(April 13, 2015 at 2:43 pm)robvalue Wrote: I'm not bi or gay, but I don't experience these feelings of revulsion and brain freezing panic that certain people obviously do when visualizing gay sex. I just think of it as what gays do, and what I would probably do if I was gay. I don't understand where all this fear and venom comes from. Obviously religion has to shoulder a lot of the blame, but I don't think it's all because of that. My parents for example aren't at all religious but are just really homophobic, so is one of my brothers. I don't get it.

I wouldn't think badly of someone if they found the idea of gay sex to be uncomfortable to think about, you can't help what mental reactions you have to things. But I don't understand this need to turn that feeling into aggression and fear. A lot of the language we've seen today clearly betrays the fear that the gays are going to "take over" or "infect everyone". Obviously there's a hell of a lot of ignorance going round, probably willful. It has to be in this day and age where information is so easily accessible.

I hope that as religion declines we'll see a similar decline in homophobia. I think in general it's still there, people just keep it hidden more. Whether it has actually gone down over time, I don't know. Probably. Thoughts?

I don't think it has that much to do with religion - religion just exacerbates people's existing prejudices and indeed since religion was written by man it gave voice to those prejudices in the first place. So in my opinion it is man, not religion per se that is responsible for homophobia, but religion just gives it 'justification' in believers eyes.


As to where those prejudices come from I think it comes down to some people (those inclined to bigotry) wanting a simple and predictable life: if the whole world is straight then everyone knows what their roles are and what to expect, but add a gay guy to the mix and somehow it fucks everything up; roles and expectations get skewed. Bigots are often against many minorities not just homosexuals and I think it's the same principle - they just reject anything that messes with their needs for an ordered and predictable world.

(April 13, 2015 at 3:24 pm)Heywood Wrote: If you think they are dumb and don't want to respond to them thats fine.  I can understand that.  But if your going to take that route....take it.  Don't then go on to respond by saying, "Your post is to dumb to respond too"....cause that's not really a response.....its an excuse.  If you have to make excuses on why you can't respond....maybe you're not intelligent enough to be having this conversation.   That's the way it comes off to me anyways.

Lol at not being intelligent enough to have this conversation.  Dirt is intelligent enough to defend itself against you on this topic.

No, Heywood, the fact of the matter is that sometimes people, especially on the Internet, espouse ideas so stupid that they don't deserve wasting energy to respond to.  I only have a very small capacity to tolerate stupidity, so I leave that to our more dedicated members, whom clearly have no problem exposing your idiocy.

But keep up the good crusade against the evil gays.  It totally doesn't make you come across as a bigot. 

Gay advocates are very quick to label people bigots, homophobes and repressed homosexuals when others have a difference of opinions about gender identity. Those kinds of ad hominem attacks reveal the poverty of their position.

The secular humanists have no response to the homosexuality going contrary to evolutionary advantage because that’s their argument of convenience when it comes to how they can be good without God. When it applies to sex they set aside the evolutionary justifications for human morality because it would be too inconvenient to for them.

No idea who you're trying to invoke when you say morality is purely a product of evolution, Chad.

That's a negative, Chad. Contrary to how many times you repeat it, evolution is not some defining guideline we have to follow.

Regardless, homosexuality isn't detrimental to evolution, as the fact that we have over seven billion people on this planet attests.

(April 13, 2015 at 4:24 pm)Faith No More Wrote: That's a negative, Chad.  Contrary to how many times you repeat it, evolution is not some defining guideline we have to follow.

Regardless, homosexuality isn't detrimental to evolution, as the fact that we have over seven billion people on this planet attests.

Apparently neither is color-blindness or clubbed feet or cleft palettes since there are, as you say, over seven billion people.

Hey, fetish isn't as bad as mental disorder, which homosexuality was considered to be within my lifetime.

(April 13, 2015 at 4:12 pm)Mezmo! Wrote: [...]The secular humanists have no response to the homosexuality going contrary to evolutionary advantage [...]

You are a moron (and - of course - a bigot). So, I suppose the fact that 99% of ants, bees and termites are infertile "goes contrary to evolutionary advantage" and means they're doomed, right? You don't know what is advantageous for species, from evolutionary point of view. For example - it would have been an "evolutionary advantage" for humanity, if your parents were homosexuals, since we'd have been spared a backward individual, polluting the gene-pool and wasting resources.

(April 13, 2015 at 5:12 pm)Homeless Nutter Wrote:

(April 13, 2015 at 4:12 pm)Mezmo! Wrote: [...]The secular humanists have no response to the homosexuality going contrary to evolutionary advantage [...]

You are a moron (and - of course - a bigot). So, I suppose the fact that 99% of ants, bees and termites are infertile "goes contrary to evolutionary advantage" and means they're doomed, right? You don't know what is advantageous for species, from evolutionary point of view. For example - it would have been an "evolutionary advantage" for humanity, if your parents were homosexuals sterile, since we'd have been spared a backward individual, polluting the gene-pool and wasting resources.

FTFY.

(April 13, 2015 at 4:55 pm)Mezmo! Wrote: Apparently neither is color-blindness or clubbed feet or cleft palettes since there are, as you say, over seven billion people.

Now you're getting it, although I'm not sure what point you think you're making.