Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 11
ali smack

why is homophobia commonplace?

421 posts in this topic

I think people have a right to be homophobic, what they don't however is to discriminate or violate others rights because of it. I would go as far to say homophobia is far more widespread than we are led to believe, only the PC brigade hasn't much changed attitudes towards gays but taught people to keep their nasty bigoted opinions to themselves. I assume homophobia is like all other sexual deviancy (if I can describe it as such) to a straight person, and being more straight people? its no wonder homophobia is commonplace, A repulsion to paedophillia is also common place perhaps similar to bestiality, OK what two consenting adults do in the bedroom is their business and cant be compared to bestiality and Peadophillia but it doesn't stop people being repulsed by it, that was an eg maybe a bit extreme but there you go, I find no attraction in the male body so to see two males having sex repulses me it has nothing to do with inherited bigotry or religious indoctrination, does that make me a homophobic ?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Revulsions only harm those suffering from the revulsion. They need to get over it for their own good -- either get over it or avoid thinking about it (good luck on that one).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They need to get over it for their own good

I think that's where a lot of problems start in society is when people start assuming whats best for other people, as for the rest of your comment I'll ignore as It stinks of butthurt
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to chime in, only to share a basic story of a 'bigot'... Me from the past.

I grew up in a fairly religious household but was raised to view humans as humans. Accept them, no matter their "differences".

In my teen years, I became exceedingly homophobic. Yes, to the point where I was fearful of them. I believe it stemmed from my inability to understand their life. I still cannot wrap my head around being attracted to men. I hardly know how women can handle it.

As I grew older, my fear became a hatred. I blamed them for my uneasy feelings. It's easy to turn fear to hate. Then I learned a secret.

I thought I was attractive. I thought they would hit on me, causing me to not be able to express myself. I had a social phobia of the unknown.

Ever hear a guy say "I'm o.k. with gays, but they even hit on me and I'll deck 'em", or "They better keep their hands off my butt"? That was me. I lied to myself, thinking that I would attract them, because "Hey, I'm a good looking guy" (I have since learned that no, I am nothing special).

Then, in my mid 20's, it happened. I got hit on by a guy.

He was a fairly 'normal' looking business man, he was smart, kind and charming. I did not know he was hitting on me, until he asked if I wanted to get a coffee.

It was at that moment, I lost my irrational fear. I thought they'd be more aggressive. I declined, explaining that I was not into guys. He laughed and wished me a good day.

Not all gay people are like him, or my lady friends that have a more successful relationship than any of my straight friends. I know there are bad gays and good gays... just like straights. My religion may frown on it, may have rules against it. I do not though.

I may be a heretic, but I believe that love for your fellow human (no matter their color, age, sexual orientation, religion or voting stance) is more important than any other rule.

Yeah, I used to be a homophobe. Now I'm just me. I still don't get it, but it isn't mine to get.

Sorry if this is rambling or not making sense, I struggle to express myself at times.

TL;DR: I used to be a homophobe (fear kind, then hatred), until I got over my own bull. Now I just don't care about sexual orientation.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people have a right to be homophobic, what they don't however is to discriminate or violate others rights because of it. I would go as far to say homophobia is far more widespread than we are led to believe, only the PC brigade hasn't much changed attitudes towards gays but taught people to keep their nasty bigoted opinions to themselves. I assume homophobia is like all other sexual deviancy (if I can describe it as such) to a straight person, and being more straight people? its no wonder homophobia is commonplace, A repulsion to paedophillia is also common place perhaps similar to bestiality, OK what two consenting adults do in the bedroom is their business and cant be compared to bestiality and Peadophillia but it doesn't stop people being repulsed by it, that was an eg maybe a bit extreme but there you go, I find no attraction in the male body so to see two males having sex repulses me it has nothing to do with inherited bigotry or religious indoctrination, does that make me a homophobic ?

You know what I find odd? The revulsion thing. I find it extremely odd. Don't like gay sex? Well that's fine, nothing wrong there. Like you mention, what two people get up to in their bedrooms is no one's buisness (as long as it's consentual of course). Yet those that feel repulsed by it? They seem to go mad about it. Like whenever they see a gay person, the thought turns to the type of sex they have. It's crazy and seems to borderline an obsession that is, to be honest, creepy.

