• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Homophobia

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
  • it's forbidden by God
  • It's unnatural
  • Sodomy is unhealthy
  • It doesn't produce children
  • It doesn't give children their rights
  • Open homosexuals are oc not following the religion and are therefore not morally upright
  • It leads into the degradation of morals in society in general
God, if you take the Genesis view, created humans, hence the entire range of human behavior. And given God is omniscient, [he] knew all the consequences of [his] acts at the time [he] did them, and since [he] did them regardless, [he] is the knowing creator of homosexuality, and indeed all forms of human sexuality. On this basis, homosexuality could not exist except by God's express will, whether the biblical authors held other views from time to time or not.

And indeed, as the Catholic church will tell you, not a few priests have been and are homosexual. I've read somewhere that in Ireland before it threw off its religious chains not so far back, it was taken for granted that if you weren't going to marry then you were going into the priesthood, where your wifeless status was a question that never arose.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
  • it's forbidden by God

No, it may be forbidden by your version of God, that does not mean that it is forbidden by God.
  • It's unnatural

On the contrary we see it all over the animal kingdom, and like it or not people are animals. How would you prove that it is unnatural? I think tht the evidence is against you.
  • Sodomy is unhealthy

It can be, but so can all sorts of other activities. If one takes proper precautions it is probably safer than vaginal sex.
  • It doesn't produce children

This is an argument so bad that it can be refuted with a "So what?"
  • It doesn't give children their rights

Ooh boy! Another one! So what?
  • Open homosexuals are oc not following the religion and are therefore not morally upright

Again, that would only be some religions. Probably none of them are the "right" religion since I cannot see God being that evil.
  • It leads into the degradation of morals in society in general
Prove it. And you cannot point to your Bible unless you first prove that the Bible is a reliable source for such matters. And since you have never supported any claim I doubt if you can support this one.

One has to wonder about your rather rampant homophobia. Here is something that you should consider. Several studies have found a tie between homophobia and latent homosexuality. Most guys simply do not care all that much about the topic since they have no interest in other men. And yes, I can pull up several studies on this for you rather easily if you wish.
 

McBell

Admiral Obvious
I don't. I hate homosexual acts. Why don't you? Don't you find them disgusting?
There it is again...
The "EWWWW" factor...

Normal is, generally speaking, what most people are or do.
Now all you needs to do is find out if anal sex is as "off the wall" disgusting and not enjoyed as you think it is.
Keeping in mind that good law abiding Christians who like anal will flat out deny it to their fellow good law abiding Christians.

There's only one God,
Bold empty claim.
But then, that is what the vast majority of your posts are, really, nothing more than you revealing your beliefs.

but since you don't know where things are put in general, I'm not surprised you're confused.
Funny, even YOU know where things are put.
That is the problem you have with it.
That you know things are being put in places that find disgusting.
Thus the "ew" factor reigns supreme in your thinking.
 

Argentbear

Well-Known Member
Yep, I agree, all forms of child pornography are wrong. If we’re arguing based on potential for abuse here, why do you think it is that homosexuals make up about 1 to 2% of the general population—yet boys are more likely to be abused as children than girls?
I was wondering when you would try to play the pedophile card. Hate mongers have been pushing that particular lie for generations. Why do they push the child abuse lie? the same reason you are trying to do it here

90% of all child sexual abuse cases are perpetrated by the child father/step father. Child molestation is a crime of opportunity, predators go after what child is available. perpetrators will sexually abuse a child that is available to them without regard to the gender of the child. If it is a boy who is available then it is a boy that perpetrator will sexually assault. If that child is a girl then likewise that is who t perpetrator will assault. Child molesters rarely have a preferred victim gender.

