Gays - Seriously, what's wrong about them? - General

[QUOTE=SNNS-SEAN;32517515]And living in Texas, I deal with anti-gay bullshit on a daily basis.[/QUOTE] So do I. I live in New York (near the Metro area), in school I meet face to face with many homophobes, and I stand up to all of them, and not to mention homophobia should be low up here since SSM is legal in this state. I truly don't get the homophobic state of mind, it's like having the mind of a racist. You hate a group of people because they're different. That's truly just wrong. [QUOTE=thedeadfatbean;32530904]-the documentary stuff-[/QUOTE] It's on Netflix apps for consoles and smartphones in case anybody has those advantages and wanted to know.

I say who cares what the cause of homosexuality is, there is no rational reason to look down upon it or prohibit it in any way. In my opinion it is productive for the world, less fucking babies overpopulating the planet.

[QUOTE=J!NX;32522428]because its the sexual ATTRACTION that is "homosexuality", not the act itself you can choose to bang a guy, you can't choose to be sexually attracted to all guys then again theres always subjecting yourself to enough gays that it 'changes' you, but thats extremely unlikely even then[/QUOTE] This actually makes perfect sense. Thank you.

My dad believes that they should be executed one by one in cleansing camps. Because he believes that the world will end because apparently god flooded the earth to kill the gays and he brought up Sodom and Gomorrah being destroyed somehow.

[QUOTE=zombini;32531448]My dad believes that they should be executed one by one in cleansing camps. Because he believes that the world will end because apparently god flooded the earth to kill the gays and he brought up Sodom and Gomorrah being destroyed somehow.[/QUOTE] Your dad has a very interesting thought process goin' on there.

[QUOTE=TehWhale;32530722]Way to stereotype[/QUOTE] i didn't believe he would really end up gay because he was a good friend of mine. that's not very stereotypical.

[QUOTE=SeanL;32531472]Your dad has a very interesting thought process goin' on there.[/QUOTE] My dad also watches Fox News every morning, and if i say something about it, he slaps me and tells me to stop spouting "muslim shit".

[QUOTE=The First 11'er;32531575]i didn't believe he would really end up gay because he was a good friend of mine. that's not very stereotypical.[/QUOTE] Like I said, there's not too much evidence to support sexuality developes pre-conception or in embryonic development, however a lot of factors during those periods can influence a persons sexuality when it actually develops (obviously showing itself more during puberty). There is no "sign" to homosexuality other than having sexual desires towards the same sex. Gays are about as diverse as the Earth's population itself. A high pitched voice has nothing more to do with homosexuality than the length of the persons vocal cords; very little. I'm one of those you wouldn't ever 'guess' (so my peers have told me) - and some who seem "flamboyant" to others actually aren't gay, it's largely their personalities. Stating that a high pitched voice is a 'sign' of homosexuality like Whale said, is pretty much perpetuating the same age old stereotypes. Not saying that correlations don't occur, but correlation is not mutually inclusive with causation. [QUOTE=RenegadeCop;32531538]The only problem I've ever had with gays is the way they act. They act almost exactly just like a woman. (The ones I know, not saying they all do.) They walk like women, talk like women, do the "talk with hands" thing like women. And they date other gays, who also act like women. It doesn't make sense to me why they're attracted to men who act like women, when they could date a woman who acts like a woman. Unless it's just the penis, not the actual personality that makes them want someone.[/QUOTE] Self perpetuated media stereotypes. This doesn't mean that the group the stereotypes belong to don't fall for those stereotypes themselves at times. A lot of gays feel pressured to fit within whatever 'status quo' is out there about gays, then they usually get a bit more experience in the communities and knock it off. There are certain attitudes, mannerisms, etc, etc, that allow for dating tactics. Sociologically it makes sense to develop certain social behaviors to try and narrow your search for another homosexual partner while remaining completely subtle about it, largely due to societal discrimination. Speaking from experience myself, I know a lot of guys who hate 'femme' gays. And only go for purely masculine ones... A LOT of them have this attitude and quite often they express it in a belligerent manner so the other side of the spectrum sometimes calls them out on being 'self loathing gays'. Personally I say live and let live, but I'm an introvert myself so I don't want ostentatious partners. I'm hardly a paragon of masculinity myself and I suppose I exhibit "feminine" traits but the key word with what you're talking about is "effeminacy" which isn't necessarily 'feminine' if that makes sense.

