Why is being gay considered wrong?

[Mike182]

im not going to claim to have understood every word in that article, but i did find it an interesting read, and my diagnostic of it is this - it seems that this evidence (no matter how invalid and unreliable it is) points towards homosexuality being a naturally created state - and if its natural, i cant see any legitimate argument against it

but like i said, i didnt understand every word in the article, so if anyone thinks my understanding of the article is completely wrong then please allert me to it - thanks

C_P

 

[Uncertaindrummer]

and if its natural, i cant see any legitimate argument against it

Why not? You claim you are a Christian, correct? Well, somethign that is even more naturally occuring is sin, which we are all born with. Yet you wouldn't say THAT is all fine and dandy, would ya? Just curious.

 

[IndigoChild]

Why not? You claim you are a Christian, correct? Well, somethign that is even more naturally occuring is sin, which we are all born with. Yet you wouldn't say THAT is all fine and dandy, would ya? Just curious.

Sin is an illusion and a lie. Humanity is in the state of turmoil and war it's always in because of such lies. Like the lie of our seperation, the lie of our seperation from God, and the lie of our unworthiness. If the truth were widely known and accepted, humanity would be a peaceful species.

The truth - we are all are worthy, we are all one with each other, we are all one with God (because we are all One Soul pretending that we're many), and we are all God experiencing God's self with Godself.

Kat

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Why not? You claim you are a Christian, correct? Well, somethign that is even more naturally occuring is sin, which we are all born with. Yet you wouldn't say THAT is all fine and dandy, would ya? Just curious.

UD, I think the greatest struggle that we seem to be dealing with here might be in believing that being gay is a sin. Are you saying that it is? If you are, it might be worthwhile to open a seperate debate on that.

 

[michel]

The biggest beef I have with gay people are these reasons. I don't think two males or two females can create as well-rounded a child as one male and one female. They don't give all the traits in such a situation.
Gay people tend to live in a way that increases risks of AIDS. Money to pay for AIDS prevention/awareness and treat people with AIDS generally comes from the taxpayer, and I don't like having to pay for people who choose to live in this dangerous lifestyle.
I also don't think gay people are born gay, since that seems to be what people are arguing here.

a) Do you have any evidence to refute expert opinions,as by my post #16?
b) "I don't think two males or two females can create as well-rounded a child as one male and one female. They don't give all the traits in such a situation." - do you have any evidence to back that up?
"They don't give all the traits in such a situation" - do you mean role models? - what about single mothers or fathers ?

c) "Gay people tend to live in a way that increases risks of AIDS. Money to pay for AIDS prevention/awareness and treat people with AIDS generally comes from the taxpayer, and I don't like having to pay for people who choose to live in this dangerous lifestyle"

Promiscuous people live in a way that increases risks of all STD's as well as AIDS. You don't want to pay for people who choose to live their lives in this dangerous lifestyle ? - why not go the whole hog, and ban racing car driving (very Dangerous) - Ban soldiers - the whole of the armed forces for that matter.........

 

[jamaesi]

I'm ambidextrious... and bisexual. Teehee.


Anyway, there is a link between lefthandedness and homosexuality (I'm not saying all lefthanders are gay- but a large number of gays are lefthanded or ambi) and it has to do with brain structure.

 

[jamaesi]

c) "Gay people tend to live in a way that increases risks of AIDS. Money to pay for AIDS prevention/awareness and treat people with AIDS generally comes from the taxpayer, and I don't like having to pay for people who choose to live in this dangerous lifestyle"

Promiscuous people live in a way that increases risks of all STD's as well as AIDS. You don't want to pay for people who choose to live their lives in this dangerous lifestyle ? - why not go the whole hog, and ban racing car driving (very Dangerous) - Ban soldiers - the whole of the armed forces for that matter.........

Why not just be racist heterophobic? It's black STRAIGHT women who are getting AIDs that the highest rate now.

*grits her teeth*

 

[Feathers in Hair]

My computer isn't cooperating today... When did AL post that?

 

[mr.guy]

There are two critical problems with this discusion so far.

A) the justifiction for homosexuality: don't need one.
That dosen't mean a curious socioligist can't ponder the stats on gay folk, scientists SHOULD study their brain chemistry: they are technically deviants. that being said, if i were gay, i would be massively pissed at having to defend, justify, and argue for my sexual preference everytime some ******* decided that i must have been brought up somewhat askew. Pro or con, it's not that these discussions or wrong, per se but think of it this way: you might argue to a fundlementalist that science has proved that homosexuals have genetic predispositions towards their homo ways. "Well that's easy" says the creationist, "Science has been wrong about a ton of stuff. End of story." And the nature argument disappears in puff of creation. This leaves the nurture argument, which generally blames the mother for gaying up the boys. (interestingly, i beleive freudians blamed autism on a disinterested mother). You can't win.

which brings me to my second point:

B)Lesbians. the good stuff. Anyone who's spent two seconds analysing the lesbian fantasy (intead of *****ing or dreaming about it) would probably conclude that there is no such thing. The fantasy comes apart pretty quick if you can't get in the middle of it, no? ipso facto, not lesbians if they're happy to put out both ways. Let a red blooded guy in on the secret that lesbos don't LIKE guys, and his bigotry finds its way back front and center. What good is a woman (or two, or three) if she isn't subserviant to the big man? That's right, none.