When I go out, if I see a couple that I'm not attracted to, my mind doesn't immediately leap to them having sex. So why does it with people that seem to be repulsed by gay sex?

Like Frank said, it's their hang up. If their mind leaps to sex whenever they're around a gay person that is very much their problem, not the ga persons and it's something they need to get over.

If I am repulsed by something, I try my best not to think about it, not do what those repulsed by gay sex seem to do which seems to be the exact opposite. ie I'm repulsed by the taste of chicken. Do I think about it? Nope, not at all. Do I bother other people that actually like chicken? Nope.

Edited by shadowhive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if this is rambling or not making sense, I struggle to express myself at times.

TL;DR: I used to be a homophobe (fear kind, then hatred), until I got over my own bull. Now I just don't care about sexual orientation.

It seems you've matured and grown a lot, which is a very good thing. :tu:

I think it's easy to project fear and hatred on a group if they're this... faceless unknown. But once you put a face to it, then you realise (as you did) that 'hey, they're not so different to me'.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what I find odd? The revulsion thing. I find it extremely odd. Don't like gay sex? Well that's fine, nothing wrong there. Like you mention, what two people get up to in their bedrooms is no one's buisness (as long as it's consentual of course). Yet those that feel repulsed by it? They seem to go mad about it. Like whenever they see a gay person, the thought turns to the type of sex they have. It's crazy and seems to borderline an obsession that is, to be honest, creepy.

When I go out, if I see a couple that I'm not attracted to, my mind doesn't immediately leap to them having sex. So why does it with people that seem to be repulsed by gay sex?

Like Frank said, it's their hang up. If their mind leaps to sex whenever they're around a gay person that is very much their problem, not the ga persons and it's something they need to get over.

If I am repulsed by something, I try my best not to think about it, not do what those repulsed by gay sex seem to do which seems to be the exact opposite.

I can only comment on how I feel, I'm not going mad nor have an obsession about 'it' I'm offering an opinion, I tried to elaborate on my initial statement being people have a right to be 'homophobic', perhaps rambling on a little, but basically as I see it, in some cases if you don't 'like', or 'agree' with homosexuality your a homophobe, which I find ridiculous.

Edited by ciriuslea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only comment on how I feel, I'm not going mad nor have an obsession about 'it' I'm offering an opinion, I tried to elaborate on my initial statement being people have a right to be homophobic, perhaps rambling on a little, but basically as I see it, in some cases if you don't 'like', or 'agree' with homosexuality your a homophobe, which I find ridiculous.

I was speaking more generally about people that are repulsed by it.

However, as to the last part, I don't find it ridiculous at all. If I said I don't agree with black people being black would I not immediately (and rightly) by labelled a rascist? Same if I said I didn't like black people because they were black. It wouldn't be ridiculous to call me rascist for holding those beliefs. So why is it 'ridiculous' to be called homophobic for doing the same thing only to gay people? Especially if that view turns into a will to marginalise those people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was speaking more generally about people that are repulsed by it.

However, as to the last part, I don't find it ridiculous at all. If I said I don't agree with black people being black would I not immediately (and rightly) by labelled a rascist? Same if I said I didn't like black people because they were black. It wouldn't be ridiculous to call me rascist for holding those beliefs. So why is it 'ridiculous' to be called homophobic for doing the same thing only to gay people? Especially if that view turns into a will to marginalise those people.

I never said anything about not liking gay people or gay people being gay, I think this is a common mistake and one a lot of people assume which is part of why I think when people state they don't like or are repulsed by homosexuality people automatically pull the homophobe card.

But I have to concede this is more often the case, people do discriminate and violently sometimes based on sexual orientation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said anything about not liking gay people or gay people being gay, I think this is a common mistake and one a lot of people assume which is part of why I think when people state they don't like or are repulsed by homosexuality people automatically pull the homophobe card.

But I have to concede this is more often the case, people do discriminate and violently sometimes based on sexual orientation

Sadly it's often the case and thats the problem. It's something that needs to be dealt with and thats why it's got a name that's used against it.

I wouldn't say you were a homophobe if you didn't like the thought of gay sex. I'd say you were if you took the steps after that. To use the exmple I used in the other post, there's nothing wrong with me not liking the taste of chicken, but if I started acting in a manner that homophobes did then yes, it would become a problem.