[QUOTE=Ownederd;32517342]There is literally nothing wrong with people who have a different sexual preference. It is observed among different species, including house flies.[/QUOTE] Ahahaha, the though of gay houseflies is hilarious. Honestly there's nothing wrong with being gay. It's not like if you're gay you magically want to spread hatred of humanity across the universe on a gaybow.

some of the religious say that "sin" is natural then those same people claim that homosexuality is unnatural does that mean that homsexuality isn't a "sin"?

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;32527806] sit the hell down man[/QUOTE] You referred to me as an 'e-scrub'. That's pretty sad mate. "a navel-gazing contemplation" You're pretty funny.

what foucault said doesn't refute the whole of psychology, foucault isn't unimpeachable anyway, and you are a scrub on the internet. deal

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;32527806]next level in my formal education? you mean like a university? you mean like the one where I've been majoring in psychology for going on 3 years now? yeah, I'll do that so then I can immerse myself not in foucault but instead in an angry Copy and Paste by some e-scrub who has apparently confused Psychology with Psychiatry and further confused a criticism of a specific period of psychiatric institutions (from a man who had a degree in psychology himself) coupled with a navel-gazing contemplation of whether or not "madness" is a "mental illness" (madness being a term that is 1. wholly irrelevant to the discussion of homosexuality and 2. an outdated term that no one uses outside of shitty period-piece movies) with a damning word-of-god condemnation of psychology in general. [editline]28th September 2011[/editline] w-w-what's this? he's saying that what, socially, constitutes "mental illness" is by no means universal and might vary across cultures? and that cultural relativism might possibly be important when attempting to form a generalized, mostly objective criteria of what constitutes a mental illness? oh god, the entire field of psychology has been invalidated by something that is taught in literally every psychology 101 class in the country. if only all those psychologists and psychiatrists had taken introductory psychology classes they might have known that they were wasting their time, their life's work having been invalidated by one of the foundations of modern psychology, sociology, and anthropology. [editline]28th September 2011[/editline] sit the hell down man[/QUOTE] I love how you've managed to condense all sociological thought into 'naval-gazing'. Because psychology is totally seen as a hard science, right? I don't know what you're arguing about. Contag pointed out that harm is something that is culturally contingent, and he's absolutely right about that. That's all. He's not in opposition to what you're saying; he's one of the more left wing people I know, and is 100% for gay marriage and equal rights. You'd be much better off arguing with the other people in this thread who are equating being gay to being a paedophile, and whatnot. [editline]29th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=zombini;32531448]My dad believes that they should be executed one by one in cleansing camps. Because he believes that the world will end because apparently god flooded the earth to kill the gays and he brought up Sodom and Gomorrah being destroyed somehow.[/QUOTE] Does your dad ever wear mixed fabrics (like polyblends) or eat seafood? If so, he's committing a sin, according to the Bible.

[QUOTE=devotchkade;32532049]I love how you've managed to condense all sociological thought into 'naval-gazing'.[/QUOTE] no i didn't. I referred to foucaults question of whether or not "madness" is or is not a "mental illness" as wholly unsubstantial and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. i have no idea where you got what you're saying I said [QUOTE=devotchkade;32532049]Because psychology is totally seen as a hard science, right?[/QUOTE] here's my response to the hard science vs. soft science debate: thbbbt [QUOTE=devotchkade;32532049]I don't know what you're arguing about. Contag pointed out that harm is something that is culturally contingent, and he's absolutely right about that. That's all. He's not in opposition to what you're saying;[/QUOTE] he claimed that the entire field of psychology is useless. that's what I am taking issue with