If you want to make claims about the orientation of child molesters you have to actually ask the men doing the molesting. And guess what....that question has been asked.
Dr. Carole Jenny was the director of the Child Advocacy and Protection Team at Denver's Childrens Hospital, and she also directed medical programs at the C. Henry Kempe National Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect. Dr. Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 269 medical records of Denver-area children who were sexually abused by adults and then interviewed those perpetrators. Of 50 male children, 37 (74%) were molested by men who had been in an ongoing heterosexual relationship with the child’s mother. Jenny found that the rate of child molestation by a homosexual was 0.04%

Jean Birnbaum interviewed every convicted child molester in the state of Massachusetts and found exactly zero here homosexuals.


This is a distinction without a difference. Who are the people being hated by racists? Black people. What makes someone Black? Their skin color.
and that doesn't make racists hate them. Its when blacks act as social and moral equals to whites.
Nothing makes love unnatural. But sexual desires are not the same thing as love. They can be a part of some loving relationships. But the vast majority of sexual desires are not “love.”
speak for yourself
And yes, sexual desires can be comparable to substance abuse. That’s why there are organizations like Sex Addicts Anonymous. (Again, not drawing a 1:1 comparison here—just using an example to illustrate my point.)
they are only comparable if one is dishonest or trying to justify hatred.
Well, she was in a committed sexual relationship with another woman. Make of that what you will.
Doesn't change the fact she has said she was not a lesbian
Where is this quote from? It’s not cited. By the way, if you want to have any moral foundations for calling something creepy or disgusting, maybe don’t refer to “LGBT children.” Children shouldn’t be sexualized by anyone in any way.
you don't have to have had sex ever and still be LGBT. Orientation exists independently of sexual activity. All you have done here is conflating homosexual acts with personhood.
 

The Papist

Member
I was wondering when you would try to play the pedophile card. Hate mongers have been pushing that particular lie for generations. Why do they push the child abuse lie? the same reason you are trying to do it here

90% of all child sexual abuse cases are perpetrated by the child father/step father. Child molestation is a crime of opportunity, predators go after what child is available. perpetrators will sexually abuse a child that is available to them without regard to the gender of the child. If it is a boy who is available then it is a boy that perpetrator will sexually assault. If that child is a girl then likewise that is who t perpetrator will assault. Child molesters rarely have a preferred victim gender.

If you want to make claims about the orientation of child molesters you have to actually ask the men doing the molesting. And guess what....that question has been asked.
Dr. Carole Jenny was the director of the Child Advocacy and Protection Team at Denver's Childrens Hospital, and she also directed medical programs at the C. Henry Kempe National Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect. Dr. Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 269 medical records of Denver-area children who were sexually abused by adults and then interviewed those perpetrators. Of 50 male children, 37 (74%) were molested by men who had been in an ongoing heterosexual relationship with the child’s mother. Jenny found that the rate of child molestation by a homosexual was 0.04%

Jean Birnbaum interviewed every convicted child molester in the state of Massachusetts and found exactly zero here homosexuals.
Can’t speak to this data, as I haven’t done much research into it, but honestly I hope you’re right. The less child abuse there is the better. But as I said, I’m talking about acts, not people. If more boys are abused than girls, that still means that homosexual abuse is more prevalent than heterosexual abuse.
and that doesn't make racists hate them. Its when blacks act as social and moral equals to whites.
Yep. Racists hate that precisely because the people they hate are Black. Trying to tie racism to anything other than, well, race doesn’t make much sense.
speak for yourself

they are only comparable if one is dishonest or trying to justify hatred.
These are immature names; not arguments.
Doesn't change the fact she has said she was not a lesbian
I think she said that because she agrees that homosexuality is an action and not an identity.
you don't have to have had sex ever and still be LGBT. Orientation exists independently of sexual activity. All you have done here is conflating homosexual acts with personhood.
Yep, agree. And I have no problems whatsoever with celibate people who have homosexual desires. They have my great respect. I would say that if you don’t engage in homosexual acts or indulge homosexual desires, you’re not in any meaningful sense homosexual.
 
