Are you homophobic?

[Wirey]

Passed!

I am sure you will all be hugely surprised.

Has anyone come across somebody non-religious who was homophobic?

Yes. Me! Gay people are trying to infiltrate every aspect of our lives. It's a ploy to steal our women! Why do you think they're all such good listeners! Gay men are after our women and if we let them marry, it will happen faster! Let them keep having anonymous sex behind the Burger King, where I can't be recognized..... I mean, decent people don't have to watch.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yes. Me! Gay people are trying to infiltrate every aspect of our lives. It's a ploy to steal our women! Why do you think they're all such good listeners! Gay men are after our women and if we let them marry, it will happen faster! Let them keep having anonymous sex behind the Burger King, where I can't be recognized..... I mean, decent people don't have to watch.

Don't you mean the Wal-Mart bathroom? I've heard. Just tap your foot under the stall. At like 3PM. On Saturday. Something like that. I've heard.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sounds like my Dad... Lol

Mine too.

I passed. I'm not homophobic and don't show intolerance or blind prejudice. I'm just against homosexual marriage.

To be opposed to equal rights is prejudiced. We wouldn't hesitate to call someone who opposed equality for black people racist. We call someone who doesn't want equality for women a misogynist. What makes equality for homosexuals any different?
And calling homosexuality a "disability" isn't helping your case.

I find that abandoning G-d's Laws leads people to death.

No matter what you do or don't do, you are going to die.

Uh oh.....#10 makes me a homophobe!

If my observations are correct, saying "the gays" or "a gay" seems to something that mostly older generations do.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I'm sorry, but I have been astounded by some of the unsubstantiated assumptions that some people in this forum have expressed in regards to same-sex marriage. They show an amount of prejudice and ignorance that really surprises me, especially when many of these people claim that they "have nothing against homosexuals". Here are some easy ways to determine whether you have "homophobic" tendencies.

1. If you say that "homosexuals who marry are more promiscuous than heterosexuals".
2. If you think that "homosexuals know the sinful nature of their lifestyle, but continue on out of selfishness".
3. If you claim that same-sex couples should not be able to adopt kids because they are unfit, even though the alternative is no parents at all.
4. If you think that homosexuals are not only hurting themselves, but casting a dark shadow on our entire society which will lead to divine retribution.
5. If you think that employers should be able to fire employees who are openly homosexual.

These all show intolerance and blind prejudice.

Why stop there. If you have some arousal for same sex and not immediately go up to them to ask them to marry, then you are homophobic.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Why stop there. If you have some arousal for same sex and not immediately go up to them to ask them to marry, then you are homophobic.

"Homophobia" is just a new category of thought crime. It can mean whatever an accuser wishes it to mean. I mean, just look at #1 on the OP's list. If you bring up stats that show that gay men are more promiscuous and have a higher rate of HIV/AIDS and STDs than heterosexuals, you're "homophobic". Reality is "homophobic"!

 

[Deathbydefault]

It's nice to see this topic popping up everywhere on the forums.
What's not nice is that I feel the need to comment on them all.

Well I'm not homophobic.
So that's nice.

I live with three homophobes though.
Both parents and my second youngest sister.
My dad is the most bearable, as he doesn't rant.
Mother and sister however, gawd.

My youngest sister is as much like me as the middle is like her mother.
But you better believe on 6/26 not even minutes home for work, "**** rule America now!!!".
Tis' quite entertaining if it weren't so annoying.

When you know someone is stupid and has no idea what they are talking about it's funny to see them angry.
Remember the guy who said "6/26 is the moral 9/11", dearest mother of mine is worse.

 

[leibowde84]

Why stop there. If you have some arousal for same sex and not immediately go up to them to ask them to marry, then you are homophobic.

"If you have some arousal for [the] same-sex" you are either a homosexual or a bisexual. Not sure why you wrote the rest of your comment, as I've never heard anyone claim it from either side of this issue. What did you mean by it?

