Anything BlackCrow has to say in this thread is null and void because of this:
[QUOTE=BlackCrow;32189185]If I ever get a blood transfusion. I am not getting my blood from a homosexual. Nothing disrespectful or discriminating but I couldn't live my life knowing I have some dude's blood; and he fucked another man in the ass. I'd be getting a visual every time I would bleed.[/QUOTE]
Two possible explanations for BlackCow. He's being completely sarcastic, in which case, he's being sarcastic, in which case we can cease to take him seirously... Or, he's completely and utterly serious, in which case we can cease to take him seriously.
Makes sense, right?
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;32518448]Mine, on the other hand, was simply that we can't just throw out the idea of psychological factors, something you seemed quite intent on doing originally.
Idea for a study: Use a penile erection measurement tool to measure sexual arousal of randomly selected people when exposed to gay porn. Ask if raised in conservative or liberal backgrounds. Interpret results.[/QUOTE]
Well they did do a study on that recently and discovered that most homophobic people got more sexually aroused to homosexual pornography compared to actual gay people. I don't deny there may be psychological impacts towards homosexuality but I do believe its usually because they have been brought up to believe it is wrong or immoral rather than being 'converted' through media or dick spam on the internet, its also rather infamous that a lot of homophobic people usually end up coming out gay so I would agree in that sense that yes this is where psychology takes a factor due to this being a case of suppression rather than turned gay.
[QUOTE=Skepsis;32518579]Two possible explanations for BlackCow. He's being completely sarcastic, in which case, he's being sarcastic, in which case we can cease to take him seirously... Or, he's completely and utterly serious, in which case we can cease to take him seriously.
Makes sense, right?[/QUOTE]
In the context of that thread, you could tell he was being serious. And later on in the thread he tried to make a pathetic attempt to save face by saying he was just trolling.
[QUOTE=Vasili;32518597]Well they did do a study on that recently and discovered that most homophobic people got more sexually aroused to homosexual pornography compared to actual gay people. I don't deny there may be psychological impacts towards homosexuality but I do believe its usually because they have been brought up to believe it is wrong or immoral rather than being 'converted' through media or dick spam on the internet, its also rather infamous that a lot of homophobic people usually end up coming out gay so I would agree in that sense that yes this is where psychology takes a factor due to this being a case of suppression rather than turned gay.[/QUOTE]
Simple internalizations and a defense mechanism called [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection]projection[/url], all due to various social behaviors expressing less than accepting attitudes about the concept of homosexuality. Children also aren't dumb, and many homosexual children notice that their feelings, thoughts, etc aren't of the norm. This scares them, because well, face it, psychologically the unknown and radical differences from a certain status quo is a scary thing. Those are two possible explanations. There could be more.
[QUOTE=Mr._N;32518599]In the context of that thread, you could tell he was being serious. And later on in the thread he tried to make a pathetic attempt to save face by saying he was just trolling.[/QUOTE]
Then we can cease to take BlackCow seriously, right? :v:
Btw, that sexual arousal measurement experiment originated with the development of the Kinsey scale. I suppose the new variable would be interesting I guess, but really it's nothing more than typical stereotypes. Not all conservatives are anti-gay. Many, whom I've met and are friends with, either don't give a shit or support gay rights completely.
Also, Xyzzy & fenwick, sorry for potentially perpetuating stereotypes, though I wasn't serious on any slights. Can understand why people would think that, though. Regardless I don't 'advocate' homosexuality as by definition advocation implies recommendation.
There's nothing wrong with being gay, it's just that social standard says it is because if you're "different" you're "weird", and being gay is VERY "different", therefore VERY "weird".
And by extension people are against it.
[QUOTE=ZCYTE;32518707]There's nothing wrong with being gay, it's just that social standard says it is because if you're "different" you're "weird", and being gay is VERY "different", therefore VERY "weird".
And by extension people are against it.[/QUOTE]
Please post more.
[QUOTE=The First 11'er;32517258]Hello, today I am here to discuss the "most awful thing to walk our planet",
the Gays. [/QUOTE]
Wat.
What century are you writing from?
There is nothing wrong with gays, we're just living in the time after gays were used as the scapegoat for everything bad. That time has passed, but there's still remnants from the time, and some people are completely stuck in it. (Bible belt?)
Homosexuality is just an abnormal sexuality, the only reason you could have something against it is if you're religious. [I](Or if you think it's 'disgusting' or 'icky', but that notion comes from religion as well, so it's the same thing)[/I]
[QUOTE=BlackCrow;32518459]If I'm straight and a homosexual grabs my ass for no reason, Am I entitled to sock him a 1-2 to the face?[/QUOTE]
If a woman you didn't find attractive grabbed your ass would you punch her in the face?
