"Homosexuals are essentially a running joke, a la "You Know How I Know You're Gay" dialog between Paul Rudd and Seth Rog
-
Emmywins305 — 12 years ago(November 09, 2013 07:42 PM)
I don't engage in gay bashing out of any genuine religious or moral principle or because I'm suppressing secret desires. For me, gay bashing is like picking on your little brother. You do it for the sport of it.
PotassiumMan you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Those so-called "men" who pick on others just because they're different are nothing but weaklings and cowards. Real men accept others' differences and are comfortable with themselves. It would serve you right if your "little brothers" got back at you big time. Read up on what happened at Stonewall in 1969. There was a police raid at a gay bar and the patrons fought back and even threw parking meters at the cops.
When big brothers pick on little brothers, they often get spanked and sent to bed without dinner. Any overly macho idiots or religious fanatics who harass gays deserve punishment, too. They deserve to get arrested and then bashed themselves. -
paynejeremy — 14 years ago(January 30, 2012 08:00 AM)
I am no gay basher, and I believe that people of same-sex attraction have the same rights as everyone else and should be afforded those rights. Although I believe homosexual acts to fall outside the natural moral law, they should not be prosecutable under any state laws. I do not feel threatened by homosexually inclined people or by their sexual activity. I do however feel threatened by the restriction of freedom that is increasingly being suffered by those who don't approve of homosexual acts or of the gay lifestyle of of same- sex marriage. When a wedding photographer is fined for not taking on a gay wedding, when a doctor is required by law to act against conscience by artificially inseminate a lesbian, when J.P.'s are forced to resign for declining to perform homosexual weddings, when the gay lobby has the power to decide what apps iTunes will carry, when a university dismisses a professor for stating that the Catholic Church holds homosexual acts to be immoral, or in other case a professor is dismissed for saying environment might be a factor in sexual preference, when a student organisation is denied official recognition for upholding biblical sexual values, when a student is expelled from a program for refusing to approve homosexual acts, when a university files a grievance against a student for not writing a pro gay adoption letter to state legislature, Or when a student is forced into diversity-sensitivity training for expressing her view that homosexual acts are immoral, then it is not irrational for people of this belief to feel that their freedom is severely compromised and under further threat. And that time is now. All of the above have occurred in the USA in recent years, and the signs are that it's going to get worse.
-
bexiter — 14 years ago(February 05, 2012 01:48 PM)
A while back I compiled as many reasons as I could find that made legit sense (not the myths/remarks that couldn't be verified through reason or research - those of which are prejudice).
- CONCERNING HISTORY
The PRO-SIDE presents evidence that past civilizations and Religious Institutions have faced this debate before. The Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches have celebrated and same-sex unions. Historians report that Ancient Rome, Egypt, and China all allowed same-sex marriage amongst their citizenry.
The AGAINST-SIDE agrees that past societies, governments, and Religious Institutions have deemed such relationships appropriate. Yet our predecessors also supported and allowed things that we disagree with - our world and societies are not alike so much that we still don't have to reason this debate out as it relates to us here and now. If the past reasons are still relevant by all means use them to support your side but simply the fact that it's occurred in the past doesn't establish the right or wisdom. - EFFECTS ON MARRIAGE
The AGAINST-SIDE says that following your sexual desire to defining a relationship is already a problem in almost every traditional marriage. If love is so universal then why is it so important that you follow your specific sexual desires? The rein we give our sexual desires is causing lots of trouble with traditional marriage. Putting another OK on following sexual desire will increase an unhealthy amount of sexually-led relationships. That's not what you intend to happen - for sex and love are intertwinedbut based on how humans in our society are operating with their sexuality that is what we think will happen. (And there are some on this side who believe that we need to fix the problems with perceptions of sexuality and traditional marriage to helping the greatest number of people in our society getting back on track rather than focusing so much on this heterosexual/homosexual debate).
The PRO-SIDE says that marriage operates the same for any couple, despite whether they are two men, two women, or man and woman. The divorce rate won't change - one's sexual preference does not affect one's ability to love purely and with endurance. Homosexual and Heterosexual marriages will operate much the same because the relationship is much more dependent on partners' interaction styles and personalities. Though they may be limited in being able to reproduce independently these couples can still adopt a child or have an artificial insemination. - CHILD-REARING
The PRO-SIDE says that homosexual couples can be just as able parents as heterosexual couples. Children raised by homosexuals are not turning out to be any less healthy or lacking. They see plenty of examples in society of men and women. They can receive loving care from both parents and do not impose or need other outside influences for their child to be raised well.