Ultimately it's like anything else really. You don't have to like gay sex anymore than I have to like eating chicken. But if you start acting like a 5 year old, encourage violence against gay people or think about gay sex all the time, then you really have a problem and th problem is yours alone (speaking generally).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what I find odd? The revulsion thing. I find it extremely odd. Don't like gay sex? Well that's fine, nothing wrong there. Like you mention, what two people get up to in their bedrooms is no one's buisness (as long as it's consentual of course). Yet those that feel repulsed by it? They seem to go mad about it. Like whenever they see a gay person, the thought turns to the type of sex they have. It's crazy and seems to borderline an obsession that is, to be honest, creepy.

"Thou doth protest too much" springs to mind :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Revulsions only harm those suffering from the revulsion. They need to get over it for their own good -- either get over it or avoid thinking about it (good luck on that one).

Should we overcome revulsions to pedophilia and bestiality? No, I'm not equating them to homosexuality. Gay male sex revolts me. I feel no need to "get over it".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

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?

First, I'll answer your question. They can call me all kinds of names as long as they don't touch me or my property. Of course, certain laws apply if they falsely accuse me, by name, of a crime. They can't say that Detective Mystery is a terrorist. They can't write it, either. We have libel laws and slander laws to address such direct defamation. I use the Antichrist example to show that I'm a strong defender of free speech. Don't take it too literally.

Second, answer my question. You seem to avoid and evade it. Should clergy be banned from stating things that insult gay people? I'm mostly talking about reading scriptures that strongly condemn gay acts. I also include sermons that don't incite the congregation to violence. Yet, these sermons preach against gay marriage and gay sex. Would you ban such speech? I might disagree with some speech, but it's not our right (including you) to make the decision to ban it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I'll answer your question. They can call me all kinds of names as long as they don't touch me or my property. Of course, certain laws apply if they falsely accuse me, by name, of a crime. They can't say that Detective Mystery is a terrorist. They can't write it, either. We have libel laws and slander laws to address such direct defamation. I use the Antichrist example to show that I'm a strong defender of free speech. Don't take it too literally.

Second, answer my question. You seem to avoid and evade it. Should clergy be banned from stating things that insult gay people? I'm mostly talking about reading scriptures that strongly condemn gay acts. I also include sermons that don't incite the congregation to violence. Yet, these sermons preach against gay marriage and gay sex. Would you ban such speech? I might disagree with some speech, but it's not our right (including you) to make the decision to ban it.

A curious answer. Seems free speech only becomes a problem to you when it's direct slander.

Second. I have already answered it, but I will make it absolutely clear.

Yes. I think clergy should. I've stated why but I'll say it once again. The clergy compares gay people to pedophiles all the damn time. They get away with it too, all the time, because of 'religious protection'. They honestly don't care the amount of damage that does to people. I don't see why their free speech trumps the lives that are destroyed by it (sometimes very literally). Homophobia is a massive problem and the biggest offender is religious organisations. It's part of the problem, not the solution.

So yes, I'd ban it, but only because it is painfully obvious that such speech leads to bullying, discrimination gay 'cures' (most of which are torture), people committing suicide, violence against gay people, psychological and spiritual harm, families disowning members etc. On top of that you have churches being tax exempt and then they use their positions to try and influence any civil law that promotes equality.

Truth is, though, the church doesn't need to use any of the language they do in the first place.

Now I'm going to relate what churches say to what your answer was. If a someone (even a member of the clergy) called you a pedophile, you could have them done for slander correct? Yet when the church compares an entire group of people to pedophiles somehow that's not slander.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should we overcome revulsions to pedophilia and bestiality? No, I'm not equating them to homosexuality. Gay male sex revolts me. I feel no need to "get over it".

And yet you bring them up to make the comparison anyway. Why are those two always the first that spring to mind when homosexuality is mentioned?

And yet you're not being forced into having gay sex. Gay men aren't having sex over your coffee table. So why does the sex act come into it?

What I take Frank to mean is that people need to 'get over it' in terms of focusing on it so much. Like I said in a previous post, if I see a hetrosexual couple my mind doesn't instantly jump to thinking about them screwing. I'm sure it doesn't for you either. So why does it for gay people? That's what people that don't like it need to get over, the apparent unhealthy fixation that they have over it.