 

[leibowde84]

"Homophobia" is just a new category of thought crime. It can mean whatever an accuser wishes it to mean. I mean, just look at #1 on the OP's list. If you bring up stats that show that gay men are more promiscuous and have a higher rate of HIV/AIDS and STDs than heterosexuals, you're "homophobic". Reality is "homophobic"!

This might be a valid argument if there was actual statistical evidence that homosexual spouses were more promiscuous than heterosexual spouses. Can you provide any?

 

[Revoltingest]

If my observations are correct, saying "the gays" or "a gay" seems to something that mostly older generations do.

You call'n me old, ya ankle bite'n, short pants wear'n, tethered to a cel phone, young whippersnapper!?
And get off'n me lawn!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This might be a valid argument if there was actual statistical evidence that homosexual spouses were more promiscuous than heterosexual spouses. Can you provide any?

There was a recent study (or maybe it was multiple studies, I'm not quite sure) that said that half of gay marriages are open marriages but the number of non-monogamous gay marriages is probably higher since that wouldn't include general cheating.

Master Bedroom, Extra Closet: The Truth About Gay Marriage
Homosexuality: A Queer Problem | Psychology Today
U.S. Gay Men's Astonishing HIV/STD Rates | The Bilerico Project

It's not really that much of a surprise when you consider basic biology and how it effects male sexuality. Males are by nature more promiscuous and inclined to indulge in risky sexual behavior. It's because of testosterone. Lesbians don't have those problems to the same extent because female sexuality is different. So they have much lower levels of promiscuity and STDs than gay men do.

 

[Deathbydefault]

It's nice to see this topic popping up everywhere on the forums.
What's not nice is that I feel the need to comment on them all.

Well I'm not homophobic.
So that's nice.

I live with three homophobes though.
Both parents and my second youngest sister.
My dad is the most bearable, as he doesn't rant.
Mother and sister however, gawd.

My youngest sister is as much like me as the middle is like her mother.
But you better believe on 6/26 not even minutes home for work, "**** rule America now!!!".
Tis' quite entertaining if it weren't so annoying.

When you know someone is stupid and has no idea what they are talking about it's funny to see them angry.
Remember the guy who said "6/26 is the moral 9/11", dearest mother of mine is worse.

Correction.
In that post I said my father was homophobic and that isn't technically true.
He says he wouldn't have an issue with any of the LGBT if they were not against his religion.

At least I have a few people who aren't idiotic in the family tree.
Must be a genetic defect?

 

[Akivah]

Leib84 wrote

3. If you claim that same-sex couples should not be able to adopt kids because they are unfit, even though the alternative is no parents at all.

So regarding number 3, you believe homosexual couples should be able to adopt kids, but not marry?

As strange as it sounds, yes.


I believe in a tiered approach. For orphaned kids, I believe that the government is the absolute worst entity to raise kids. And that a stable married opposite-sex couple (Moses! I now have to say opposite sex people to be clear about marriages. ) is the absolute best entity to raise kids. Thus any single parent is better than the government, yet worse than traditional marriage. As of last week, a single person may have been not dating anyone, been with a different sex, or been with a same sex. Whomever said single person was romantically seeing, they are better than the government. So if I were king for a day, I'd have allowed a single person to adopt (no matter whom they were dating), only if there were no traditionally married couples available to adopt.

 

[leibowde84]

Leib84 wrote

As strange as it sounds, yes.


I believe in a tiered approach. For orphaned kids, I believe that the government is the absolute worst entity to raise kids. And that a stable married opposite-sex couple (Moses! I now have to say opposite sex people to be clear about marriages. ) is the absolute best entity to raise kids. Thus any single parent is better than the government, yet worse than traditional marriage. As of last week, a single person may have been not dating anyone, been with a different sex, or been with a same sex. Whomever said single person was romantically seeing, they are better than the government. So if I were king for a day, I'd have allowed a single person to adopt (no matter whom they were dating), only if there were no traditionally married couples available to adopt.

