sorry m8 i absolutely disagree with this.

 

no one taught me or ingrained into me, my distaste for homosexual sex. its simply not a thing that ive ever thought of as desireable , i dont like it, it doesnt appeal, in much the same way many totally gay people wouldnt find straight sex a desireable practice. you cant 'learn' to be straight IF you are partly or fully gay, so just accept it as i do.... that some people wont like your sexual practices, and you wont like theirs, thats life but ISNT an excuse for 'hate' crime. accept peoples differences because everyone elses private lives are non of our businesses.

 

I don't think we're on the same page here, actually. What I meant by "homophobia" wasn't simply distaste for homosexual sex. I mean fear or hatred of homosexuals. I totally agree that you don't learn to prefer a certain sexuality... And by flipping the sides, you bring up an interesting topic of heterophobia, which certainly does exist.

 

what you are saying there is that homophobia is taught, but hetrophobia isnt!

 

Hmmm... well, sort of, I guess! Most people (taking the entire 6 billion world population into account) are raised to believe homosexuality is nonexistent, deviant, wrong, sinful, shameful, unnatural, etc. The very complaints about this advertisement were that people didn't want their children to see it or know about it.

I don't think we're on the same page here, actually. What I meant by "homophobia" wasn't simply distaste for homosexual sex. I mean fear or hatred of homosexuals. I totally agree that you don't learn to prefer a certain sexuality... And by flipping the sides, you bring up an interesting topic of heterophobia, which certainly does exist.

Hmmm... well, sort of, I guess! Most people (taking the entire 6 billion world population into account) are raised to believe homosexuality is nonexistent, deviant, wrong, sinful, shameful, unnatural, etc. The very complaints about this advertisement were that people didn't want their children to see it or know about it.

 

oh ok... if i got the wrong end of the stick..lol

 

yes i suppose youre right, as i think the majority of the earths population have some kind of religious indoctrination (forced on them from birth, no scope for choice <_< ) and as far as im aware all the major religions preach that homosexuality is a sin...

 

that mustnt half fuk up the minds of gay people with a religious conviction!

that mustnt half fuk up the minds of gay people with a religious conviction!

 

They just become priests, Rob!! :lol:

:lol:

George Bush and the Republicans stopped same sex marriages.... They say that Homosexuality is "against god", then they go off and fight wars and kill lots of innocent people.... "Thou Shalt Not Kill" anyone??? Seems to me that they're going "against god" a damn sight more than gay people, they call themselves religious and then proceed to break most of the 10 Commandments. and isn't there stuff in the bible about the love of wealth being the "root of all evil" as well.....???

People are always going to sin. It's wrong, but it's inevitable. I think it's stupid to BAN homosexual marriages - I'm not necessarily PRO-same-sex marriages, but I'm not against it, either. People can do what they want, as long as I don't have to watch them do it :P

 

I think religion isn't always to blame for homophobia - religion is often just the excuse. People are homophobic for a number of reasons, all of which are ingrained in them by societal "norms." People are insecure of their own sexuality, afraid of being immasculated, ashamed of their sexual desires and tendancies - all of this is unnatural, it's learned.

 

People use religion like a crutch. It's the easiest thing to blame for their bigotry.

Exactly. Christianity discourages it (not that it can be helped in the first place), but it doesn't say HATE THOSE WHO ARE HOMOSEXUAL or anything stupid like that. Wasn't the original goal for everyone to love one another?

 

what you are saying there is that homophobia is taught, but hetrophobia isnt!

Well...yeah, really. The majority of people are heterosexual, and a lot of those people frown upon homosexuals, which, in a way, makes their children dislike homosexuals...so it's a continuous cycle. As far as I know, no one discourages heterosexuality, because it's kind of the "norm" and can't really be considered "wrong," no matter how you look at it. Not that I think any kind of sexuality is "wrong" - but unfortunately some people think only their way is the right way....

I think it's stupid to BAN homosexual marriages - I'm not necessarily PRO-same-sex marriages, but I'm not against it, either. People can do what they want, as long as I don't have to watch them do it :P

 

A-ha! But in the context of, say, current American politics... it's not as though liberals are FOR gay marriage (they aren't going to try to convince gays to get married of course) but that conservatives are AGAINST it. In this case, the liberals say live and let live, get married if you like and the conservatives say no, gay marriage should be illegal, people shouldn't be allowed to do it.