The AGAINST-SIDE has said in the past that homosexual parents would lead to homosexual children and that the children of homosexual parents would be lacking of fatherly or motherly influence. Recent studies have proven that children are indeed capable of adjusting to homosexual parenthood without any ill effects but this side still maintains that the ideal representation of parenthood is given through the heterosexual parents because they believe there are differences between men and women that are not just physiological. Human personality/psychological is not compartmentalized away from one's biological design but intertwined. - CAN HOMOSEXUALS CHOOSE?
The AGAINST-SIDE says that what desires anyone may feel is involuntary but our behavior, identity, and choice in which desires we feed and give rein to are choice-driven. Having the want/desire to do something does mean that we should, or even have to do it. No matter how powerful one's drive may be there is still some choice in who we want ourselves to be and in turn have reverse effects on our involuntary drives due to our adaptability.
The PRO-SIDE says that homosexuals have no choice in who they feel attracted to. The desire arises as naturally for them as heterosexuals feel their desires. They shouldn't have to ignore this basic drive. Blindly following desires is unhealthy but this attraction doesn't bring about any ill effects. They should not have to choose to be otherwise. - PROCREATION?
The PRO-SIDE asks why do we allow sterile/infertile couples to get married? They have as little of a natural chance at procreation as homosexual couples. Homosexuals can get artificial insemination and/or adopt children.
The AGAINST-SIDE says that sterile/infertile couples are limited by a physical condition that they have no control over their inability to procreate while homosexuality, rooted in one's attraction - is based more off of desire than physical condition. Homosexuality is a separation from a natural ability to procreate by choice, not by a medical ailment like being steril
- CONCERNING HISTORY
-
stefanheikel — 14 years ago(February 07, 2012 11:06 AM)
Religion is nothing but a choice, so even if what you're saying about homosexuality is true (and it's not btw), then why should they get tons of special treatment and I am constantly denied civil rights.
BTW the 9th Circut just overturned Prop. 8. It appears they disagree with you. -
sohamorrohit-125-260623 — 14 years ago(April 01, 2012 10:31 AM)
Yes but that "choice" is being forced upon homosexuals. They are not choosing it by themselves. If you really think that a gay man will feel comfortable in a sexual relationship with a woman then why don't you try having sex with a gay man and tell me you felt comfortable yourself?
Do you really believe that after all this negativity and discrimination a person would still WILLINGLY chose to be gay? When the alternative makes life so much easier? They don't because they CAN'T. It's no more a matter of choice. Our psyche is as much a part of our being as our bodies are. Why would you try to to mutate it against someone's will? Is THAT morally right? -
allhailmrvale — 14 years ago(February 26, 2012 08:59 AM)
I'm afraid your question verges on the rhetorical. Without resort to faith no person could justify bashing - verbally or otherwise - another human for their sexual preferences in anything approaching a satisfactory manner.
The 2 main themes that seem to be running through this thread are-- That homosexuality is an unnatural practice therefore it is wrong. Unnatural has been defined (by this thread) as meaning either (i) sexual acts that do not involve the production of a child or (ii) relationships that do not adhere to a model of a family unit that is characterised by procreating (apparently monogomous) same sex partnerships and the resultant offspring.
- That equality laws - i.e. that everyone in society should be treated in the same way - enable minority groups to hold sway over the majority. These arguments seem to fall into two categories: (i) that people expressing a hatred of other are prevented from doing so. For example; Christians are not allowed to convene groups that condemn homosexuals and state that they are going to hell forever for expressing their sexuality. (ii) A dislike of an individual's behaviour. For example; a person finding it offensive that a man would walk down the street with his top off during a gay pride march.
My reasoned rebuttal to this is:
1i) Puritanical nonsense! - hope you've never given/received oral sex or you my friend are an unnatural deviant. Anal sex is not exclusive to homosexuals neither is rampant promiscuity, AIDS or other STD's. Love, companionship and monogamy are not the exclusive domain of heterosexuals.
ii) There is no 'natural' family unit. This is a socially constructed idea and will vary from decade to decade and country to country if not state to state. A child that is brought up by people who loves and supports them is far better than forcing people to conform to some stereotype invented by ad execs in the 1950's. Would a pair of people who are the same sex but not in a sexual relationship and raising a child together be considered to be unnatural? If not, why does it matter whether they are having sex or not?
