making getting those rights Easier, automatic in most cases. It is not about rights, it is about making those rights easier to get. That they can't have rights is a myth.

That is a point. A married couple have all the rights automatically with a gay couple? Some rights aren't as automatic and can thus be ignored because they're from additional paoerwork.

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."

#355    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,861 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 21 March 2013 - 08:49 AM

View PostProfessor Buzzkill, on 20 March 2013 - 11:46 PM, said:

Nice post. No substance in it though. Let me ask again in bold so you can't miss it.

WHAT RIGHTS ARE HOMOSEXUALS DENIED???

Also, civil unions have exactly the same status as marriages in my country. Can you post the differences in rights between marriage and civil unions in your country?

Even when the defintion of marriage gets changed legally, gay marriages will still be termed "gay marriage" not "marriage" by the common person. Also, in the future marriage will be changed again to include more than 2 people. Why not? It has already happened (well at least a court case over a three-way marriage) in Brazil.

Some people place a huge religious significance on marriage (not me personally, but i am a firm believer in the bill of rights- that no one should be discriminated based on sex, sexuality or religious beliefs)  and are disgusted by the state bastardization of marriage even before the gay marriage movement. Do you not believe in religious freedom and freedom of expression?

Like I say, it DEPENDS WHERE YOU ARE. It can be anything from denying visitation rights, next of kin rights, to techincal legal stufff. It all depends (I don't have a list to hand right now). And, of coure, there's the obvious problem of creating a seperate but equal institution in the first place.

You're right it probably would be called 'gay marriage' for awhile, but then civil unions and uch are often termed gay marriage too. I have no problem with a three-way marriage. It's a moot point to even consider it as an excuse.

I'll say this quite clearly. Religion doesn't control marriage. No religion does. The state controls the rights and for a marriage to be legally binding you need to go through the state. A religious marriage on it's own is meaningless. Marriage is in the same vein as funerals. Religions administer them, but do not control them.

I don't believe in religious freedom at the expense of everyone else.

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."

#356    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,861 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 21 March 2013 - 09:26 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 21 March 2013 - 05:02 AM, said:

Gidday Shadowhive

Thanks  for asking, not too bad just keeping one's head above water :D Hope you have been well yourself.

Same here really :) Glad you're doing ok though!

Quote

Indeed, whilst I appreciate a Buddhist insight very much as I like to know how people think, I do feel that levels of tolerance with regards to crime do, and should exist. Some crimes are just worse than others.

Agreed. I think the revulsion against a thing like that is something that can be very much justified, I mean someone is getting harmed by it. That's very different than most other cases of revulsion after all.

Quote

Our previous discussions sort of made me think of the way Jake Brigance (Matthew McConaughey) is treated in a time to kill. Whilst people claim to be tolerant to differences it does not actually seem to be the case for the larger part. Trying to understand a different lifestyle can see one branded as having embraced it. I guess the the fear people claim one has is one that many have to deal with themselves.
I can see prejudice, and of the type we used to consider "normal" when interracial relationships were considered taboo. Looking back, I do feel my own parents were racist to an extant when I look back at life, which annoys me a bit. I might have missed a good part of life thanks to their ideals. I would not have gone home with a dark skinned woman because my mother would have been upset with me, but honestly, I find the look very alluring and quite sexy. I wish I had not taken notice of her prejudice.
I am a regular aussie tradie though, we say, how do you make a pound of fat look good? Put a nipple on it!

I've not seen that film but that does sound about right really. I think people need to make an effort to try and understand (although really, I don't htink it's terribly difficult to do so).

I think the situations are very comparable and I do find it sad that such a thing was common place so recently. I'm glad we've grown past that (and that I didn't have any of that when I was growing up myself). Not taking notice of a prejudice is hard when you're surrounded by it. I had an example myself.

The member of my family I was closest to was my grandmother and she was scared of snakes. As such, I was too. But one day when I was out somewhere, there was this guy and he was handling snakes. It was the first time I'd seen one up close and I quickly realised that while my grandmother was afraid of them, I wasn't. So yeah, I do see how prejudice can be easily spread like that which is a shame as we should be able to decide these things for ourselves.

I've never heard that before, but that is amusing.

Quote

You do have a point. However, it's the decision of the majority, which even if not right, has to be taken for the sake of social order I think.

