Senate Homosexuality: the Thread

Sometimes I think J-Rod is just really good at being ironic and is actually making points against homophobia.

 

I'd like to know why the term "homophobe" is a "horribly inaccurate term" please.

People hate what they fear and they fear what they don't understand. Please give a response that isn't the usual redneck "I ain't afraid of queers" understanding of the term. Take all the time you need.

 

Mortimer Snerd set me straight.

 

BLACKJEBUS!!! This may possibly be the greatest homecoming in the last few years!! I shall head over to the Fecal Force thread at once!

Edit: Bloody hell where is the FF thread?

 

I think the last remnants have been swept away.

 

And it begins

 

In my previous post when I said "Take all the time you need" I didn't realize it would take this much time. Oh wait...you can't do it, can you J-Rod?

 

Indeed. See the difference between my grandfather and myself. My grandfather was born in the northern states during the time when using racial slurs was considered the norm and he used them his whole life. Not all the time, but he used them. My mother was a different story as she didn't use them when she was raising me. So I don't think of blacks as anything other than black, or African American. Or more aptly, a person. Same with homosexuality. I grew up in a house where homophobia was not taught, nor encouraged. So I grew up seeing nothing wrong with it. My best friend back then has a cousin who is gay, but he was shunned by his family. My friend didn't call his cousin a ***, but he wasn't too welcoming of his lifestyle either. I don't know if that has changed, hopefully it has, but it is an example of different mindsets brought on by being taught. Not by being born that way.

Being homosexual and heterosexual is no different from being born with a different complexion. You cannot choose that. You can only choose what you will do.

 

Please clarify. What do you mean by "serve people"? Are we talking about a homosexual who walks into a bakery and wants a dozen cup cakes, or a homosexual who walks into a bakery and wants a catered gay wedding? I have stated that, in the former situation, that should not be allowed but that I believe the latter should.

 

I won't get into my own thoughts on the matter as I don't want to debate, argue, offend, defend or anything else, however, i shall try to sit on the fence and post from the outside looking in...

Is it a choice?
Does it do any harm to individuals and / or society?
Why do many people feel it's wrong?


Okay, well, let's look at the choice aspect. Many homosexuals will say that being gay is not a choice, they can't help their feelings. I honestly don't know the answer to this, the only source of information on this is to directly quote individual homosexuals. What I do "know" (as in I've heard and read, but have not researched because it doesn't interest me enough to do so) that there is no "gay gene" and two identical twins may not necessarily share sexual preference. Could it then, be exposure to chemicals in the womb or outside of the womb? I do vaguely remember reading about an experiment where certain kinds of frog, I believe, were affected by certain hormones found in contraception pills, but don't quote me on that. I've read/heard, but again not researched an source, claims that such pills, or even vaccines (BIG question mark on it, as it's NOT something I MYSELF am claiming, just parroting) or plastic food containers or processed foods or who knows what, have an effect on the hormonal development of the individual... So it is possible that there is a physical effect or change causing homosexuality, I don't know.
There are two aspects of homosexuality to consider. The "being" homosexual, existential, and the act of engaging in homosexual relations. I would liken this to being someone who likes bacon vs the person who chooses to eat bacon (or foodstuff of your choice). The obese man may be predisposed to eat more and choose to eat more of what he likes to eat, but unless it's caused by an illness, that man (or woman!) chose to become obese VIA the act of eating lots of probably unhealthy food. Could we say that homosexuality is like that? Probably both homosexuality and paedophilia could both be spoken about in the same manner, one may be predisposed that way, to have certain inclinations or drives, but to act on it is a choice. We also observe that many people seems to claim to have changed sexuality; while many may say "I've always been gay and I was living a lie", others may say "I'm gay now" or "I don't fancy [specific gender] any more", or might develop a tendency towards bisexuality, etc. So, whether one is existentially homosexual by choice or by nature, unless we are ourselves homosexual (or by extension, bisexual or ex-homosexual), we do not know for sure, but most commonly homosexuals will say that they were born that way. The act of engaging in homosexual sex, just like the act of eating cyanide, bacon, chocolate, carrots etc is absolutely a choice, just like the act of heterosexual sex, adultery, or having a threesome, is also a choice.