[QUOTE=Contag;32518876]Please post more.[/QUOTE]
Will do.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32519227]If a woman you didn't find attractive grabbed your ass would you punch her in the face?[/QUOTE]
Id want to but the fact that everyone else would fuck you up for it would make me choose not to do that
[QUOTE=sgman91;32517981]The only reason I could see someone speaking out against the gay lifestyle is because of it's counterproductive nature to society.[/QUOTE]
Being straight is more counterproductive to be honest because we already have too many people on this planet.
[QUOTE=Stormcharger;32519250]Id want to but the fact that everyone else would fuck you up for it would make me choose not to do that[/QUOTE]
So you feel a physical injury is justified retribution for a light touch
[QUOTE=Vasili;32517917]Superiority complex detected? They can't really be your friends if you think they have some sort of mental condition and put them in the same category as paedophiles or oddly enough people who fall in love or object sexuality. You're whole idea of what is right is really opinionated because guess what buddy, morality is pretty much defined by the viewer.
Actually Jebus I think you saying you have gay friends is pretty bollocks, or you're actually quite homophobic. Are they aware of your opinion on them? That you think they are mentally disturbed?[/QUOTE]
You didn't get it.
When you saw the words "mental condition", you flipped a shit. You're assuming that he implies all the negative connotations that surround the words "mental condition". He didn't.
He didn't even mention morality at all.
He mentioned three things; homosexuality, pedophilia, attraction to inanimate objects.
And he pointed out one similiarty, which is that all of them are basically caused by the brain doing something different [I](something it's "not supposed to".)[/I]
It [I]is[/I] a mental condition, just like... left handedness is, or really liking the color blue.
Basically, it doesn't mean a god damn thing. His post was kind of redundant, but I think it touches something that is important:
People need to realize that: "Abnormal", "unnatural", "mental condition" and "deviation" are not necessarily bad things.
according to this site: [url]http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm[/url]
the population of gays in America is 3.8%, which is .. not the majority, so therefore it is indeed abnormal.
He's not homophobic just because he admits that it's a mental condition, because it is, it's just not a bad one. He said outright that he doesn't treat them any differently.
I don't have a problem with gay people.
But as an aside I did have a rather weird experience where a gay guy got extremely agitated towards me because I said that I wouldn't be comfortable with having to watch gay sex or having a gay guy hit on me in a sexual manner. It was surprising how angry he got over the whole matter, because it wasn't like I was saying "GAY PEOPLE ARE WRONG, THEY DESERVE TO DIE" or the like.
[QUOTE=Vasili;32518367]Because being gay is nothing like being a baby raper, at all, nor is having a sexual obsession and lust for inanimate objects, its dumbass statement to link the two together in the same position as those because there is theoretical backing towards it being biological first rather than being a development through psychology. The notion that a heterosexual man can be turned gay through trauma or brainwashing is what you're implying? If so then its got the same amount of proof that you can turn a gay person straight through those infamous religious anti gay camps.[/QUOTE]
Personally, I think that homosexuality is caused by a combination of biology and stuff that happens in your early childhood, plus as a result of all the funny shit that the brain does and which we have no idea about yet, plus it doesn't matter.
And the same goes for pedophilia and love/lust for inanimate objects.
Nobody mentioned "baby rapers". Pedophilia is just the [I]sexual attraction[/I], a pedophile does not have to break any laws.
i.e. they're all "mental conditions". Some "mental conditions" are worse and more inconvinent than others, but the fact that they are mental conditions alone does not make them any worse or better.
Homosexuality exists in almost 1500 species, makes me sad when humans are the only creatures on this Earth that are homophobic.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;32519318]I don't have a problem with gay people.
But as an aside I did have a rather weird experience where a gay guy got extremely agitated towards me because I said that I wouldn't be comfortable with having to watch gay sex or having a gay guy hit on me in a sexual manner. It was surprising how angry he got over the whole matter, because it wasn't like I was saying "GAY PEOPLE ARE WRONG, THEY DESERVE TO DIE" or the like.[/QUOTE]
I have straight people go off in worse ways on an almost daily basis.
Closet gays are real bros in my opinion. All though I am bi but I hate seeing "Gay Pride" parades and such. You don't see straight pride parades. Don't hate them for being gay I just hate when they use it as an excuse for every damn thing.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;32519314]You didn't get it.
When you saw the words "mental condition", you flipped a shit. You're assuming that he implies all the negative connotations that surround the words "mental condition". He didn't.