This is where male homosexuals become the most threatening to the homophobe. I think most people could easily conclude that, hey, it's a man's world and we're damned if it's gonna change. But if those guys don't want the chicks, that means more for me, right? tsk, tsk. Dosen't work like that. The goal here is to keep the women in line. Those guys aren't pulling their weight in proping up the paternity. Not only that, but they're giving those women folk ideas...note that almost every right wing campaing tends to be directed towards women and womens rights. So how do gay men fight into this new crusade? Homosexuals are terribly dangerous to the masogynist.

 

[Bastet]

B)Lesbians. the good stuff. Anyone who's spent two seconds analysing the lesbian fantasy (intead of *****ing or dreaming about it) would probably conclude that there is no such thing. The fantasy comes apart pretty quick if you can't get in the middle of it, no? ipso facto, not lesbians if they're happy to put out both ways. Let a red blooded guy in on the secret that lesbos don't LIKE guys, and his bigotry finds its way back front and center. What good is a woman (or two, or three) if she isn't subserviant to the big man? That's right, none.

Not only that, but real lesbian couples don't tend to look like the big (fake) breasted porn stars with inch-long fingernails that they have in 'lesbian' pornos (which are made for men anyway).

 

[mr.guy]

that's why they're tolerated. The mainstream porno lesbians will always make room in bed for a lonely cowpoke. They're part of the woman's repression movement: they can step out of the sexual norm as long as they drive the point home: They're still there for a man's whims. No one said women couldn't actively participate and enforce the cultural rule...regardless of who ends up on top.

 

[Mike182]

There are two critical problems with this discusion so far.

A) the justifiction for homosexuality: don't need one.
That dosen't mean a curious socioligist can't ponder the stats on gay folk, scientists SHOULD study their brain chemistry: they are technically deviants. that being said, if i were gay, i would be massively pissed at having to defend, justify, and argue for my sexual preference everytime some ******* decided that i must have been brought up somewhat askew. Pro or con, it's not that these discussions or wrong, per se but think of it this way: you might argue to a fundlementalist that science has proved that homosexuals have genetic predispositions towards their homo ways. "Well that's easy" says the creationist, "Science has been wrong about a ton of stuff. End of story." And the nature argument disappears in puff of creation. This leaves the nurture argument, which generally blames the mother for gaying up the boys. (interestingly, i beleive freudians blamed autism on a disinterested mother). You can't win.

which brings me to my second point:

B)Lesbians. the good stuff. Anyone who's spent two seconds analysing the lesbian fantasy (intead of *****ing or dreaming about it) would probably conclude that there is no such thing. The fantasy comes apart pretty quick if you can't get in the middle of it, no? ipso facto, not lesbians if they're happy to put out both ways. Let a red blooded guy in on the secret that lesbos don't LIKE guys, and his bigotry finds its way back front and center. What good is a woman (or two, or three) if she isn't subserviant to the big man? That's right, none.

This is where male homosexuals become the most threatening to the homophobe. I think most people could easily conclude that, hey, it's a man's world and we're damned if it's gonna change. But if those guys don't want the chicks, that means more for me, right? tsk, tsk. Dosen't work like that. The goal here is to keep the women in line. Those guys aren't pulling their weight in proping up the paternity. Not only that, but they're giving those women folk ideas...note that almost every right wing campaing tends to be directed towards women and womens rights. So how do gay men fight into this new crusade? Homosexuals are terribly dangerous to the masogynist.

well, this is a very strongly determind post, and i think youve got some good ideas going on in there. yes we do live in a very male dominated society, but it is changing slowley (thank god!)

i know a lot of guys who concider lesbians a "challenge" for them to rescue them from - tsk tsk!- this is stupid, but a lot of guys ego's grow beyond the ends of our universe when they encounter lesbians (it's usually quite funny to watch though )

i think tho that its mainly men who are homophobic though - well, this is my experience anyway, women seem a lot more open minded about homosexuality, wheras men just shun what they dont understand in a simple cloud of ignorance :149:

C_P

 

[mr.guy]

well, this is a very strongly determind post, and i think youve got some good ideas going on in there. yes we do live in a very male dominated society, but it is changing slowley (thank god!)

yeah, who new a snail could backpedal?

i know a lot of guys who concider lesbians a "challenge" for them to rescue them from - tsk tsk!- this is stupid, but a lot of guys ego's grow beyond the ends of our universe when they encounter lesbians (it's usually quite funny to watch though )

I think your missing the larger importance behind the rescue - it isn't strictly religious.
And ego gratification isn't just acheived by doing something extraordinary; it's also done by furthering social goals. In the case of the lesbian conversion, the theory isn't that they need to be shown the error in their ways, but they haven't found the picture of masculinity yet (until mr.man comes along). That's why it's so insulting to be rejected by a lesbian: it's not that your a bad guy, or too poor, or alot of the other ambiguous reasons that women reject us, but it is strictly because you must fall short of being a perfect alpha male.

i think tho that its mainly men who are homophobic though - well, this is my experience anyway, women seem a lot more open minded about homosexuality,

If it isn't 50/50, it's pretty close, most likely. Women just express it differently. Men don't like the insinuation of being effeminate, (considered synonymous with gay), thus take great offense at being called as such. To try an insult someone by calling them a "homo" is just different across the sexes, because lesbianism isn't taken as seriously.

wheras men just shun what they dont understand in a simple cloud of ignorance :149:

If you don't think women shun, baby you ain't paying attention!!

