Homophobia

[Balthazzar]

What gets me is as a straight male, my resistance to homosexual interaction beyond my normal interactions with other people, often enough lands me with the title. I'm very cautious with my sexuality, even when I'm fervently attracted to a woman I would never choose to make a life with. On the same token, it's very difficult to not want to express my attraction to them. It's all very complicated. On one hand, I'm that type of sexually driven man, but I reserve the actual participation for someone, or the type I might choose to make a life with. I fully embrace sexuality, if not what some might consider heathenry. I love sexual woman. That's the point and the attraction, but it goes much further than just that. I simply won't go there with anyone I wouldn't have the will to make a life with, which is very similar to homosexuals expressing interest in those they would be interested in. We end up keeping that real to ourselves and end up shooting ourselves in the foot because of it (metaphorically speaking).

I also love modest woman, and outwardly so. This is no less a turn on than expressive sexuality and sensuality, so I'm left never knowing if and I typically end up choosing based on other more important factors. I'm still single. Go figure. I haven't always been, but that's beside the point. It's just not as easy as it once was. I push people away nowadays unless I think it a valid possible, which equates to "rarely". For this reason, I stick to my "fast" on every level, aside from what I value beyond sexuality in woman.

 

[I Am Hugh]

I don't think science does that per se, but people who glorify it often do.
I believe this is why there are several debates on this site regarding "Scientism".

It seems very likely that the bulk of offenders do that, but sometimes those who glorify science are scientists as well. Science itself doesn't do anything.

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

It seems very likely that the bulk of offenders do that,

Yes, and many seem to lack this self-awareness.
Which I find painfully ironic for those who value empathy and compassion as major virtues.

but sometimes those who glorify science are scientists as well.

I wasn't talking about scientists, I was talking about... scientismists I guess?
But yes, scientists can be scientismists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Has that proven fortunate or unfortunate for you?

So if you take my post you have objected to you get this.



What is my position on homosexuality and if you disagree, why?



Sometimes society says something is "wrong" while others in that society disagree. The only thing that changes is whether or not society says it's wrong.



People that thought it was wrong couldn't reason? You mean don't agree with the current consensus. Apply that to everything and watch your ideology crumble because you are the one that can't reason. Not because you disagree with me but because you can't do anything but emote that ideology. Reason only gets in the way.

---

---

With just a little editing you get the following.

What is my position on homosexuality and if you disagree, why?

Sometimes society says something is "wrong" while others in that society disagree. The only thing that changes is whether or not society says it's wrong.

People that thought it was wrong couldn't reason? You mean don't agree with the current consensus. Apply that to everything and watch your ideology crumble because you are the one that can't reason. Not because you disagree with me but because you can't do anything but emote that ideology. Reason only gets in the way.

Try again without quote mining. I do not even bother to read such improper debating.

 

[I Am Hugh]

Yes, and many seem to lack this self-awareness.
Which I find painfully ironic for those who value empathy and compassion as major virtues.

What you find in ideologues is that 1. They rarely value anything they say they do unless they can use it to support their ideology, and 2. They will, then, naturally turn their back on anyone and anything for that reason.

I wasn't talking about scientists, I was talking about... scientismists I guess?
But yes, scientists can be scientismists.

Scientists allegedly do science. If they deviate into scientism that diminishes science greatly. Ideologues don't do science; they just use and abuse it in theory to serve their purpose so long as they believe it can do that. Grants, publishing, tenure, funding, and politics has done a great deal of damage to what is called science in the name of the ideologues.

 

[I Am Hugh]

Try again without quote mining. I do not even bother to read such improper debating.

You have nothing real to offer. Your excuses are as lame as your ideology. I hate to break it to you but that is painfully obvious from as little effort required to read maybe a little more than a complete sentence you offer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have nothing real to offer. Your excuses are as lame as your ideology. I hate to break it to you but that is painfully obvious from as little effort required to read maybe a little more than a complete sentence you offer.

How would you know? I just refuse to play silly games.

 

[Argentbear]

---

---

With just a little editing you get the following.