I dunno, sometimes I think such things have to bypass the majority for the greater good. Most civil rights probably wouldn't hve passed a general vote and e'd be living in a different orld if e'd gone down that route.

Quote

Indeed it is, and the people who take such cheap shots have no inkling of the repercussions of such childish antics.

Mmm. Like I said I don't really understand the logic of doing it, but there you go.

View Postpsyche101, on 21 March 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

I truly find it hard to believe 50% of people have this opinion, I too have a gay lesbian friend, deep down I can understand a lesbian, women are just beautiful creatures that smell nice, nice bumps in the right places, even sound good (Susan Sarandon singing There's a Light Over At The Frankenstein Place gives me sensual chills up and down my spine when I hear her sing)  they are just yummy to look at, smell and just be around, I mean lingerie! Crikey Moses a lady can look stunning, dazzling and all good terms at once, but a man? What could one possibly see as attractive about a man? Smelly, scratchy loud, and fart a lot and a very, very boring body with little in the way of soft bumps and curves, I know I have one myself. I do not even understand what women see in men, maybe I am a lesbian trapped in a mans body, and it just worked out real well for me? :lol: In fact, God was kind enough to even make sure I brag in the shower, so maybe not but I just cannot fathom what makes a man attractive, I simply thought it was more good personality, being a good provider, being supportive and when it's time to "do the deed" lots of alcohol and most importantly, kids. Other than that, I do not see why anyone would sleep with a male. It is so not in my nature, that I think ST might be a bit generous with such statistics. I really doubt that I am in the minority with this.

Posted Image

vs



Posted Image


Not even close.

The thing I always find odd about this is not everyone is the same. While a straight man (or lesbian) is a attracted to women, they're not attracted to all women. By the same token women/gay men aren't attracted to all men and bisexual aren't attracted to everyone. (Case in point, I'm bi and looking at those pictures none of them do it for me!)

My point is that everyone is attracted to different things and often even they don't understand it. Looking at myself what I find attractive in women is different than what I'm attracted for in men and I have no real explanation why I'm attracted to either (and there's no real set template for either since I'm so all over the place with it).

I think you have to look at it generally. If you saw a woman you weren't attarcted to you'd probably think 'I'd not sleep with her and don't see why anyone would' which everyone feels about someone. But you just have to shrug and not care. You might not find her attractive and wouldnt sleep with her, but to someone else she's the most beautiful creature on earth. I think in terms of gay relationships you have to look at it in the same way as that. After all, it doesn't make much difference to you who someone else find's attractive and sleeps with. (Speaking generally of course.)

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."

#357    ciriuslea

ciriuslea

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 490 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • CHAMP20NS

Posted 23 March 2013 - 01:59 PM

View Postshadowhive, on 20 March 2013 - 02:17 AM, said:

It appears, despite trying my best, that somehow you're unclear as to what I'm saying. Where did I lose you exactly?

How ironic


#358    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 14,762 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 23 March 2013 - 08:04 PM

View Postshadowhive, on 21 March 2013 - 08:43 AM, said:

It's very easy for you to say that. You're straight, always have been without question. You never 'chose' to be straight, and yet you assume that people choose to be gay even though you didn't choose your orientation.
I've met and talked to too many people who've flip flopped from straight to homo to bi and back to straight... to think of this any other way. Unless you're going to say that these people are all simply bi- and confused? Even so they end up choosing what kind of sexual relationship they want.

I've not met a gigantic number of homosexuals (that I know of) but those that I have met made deliberate (if emotional) choices in their lives.

Quote

That is a point. A married couple have all the rights automatically with a gay couple? Some rights aren't as automatic and can thus be ignored because they're from additional paoerwork.
Agree.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#359    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 14,762 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 23 March 2013 - 08:08 PM

Personally, I think the "revulsion" people feel is similar to that felt when you see a brother French kissing his sister, or a grown man groping his mother. It has little to do with logical mental processes and comes directly from our "Eeewwww" reptile brain. It has nothing to do with two gay men or women living together. It is entirely a bias against the direct sexual activity. Just as I would Eeewwww at two male dogs getting it on.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#360    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 14,762 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 23 March 2013 - 11:48 PM

View Postshadowhive, on 21 March 2013 - 08:43 AM, said:

It's very easy for you to say that. You're straight, always have been without question. You never 'chose' to be straight, and yet you assume that people choose to be gay even though you didn't choose your orientation.
Do you believe there is NO Choice? That it is 100% genetic?

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users