Does it do any harm?
Well, we live in a dodgy era of paradigm shift - now, all Jews, Christians, Muslims, and people of other similar faiths which don't permit homosexuality are openly being attacked for not accepting homosexuality, in such an intolerant way in many cases, that makes gay-rights activists look like extreme hypocrites. Very few sects of Christianity seek to actively treat homosexuals negatively, no Jewish sect directly does so (to my knowledge) and the Jewish law involving the death penalty for homosexuals is ONLY enforceable within tight Jewish communities wherein Jewish law is well known and practiced, and everyone has already previously been given two warnings and been held before a sanhedrin in a court of law (and therefore have had every opportunity to leave) and no such place has existed for two thousand years and when it did exist was such a tiny part of land, a mere spec in the middle east, and Islam, maybe this is the most intolerant religion towards homosexuals, as in, if people were proven to be committing homosexual acts within the borders of a Sharia-based country run by extremists, such as Iran or Saudi, they would receive a penalty, and in places run by terrorist groups such as ISIS may be stoned to death (just as Jews and Christians are being brutally murdered just for being Jews and Christians in those countries) and of course, these extremist countries are screwed up, but who in their right mind would go there unless they agreed with that extremist rubbish anyway? And is that a reason to judge the many who are sharing our countries with us? I do believe there are a growing number of Islamic homosexuals, and many gay christians too, and I've even met a Jewish transgender and a Jewish lesbian so I know that they all exist, yet the acceptance of homosexuality as an almost extremist-like mindset for many activists, hating on "religion" for being "full of intolerant bigots" even though, while many religions do not allow homosexuality, they definitely do not endorse victimising homosexuality (in as much as mistreating gays - some treat it as a crime, but them so do and have many secular countries, even some states of the USA, and we also do the same for people who choose to inhale THC from a plant or make clothes from home-grown hemp... So... Um...), so acceptance of homosexuality should NOT come at the detriment of others, and unfortunately, it does.
As far as I'm aware, when homosexuality was first legalised in the UK and USA, it was on the proviso that the rights and practices of others were not infringed - i was understood that, as homosexuals had campaigned for it to be, that what homosexuals did in their bedroom was their business, and no one elses. The majority of people have accepted that, but it doesn't seem to be kept private and only in the bedrooms any more.
It is the normal reaction for heterosexuals to react like "ew, that's gross" when seeing homosexual kissing or certain other actions, REGARDLESS of whether they tolerate and accept homosexuals, however in recent years, people who react this way are named and shamed as homophobes (as has been mentioned in this thread, that is a misnomer, but for simplicity I shall use that term), and that is unacceptable in my view.
I don't want to see homosexuals kissing on TV adverts, regardless of what my undisclosed sexuality may be, and regardless of whether or not I respect their right to do what they want in the privacy of their bedrooms, it doesn't make me anti-homosexual to dislike the idea of homosexual characters in star wars, to have homosexuality promoted / displayed before kids, taught in primary schools etc, and it is NOT anti-gay (or homophobic) to be against that, even many homosexual people do agree that this shouldn't happen (although I would assume that they are in the minority).
In that respect, the way homosexuality is "pushed on" society, rather than just kept as an accepted, but not loud and proud affair, is very harmful IMO, it doesn't need to be everywhere and in our faces just be shown that people accept it. We don't do the same with race/skin colour despite the fact that Jews, blacks, white-Irish, etc throughout history have been tortured, killed, sold as slaves, etc just because of their race, and today, most races in most countries are fully accepted (and most physical attributes except height, weight, red hair and a few others) are not tolerated as reasons to single anyone out, socially, but there is no huge in-your-face song and dance about it like there is with homosexuality, none of those races have been accepted in such a way that their acceptance is forced upon one beyond the point of acceptance , but to the point of celebration and to the detriment (although there is a case for arguing that white western people are being detrimentally affected, but that's another can of worms that I don't want to open, and is a huge unnecessary deviation from the point, and I don't think that it is a hugely popular POV among white people, generally) of other races or groups.