Why is 'the sex is icky to me' an acceptable arguement when it comes to gay people? Such a statement in any other aspect of life would not be taken seriously (ie that food repulses me, no one should eat that, I hate that colour it should be removed from existence). Yet for homosexuality not liking the idea of two men having sex is considered a perfectly valid reason for being against any form of equal rights. It's so childish.

Edited by shadowhive
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet you bring them up to make the comparison anyway. Why are those two always the first that spring to mind when homosexuality is mentioned?

And yet you're not being forced into having gay sex. Gay men aren't having sex over your coffee table. So why does the sex act come into it?

What I take Frank to mean is that people need to 'get over it' in terms of focusing on it so much. Like I said in a previous post, if I see a hetrosexual couple my mind doesn't instantly jump to thinking about them screwing. I'm sure it doesn't for you either. So why does it for gay people? That's what people that don't like it need to get over, the apparent unhealthy fixation that they have over it.

Why is 'the sex is icky to me' an acceptable arguement when it comes to gay people? Such a statement in any other aspect of life would not be taken seriously (ie that food repulses me, no one should eat that, I hate that colour it should be removed from existence). Yet for homosexuality not liking the idea of two men having sex is considered a perfectly valid reason for being against any form of equal rights. It's so childish.

Guess again. I don't think that the three acts are the same. I say what I think, and I don't worry if people, with chips on their shoulders, read into my comments. If I think that homosexuality is the same thing as pedophilia and bestiality, I will say so. I don't, so I won't. I don't care whether or not you or anybody else will do a Kreskin routine to divine what I "really mean". That doesn't mean that I don't find *spam filter* between men to be very gross. It sickens me, and I don't care if that offends PC ideologues.

Now, tell me how my natural reaction contradicts my view that homosexuals should have the same rights that the rest of us have. It seems like you just want to force groups and people to share your views, and the historical record shows where that kind of thinking leads. My 1776 trumps your 1984. Your intentions may be good, but your slippery slope will lead to disaster.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess again. I don't think that the three acts are the same. I say what I think, and I don't worry if people, with chips on their shoulders, read into my comments. If I think that homosexuality is the same thing as pedophilia and bestiality, I will say so. I don't, so I won't. I don't care whether or not you or anybody else will do a Kreskin routine to divine what I "really mean". That doesn't mean that I don't find *spam filter* between men to be very gross. It sickens me, and I don't care if that offends PC ideologues.

Now, tell me how my natural reaction contradicts my view that homosexuals should have the same rights that the rest of us have. It seems like you just want to force groups and people to share your views, and the historical record shows where that kind of thinking leads. My 1776 trumps your 1984. Your intentions may be good, but your slippery slope will lead to disaster.

First, calm down. I asked why thiose two were always the first things bought up and you jumped at me like I said you made the direct comparison.

Like I said many times. I don't care if you think it's 'gross' just as long as you don't take that further than outside your own head (and don't think about it more than necessarily). To use something I said in another post, I think the taste of chicken is gross. That doesn't mean I think about it in any real way. It doesn't mean I think about other people eating it that might enjoy it. I don't make any sort of deal at all about it (accept to tell anyone new that I may stay with that I don't like it). Now that, to me, is not difficult in the slightest, so why is it so difficult when it comes to sex? Why does common sense that's applied to anything else fly out the window?

Again. I didn't say that YOU were doing that. But you know what? I've seen many people say that gay sex is unnatral, repulsive, gross, sickening etc and use them as if they're a valid reason to cure/imprison/execute/beat into submission gay people.

No, I don't want to force groups to 'share my views'. The problem is this. We live in a real world and religious people seem to want to be content to live off in some deranged fantasy. They seem to think it gives them liscence to treat people negatively. Historically they've gotten away with it too. Lets see what christians have done hmm? They've stalled women's rights, were used as an excuse to keep slaves, used as an excuse to destroy countless cultures, imprisoned atheists, scientists and pagans, beaten left handed people because they're demonic, mental illness was demonic too, any excuse to o for other demoninations throats was used too. Oh and let's look at the world we live in right now. We have the catholic church continuing to demonise gay people, which is rich them taking any moral high ground what with them hiding pedophiles for years and mking sure aids/hiv continues to spread like wildfire throughout Africa. And you've got the other denominations barely acknowleging gay people as full humans (bar few) and continuing not to allow women to have full and equal status. I look at christianity and it's track record and I see centuries of them forcing people to as they want. Centuries of damage and torment to all of humanity.