Last edited:

The Papist

Member
…And so it continues. We could go on and on forever. I appreciate your responses and willingness to at least have a conversation. At the heart of the matter is the question, “Can you love someone and disapprove of their sexual behaviors?” I think the answer is yes. I haven’t gotten any compelling reasons to change my mind. Anytime I try to bring up other sexual behaviors that you disapprove of, you simply respond with something along the lines of “How dare you / That’s offensive.” But that’s not an argument, and won’t change many people’s minds. The majority of the world finds homosexual acts offensive.

If you’d really like to continue this conversation, let’s talk about natural law. That seems to be the real dividing line here. Otherwise, I think I’m going to step out. Need a few days’ worth of internet detox. Feel free to respond further, if you’d like. It may have gotten heated, but this was a good discussion. Nothing like religion and politics to do that, eh? Have a great day!
 
Last edited:

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Maybe this would help straighten things out: what do you think is the standard by which sexual acts are moral or immoral? Clearly you have one, as you think homosexual acts are moral and child pornography is not. So what is the standard for you, and why?
Two key words: Consenting. Adults. Child pornography victimizes innocent children, where as love between two consenting adults victimizes no one. The standard is based upon reason and logic rather than arbitrary, irrational, and unsubstantiated superstitions.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
If you’d really like to continue this conversation, let’s talk about natural law. That seems to be the real dividing line here. Otherwise, I think I’m going to step out. Need a few days’ worth of internet detox. Feel free to respond further, if you’d like. It may have gotten heated, but this was a good discussion. Nothing like religion and politics to do that, eh? Have a great day!
The Laws of Nature give not one iota of a damn how and with whom we sex with. Afterall, it is we humans we decided rape is always bad, but only after a very long history of it being acceptedable. Same for pedophilia. There's nothing in nature that says it's bad or wrong, and indeed in times past people were considered adults whem they began to go through puberty.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
It's My Birthday!
The Laws of Nature give not one iota of a damn how and with whom we sex with.
Well, being that some activities are more risky than others, that doesn't seem to be true. Some behaviors are more likely to cause disease, illness, injury and genetic disorders. There is a consequence for all things.
Afterall, it is we humans we decided rape is always bad, but only after a very long history of it being acceptedable. Same for pedophilia. There's nothing in nature that says it's bad or wrong, and indeed in times past people were considered adults whem they began to go through puberty.
I would say that being traumatized and suffering from it is a sign from nature that something isn't right. Male on female rape from a purely reproductive standpoint may make sense in times of scarcity and turmoil when there's many deaths and you need to get babies by any means necessary, but it's not a recipe for a healthy functioning society. PTSD has a very long recognizable history in human cultures and was written about in ancient times by the Greeks for example (they wrote about traumatized soldiers, for example). We know those things have always existed but didn't always care or have the time to care. We still struggle to really care about those things. But still, I think the fact that those things harm us is a declaration from nature.
 

an anarchist

Your local anarchist.
“Can you love someone and disapprove of their sexual behaviors?” I think the answer is yes.
If you are disapproving of sexual behaviors that someone is doing, why or how can you love them? Or even be friends with them? The answer is no.

When I think of sexual immortality, absolutely heinous things come to mind. Why would I want to love or have someone in my life who is immoral sexually?
 

an anarchist

Your local anarchist.
At the heart of the matter is the question, “Can you love someone and disapprove of their sexual behaviors?” I think the answer is yes.
That’s like loving a murderer I guess. Society seems r*pists and pdf files to be worse than murderers at times. They are at least the equivalent to murderers in society’s eyes. Would you love a r*pist or p*do?

How can you “lightly” disapprove of someone’s sexual behaviors? You either approve or don’t approve.
 

McBell

Admiral Obvious
If you are disapproving of sexual behaviors that someone is doing, why or how can you love them? Or even be friends with them? The answer is no.
Why do you limit your above to "sexual behaviours"?
That would seem to indicate that it does not apply to other behaviours..
If so, why not?