What is my position on homosexuality and if you disagree, why?

Sometimes society says something is "wrong" while others in that society disagree. The only thing that changes is whether or not society says it's wrong.

People that thought it was wrong couldn't reason? You mean don't agree with the current consensus. Apply that to everything and watch your ideology crumble because you are the one that can't reason. Not because you disagree with me but because you can't do anything but emote that ideology. Reason only gets in the way.

Lets test this out.

Sometimes society says lynching is "wrong" while others in that society disagree. The only thing that changes is whether or not society says lynching is wrong.

People that thought lynching was wrong couldn't reason? You mean they don't agree with the current consensus that lynching was acceptable and even righteous.

Obviously those that thought lynching was wrong were the ones who couldn't reason. Not because they disagreed with those who felt lynching was acceptable but because you can't do anything but emote that ideology that it was wrong. Reason only gets in the way.

 

[Argentbear]

What gets me is as a straight male, my resistance to homosexual interaction beyond my normal interactions with other people, often enough lands me with the title.

what interactions are you engaging in?

I'm very cautious with my sexuality, even when I'm fervently attracted to a woman I would never choose to make a life with. On the same token, it's very difficult to not want to express my attraction to them. It's all very complicated. On one hand, I'm that type of sexually driven man, but I reserve the actual participation for someone, or the type I might choose to make a life with.

That is nice i guess. what has this got to do with homophobia?

I fully embrace sexuality, if not what some might consider heathenry. I love sexual woman. That's the point and the attraction, but it goes much further than just that. I simply won't go there with anyone I wouldn't have the will to make a life with, which is very similar to homosexuals expressing interest in those they would be interested in. We end up keeping that real to ourselves and end up shooting ourselves in the foot because of it (metaphorically speaking).
I also love modest woman, and outwardly so. This is no less a turn on than expressive sexuality and sensuality, so I'm left never knowing if and I typically end up choosing based on other more important factors. I'm still single. Go figure. I haven't always been, but that's beside the point. It's just not as easy as it once was. I push people away nowadays unless I think it a valid possible, which equates to "rarely". For this reason, I stick to my "fast" on every level, aside from what I value beyond sexuality in woman.

You lost me entirely there.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

No, it refers to them developing romantic and sexual relationships with humans of the same sex. Even you can't spell it out — are you too ashamed?

I base it on God's guidance to mankind. However, there are many other ways to look at it in addition to that; homosexual practices have been hated throughout their existence. All normal people feel a repulsion toward them.

Rape is relatively common within marriage — does that make it "love"?

I agree with you that homosexuality has been viewed as taboo and repressed universally and this is understandable due to it being a minority sexuality. Minorities tend to be at greater risk of discrimination and scapegoating from the majority. People with gay family members or friends tend to be more inclined to support gay rights than people who don’t or do not believe they have any gay family or friends. So it appears that familiarisation helps to foster empathy, understanding and humanisation of minorities.

I appreciate your concern round women being coerced into anal sex and the negative impact it would naturally have within the context of abuse. However, I don’t believe it’s rational to use it as an argument against same sex relationships between men that are consensual. I fail to see how the two are related.
What is your rationale behind conflating sexual abuse with gay relationships?

All sex comes with risks by the way.
I’m in a lesbian marriage (no risk of pregnancy thank god! Least likely to catch an STI even if there is infidelity. More orgasms. It works for me!)

 

[Balthazzar]

what interactions are you engaging in?

That is nice i guess. what has this got to do with homophobia?

You lost me entirely there.

Everyday life necessities required for social interaction, which amounts to much of nothing, aside from "nice weather" it's hot today", "how you been", and the more intimate types, "hey you got a smoke", and the inquiries "Do you know anywhere I can buy a used Jeep"? Nothing even remotely suggestive of intimacy or sexuality. What does this have to do with homophobia? I'm a straight male that has been labeled a homophobe for being a straight male. If your lost on that last bit, then listen up. I don't engage anymore. I'm ether a male chauvinist, a homophobe, or gay.