Another point that is never brought up, and in this regard I view sexual promiscuity and adultery (and specific kinds of illegal drug use) along the same vein as I view the majority of cases of male homosexuality, but as homosexuality is the focus of the thread, I shall stick with that, although all three have been limitedly accepted and even celebrated in some ways since the 20th century in western culture, and all carry this same danger, which affects our health AND our economy. I appreciate fully 100% that, as with many heterosexuals, there are sensible male homosexuals who always take precautions in this regard, however, we know statistically that the number of those who do is very low. Since the risk of pregnancy between two homosexual men is nil, there is no need to take precaution against it, so the only precaution necessary is against STDs, including but not limited to, HIV, and HIV is rife among male homosexuals, and this also affects heterosexuals, the most obvious way being that some homosexuals may be bi-sexual or living a heterosexual lifestyle and pass on these diseases to others who are not homosexual males.
The other is that, particularly in countries with free healthcare, is that the tax payer is paying for all of the treatment, all if the drugs, all of the operations, all of the tests, etc for these problems that arise, the STDs, the other sexual issues that arise from homosexual sex undertaken without precaution. Additionally to that, if we are to include transgenderism( ? ) under the homosexual label, in many countries it is seen as a right to have a sex change operation - if you are beaten to a pulp and your nose is flat across your face and your teeth are broken, you have to pay for the "cosmetic" treatment to get it fixed, if being obese is affecting your health (again, in most cases, it is the fault of the obese person, but regardless of that...) you have to pay for cosmetic surgery to have the fat drained from your body if you are too critical to be able to wait for natural weight loss to take effect (you cannot undergo certain operations if you are too heavy for example, and so there may not be any other option), and in these cases you have to pay for the surgery, however, someone wants to change their gender and they have all of the extensive surgery and hormonal treatment and all of the other treatment paid for by the tax payer, in these countries. If I wanted to be circumcised, have a small amount of skin removed from my penis, in order to have improved hygiene, lower risk of certain cancers or causing cervical cancers etc etc or because I wanted to convert to Judaism, Islam, certain sects of Christianity or another religion, I would have to pay MINIMUM 500 GBP, while, if I wanted to have fr more extensive treatment done to my genitalia and the rest of my body, having fit certain criteria, I could have it all done for free at the expense of the tax payer. Maybe some people are more than happy to foot this bill, maybe some aren't, most are probably absolutely unaware either way.


I'm sorry, but I won't get to the last point of "why do people feel it's wrong?" because I've been typing way too much and it's past midnight now, but I hope I've answered in such a way that no one is offended, everything is as objective as possibly, while trying to weigh in points that the anti-crowd might put forward, in a rationalised and respectful way, and also look at them from the acceptance side, I myself being someone who has strong opinions which may show through, about certain situations, but no support for the mistreatment of ANYONE as long as they aren't mistreating others, whether they be any kind of race, gender, religion, sexuality etc, but I do not tolerate the intolerance that many show in ignorance that are under a mask of faux-tolerance, such as "I hate religious people because they are intolerant and uneducated" - that is so extremely hypocritical IMO, and those kinds of words hurt many people and are strictly untrue - and as stated, while many people of specific religions or sects may not be compatible with homosexuality, or or directly accepting of it, they do not seek to disrespect homosexuals - to use a somewhat famous example to explain my point, a christian cake store (the one mentioned in recent years in the media) absolutely has the same right to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding a the gay couple have to not be forced to go church, forcing either to do that would be infringing their rights, and remember, we live in a society where we are selfish and believe we are entitled to rights, but we are not, we have duties, and rights are just the result of duties; and it is our duty to ensure that we do not harm others or disrespect them, and it is disrespectful to try to force someone to go against their religious beliefs and practices, so we have to view everything from both angles; the christians in the bakery didn't actively seek out the gay couple, nor did they seek to disrespect anyone, they saught to keep themselves to themselves and live their lifestyle as they do while running a business, and the homosexual coupe chose to act upon their feelings and live a homosexual lifestyle and became offended by the lifestyle of another, but they should respect the christian choice not to actively support gay marriage, as much as the homosexuals had the right not to be insulted or mistreated by the christians (and in most cases, barring a few exceptions, christians, jews, muslims, etc do not actively endeavour to harm or disrespect homosexuals). I actually find, in my own experience, that the people most likely to act in a "homophobic" manner, or use "homophobic language and slurs, in an intentionally offensive manner, are people who are not actively part of any of the religions previously mentioned, but either atheists or agnostics (people who don't know or care, or believe in any specific way regarding a higher power or lack of).

I don't wish to engage in any back-and-forth or debate here, so I would appreciate it if no one tries to begin that with me, if you disagree with my points, you disagree, I have intentionally kept my own views (besides a few specific ones) hidden so that no one can categorically throw any kind of accusation my way, I honestly don't care what religion, race or sexuality you are as long as you mean no harm towards me and I don't witness you causing harm or being disrespectful towards others, and if you're offended by this post in any way, probably you need to read it again because I have no prejudice and have done my utmost to remove it, while also being as brutally honest where I can be, about some objective criticism of certain issues, to the best of my understanding at the time, and if anything has been unintentionally omitted or badly phrased, as it may well be, I'm too tired to notice, but I hope this post just contributes towards the topic without becoming some huge centre of focus with people tearing at it, because I really have no inclination to respond to arguments or debates...