That was my point. There aren't nearly enough heterosexual couples to adopt the plethora of orphaned children these days. That is what I meant by a homosexual couple or no parents at all.

 

[SomeRandom]

The solution is for them to deal with their disability, just like a person born without a limb must do.

Did you just call homosexuality a disability? How is having a (presumably) consensual relationship (either casual or committed or any other type you can think of) anywhere close to having to cope without a limb, or living in a wheelchair or insert actual disability here?

Like my aunt is bound to a wheelchair and perhaps this colors my reaction, but I find the comparison outright insulting and downright appalling. Seriously, can you please explain this to me?

 

[SomeRandom]

"Homophobia" is just a new category of thought crime. It can mean whatever an accuser wishes it to mean. I mean, just look at #1 on the OP's list. If you bring up stats that show that gay men are more promiscuous and have a higher rate of HIV/AIDS and STDs than heterosexuals, you're "homophobic". Reality is "homophobic"!

I suppose to be fair, the most prominently used stats that show gay men being promiscuous with higher rates of STI's have a large anti gay slant to them. What I mean is the anti gay side often touts certain studies, but in a skewed or sometimes misunderstood manner. Instead of giving a reasonable explanation like you gave (female vs male sexuality) the stats are used to not only denounce gay people but implicitly (or even directly) state that gay people are going to get us with their STD's. I agree that gay men might have a higher tendency to be promiscuous and therefore are at greater risk of contracting STD's. But I also acknowledge that it's an oft used weapon (often misused or misunderstood) of the anti gay side.

 

[leibowde84]

As you know, my opinion differs from yours Carlita.

Yes, everything connects. G-d gave us Laws that binds everything together. I find that abandoning G-d's Laws leads people to death. Most of our crimes and injustices come from that. No good comes from doing things how we want to do them in opposition to the Laws.

I do agree that some people display attraction for members of the same sex. The solution is not for them to be bound in a play-action in opposition to G-d's Laws. The solution is for them to deal with their disability, just like a person born without a limb must do. We don't know why people get specific challenges from G-d. We only know that people should do their best to deal with 'the hands that they've been dealt' to the best of their ability in accordance with G-d's Laws.

Why do you consider it a "disability"? How are they "disabled"? We are talking about sexual orientation, not disease or amputation.

 

[dust1n]

As strange as it sounds, yes.

I believe in a tiered approach. For orphaned kids, I believe that the government is the absolute worst entity to raise kids. And that a stable married opposite-sex couple (Moses! I now have to say opposite sex people to be clear about marriages. ) is the absolute best entity to raise kids. Thus any single parent is better than the government, yet worse than traditional marriage. As of last week, a single person may have been not dating anyone, been with a different sex, or been with a same sex. Whomever said single person was romantically seeing, they are better than the government. So if I were king for a day, I'd have allowed a single person to adopt (no matter whom they were dating), only if there were no traditionally married couples available to adopt.

Ah, well thanks for clearing that up. Hadn't heard anything like that before.

 

[Akivah]

Why do you consider it a "disability"? How are they "disabled"? We are talking about sexual orientation, not disease or amputation.

I was using the definition from the Mirrian-Webster dictionary: "the condition of being unable to do things in the normal way". I suppose the word might not be totally accurate, as a person that desires the same-sex isn't unable to be normal, but is just unwilling to be normal. But with proper therapy and control, they could learn. It is just a matter of making the proper choices.

 

[leibowde84]

I was using the definition from the Mirrian-Webster dictionary: "the condition of being unable to do things in the normal way". I suppose the word might not be totally accurate, as a person that desires the same-sex isn't unable to be normal, but is just unwilling to be normal. But with proper therapy and control, they could learn. It is just a matter of making the proper choices.

But, what about the fact that therapy has been shown time and time again to have extremely detrimental effects in this area?

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Iam pretty much homophobic by all definition of that word.