Quite frankly, I've had enough. I've had enough of religions asking for special treatment or to be given special care, when all they want is to preech discimination and hatred at the top of their lungs and get away with it. And what do they do the second they're called on it? They act like their victims! I'm sorry, I don't see gay people murdering christians. I don't see gay people calling for christians to be 'cured' by force. I don't see gay people compre christians to peophiles. Yet no, they're the victims all because they want to continue preaching their vile hatred and you can't take that away from them or else they scream like a baby whose had it's bottle snatched away.

Don't use the slippery slope arguement. Christianity invented it and trashed pretty much every group of humanity with it already.

Yes that has turned into a massive rant, but I cant honestly see how anyone in good conscience can continiously defend the churches 'free speech' in the face of the damage it does.

Edited by shadowhive
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting points from both perspectives ---Just want to say that where gays are now with the churches/religion is where women have been until fairly recently and in some cases still are. So the intolerances are very much there and their views extremely outdated and that is a real issue with religion that many seem to brush aside.

Through my own journey of spirituality i have learned a lot about perception and how important the interpretations of what we perceive and receive are, the mechanism behind how consciousness and energy works and how to discern everything we input and output - so, anything translated from 'higher source' such as the bible and dogma's, codes of morality etc etc were given in a context that was intended for that era of time only, using symbols and archetypical meanings which simply reflected where mass consciousness was at, during that time. Not now, not yesterday, but just back then at the time it was first scribed.

When dealing with 'spiritual or philosophical sources' the material is only ever going to be as relevant as the minds that it drip feeds through, here is a filtering process that the 'source' has to go through as it hits the consciousness of a human being. This means, there will always be a slant to something, and never the 100% truth - mediums and channellers for example have to become aware that while they may be the channel, it doesn't mean that what they are perceiving is accurate or contains the full intention of the message.

In other words what i am trying to say is as consciousness evolves so does peoples perceptions and their translations of what exists, and so one should expect something written xyz amount of years ago, to also reflect changing times and where society is now. Not still be churning out what consciousness was trying to process back in the dark ages. It's like the gap between what windows 95 could process and handle, and what your iphone or windows 8 can do now.

This means it is completely absurd that women and gays are still being lynched in religious contexts, rules, and sermons and even more absurd that society hasn't evolved their perceptions and interpretations to realise this on a grand scale yet.

The other point I wanted to comment on was about the reasoning of how no one thinks of the sexual aspect to heterosexual relationships when they see a straight couple, but do when they see a gay couple - that same thought process and discrimination as to why men think 2 men are considered 'yuck, is the exact same thought process as to why men find 2 women 'hot'. Strange how that kind of discrimination works and really reveals more about the male being a sexual predator more than anything.

Women and gays have more in common than you would think it seems, as far as having to experience discrimination and come from a second citizen position in their relatively recent history, and the heterosexual male and our whole strict patriarchal society is the perhaps the real problem and that needs to be balanced out so that perceptions of what was written long ago can be upgraded and better reflect where society is at now.

Edited by bLu3 de 3n3rgy
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should we overcome revulsions to pedophilia and bestiality? No, I'm not equating them to homosexuality. Gay male sex revolts me. I feel no need to "get over it".

I respect that and stand by it as pedohilia and beastiality are disgusting. However your personal revultion is yours is not anothers when it comes to same sex relations. My interest in your sexual activity is of no interest to me as yours is of no others. You are trying to state religion has a stack in a legal contract and it does not. Religion is banned from marriage as it is religious and marriage is a legal contract. Religion has no stake in marriage or what it means. Religion should learn it`s place in this day and age of some guy in a robe dictating let alone any religion that requires make believe gods that they seem arrogant enough to speak for.

Jesus and Paul were lovers get over it. Oh what, I have a religion called the silver thong that says its wrong to dissagree.