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;32532015]what foucault said doesn't refute the whole of psychology, foucault isn't unimpeachable anyway, and you are a scrub on the internet. deal[/QUOTE] Please direct me to the discourse surrounding mental illness that does not base it entirely on what we construct as harmful or deviant, and does not universalize like there's no tomorrow? Also what are your views on evolutionary psychology? [editline]29th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;32532093] he claimed that the entire field of psychology is useless. that's what I am taking issue with[/QUOTE] I'm quite sure I actually said that it "is a shit field of massive bias and it's bad to base arguments on". That's not that the entire field is useless and should be discarded, but from what I've seen, and please link me if I'm wrong, it has some pretty big issues with acknowledging it's not objective, and countering the problems that stem from that.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;32532093]no i didn't. I referred to foucaults question of whether or not "madness" is or is not a "mental illness" as wholly unsubstantial and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. i have no idea where you got what you're saying I said here's my response to the hard science vs. soft science debate: thbbbt he claimed that the entire field of psychology is useless. that's what I am taking issue with[/QUOTE] Considering the amount of people who are claiming that gayness is a mental disorder and/or illness, it's absolutely, totally fucking relevant. I concur that the hard science v. soft science debate is bullshit. My point was that if you're going to be elitist about how supposedly objective your discipline is, you might want to make sure it is, you know, actually objective. Again. You're wasting your time arguing with him. The topic is whether gay people deserve equal rights, and he believes that. End of.

Speaking of the theme of this thread, it really isn't about gay rights. I'm not sure what it is. The OP asked the question "What's wrong with gays?". Absolutely nothing, then I posted some dryly sarcastic remark and then this all happened. :v: Just saying this thread was oddly vague in it's topic and that's why It's flying about like a chicken with it's head cut off.

[QUOTE=Skepsis;32532240]Speaking of the theme of this thread, it really isn't about gay rights. I'm not sure what it is. The OP asked the question "What's wrong with gays?". Absolutely nothing, then I posted some dryly sarcastic remark and then this all happened.[/QUOTE] Uh. Gay people > what's wrong with them > do they deserve rights. It's a very related theme.

[QUOTE=Contag;32532107]Please direct me to the discourse surrounding mental illness that does not base it entirely on what we construct as harmful or deviant, and does not universalize like there's no tomorrow?[/QUOTE] well first off "deviant" with the intonation that you're using isn't a thing anyone outside of theocracies says anymore. and you're sort of accusing "psychology" (apparently some vast, unified entity) of not embracing cultural relativism which is certainly not true of any major western (U.S., Europe) Psychological or Psychiatric institution. What constitutes harm may fluctuate from society to society, yes, but the status of harm as a bad thing does not. It's perfectly valid to use "causing harm" as a criteria for defining something as or not as a mental illness so long as you make sure to treat the definition of harm as a variable. [QUOTE=Contag;32532107]Also what are your views on evolutionary psychology?[/QUOTE] there's nothing intrinsically wrong with evolutionary psychology but too many people overstate it's importance, which is going to continue to diminish as humankind becomes more and more entrenched in civilization and away from the wild [QUOTE=Contag;32532107]I'm quite sure I actually said that it "is a shit field of massive bias and it's bad to base arguments on".[/QUOTE] which is a really reductive, empty thing to say [QUOTE=Contag;32532107]That's not that the entire field is useless and should be discarded but from what I've seen, and please link me if I'm wrong, it has some pretty big issues with acknowledging it's not objective, and countering the problems that stem from that. [/QUOTE] you can't exactly expect me to link you to something disproving a nebulous claim like that but I certainly can tell you that you really can't look at "psychology" as some sort of single entity which is, in it's entirety, capable of a certain crime or transgression or w/e [editline]28th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=devotchkade;32532129]Considering the amount of people who are claiming that gayness is a mental disorder and/or illness, it's absolutely, totally fucking relevant.[/QUOTE] uhh did your computer filter out the word "madness"? I said the issue of "is madness a mental illness" is not relevant. read, comprehend, post dude [editline]28th September 2011[/editline] i mean where is the substantiation of your claims contag? all you've said is "psychology has a problem with, like, stuff" without actually providing anything to back that claim up apart from half a paragraph of someone describing something foucault once said

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;32532272] uhh did your computer filter out the word "madness"? I said the issue of "is madness a mental illness" is not relevant. read, comprehend, post dude[/QUOTE] Oh, ffs, [i]dude[/i]. You're arguing about the cultural differences when classifying mental illness. That's what I said. Edit: Well, that's what Contag's arguing about, anyhow.