 

I can't even read that giant wall of text.

 

Somebody want to give me a condensed version of that mountain of text up there?

 

Quite funny how you put words in someone's mouth/post, you don't know my sexual preference, you don't know anything about me but I know the nature of the social justice warrior and social police and predicted that such sentences, included without any prejudice to any group whatsoever, would be picked apart. I never put my own sexuality, political views, religious views, ethnic background etc online because of how people shape their response to attack in a way that reflects my own position, but when I don't include that, its even funnier because people attack what they assume my position is, which results in absolute hilarity for me when I read the responses (thanks for that BTW).


If you play a video in front of a large group of people that are randomly selected, for example, a school class or a cinema full of people, or however you'd randomly assemble a grou of random people (v hard to get a good selection of all ranges, genders, sexualities, races, classes etc completely at random but I digress), and play a video of lesbians kissing, what reaction do you expect from the class, mainly the boys? Play a video of a man and a woman kissing, say, Chandler and Monika from Friends, for argument sake. Probably you won't get a reaction in most cases. Play a video of myself (a male) and, say, Julian Clary (for argument sake) kissing, and what reaction do you expect?



To quote a gay male I know very well, while speaking to a bisexual girl "It;s not fair, you get to be the hot interesting one, I'm just the one everyone thinks is gross" - virtually verbatim, as best as I recall, while they were discussing the public perception of their sexualities. What an offensive guy *roll eyes*

To state that the common perception is [insert adjective] =/= to factually state it is [insert adjective]...

I rest my case. *Mic drop*


Love ... A very NOT "normal" person

 

Basically, "I love the smell of my own farts."

 

Well, yeah, if you don't like certain points being made but can't refute them directly, you can always reword them into a mockery and burn the strawman, or you can just attack the person and not the point. Either or both totally work

 

Wow.... glad I didn't read it. Thanks, Trace.

I hate the word normal.

 

How about you don't? Post thoughts of your own, or none at all. It's considered poor form (and possibly a form of baiting/trolling) to post opinions you don't share, and to avoid revealing your own views. No one needs you to post all the views held by other people. You are not a forum. You are a member of one.

You forgot to mention that, according to some (not you, of course), male homosexuality is also caused by listening to boy bands, wearing the color pink, and eating bananas in a suggestive manner. At least, that's what I heard somewhere, according to some research.

What about people who were born there, and cannot escape?

Who has?

Oh, right. "People". Somewhere.

I don't think you explained how.

What?

And how can two guys kissing in public infringe on anyone's rights?

Anyone with any actual knowledge of law care to explain this to me?

You know, pointing out that you're not "afraid" of homosexuality, that it doesn't cause any anxiety, while showing irrational and extreme aversion/distaste for homosexuality that has a significant negative effect on your behavior and mood, is a rather meaningless distinction. If we're getting into the meaning of things here.

Not specifically you of course, but a general you.

I'm gonna take a huge risk you're unwilling to take, and say that I have never felt that homosexuality was "everywhere" and/or "in my face". In fact, I'm gonna say it's just not, period. Homosexuals are still a minority, and receive minor exposure in the media, and perhaps even less in the general public.

This is my perception.

It's as if you haven't heard of Black Pride. Or Black Lives Matter. Or the many actual popular songs that have some message involving black pride. Or Saint Patrick's Day. Or the Civil Rights movement (literally forcing black rights on southern states). Or the push for more diversity in fiction, such as getting more black characters in Star Wars.

And all the whining white people complaining about how they don't want black characters in Star Wars, about how it has a detrimental affect on them. (there's proof of this all over the Jedi Council Forums)

You saying so, does not make it so.

How can you be brutally honest and also against disrespecting others at the same time? There is nothing respectful about brutality, or brutal honesty.

They do that because that's literally how a discussion works. You literally shape your response based on the person's position. Why would you shape your response toward a person based on someone else's position?

Your cowardice is what's funny here.

Pick that ******* mic up. Those mics are expensive, and only people who have the courage to pay the price for unequivocally stating an opinion they actually hold get to drop them. You don't get to cowardly avoid revealing your views, and drop a mic on your way out.

 

It's pretty hard to directly refute points when it's ambiguous as to whether any points were actually made, and it's a certainty that no one here actually made them. Trying to refute points made by people not here is like yelling at clouds.

So, good job?

 

Yes, that is what she does quite frequently. Strawmen arguments are apparently the only way she can respond.