Edited by The Silver Thong
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we have a revulsion then we should overcome it, even if it is a revulsion to something wrong. No one is hurt by the revulsion but ourselves. We must recognize wrongs objectively as wrongs, but not let them bother us emotionally.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to wonder what it is that brings some heterosexual men to say they find the idea of sex between two men "revolting." This is not rational. After all, they are not bothered and probably intrigued by the idea of sex between two women, so it cannot be "same sex" that is the problem.

Maybe it is in the details. Certainly anal intercourse can have revolting aspects, if you let it, although this is a bit silly when perceived from a medical perspective. More significantly, heterosexual couples do it too. Indeed, in much of the world this is the most important form of birth control.

I won't go into detail about other acts except again to point out that there is nothing gay men do that straight couples don't do as well. Indeed, the gay union is odd only in that it seems to omit the main point of sex, coitus for conception of a baby. That tells us evolution for whatever reason has separated the sexual act and its appeal and the parenting instinct, so much so that there exist cultures where the connection has not been made. From this I draw the conclusion that nature has other uses for sex beyond just making babies, and it is not hard to figure this out and see what they are.

Back to the revulsion issue, what, with all this, are we to make of it? What I make of it is a great deal of suspicion that somebody is not being honest when they tell us they find the act repulsive. Maybe it's self-deception, maybe its hiding the reality from the rest of the world by "protesting too much."

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respect that and stand by it as pedohilia and beastiality are disgusting. However your personal revultion is yours is not anothers when it comes to same sex relations. My interest in your sexual activity is of no interest to me as yours is of no others. You are trying to state religion has a stack in a legal contract and it does not. Religion is banned from marriage as it is religious and marriage is a legal contract. Religion has no stake in marriage or what it means. Religion should learn it`s place in this day and age of some guy in a robe dictating let alone any religion that requires make believe gods that they seem arrogant enough to speak for.

Jesus and Paul were lovers get over it. Oh what, I have a religion called the silver thong that says its wrong to dissagree.

No, we have freedom of speech and worship here. You're not the "American Pope". Case closed. As for your last comment, purple cows jump over moons made of green cheese.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shadowhive, you neglected to list the positives of Christianity. For each negative, there are innumerable positives. You and I both know that. Why is it that those who whine the most about defamation are the biggest practitioners of it? You can rant and rave about alleged bigots until the Second Coming, but our freedom of speech and worship remains, as it should. You may change your agenda-driven censorship kick when the government thinks its in our best interest to ban ministers who are fine with homosexuality. You know, some folks think that its dangerous and destructive, and its supporters are deviants, so we need to pass laws that quarantine the perversion. The pendulum swings both ways, so your censorship fantasy will, hopefully, stay just a fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to wonder what it is that brings some heterosexual men to say they find the idea of sex between two men "revolting." This is not rational. After all, they are not bothered and probably intrigued by the idea of sex between two women, so it cannot be "same sex" that is the problem.

Maybe it is in the details. Certainly anal intercourse can have revolting aspects, if you let it, although this is a bit silly when perceived from a medical perspective. More significantly, heterosexual couples do it too. Indeed, in much of the world this is the most important form of birth control.

I won't go into detail about other acts except again to point out that there is nothing gay men do that straight couples don't do as well. Indeed, the gay union is odd only in that it seems to omit the main point of sex, coitus for conception of a baby. That tells us evolution for whatever reason has separated the sexual act and its appeal and the parenting instinct, so much so that there exist cultures where the connection has not been made. From this I draw the conclusion that nature has other uses for sex beyond just making babies, and it is not hard to figure this out and see what they are.

Back to the revulsion issue, what, with all this, are we to make of it? What I make of it is a great deal of suspicion that somebody is not being honest when they tell us they find the act repulsive. Maybe it's self-deception, maybe its hiding the reality from the rest of the world by "protesting too much."

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.

Edited by ciriuslea
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shadowhive, you neglected to list the positives of Christianity. For each negative, there are innumerable positives. You and I both know that. Why is it that those who whine the most about defamation are the biggest practitioners of it? You can rant and rave about alleged bigots until the Second Coming, but our freedom of speech and worship remains, as it should. You may change your agenda-driven censorship kick when the government thinks its in our best interest to ban ministers who are fine with homosexuality. You know, some folks think that its dangerous and destructive, and its supporters are deviants, so we need to pass laws that quarantine the perversion. The pendulum swings both ways, so your censorship fantasy will, hopefully, stay just a fantasy.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 11

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.