Either they're aggressive or passive >=(

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;32532272] there's nothing intrinsically wrong with evolutionary psychology[/QUOTE] Well this won't go anywhere useful so it's not worth arguing about.

[QUOTE=Contag;32532367]Well this won't go anywhere useful so it's not worth arguing about.[/QUOTE] cool, I win. reminder that by that I meant that evolutionary psychology is only mostly useless, not completely useless.

i think facepunch is very hypocritical. because they rush to gay rights, and then they have next-to-no problems with racism.

[QUOTE=Ladowerf;32532900]i think facepunch is very hypocritical. because they rush to gay rights, and then they have next-to-no problems with racism.[/QUOTE] You speak of this forum as if it's some sort of hiveminded collective conciousness. Spoiler: it's full of individuals with their own perspectives. [QUOTE=devotchkade;32532264]Uh. Gay people > what's wrong with them > do they deserve rights. It's a very related theme.[/QUOTE] If you say so. This thread is completely vague so, yeah. Just about anything can go. The problem with how you presented that argument is the sequential order. "What's wrong with gays" supercedes "do they deserver rights" where the former was the actual topic of the thread. There's also a more gay-rights centric thread floating around here too. My salient point was the fact that this topic is all over the place, and it's main focal point isn't really about gay rights itself. Maybe I'm just a pedantic fucker though, I've been called that before. :v:

[QUOTE=Ladowerf;32532900]i think facepunch is very hypocritical. because they rush to gay rights, and then they have next-to-no problems with racism.[/QUOTE] Racist about what?

[QUOTE=Ladowerf;32532900]i think facepunch is very hypocritical. because they rush to gay rights, and then they have next-to-no problems with racism.[/QUOTE] Well if your talking about the fact that people make racist jokes then thats stupid, you dont have to be racist to make racist jokes

[QUOTE=Ladowerf;32532900]i think facepunch is very hypocritical. because they rush to gay rights, and then they have next-to-no problems with racism.[/QUOTE] Nah, there is almost nobody who's an actual racist on facepunch. We make racist jokes as much as we make gay jokes. I've never actually seen someone seriously show hatred for a race or so on facepunch.

[QUOTE=Ladowerf;32532900]have next-to-no problems with racism.[/QUOTE] I don't know what Facepunch you've been on but I dont' think it's this one. There's a handful of truly racist people here at worst.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;32532272]there's nothing intrinsically wrong with evolutionary psychology but too many people overstate it's importance, which is going to continue to diminish as humankind becomes more and more entrenched in civilization and away from the wild[/QUOTE]Though I largely agree with what you've been arguing so far, I definitely don't here. Evolutionary psychology still comes into play even today. Our instincts run quite deep and understanding them is of massive importance. The only time I will feel safe discarding it is if humans decide to pursue "artificial selection" of some sort. Otherwise, evolutionary psych is still worth looking into. Think of it as the "history of the mind", and I'm sure you understand the importance of history. [QUOTE=Ladowerf;32532900]i think facepunch is very hypocritical. because they rush to gay rights, and then they have next-to-no problems with racism.[/QUOTE] Dude you can't even include the word "nigger" in a joke without likely getting banned for it. "Faggot" is actually less likely to get you banned, and only because of it has massively changed context since the advent of the internet. [QUOTE=MrJazzy;32536138]Nah, there is almost nobody who's an actual racist on facepunch. We make racist jokes as much as we make gay jokes. I've never actually seen someone seriously show hatred for a race or so on facepunch.[/QUOTE] TH89... nuff said. But seriously I've only witnessed a handful and they don't last long (usually).