 

[mr.guy]

Sorry Enhanced spirit, i posted some quotes to your name (being lazy with my edit functions). anyone coming across them should look at the original quote at the top, and that is likely the author of all said quotes in whatever given post you find Enhanced spirit plastered in. Sorry!

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

Sorry Enhanced spirit, i posted some quotes to your name (being lazy with my edit functions). anyone coming across them should look at the original quote at the top, and that is likely the author of all said quotes in whatever given post you find Enhanced spirit plastered in. Sorry!

Ummm, yeah, I did not say any of those things. I did not understand your apology at first and went through all 23 pages of this thread. I have not made any comments whatsoever on this topic.

I wonder why it is you decided to put my name there at all, you could have just left it blank. I have a hard enough time eating my own words, don't make me eat other peoples words too.:shout

 

[mr.guy]

Sorry! really, it was just an accident! again, if i need to start a new thread to apoligize, i shall (at your request, of course) as an edit function (on another thread) i must have copied the quote intro on one of your posts and forgotten your name was at the front every time i pasted it in other posts. I'm terribly embaressed, and i apologize.


:bonk:

 

[Bastet]

Sorry! really, it was just an accident! again, if i need to start a new thread to apoligize, i shall (at your request, of course) as an edit function (on another thread) i must have copied the quote intro on one of your posts and forgotten your name was at the front every time i pasted it in other posts. I'm terribly embaressed, and i apologize.


:bonk:

It's an easy enough thing to simply go back to the offending post and edit out EnhancedSpirit's name. There's an 'edit' button there for a reason.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Yup, just go back and click 'edit post' and delete 'em. It's really the right thing.

 

[Mike182]

yeah, who new a snail could backpedal?

as they say in france "touches"

I think your missing the larger importance behind the rescue - it isn't strictly religious.

did i say it was religious, i thought i just said its stupid - im sure religious and stupidity dont go hand in hand

And ego gratification isn't just acheived by doing something extraordinary; it's also done by furthering social goals. In the case of the lesbian conversion, the theory isn't that they need to be shown the error in their ways, but they haven't found the picture of masculinity yet (until mr.man comes along). That's why it's so insulting to be rejected by a lesbian: it's not that your a bad guy, or too poor, or alot of the other ambiguous reasons that women reject us, but it is strictly because you must fall short of being a perfect alpha male.

but the state of masculinity is going down in modern society as men ar eno longer the soul bread winners and providers, and also, no man is the perfect alpha male

If it isn't 50/50, it's pretty close, most likely. Women just express it differently. Men don't like the insinuation of being effeminate, (considered synonymous with gay), thus take great offense at being called as such. To try an insult someone by calling them a "homo" is just different across the sexes, because lesbianism isn't taken as seriously.

If you don't think women shun, baby you ain't paying attention!!

i concider myself slapped with a big smelly tuna fish Knockout

C_P

 

[mr.guy]

did i say it was religious(?),

No. I did. To be fair, that is a gross generalization, but few secularists go to as much length to "cure" homosexuality. Some idiots don't know the meaning of the word "no", but stupidity is sprinkled across mankind quite liberally, regardless of creed, religion, philosophy, shoe size, etc.

but the state of masculinity is going down in modern society as men ar eno longer the soul bread winners and providers, and also, no man is the perfect alpha male

Here's the thing: the definition of "masculinity" is entirely socially reletive. Am i losing masculine points if i take up knitting? Many would say i would be, it being women's work and all, right? To say that masculinity is going down is to say there is a scale with which to measure exactly how manly i may or may not be. It's a cultural standard, subject to change and mutation (kinda like evolution). The perfect alpha male, by a natural biologists definition, can exist but that's irrelevent here. I used that term here as the absolute (perceived) measure of masculine social behaviour. To demonstrate dominance, an alpha male eliminates threats to his position; this is my account on homophobia. Homosexuals often represent a social challenge to dogma by insisting that they be suffered. Any male wishing to distinguish himself need only reference "common sense" as to whether anyone in his sights deviates from acceptable, social norms and respond with the weight his sense of social justice requires. With the threat neutralized, the alpha male can return to the herd in glory knowing that he has actively protected all from the un-normal.

i concider myself slapped with a big smelly tuna fish Knockout

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, nor do i think you're being contrary or false. But i definately believe that you give too little value to the homophobics incentives.