 

The libertarian, "live-and-let-live" does often parallel traditional conservatives (hence Ron Paul ran as a Republican this year), but in this particular situation it is the liberals that advocate it.

?

Well...yeah, really. The majority of people are heterosexual, and a lot of those people frown upon homosexuals, which, in a way, makes their children dislike homosexuals...so it's a continuous cycle. As far as I know, no one discourages heterosexuality, because it's kind of the "norm" and can't really be considered "wrong," no matter how you look at it. Not that I think any kind of sexuality is "wrong" - but unfortunately some people think only their way is the right way....

 

... but you quoted my post out of context in which i was talking about the way i was brought up. my parents and schoolfriends never went on about homosexuality at all, hell we didnt even know what sex was until we were ten! by then we knew what we liked and what we didnt. no one taught me anything .... i am what i am by nature.

It makes no sense people tryng to ban homossexual marriage, since they won´t stop homossexual relations. I think it´s more desireable that homossexuals marry or live in a stable relationship then in promiscuous relations. Actually, the fact that the percentual of HIV infections among homossexuals or bissexuals is MUCH higher then among straight people in almost all countries of the world comes from the fact that, almost everywhere, these people don´t have their relationships recognized by society, and go "underground". Of course, of the 6 billion people in the planet, not a single one of them was generate from a same-sex relationship. This very basic natural fact just shows that, no matter if homossexuals have the right to marry or not, this kind of relationship will always be alternative, and not the mainstream role model, like some people fear. But this advert makes me think, do kids who watch it will actually believe that two guys or two girls can have kids naturally???

Edited July 3, 200817 yr by Janet Jackson´s Nipple

It makes no sense people tryng to ban homossexual marriage, since they won´t stop homossexual relations. I think it´s more desireable that homossexuals marry or live in a stable relationship then in promiscuous relations. Actually, the fact that the percentual of HIV infections among homossexuals or bissexuals is MUCH higher then among straight people in almost all countries of the world comes from the fact that, almost everywhere, these people don´t have their relationships recognized by society, and go "underground". Of course, of the 6 billion people in the planet, not a single one of them was generate from a same-sex relationship. This very basic natural fact just shows that, no matter if homossexuals have the right to marry or not, this kind of relationship will always be alternative, and not the mainstream role model, like some people fear. But this advert makes me think, do kids who watch it will actually believe that two guys or two girls can have kids naturally???

 

You're right - in most of the world (and in Western society up until recently), homosexuality was considered some kind of deviant sexual fetish. People of the same sex weren't allowed to be in relationships and were led to believe that homosexual relationships didn't exist, so they acted in desperation in the only way they knew how. Have sex a random guy to get the "gay" out of you, then return home to your "proper" wife and family. Also the HIV/AIDS situation is worsened by the fact that anal sex is much more dangerous in terms of spreading HIV than vaginal sex.

 

Labeling homosexuality as natural or unnatural isn't an easy or useful task. We haven't found a "gay gene" yet but recent studies have shown gay people have different brains - and studies of fraternal twins have for years proven homosexuality to be genetic. No, two men cannot have a child together, which seems to go against all we know about evolution. But many scientists believe that homosexuality is a means of preventing overpopulation. Even if the Earth isn't completely overpopulated yet, the fact that humans gather in great density, in large cities and such, may lead to an evolutionary tendancy to prevent overpopulation. This phenomenon has been studied in other species.

. But many scientists believe that homosexuality is a means of preventing overpopulation. Even if the Earth isn't completely overpopulated yet, the fact that humans gather in great density, in large cities and such, may lead to an evolutionary tendancy to prevent overpopulation. This phenomenon has been studied in other species.

 

i dont buy that... that would imply by default that someone or something was controling nature. i mean, i cant see how 'nature' itself could know about population unless it was 'intelligent'. besides, wouldnt nature curb population growth in countries where food was scarce? if anything 'nature' would curb population by removing sex drive, that'd make far more sense.