I'm none of these. I'm a monogamous straight male who values more than just sexual expression, but unwilling to accept a woman as a life longer who is unwilling or unable to be that which sets me on fire, and it's that reason, specifically I'm labeled a male chauvinist hound by woman I dare express interest towards in terms of sexuality. I become the typical male chauvinist for expressing even a hint of desire for sexually expressive woman. Nowadays, I simply do much of nothing. This is how it typically goes "How ya been?" Meh, I'm ok. "Yup, me too." To do anything more than this would either 1. suggest too much or 2. I become the male chauvinist hound interested only in one thing, or too blind to know a good thing when he see's it.

Who does this? Are you kidding?

You want to know what I find beautiful? I'll give you a hint. I don't view these women as lesbians. There's a lot being articulated in this video and that's how I feel.

 

[Argentbear]

Everyday life necessities required for social interaction, which amounts to much of nothing, aside from "nice weather" it's hot today", "how you been", and the more intimate types, "hey you got a smoke", and the inquiries "Do you know anywhere I can buy a used Jeep"? Nothing even remotely suggestive of intimacy or sexuality. What does what have to do with homophobia? I'm a straight male is has been labeled a homophobe because I'm a straight male.

Who has done this?

 

[I Am Hugh]

Lets test this out.

Sometimes society says lynching is "wrong" while others in that society disagree. The only thing that changes is whether or not society says lynching is wrong.

People that thought lynching was wrong couldn't reason? You mean they don't agree with the current consensus that lynching was acceptable and even righteous.

Obviously those that thought lynching was wrong were the ones who couldn't reason. Not because they disagreed with those who felt lynching was acceptable but because you can't do anything but emote that ideology that it was wrong. Reason only gets in the way.

Correct. You have difficulty in reasoning on the subject of homosexuality, abortion, lynching, slavery, homophobia, God, the Bible, religion, politics because the premise of your argument is just an emotional politicization - an ideological fixation. Do what I say not what I do. Because I told you to. You just become your enemy and create more problems with no real solution. No real dialogue is possible. You consider yourself (your ideology) a product of reason without reason.

What is right and wrong is subjective.

 

[Balthazzar]

Who has done this?

I edited and added an answer in my previous post.

 

[I Am Hugh]

How would you know?

By having at least one discussion with you.

I just refuse to play silly games.

No, you insist on playing silly games, you just refuse to acknowledge your games are silly, even while they prevent you from doing what you propose they are doing. But also when they are advantageous. You can't play a real game on a level playing field. You make the rules. You can't adapt outside the home court. Why argue the obvious issues of homosexuality when you can just label anyone that doesn't subscribe to your ideology, even a homosexual, as homophobic?

 

[Argentbear]

Correct. You have difficulty in reasoning on the subject of homosexuality, abortion, lynching, slavery, homophobia, God, the Bible, religion, politics because the premise of your argument is just an emotional politicization - an ideological fixation. Do what I say not what I do. Because I told you to. You just become your enemy and create more problems with no real solution. No real dialogue is possible. You consider yourself (your ideology) a product of reason without reason.

What is right and wrong is subjective.

I apologize for being so stupid and so far beneath your oh great and wonderous one.

 

[Argentbear]

I edited and added an answer in my previous post.

who is saying that you are a homophobe because you are a heterosexual male?

 

[Balthazzar]

who is saying that you are a homophobe because you are a heterosexual male?

Why else would it be suggested?

 

[Argentbear]

By having at least one discussion with you.



No, you insist on playing silly games, you just refuse to acknowledge your games are silly, even while they prevent you from doing what you propose they are doing. But also when they are advantageous. You can't play a real game on a level playing field. You make the rules. You can't adapt outside the home court. Why argue the obvious issues of homosexuality when you can just label anyone that doesn't subscribe to your ideology, even a homosexual, as homophobic?

What are the obvious issues of homosexuality? I recognize I probably wont be bright enough to understand but please humor me.

 

[Argentbear]

Why else would it be suggested?

Why would it be? I've managed to go 58 years and have never been called a homophobe so I am curious as to just how that would be.