2i) There seem to be a few issue at play here - an acceptance that a statement no matter how hateful and abhorrent is justified if it is a religious belief; i) There is no proof of the existence of the supernatural (ii) Would it be acceptable if it was a Muslim group stating that all non Muslims should be executed? (iii) Threatening people with an eternity of torture for expressing themselves is acceptable (iv) That homosexuality is a belief or lifestyle choice. Heterosexuality is not a belief or lifestyle. There may be certain beliefs or lifestyles that define themselves as being heterosexual but one does not follow the other. For example a man may have a sexual relationship with a woman and also watch football. This does not mean that watching football is a heterosexual past time. The media may represent football as a heterosexual past time but that does not make it so.
ii) Condemning a whole subsection of society because of the actions of a few is pretty ignorant. Or do you have empirical evidence that all homosexuals behave in this way?
In conclusion, having hopefully relied on reason and logic I will now engage in some unsubstantiated and wild speculation. - the chat about the hardwiring of hatred towards homosexuals seems to be pretty ridiculous in justifying bigotry and providing a salacious hetero fantasy; firstly I'm sure the straight cavemen would have been happy to oblige the local cavewoman; secondly I doubt whether cavemen identified as being gay or straight - they may well have engaged in both homo and heterosexual relationships. As mentioned already I have no evidence and have read very little on the matter but would speculate that homosexual behaviour does serve a purpose in terms of human evolution and it is undeniable that homosexual individuals and communities have hugely enriched human society in innumerable ways.
-
Emmywins305 — 12 years ago(November 10, 2013 07:07 PM)
I don't see how I can deny someone a right to marry same sex, bicycle, tree, umbrella, cow, ship, car and etc. If you want to be that dumb knock yourself out, you have my blessing.
Funny, you try to make yourself sound tolerant, but your condescension and patronizing tone give yourself away. Anyone with half a brain knows that bicycle, trees, umbrellas, cows, ships, cars, other inanimate objects, children, and other animals CAN'T SIGN MARRIAGE CONTRACTS. Duh. -
BoogieKnight — 13 years ago(July 12, 2012 04:10 AM)
Apparently ardent support for polygamy and incest are legitimate reasons to gay bash.
"I don't like black people in general"
This is a very good example as to why the gay rights struggle is almost over. People like you have helped to clearly establish who truly has right on their side. Good luck in your personal struggles to marry your sister or your mother. -
jstang411 — 13 years ago(August 22, 2012 09:39 AM)
I don't like black people in general but I'll make an exception as this guy makes very good anti-gay arguments
I hope you at least do understand how comments like that at least make you seem less than open-minded. The tag pic with the card about "only inferior white woman" dating outside their race is a bit telling too.
But hey, much as I disagree am in full support of your right to say what you do. If I suport your censorship I am supporting that of myself down the road. -
nyamcz — 13 years ago(February 24, 2013 01:41 PM)
What a greate step in our evolution, to accept more and more human anomalies, what's next? accept pedos because they are a minority too?
How come 99% of the pedos are also homos and regarding the title i think is self-explanatory. -
Emmywins305 — 12 years ago(November 09, 2013 08:35 PM)
What a greate step in our evolution, to accept more and more human anomalies, what's next? accept pedos because they are a minority too?
How come 99% of the pedos are also homos and regarding the title i think is self-explanatory
.
You can't compare pedophilia with homosexuality. Pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubertal children. That is, children under the age of 13. And pedophiles are not necessarily child molestors. Child molestors actually coerce, drug, and rape children. Gay adults generally want to be with other consenting adults of the same sex. AND ANOTHER THING. Psychologists will tell you that the majority of child molestors are STRAIGHT MEN. Just the same: most of the guys who rape other guys in prison are STRAIGHT MEN. Open a book sometime. You might learn something. -
snoho — 13 years ago(March 08, 2013 06:36 PM)
There is NO reasoning. It's plain old and simple bigotry. The hatred for people that happen to be different from you. In my opinion that just makes you a rather unlikable person. That's the way I see it. I couldn't give a damn for why they have this hatred tbh. Where I come from people that are homophobic are being outcasted because these days people have just had enough.
-
hadmatter — 12 years ago(April 27, 2013 12:38 PM)
People have the "right to disagree" with anything. It doesn't make them reasonable, it doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean that the thing they disagree with is actually what they say it is.
I am the sod-off shotgun.