When I think of sexual immortality, absolutely heinous things come to mind. Why would I want to love or have someone in my life who is immoral sexually?
You act as though you get to choose who you love....

Wish reality agreed with that sentiment.
 

Argentbear

Well-Known Member
Can’t speak to this data, as I haven’t done much research into it, but honestly I hope you’re right. The less child abuse there is the better. But as I said, I’m talking about acts, not people. If more boys are abused than girls, that still means that homosexual abuse is more prevalent than heterosexual abuse.
Girls are about 5 times as likely to be sexually absurd as boys.

and it's abuse not homosexual not heterosexual. It's just abuse
Yep. Racists hate that precisely because the people they hate are Black. Trying to tie racism to anything other than, well, race doesn’t make much sense.
Racists view white superiority as something dictated by God. They beleive God made blacks subservant and treat black people as a lower class but don't engage in violence do dehumanization. They don't hate black people just because of their skin color. Consider for a minute how many racists have black servants and employees. how often racists come into contact with black people. Hated is reserved for blacks who step out of line, who put on airs, who act as social equals. GO look up the word uppity
These are immature names; not arguments.
Not names just observations
I think she said that because she agrees that homosexuality is an action and not an identity.
yes that strange belief is common among homophobes
Yep, agree. And I have no problems whatsoever with celibate people who have homosexual desires.
Just like racists don't have problems with blacks who know their place
They have my great respect. I would say that if you don’t engage in homosexual acts or indulge homosexual desires, you’re not in any meaningful sense homosexual.
And here you are once again reducing people to nothing more than just a sexual act.
 

Argentbear

Well-Known Member
…And so it continues. We could go on and on forever. I appreciate your responses and willingness to at least have a conversation. At the heart of the matter is the question, “Can you love someone and disapprove of their sexual behaviors?” I think the answer is yes.

when you dehumanize someone by reducing then to a sexual act that is not love is is just hate with a pretty bow put on it. In your last post you announced that Homosexuals who aren't engaging is sex are not really homosexuals at all. It would be tough to come up a nastier nonviolent expression of hate then to deny a minorities very existence.
I haven’t gotten any compelling reasons to change my mind.
You are justifying your own prejudice and pretending what you are doing isn't hate, why would you want to face your own issues and change your mind?
Anytime I try to bring up other sexual behaviors that you disapprove of, you simply respond with something along the lines of “How dare you / That’s offensive.” But that’s not an argument, and won’t change many people’s minds. The majority of the world finds homosexual acts offensive.
You only bring them up as a means of justifying homophobia and that is offensive
If you’d really like to continue this conversation, let’s talk about natural law. That seems to be the real dividing line here. Otherwise, I think I’m going to step out. Need a few days’ worth of internet detox. Feel free to respond further, if you’d like. It may have gotten heated, but this was a good discussion. Nothing like religion and politics to do that, eh? Have a great day!
Natural law as a justification of hate falls apart under it's own bad logic.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Do you deem anal sex the very symbol of a love in marriage then? I don't see much of a difference. Especially considering how many women are either forced to participate or pressured to do so.

"Researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, found heterosexual men were increasingly watching anal porn online.

Top searches on PornHub and other pornographic websites often feature the terms associated with this type of intercourse.

Researchers found that more and more women being pressured into having painful anal sex because it has been normalised online.

Worryingly, teenagers have internalised terms like ‘accidental’ penetration of the anal area. Teen girls are increasingly likely to accept these so-called ‘slips’."
Source

You're just repeating yourself.

We've all already pointed out that anything involving forced sexual anything is non-consensual and non-loving.
AGAIN, people don't rape people that they love. Rape is not an act of love.
Do you understand this?


Not at all. Children need something from both parents (male and female) because they have different things to give. Men don't give children what women do and vice versa.
This was in response to, "Kids needs loving providers and a stable, nurturing environment. The gender of the care providers is irrelevant."