 

 

besides, wouldnt nature curb population growth in countries where food was scarce?

 

Wouldn't starvation take care of that?

 

The famous lab study is of mice in a small, constrained area with plenty of food. They mated and mated and more and more of them were born. Plenty of food and drink were always available. But then after several generations, when it became very crowded in the space, the mice began to mate with the same sex.

Wouldn't starvation take care of that?

 

The famous lab study is of mice in a small, constrained area with plenty of food. They mated and mated and more and more of them were born. Plenty of food and drink were always available. But then after several generations, when it became very crowded in the space, the mice began to mate with the same sex.

 

in-breeding?...

 

a study of urban fox populations in the 80's concluded that the number of cubs born to a pair was directly corrolated to available food... ie well fed parents produced more cubs. so i guess thats why you dont get gay foxes! :lol:

 

surely the results of the mice experiment is flawed... if you keep them in an unnaturally high population density then they will act un naturally? i dont think overcrowding creates homosexuality, after all, who or what is controling it? it still needs an intelligent force to determine and regulate it.

When will people actually see there's nothing wrong with homosexuality? :(

I give up myself. Let the sad twits complain because they have nothing better to do with their time.

When will people actually see there's nothing wrong with homosexuality? :(

I give up myself. Let the sad twits complain because they have nothing better to do with their time.

 

well alot of it (as has already been said) is fueled by religion, and until we ditch that supersticious nonsense there will always be rampant homophobia (in gawds name <_< )

i dont buy that... that would imply by default that someone or something was controling nature. i mean, i cant see how 'nature' itself could know about population unless it was 'intelligent'. besides, wouldnt nature curb population growth in countries where food was scarce? if anything 'nature' would curb population by removing sex drive, that'd make far more sense.

 

Lol

 

And also, if that was the case, the percentual of homossexuals should be bigger in overpopulated places, and close to zero in other areas. Which I don´t think so.

well alot of it (as has already been said) is fueled by religion, and until we ditch that supersticious nonsense there will always be rampant homophobia (in gawds name <_< )

 

Until, and after... How come the in most european countries the percentual of practicing religious people is less then 10%, yet you get rejection of homossexuals by a much wider part of the population, including secular groups like neo-nazis (usually agnostic or atheist). And what about the treatment gave to homossexuals by the nazists in germany and by socialist Russia. The only way to remove prejudice from earth is removing humans.

Until, and after... How come the in most european countries the percentual of practicing religious people is less then 10%, yet you get rejection of homossexuals by a much wider part of the population, including secular groups like neo-nazis (usually agnostic or atheist). And what about the treatment gave to homossexuals by the nazists in germany and by socialist Russia. The only way to remove prejudice from earth is removing humans.

 

i dont accept that the figure is 10%. europe as a whole is fiercely catholic.

The libertarian, "live-and-let-live" does often parallel traditional conservatives (hence Ron Paul ran as a Republican this year), but in this particular situation it is the liberals that advocate it.

My family likes Ron Paul, actually - but he's had very little campaigning and therefore isn't a likely candidate....But that's off subject anyway.

 

... but you quoted my post out of context in which i was talking about the way i was brought up. my parents and schoolfriends never went on about homosexuality at all, hell we didnt even know what sex was until we were ten! by then we knew what we liked and what we didnt. no one taught me anything .... i am what i am by nature.

But you must understand that there are SO MANY cases that are completely different from yours. Yours cannot be the basis for the "norm" of homosexuality.

 

But many scientists believe that homosexuality is a means of preventing overpopulation.

That's...well...for lack of a better term, NIFTY. I'd never thought of it like that before.

 

that would imply by default that someone or something was controling nature. i mean, i cant see how 'nature' itself could know about population unless it was 'intelligent'. besides, wouldnt nature curb population growth in countries where food was scarce? if anything 'nature' would curb population by removing sex drive, that'd make far more sense.

Well, suppose there IS a God after all...:P

Also - what good would removing sex drive do? Then there would be no population at all! Besides, nature has its own ways of helping species evolve...it's called adaptation :D

 

surely the results of the mice experiment is flawed... if you keep them in an unnaturally high population density then they will act un naturally? i dont think overcrowding creates homosexuality, after all, who or what is controling it? it still needs an intelligent force to determine and regulate it.