He didn't even mention morality at all.
He mentioned three things; homosexuality, pedophilia, attraction to inanimate objects.
And he pointed out one similiarty, which is that all of them are basically caused by the brain doing something different [I](something it's "not supposed to".)[/I]
It [I]is[/I] a mental condition, just like... left handedness is, or really liking the color blue.
Basically, it doesn't mean a god damn thing. His post was kind of redundant, but I think it touches something that is important:
People need to realize that: "Abnormal", "unnatural", "mental condition" and "deviation" are not necessarily bad things.
according to this site: [url]http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm[/url]
the population of gays in America is 3.8%, which is .. not the majority, so therefore it is indeed abnormal.
He's not homophobic just because he admits that it's a mental condition, because it is, it's just not a bad one. He said outright that he doesn't treat them any differently.[/QUOTE]
He relates something perfectly normal to pedophiles. He also said he didn't consider it 'right', therefor he is implying he is not in favor of it which I would question the likely hood of him having a gay friend if not multiple. How is the population abnormal? Why is it not normal to be gay seeing it is so well recorded through history and many famous societies openly, abnormal is also usually in a context that means it is undesirable or worrying, are you going to tell me minorities in general are abnormal or is this just a incorrect use of a word?
Also who labels their friends as someone with a mental condition? The fact is I'm not arguing whether it is a psychological state of mind, I'm arguing his poor choice of words to label someone so low in the same body as a child rapist and a toy fucker which leads me to believe he is not quite so comfortable with his gay friends, especially if he's so willing to label them as such, its like me acknowledging him for being mentally conditioned for being straight instead of just looking at him like a human being with no judgement on his sexuality.
Of course it's a mental condition (as in a psychological state of mind). There's no magical fairy telling you what kind of sexuality you have.
It's programmed into your brain, although whether this happens at birth or later in life is something I am not fully aware of yet.
I have no issues with gay people nor should anyone else. There's no logical reason to hate on them.
The [B]only[/B] issue would be if an extreme percentage (e.g. >90%) of people on our planet were gay, which would hinder reproductive capabilities (and only because of that).
Seeing that the situation today is not even remotely like that, there's no point in homophobia.
I can't believe homophobia is still an issue today, I thought people were more civil than that but apparently I am just naive for even thinking that.
A few of my thoughts on homosexuality.
I don't believe religion is in any way the origin of the hatred, but simply a means which is used to enforce the hatred.
I believe the hatred stems from a disconfort with the concept, most heterosexuals (including me) find the notion of romatic interest with someone of their own sex somewhat repulsive, and the idea that a man may be lusting over me is something I feel unconfortable with. But reason has to trump over feelings, and I'm smart enough to realise that any homosexual who could potentially have views on me will probably figure that I'm not interested and just move on, just like I do when I try to approach a girl who obviously doesn't want that kind of relationship with me.
Also, the cultural negative connotations of "gay" strike hard, and mean that being associated with homosexuals is percieved as a negative, so many homophobes are simply trying to distance themselves from the gay community in fear that they might be similarly ostracised.
An argument I often hear is that homosexuality does not lead to reproduction and if everyone turned gay, then the human race would be doomed. But then again, that is true for many other life choices, if everyone was a teacher, then nothing would get done, but we NEED teachers, for example.
As long as someone's choices does not lead to harm, then I see no issue.
PS: I do believe homosexuality is a choice, possibly brought on by cultural elements and education (a homophobic education can actually trigger homosexuality, education goes both ways), but much like musical tastes are a choice, once made, it's hard to go back on those choices. So it's not a conscious choice, but a choice all the same, and one with almost permanent effects.
[QUOTE=Vasili;32519394]He relates something perfectly normal to pedophiles.[/QUOTE]
It isn't perfectly normal. Only 3.8% of americans are gay, that's not normal. But it's also not wrong.
Pedophiles aren't any different except they have a reason to not act on their attractions.
[QUOTE]He also said he didn't consider it 'right', therefor he is implying he is not in favor of it which I would question the likely hood of him having a gay friend if not multiple.[/QUOTE]
Now you're assuming things. There's a reason he put "right" in quotation marks. Because he doesn't actually mean "right" as in "morally justifiable", I assume he just means right as in "what usually happens".
At no point did he say anything about not being in favor of it. In fact he said he treats gay people just like anyone else.
[QUOTE]abnormal is also usually in a context that means it is undesirable or worrying[/QUOTE]
That's the problem. Being gay [I]is[/I] abnormal, but it is NOT undesirable or worrying.
normal - The usual, average, or typical state or condition
Abnormal is just something which is not normal. People should stop imposing inexistant meanings on words. Being abnormal is not worrying or undesirable unless you think so.