What do men give children and what do women give children?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Well, if I were married, it would be to someone of the opposite sex to whom I was not related. My point with the incest example was that if you believe consensual incest is wrong, then consent is not the only factor in deciding whether or not sexual acts are acceptable. If it is the only factor, then you are hateful, bigoted, and harmful toward the minority of people who are simply attracted to their family members. If it is not the only factor and there is some element of biological logic in s

It isn't speculation. It's statistical fact.

I've replied that question twice I believe. Definitely once and I'm not going to repeat myself. Try to keep up.
That's my point.
You haven't.
You've said a lot of things.
But you've not shown how these things actually personally affect you. You just say they do. But never explain how.
Most things that have been hated through all times have been hated for good reason. Like homosexual acts, for instance.
That's not true and it's also irrelevant.

People have always hated left handed people and called them "evil" and "sinister" all throughout history. Well, we aren't.
I don't. I hate homosexual acts. Why don't you? Don't you find them disgusting?
You've just confirmed what I've said.
With you, it's the "ick" factor, rather than some rational reason that you're so offended by gay people. You've not given the rational reason yet, but you have given a whole lot of "I think it's icky," as you've just done again here.
You're probably the first person in history to ever compare a penis in the anus to eating turnips.

I'm not repulsed by gay people, I'm repulsed by gay acts. You have to understand the difference.
Heterosexual people do many of the same "acts." They're not just reserved for "gay people."
Normal is, generally speaking, what most people are or do.

There's only one God, but since you don't know where things are put in general, I'm not surprised you're confused.
Prove it.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member

Can’t speak to this data, as I haven’t done much research into it, but honestly I hope you’re right. The less child abuse there is the better. But as I said, I’m talking about acts, not people. If more boys are abused than girls, that still means that homosexual abuse is more prevalent than heterosexual abuse.
Nope, it doesn't. You're conflating homosexuality with pedophilia.

Yep. Racists hate that precisely because the people they hate are Black. Trying to tie racism to anything other than, well, race doesn’t make much sense.
They believe they are inferior because they are black. They believe that black people behave a certain way, based on their skin colour.
These are immature names; not arguments.
Dishonesty is not an "immature name."
I think she said that because she agrees that homosexuality is an action and not an identity.
It's an orientation.
Yep, agree. And I have no problems whatsoever with celibate people who have homosexual desires. They have my great respect. I would say that if you don’t engage in homosexual acts or indulge homosexual desires, you’re not in any meaningful sense homosexual.
Homosexuality and heterosexuality are sexual orientations. They're based on who you're attracted to.
You don't have to perform any acts whatsoever to be attracted to people.
You don't get to tell other people that because they don't have sex with people they aren't the sexual orientation they claim to be.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
…And so it continues. We could go on and on forever. I appreciate your responses and willingness to at least have a conversation. At the heart of the matter is the question, “Can you love someone and disapprove of their sexual behaviors?” I think the answer is yes. I haven’t gotten any compelling reasons to change my mind. Anytime I try to bring up other sexual behaviors that you disapprove of, you simply respond with something along the lines of “How dare you / That’s offensive.” But that’s not an argument, and won’t change many people’s minds.
Give us something more than "I find it icky" and you may get better responses.
The majority of the world finds homosexual acts offensive.
This is a big huge, so what? (If it's even true in the first place)

So what? Why does this matter so much to you?
The majority of the world thought women shouldn't have rights for the last several centuries, does that make it okay with you?
What's the relevance in pointing this out?
If you’d really like to continue this conversation, let’s talk about natural law. That seems to be the real dividing line here. Otherwise, I think I’m going to step out. Need a few days’ worth of internet detox. Feel free to respond further, if you’d like. It may have gotten heated, but this was a good discussion. Nothing like religion and politics to do that, eh? Have a great day!
What's your definition of "natural law?"
 
Top