But isn't that the same with humans? We weren't always as overcrowded as we are now. It was, for a while, unnatural for there to be so many of us - but we got used to it, adapted to the conditions over time. Homosexuality could have been one of those adaptations - or it couldn't. I can't really offer any opinion because I'm no scientist.

 

well alot of it (as has already been said) is fueled by religion, and until we ditch that supersticious nonsense there will always be rampant homophobia

I have to admit I'm rather offended by that. Religion is by no means 'superstituous nonsense.'

Also - religion is more of an excuse for people disliking homosexuals, not a reason.

Edited July 4, 200817 yr by soXcynical

My family likes Ron Paul, actually - but he's had very little campaigning and therefore isn't a likely candidate....But that's off subject anyway.

But you must understand that there are SO MANY cases that are completely different from yours. Yours cannot be the basis for the "norm" of homosexuality.

That's...well...for lack of a better term, NIFTY. I'd never thought of it like that before.

Well, suppose there IS a God after all...:P

Also - what good would removing sex drive do? Then there would be no population at all! Besides, nature has its own ways of helping species evolve...it's called adaptation :D

But isn't that the same with humans? We weren't always as overcrowded as we are now. It was, for a while, unnatural for there to be so many of us - but we got used to it, adapted to the conditions over time. Homosexuality could have been one of those adaptations - or it couldn't. I can't really offer any opinion because I'm no scientist.

I have to admit I'm rather offended by that. Religion is by no means 'superstituous nonsense.'

Also - religion is more of an excuse for people disliking homosexuals, not a reason.

 

of course i understand that <_< however i was replying to the notion that didnt fit my life experience.

 

its not about removing all sex drive per se, but in apparently overcrowded or malnurished situations. look at ethiopia and alike, famine, but plenty of kids being born... theres no or little homosexuality there!! if malnurishment equated to loss of sex drive then maybe there wouldnt be so many starving.

 

nah.. over crowding = homosexuality is bollox... theres always been homosexuality throughout history and populations were far less then. besides we are not at the same population level as those mice! and homosexuality ISNT confined to cities! christ if it was that obvious then we would have sussed what causes homosexuality long since!!!

 

religion IS supersticious nonsense, theres not 1 shred of evidence that supports any religion, its all in the head. but we have discussed this many times before. i dont agree that its an 'excuse', you dont need an excuse not to dislike anything, you need a reason.

I think religion isn't always to blame for homophobia - religion is often just the excuse. People are homophobic for a number of reasons, all of which are ingrained in them by societal "norms." People are insecure of their own sexuality, afraid of being immasculated, ashamed of their sexual desires and tendancies - all of this is unnatural, it's learned.

 

People use religion like a crutch. It's the easiest thing to blame for their bigotry. How many people who thunder about the sin of homosexuality actually truly take the words of Leviticus literally? How many simply utter that verse because it's an excuse to justify their own homophobia? And well, how many people are in the gray area in between?

 

When people pick and choose parts of religion - I'll take that Leviticus verse and use it to say homosexuality is wrong... but I'll ignore THE ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT IN WHICH CHRIST CAME TO EARTH TO SHOW THE JEWS THAT THEY WERE ALL WRONG AND THE OLD TESTAMENT WAS A BUNCH OF BULL$h!t AND YOU SHOULD LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS YOURSELF AND HE WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE AND WASH THE FEET OF THE SINNERS, TAXCOLLECTORS AND LEPERS, etc. etc. etc.

 

If anyone can be so idiotic as to ignore such basic, basic lessons and themes... are they truly religious or are they simply STUPID? Or both??

 

 

:heart:

 

Exactly. The world is a f***ed up place, and it always will be...I don't need documents issued by the state to tell me I love somebody. And I really couldn't give a f*** if a fairytale created by corrupt men doesn't bless my relationships either.

 

Sorry after being raised in a Southern baptist family I am a bit bitter. ^_^

Edited July 4, 200817 yr by Tyler