[QUOTE]How is the population abnormal?[/QUOTE]
For something to be normal, it has to occur most of the time. (over 50%) If it happpens less than 50% of the time, it is abnormal. If 50% or more of all people were gay, it would be normal. But only 3.8% of the population in America is gay, so it is abnormal.
[B]And that doesn't mean a god damn thing about whether it is good or bad.[/B]
[QUOTE]are you going to tell me minorities in general are abnormal[/QUOTE]
Of course they are, otherwise they wouldn't be minorities. You need to realize that when I use the word "abnormal", I don't use it to convey [B]ANY[/B] negative connotations at all. You're the one who seems to think that anything abnormal is also bad.
[QUOTE]Also who labels their friends as someone with a mental condition?[/QUOTE]
He's being objective. You could use many other words that mean the same thing.
[QUOTE]I'm arguing his poor choice of words[/QUOTE]
I agree, but it doesn't really matter what words you use when the words mean the same thing. The only thing bad about choosing the word "mental condition" is that people will automatically flip a shit because they see the word as something bad.
[QUOTE]in the same body as a child rapist and a toy fucker[/QUOTE]
He didn't.
[QUOTE]its like me acknowledging him for being mentally conditioned for being straight[/QUOTE]
Yes, yes it is. Good point. Heterosexuality is a mental condition as well.
And it still doesn't make a god damned difference. Only difference is that heterosexuality is actually normal [I](which also doesn't make a god damned difference)[/I]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32519290]So you feel a physical injury is justified retribution for a light touch[/QUOTE]
Yes if its a random gay guy grabbing my arse at a location which is not a gay bar.
[QUOTE=ragin cajun;32519378]You don't see straight pride parades.[/QUOTE]
You see straight pride celebrated on nearly every television show, movie, and product advertisement.
[editline]28th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Stormcharger;32519529]Yes if its a random gay guy grabbing my arse at a location which is not a gay bar.[/QUOTE]
Mind explaining how a potentially lethal action (as punching someone in the face absolutely can be) is deserved in that case?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32519556]You see straight pride celebrated on nearly every television show, movie, and product advertisement.
[editline]28th September 2011[/editline]
Mind explaining how a potentially lethal action (as punching someone in the face absolutely can be) is deserved in that case?[/QUOTE]
People shouldnt be grabbing my arse. Youd have to hit someone fucking hard in the face to kill them.
One time this really hot chick sat on my lap on a bus for about 20 minutes
I didn't get a boner
I thought i was gay for the rest of the week
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32519556]You see straight pride celebrated on nearly every television show, movie, and product advertisement.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. That's precisely why, for example, Black History Month is celebrated. It's because every fucking day is White History Month in the US.
Thank you.
[editline]28th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Stormcharger;32519744]People shouldnt be grabbing my arse. Youd have to hit someone fucking hard in the face to kill them.[/QUOTE]
Whilst I agree that grabbing someone's ass is, arguably, sexual assault (dependent upon the circumstances), you don't necessarily have to hit someone hard to kill them, especially if you hit them in the temple.
But - how much of this is about one's right to personal space and not be groped, and how much of it is about homophobia? For example, would you be fine with a woman grabbing your ass, even if you found her unattractive sexually? Would you be fine with other men groping women in front of you; would you consider that assault? Or is the only issue here, in your opinion, that they're the same sex?
[QUOTE=The First 11'er;32517407]Before I get a "omg fucking religion fag don't believe in g0d!11 <<::&&", I'm not a Saint.
I am Catholic, and I'm not sure what our concept is for gays, but if they are "sex should be of the opposite", I disagree with it. I don't know whether I'm full on if it's a choice or biological, but either way, I think they should still be treated and accepted by God (if there is one, for the atheists).
Actually, let me rephrase that. I have a 99.9% feeling that it is biological, due to the nature of how they act.[/QUOTE]
I'm Catholic too, and I'm sure the only reason radicals hate homosexuals is because, as explained in the Bible (Pretty hard to interpret) they merely couldn't have children and thus couldn't help populate.
[QUOTE=devotchkade;32519795]
But - how much of this is about one's right to personal space and not be groped, and how much of it is about homophobia? For example, would you be fine with a woman grabbing your ass, even if you found her unattractive sexually? Would you be fine with other men groping women in front of you; would you consider that assault? Or is the only issue here, in your opinion, that they're the same sex?[/QUOTE]
lol sorry. Just realized Zeke already made this point; that's what I get for not reading the threat. My bad.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
